By Bruce Cordell, Ed Greenwood, and Chris Sims
-This is the big one, eh? Yeah…Though I dislike the direction that the designers have taken the Forgotten Realms into, I am going to be judging this sourcebook solely on the way that it presents the information, and what is in it, rather than how I feel about the direction that the designers took the Forgotten Realms in.
-So, there are 287 pages, for $39.99. Of those 287 pages, thirty of them are a waste. Thirty precious pages are dedicated to Loudwater (Pg. 6 to Pg. 36), detailing it, people in the town, and a bunch of mini-adventures that use the city. So, to someone who wants an encyclopedic overview of the new setting (the purpose of such campaign books), it’s 257 pages for $39.99. That’s still decent, when you figure that, a very good 3e era book, like Underdark, for instance, has a cover price of $29.99 for 191 pages.
-One of the things I dislike the most about this book is the pandering that the designers seem to be doing to non-fans looking at the book. Take the sidebar on page 4, for instance: “Not ‘FR’? No Problem!”. The way this sidebar is written, and the way that it is presented, it’s as if this is a brand new, groundbreaking idea, that you can use things included in Forgotten Realms books for non-Forgotten Realms games. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but no, this is not a brand new, groundbreaking idea. Same thing with the “Nonplayer Characters” sidebar on page 86.
-I dislike that a sidebar was even included to mention this. Space is space. Space is precious. The same thing goes for the “Ten important Facts” column. Why are you wasting space here? All this information can be explained within the book, in the appropriate area. Same thing with all of the page-spanning pictures. I love pictures included among the text. No need for giant pictures that take entire pages, though.
-The adventuring things, I mostly like. The glossary is brief, and I wish it had more relevant terms, but it’s a good thought, and is going in the right direction. The adventuring and the law stuff, again, good stuff, if not a little abbreviated. The history timeline, again, brief, but better than nothing. The treasure part was the only one I didn’t really like. Honestly, most of that could have been put in the DMG, or the PHB, to make room for more Forgotten Realms-specific things.
-The chapter about magic, nothing really bothered me there. That had, really, an optimum ratio of D&D mechanics, lore, and information. Same thing with the cosmology section. I don’t really like the direction the designers took things in, but there was a good balance.
-The section about deities was one of the best parts of the book, but it, still, was very abbreviated. Being as that this is the only chance we’ll get a Forgotten Realms book talking about such things, I would have liked to see more information on these deities, and/or their churches. Changes in dogma? Changes in portfolio/sphere? Something? The chart concerning the deities was excellent. A very good idea, whoever thought of it. I would have liked to have seen something like that, only with the deities and such that used to exist. That would have been a very handy resource.
-The rest of the book, actually detailing the continent itself, I have no major problem with, design and layout wise. Content is a different matter, but I’m not judging things on that. I don’t like how everything got a uniform two pages. Honestly, certain areas could have probably been condensed to one page, while others expanded to three. That is what it is, though- some places have a lot more published information about them than others.
-Overall, in closing, the worst blow to this book is the lack of a timeline between 1375 DR (1385 DR) to 1479 DR.
-Out of a possible five Beholders, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide gets Two Beholders and a Chicken.
I believe they've intentionally left the timeline clear to set their novels in the 100 year gap, leaving the current "timepoint" at 1479 DR completely untouched by any metaplot or similar. If this is their plan it's an extremely good one and I really approve of it.
Overall, it's very dry though and I really didn't approve of the adventure being in there (to be frank). I also find the books layout quite annoying, as I'd rather have it reorganised with describing the regions and the like in more detail. I would much rather have the adventure cut from the book and more regional detail, organisations detail and the likes.
I don’t like how everything got a uniform two pages. Honestly, certain areas could have probably been condensed to one page, while others expanded to three.
There are ten 1-page entries, six 4-page entries, and 2 six-page entries in that section. Almost thirty percent of the geographical entries don't get "a uniform two pages."
-One of the things I dislike the most about this book is the pandering that the designers seem to be doing to non-fans looking at the book. Take the sidebar on page 4, for instance: “Not ‘FR’? No Problem!”. The way this sidebar is written, and the way that it is presented, it’s as if this is a brand new, groundbreaking idea, that you can use things included in Forgotten Realms books for non-Forgotten Realms games. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but no, this is not a brand new, groundbreaking idea. Same thing with the “Nonplayer Characters” sidebar on page 86.
Rather than 'pandering... to non-fans' here, I believe the book is addressing new DMs who may not be familiar with D&D or RPing at all, and that a lot of information between different campaign settings can be merged.
If they like what they see, they astonishingly transform into fans. ;)
As an aside, wasn't there an adventure included in the Gray Box eons ago? I left my set in Canada but I'm pretty sure that there was something at the back of one of the books. It may seem useless to include an adventure if you have access to the net and the free modules Dungeon's been offering, but it's very good if you don't; you can just then and there try it out without waiting for the coming module.
There are ten 1-page entries, six 4-page entries, and 2 six-page entries in that section. Almost thirty percent of the geographical entries don't get "a uniform two pages."
-Alglarond: Two pages
-Akanul: Two pages
-Amn: Two pages
-Baldur's Gate: Two pages
-Beastlands: Two pages
-Calimshan: Two pages
-Chessenta: Two pages
-Chult: Two pages
-Cormyr: Four pages
-The Dalelands: Six pages
-Damara: One page
-Dambrath: One page
-Dragon Coast: Two pages
-Durpar: Two pages
-East Rift: Two pages
-Elfharrow: Two pages
-Elturgard: Two pages
-Erlkazar: Two pages
-Estagund: Two pages
-Evereska: Two pages
-Evermeet: Two pages
-Great Dale: Two pages
-Halruaa: Two pages
-High Imaskar: Two pages
-Hordelands: Two pages
-Impiltur: One page
-Lake of Steam: One page
-Luruar: Two pages
-Luskan: One page
-Many Arrows: One page
-Moonsea: Two pages
-Moonshae: Two pages
-Murghom: Two pages
-Myth Drannor: Two pages
-Najara: Two pages
-Narfell: Two pages
-Nelanther Isles: Two pages
-Netheril: Two pages
-Okoth: Two pages
-Rashemen: Two pages
-Raurin: Two pages
-Sea of Fallen Stars: Two pages
-Sembia: Two pages
-Tethyr: Two pages
-Thay: Two pages
-Thesk: Two pages
-Turmish: Two pages
-Tymanther: Two pages
-Vaasa: Two pages
-Var: One page
-Velen: One page
-Vesperin: One page
-The Vilhon Reach: One page
-Waterdeep: Six pages
-Dusk Port: Two pages
-Eskorn: Four pages
-Fimbrul: Two pages
-Melabrauth: One page
-Relmaur: One page
-Skelkor: Two pages
-Sword Lands: Two pages
-Tarmalune: Two pages
-Deep Wastes: Two pages
-Earthroot: Four pages
-Great Bhaerynden: Two pages
-Menzoberranzan: Four pages
-Northdark: Two pages
-Old Shanatar: Two pages
-49 (two), 12 (one), 4 (four), 2 (six)...Average all that out, and, amazingly enough, two pages is the average length of each entry.
-49 (two), 12 (one), 4 (four), 2 (six)...Average all that out, and, amazingly enough, two pages is the average length of each entry.
Um, okay, no arguments with your math or your list there. But what I was confused about didn't have anything to do with the average length. You said:
I don’t like how everything got a uniform two pages. Honestly, certain areas could have probably been condensed to one page, while others expanded to three.
I don't want to seem snarky, LK, but a "uniform two" pages isn't at all the same thing as an average, and won't be taken that way by most readers, especially in light of what follows, which, taking the first sentence into account, probably suggests to those same readers that there are no shorter or longer entries. And there are.
I wasn't castigating. This review is biased, sure. Nobody can wholly escape their biases, and no people of letters advocate that anyway. Voice and tone are often delightfully dependent on bias. I'm biased towards chocolate pudding and against roadside litter, myself.
But the second paragraph I've quoted in this post doesn't suggest that you let biases influence your review--I'm worried that it may suggest that you let bias influence the care with which you read the work, even knowing that you intended to write the review.
As an aside, wasn't there an adventure included in the Gray Box eons ago?
There were two, actually. "The Halls of the Beast-Tamers" and the "Lashan's Fall" reprint from Dragon that was my first gaming-on-the-ground experience in the Realms.
Makes me all misty-eyed.
-Out of a possible five Beholders, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide gets Two Beholders and a Chicken.
Either chop the chicken or remove some beholder eye stalks. Two beholders at best.
And your page count shouldn't be accurate. Reduce the font to a more appropriate 3e campaign guide and you get half that. And more detail.
Bring on the spectacles, I say!
There were two, actually. "The Halls of the Beast-Tamers" and the "Lashan's Fall" reprint from Dragon that was my first gaming-on-the-ground experience in the Realms.
Makes me all misty-eyed.
I thought there'd been a picture of a panther with it...
I still haven't properly read the FRCG yet; real life's been too distracting for much reading. What I have seen of it did remind me strongly of the Gray Box, which is a very good thing to me. My husband has read it (and now the FRPG, which finally came in the mail this week) and has been very happy with both. I'll try to pester him to give his two cents. ;)
18DELTA
EDIT: Sorry 18DELTA, I forgot to comment on your post above; I wasn't aware that the addition of an adventure seems to have been a tradition after all. :P
EDIT: Sorry 18DELTA, I forgot to comment on your post above; I wasn't aware that the addition of an adventure seems to have been a tradition after all. :P
-No problemo! :P
-Now can we get this back on topic? ;)
18DELTA
So, to someone who wants an encyclopedic overview of the new setting (the purpose of such campaign books),
That’s the problem right there.
Campaign Sourcebooks aren’t supposed to provide an “encyclopedic overview” because that’s just tedious.
Campaign Sourcebooks are supposed to be able to present information about the campaign and get DMs and players started in it, right away.
I wasn’t terribly impressed with the Loudwater entry myself, but the intent behind it was correct and right in keeping with all previous FR campaign setting intro books (Gray Box, 2E Box Set, 3E FRCS).
-One of the things I dislike the most about this book is the pandering that the designers seem to be doing to non-fans looking at the book. Take the sidebar on page 4, for instance: “Not ‘FR’? No Problem!”. The way this sidebar is written, and the way that it is presented, it’s as if this is a brand new, groundbreaking idea, that you can use things included in Forgotten Realms books for non-Forgotten Realms games. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but no, this is not a brand new, groundbreaking idea. Same thing with the “Nonplayer Characters” sidebar on page 86.
“Pandering?”
You seem to be missing the point. As has always been the case over the last twenty some odd years, DMs and Players often take the (erroneous) view that what’s in the Realms stays in the Realms.
The sidebars simply serve to dissuade people from the exclusivity idea right from the get go, as well as reinforce the concept that the sourcebook is a useful resource for DMs and players who want to run their own homebrew games.
This also further links the product to the core rulebooks, by reminding players and DMs that all the rules and setting information are perfectly interchangeable.
Contrast this with 3E, where prestige classes were technically FR specific and often judged (rightly or wrongly) to be as overpowered as the setting itself.
-The section about deities was one of the best parts of the book, but it, still, was very abbreviated. Being as that this is the only chance we’ll get a Forgotten Realms book talking about such things, I would have liked to see more information on these deities, and/or their churches. Changes in dogma? Changes in portfolio/sphere? Something?
Agreed on most counts.
Note it’s entirely possible we’ll see content in Dragon (or even Dungeon) magazine that talks about the deities and the changes they’ve gone through over time.
I have already mined the "Threats" area for my current Eberron game so that part is gold to me. I enjoy the new Halruua even though I wish they didn't wipe the old one away. The god section is done very well.
I would have liked to see more on the Plague Land areas though and more on religions of the gods.
I don't give ratings, I don't care for them.
That’s the problem right there.
Campaign Sourcebooks aren’t supposed to provide an “encyclopedic overview” because that’s just tedious.
Campaign Sourcebooks are supposed to be able to present information about the campaign and get DMs and players started in it, right away.
Maybe thats what you like but its not what I wanted
“Pandering?”
You seem to be missing the point. As has always been the case over the last twenty some odd years, DMs and Players often take the (erroneous) view that what’s in the Realms stays in the Realms.
Yes. Pandering. They made a conscious decision to pander to the "new" audience at the risk of losing the old. I don't see how that is question.
Thats the point of the 4-Gotten Realms.
I don't think it explains anything adequately for either a new fan or old. The deities section is a perfect example.
None of the deities have any mention of how they are typically depicted visually. How do they appear to their worshippers? Go into a temple to any of them..what does the statue there look like? I think that\s something pretty darn basic a cleric should know. Should be common knowledge ij fact but its not covered. sloppy, very sloppy....
Most of the deities don't have anything written about them other than the chart.
And, what happened to the demihuman deities. They are not labeled as such. Have they been absorbed into a generic pantheon? If so, this should have been a lot clearer. I know who the halfling gods on the chart are but how the heck is a newbie going to?
That’s the problem right there.
Campaign Sourcebooks aren’t supposed to provide an “encyclopedic overview” because that’s just tedious.
Campaign Sourcebooks are supposed to be able to present information about the campaign and get DMs and players started in it, right away.
-Campaign setting books are supposed to give encyclopedic (read, structured, chaptered overview of people/places/things) overviews of the setting that they are detailing. As opposed to core rulebooks, that give just the rules, in such a fashion, splatbooks, that augment those rules, and adventure modules have adventures. Adventures belong in adventure modules, not campaign settings, core rulebooks, or splatbooks. That goes for all editions, not just 4th. I've complained about this in the FRCS and F&P as well. Adventure hooks and plot seeds, that's fine. Full blown adventures? No. Otherwise, why make adventure modules, when you can mix adventures into other books? Why make splatbooks, when you can include rule augmentations and all of that stuff in campaign settings? If I want my vegetables mixed, I can mix them, but don't premix them. I don't like brussel sprouts, and I'm going to throw them out.
You seem to be missing the point. As has always been the case over the last twenty some odd years, DMs and Players often take the (erroneous) view that what’s in the Realms stays in the Realms.
The sidebars simply serve to dissuade people from the exclusivity idea right from the get go, as well as reinforce the concept that the sourcebook is a useful resource for DMs and players who want to run their own homebrew games.
This also further links the product to the core rulebooks, by reminding players and DMs that all the rules and setting information are perfectly interchangeable.
-Which is all fine and good- Put such information somewhere else. Don't waste space in the FRCG (and the FRPG!), that has a limited page count. So everyone can read such information, if it's so important that it needs to be printed, but it in the core rulebooks, which everyone (fans and non-fans of settings alike) all have to read in order to play.
Note it’s entirely possible we’ll see content in Dragon (or even Dungeon) magazine that talks about the deities and the changes they’ve gone through over time.
-Content that belongs in the FRCG, but that's beside the point.
Yes. Pandering. They made a conscious decision to pander to the "new" audience at the risk of losing the old. I don't see how that is question.
-I didn't exactly mean it like that.
--I didn't exactly mean it like that.
Perhaps you are not as disillusioned as myself
Which is all fine and good- Put such information somewhere else. Don't waste space in the FRCG (and the FRPG!), that has a limited page count. So everyone can read such information, if it's so important that it needs to be printed, but it in the core rulebooks, which everyone (fans and non-fans of settings alike) all have to read in order to play.
Except it is there to dispel something that is distinctly setting specific. Now a generic thing. Although I don't feel with how 4E has done things it is required explicitly, it is actually a very nice thing to have for "those" discussions were certain people. Something that makes it 100% clear, in the sourcebook itself that the DM can do what he wants can mean a big difference. You may not see the point of this, but you don't encounter these people at your table to appreciate the reduction in antagonism that can occur with something this simple in the book itself.
Yes. Pandering. They made a conscious decision to pander to the "new" audience at the risk of losing the old. I don't see how that is question.
- I didn't exactly mean it like that.
How exactly did you mean it?
As for the negative comments here… It seems that there’s a different interpretation of what is necessary in a campaign guide. Ravenloft was very sparse on its information on individual countries, history, etc but I found it did the job in giving a good overview of the setting. Same with the Grey Box and same with this.
Except it is there to dispel something that is distinctly setting specific.
-And, being that it was targeted towards people who aren't going to necessarily pick up the book to begin with, it'd make more sense to include such information in the core rulebooks. Theoretical Dave doesn't like the Forgotten Realms, so, in all likelihood, he's not going to pick up the books. For example, I don't like pork chops, so even when they are on sale, I don't pick them up. Likewise, if I didn't like the Forgotten Realms, there'd be little chance I pick the book up to begin with. I'd then not see the message.
Was pretty much a given to my mind that it wouldn't be anywhere near encylopedic in terms of depth, although perhaps in breadth.
-Campaign settings never go into depth. I was taking about breadth, about how much coverage. Though, there should have been a bit more depth than there was presented, given that this is a completely new Forgotten Realms here, 104 years later.
How exactly did you mean it?
-You can use the material anywhere? You know, you can use the material anywhere, did you know that? Yeah, use the material anywhere you want, you can do that now! Hey, did you know you can use the material anywhere now? Hey, guess what...You can use the material anywhere you want now! Isn't that cool. (Let's not say this was always the case, but...)
-It's reminiscent of politicians talking to people.
--You can use the material anywhere? You know, you can use the material anywhere, did you know that? Yeah, use the material anywhere you want, you can do that now! Hey, did you know you can use the material anywhere now? Hey, guess what...You can use the material anywhere you want now! Isn't that cool. (Let's not say this was always the case, but...)
-It's reminiscent of politicians talking to people.
I'd agree if it was being constantly brought up on every page, which isn't the case.
"Pandering to non-fans" is also a rather harsh expression. Do "non-fans" include new roleplayers as well as those who may not have been previously attracted to take a deeper look at FR? I don't find the phrase automatically equates with "people who hate the Realms".
Pandering is a harsh term. I would say it was trying to be open to new potential fans.
-Either you are a fan, or you aren't a fan. Before I started playing D&D, I didn't know what the Forgotten Realms were. I was not a fan. I was introduced, and like it. I am now a fan.
If folks are not fans but pick up the PG because of the game stuff then find that they like the setting I would say that the book has done its job at introducing someone to the Realms.
If folks are not fans but pick up the PG because of the game stuff then find that they like the setting I would say that the book has done its job at introducing someone to the Realms.
Exactly.
The campaign guide isn't just there to update old players on the changes in the setting; it's also reaching out to new DMs. I don't believe it's doing so to the expense of either.It seems that there’s a different interpretation of what is necessary in a campaign guide. Ravenloft was very sparse on its information on individual countries, history, etc but I found it did the job in giving a good overview of the setting. Same with the Grey Box and same with this.
I think even if I liked the less is more ideal, I would not like the ruination of the old Realms
I think even if I liked the less is more ideal, I would not like the ruination of the old Realms
But how exactly does anything written in the FRCG 'ruin' the old Realms? It's 100 years in the future; those who are content to stay in the Realms of the 1370's still have lots of room for their ongoing campaigns.
But how exactly does anything written in the FRCG 'ruin' the old Realms? It's 100 years in the future; those who are content to stay in the Realms of the 1370's still have lots of room for their ongoing campaigns.
Having spoken with MerrikCale about this in the past, I think where he's coming from (and please Merrik correct me if I'm wrong) is that the setting -had it been moved 100 years into the future, but minus the Spellplague- wouldn't have been as it is now.
That is, the designers could have gotten the "distance factor" they wanted and applied natural changes to the setting with the flow of time, sans gigantor RSE.
-Either you are a fan, or you aren't a fan. Before I started playing D&D, I didn't know what the Forgotten Realms were. I was not a fan. I was introduced, and like it. I am now a fan.
-So what about those that read the novels about the Realms and don't play D&D? Are they not fans too? ;)
That is, the designers could have gotten the "distance factor" they wanted and applied natural changes to the setting with the flow of time, sans gigantor RSE.
-I would have prefered a 100 year time-jump without the spellplague.
18DELTA :P
-So what about those that read the novels about the Realms and don't play D&D? Are they not fans too? ;)
18DELTA :P
LK is only talking about his own introduction to FR, not about what is required to be a fan of FR. People come to be fans of FR in many ways, and "novels only familiarity" is certainly just as valid as any other fandom of FR. And LK has said so in the past, btw.
Be back later.
Exactly.
And that's how you grow a campaign setting.
:D
The 100 year jump was to gain the required distance. The Spellplague was the mechanism to introduce Dragonborn, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, and the Elemental Chaos to Forgotten Realms, while deflecting attention away from the change away from vancian casting in the edition change, trimming/revising the deity list, and finally to vastly lower the number of archmages in FR.
Second.
And as I read the canon ever more carefully and closely, I'm beginning to believe that many of the parts of the Realms that were the most changed were those that were either the least "Realmsian" (I'll explain what I mean by that in a sec) or the most unsupportable by the new rules.
Even taking whatever issues of scope, NPC population, or "weight of history" might have been influencing design decisions, the two factors in my previous paragraph may have also been in play when deciding what parts of the Realms to radically alter, deemphasize, or eliminate altogether.
Some of the places that are more or less gone were those that were most clearly thinly disguised versions of the real world (or perhaps they were fantasias of the real world), or were most clearly dependent on dated fantasy concepts. The "Realmsian" South/Central America, Egypt & Sumer, and that "Africa" at least somewhat dependent on the troubled and troubling fictions of Haggard and Burroughs, all gone or radically altered. Likewise the "Shire by the Sea" at Luiren that was so far from the current Dungeons and Dragons conception of halflings, the high Renaissance technology center of Lantan, and the retro-pulp Vancian magic center of Halruaa, all gone.
In their places are countries and concepts that strike me as much closer to the hearts of Ed Greenwood's Realms, with its deep history, and of the modern version of Dungeons and Dragons, with its emphasis on player characters.
Anyway, that's one theory, anyway, and I'm only seeing the outlines of it right now. It'll probably change by the time I finish this last pass through the books, and then maybe I'll write up a review as well.
Maybe we should have a general book review or book discussion thread, where everyone is asked to provide substantive, thoughtful, carefully reasoned reviews supported by plentiful examples from the text.
Maybe we should have a general book review or book discussion thread, where everyone is asked to provide substantive, thoughtful, carefully reasoned reviews supported by plentiful examples from the text.
-Well...that counts me out!
18DELTA ;)
I don't think anyone would argue that the 4E realms team make the realms changes at least in part to make the Realms "fit into" 4E.
I do raise an objection to the idea that the changes are returning the Realms to a purer form by removing "non-Realmsian" areas and influences. For example with Luiren and the "shire by the Sea" comment. Halflings in D&D up until 3E were Hobbits, plain and simple, just renamed to avoid problems 1st ed had from the Tolkien estate. Having something happen to the Halfling homeland in the south has nothing whatsoever to do with what Ed Greenwood might want and everything to do with continuating the "kenderfication" of halflings begun under 3E developers.
Only Mr. Greenwood and his regular players can talk about the "original" conception of the FR. Many developers have worked on it through the years and added their own stuff, the current design team included. Picking it what is or isn't the real realms is largely subjective.
The 4E team clearly had their notion as do we all here. My opinion, and I state it clearly here, is that many of the changes run counter to what I remember and felt about the earlier realms. I don't see it as a step back to the wonder of the 1st edition realms but rather a step away from the Realmsentire and towards a less-realized world functioning now merely as a place to find things to hack to bits.
Having spoken with MerrikCale about this in the past, I think where he's coming from (and please Merrik correct me if I'm wrong) is that the setting -had it been moved 100 years into the future, but minus the Spellplague- wouldn't have been as it is now.
That is, the designers could have gotten the "distance factor" they wanted and applied natural changes to the setting with the flow of time, sans gigantor RSE.
Not exactly. I for one wanted to follow the Realsm into the 4e world but I just cannot. The time jump is prohibitive to some degree of continuing a current campaign into that era
I would have much prefered a jump of maybe 10 years and a Returned Abeir replaces Maztica to introduce 4E elements. There was no need for the nonsense they did to much of the Realms. There was no need to remove a laundry list of deities. I wish there was a need to keep doing sourcebooks
Instead, they eliminated lore for no reason.
The new Realms... doesn't give me much of a feel beyond being a fairly dark, ugly place. I don't much care for dark these days, and I certainly never cared much for ugly, so I think I still prefer the more whimsical Realms of earlier days.
The new Realms... doesn't give me much of a feel beyond being a fairly dark, ugly place. I don't much care for dark these days, and I certainly never cared much for ugly, so I think I still prefer the more whimsical Realms of earlier days.
This is the sound of me agreeing with you wholeheartedly, Stigger. I liked my Realms whimsical. I always felt that this is what continued, and continues, to bring me back to Ed's books time and again.
I care little for the newer "darker" Realms. If I wanted dark then I would choose to play in another setting... oh wait... I am playing in another setting to do just that! For me it comes down to not picking up an apple if you want to make orange juice.
I actually found the novel Mistshore both whimsical and dark. The two aren't necessarily exclusive.
Yeah, that's down to the author being a sure hand with both tone and incident--two things that can be tonally set against each other to provide unexpected harmony where you might expect dissonance.
I'd be hard pressed to name any two fictional elements that could be expressed in such inexact terms as "whimsy" and "dark" that can't successfully contribute to a single text.
Now, I'm also curious about this assertion of MerrickCale's:
Instead, they eliminated lore for no reason.
What lore was "eliminated?"
The new Realms... doesn't give me much of a feel beyond being a fairly dark, ugly place.
A good point and another reason the design team did a horrible job
A good point and another reason the design team did a horrible job
For you yes, for me it's exactly the opposite.
Funny how one persons horrible is another persons much improved.
And they always held breathtaking beauty. And, of course, they still do. Just a sampling from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide:
The world is a place of fey beauty.... p. 4
High mountain ranges plunge to misted forested dotted with ruined castles… p. 82
Towering mountains and oceans of grassland, blasted deserts and lush forests, islands in the sky and lands that swirl and change as if water—Toril is a world of extremes, in climate, in terrain, and in people. p. 82
Aglarond is yet "a land of open water and deep woods…" p. 88
In Akanûl, "[f]ree-floating earthmotes host miniature forests, grasslands, and lakes. Ever-replenishing waterfalls flow from watermotes to drape the land below in curtains of mist." p. 90
The Baldur's Gate neighborhood of Bloomridge "extends down the [old city] wall in swoops of stairs, galleries, and hanging gardens... Architecturally pleasing shops are built in and around flower-filled arcades and open-air cafes." p. 94
The Dalelands are "broad forest vales, separated by rolling farmlands…interlinked by narrow trade roads through lush woods." p. 108
Damara is dangerous, but still "wild, rugged, and rustic… a northerly land of windswept plains [and] ice-crowned mountains…" p. 114
"Silverymoon is the Gem of the North… It is a beautiful place of ancient trees and soaring towers, with curving lines and garden plantings adorning every nook and balcony." p. 147
In the Moonshaes, "Gwynneth today is a breathtakingly magical place… Radiating outward from the shining city of Karador at the heart of Myrloch Vale, the valleys, forests, and waterways of Gwynneth are filled with lush vegetation, fantastic beasts, and the laughter of sylvan creatures, fantastic beasts, and the laughter of sylvan creatures dancing beneath the stars." p. 152
"Cormanthor is a beautiful high forest, worthy of bards' songs and poets' flights of fluttering adjectives." p. 157
Tethyr "sports fertile rolling plains, tall mountains, an expansive seacoast, and deep forests." p. 178
As to ugly, I was referring to society, not landscape... but hey, I can't stand most post-apocalyptic settings, gaming or otherwise, so...
As to ugly, I was referring to society, not landscape... but hey, I can't stand most post-apocalyptic settings, gaming or otherwise, so...
So, you think the societal descriptions published thus far are uglier than their counterpart societies of third edition?
Amn? Netheril? Thay?
Also, Waterdeep, Evermeet, Evereska, etc.
I actually found the novel Mistshore both whimsical and dark. The two aren't necessarily exclusive.
Oh Please. At which point did I specify them as exclusive? It was a simplifcation for the point of clarity and I had hoped that people would see that. If you prefer you can have the expanded version if you really want to? Never did I think I would be quoting myself but here we go.
I care little for the newer "darker" Realms.
Notice the comparative here ladies and gentlemen. I say darker. In my first sentence I allow the possibility for "darkness" in the previous Realms. Mutually exclusive? I think not.
If I wanted dark then I would choose to play in another setting
In the context of the previous sentence this should be taken to read
"If I wanted to play in, or read about, a setting in which overarching darkness is a central tenet of the setting (cf. PoL) then I would choose to play in another setting where it is a specified focus rather than in a setting which I have come to view as more whimsical and less dark without specifying the absence of either."
Now wasn't the original version cleaner? And to give an example of a "dark" setting that I enjoy playing, I am currently part of a campaign set in the 40K based Dark Heresy setting. That is a setting with a great deal of darkness and not much in the way of whimsy. So when I want darkness I play DH, when I want whimsy then I read about the Realms. Or at least the Old Realms as yet my budget hasn't stretched to the new novels yet... it did stretch to the FRCG (which gets this back on subject of the thread) and for me it read a lot more like DH than FR.
The Realms really aren't that much darker. Magic and its use is a bit more dangerous and disreputable, and things are generally a lot less civilized. Civilization is boring though, at least in the amounts it existed in the old Realms. There's still enough civilization left over to satisfy those who prefer it, and for the rest of us there are huge expanses of dangerous wildness that give violent, antisocial adventurers things to do with their free time.
I perceive the Realms to be far darker now, and I base that on the FRCG, FRPG and several dragon articles that I have read.
Those are some seriously general statements thecasualoblivion. Let's see if I can't address a couple directly and not in terms of them being blanket statements. The amount of civilization present in the old Realms was never boring for me... and no, there is not enough civilization left over to satisfy "those who prefer it" if that is supposed to include me. This is true (for me) not least because although there is some civilization, it has quite often moved. Waterdeep, for example, used to be a wonderful hotbed of noble intrigue. Where is it now? Isn't this what civilization allows?
As such this is why I would have liked to have seen a lot more material in the FRCG (that wasn't about Loudwater). If you are going to make that distinction between light and dark then make it a strong one. I personally don't feel that they did.
Any specific examples, Stigger or Karazhan?
Everywhere just about, don't forget that not only have places been destroyed or upturned, high level good NPCs or organisations (EG: The Harpers) got decimated after the spellplague as well. When you consider there is a giant, Cthulhuish obsidian something floating about the Sea of Fallen stars, previously a fairly safe area (due to the Sea Elves and other "goodish" aquatic races keeping out the Sahuagin and such forth) it's all getting pretty oppressive.
A lot of this stuff is new to the Realms so it's new to my players. We're hardly into 2nd level play yet, but already I'm hinting at sinister things and mysteries beyond the cradle of civilization that is Cormyr (where my 4E campaign is loosely based).
I’d like to run my own underwater adventure at some point. The Abolethic Sovereignty practically call out for this kind of thing. It was fun playing vs. Aboleths and Sahuagin in Eberron. Ought to be just as fun running similar in the Realms.
But again Mr. Sunshine, your opinion is suspect. :D
To me it is not much darker at all. In 3E it had Thay, Shade, the Zhentarim there also was the nation of monsters near Amn.
A player last night said he wanted to run a new game in the Realms. He is mostly an Eberron fan and never cared for the FR much but with the new books coming out he got an inspiration to run a campaign for us. I asked him to hold on on "canned" adventures so he was pretty excited to run it from scratch. I am excited to be playing in 4E and not just running it now! Since people already called out a swordmage last night I am torn between an elf cleric of Slivanus or a gnome artificer. I might go with the gnome since I have not played a lighthearted PC for a while and the elf might be a bit too grim being a hunter of monsters that go agaisnt the natural order and all.
Anyway I am far from depressed. I think our group of heros will be able to take on anything that comes our way(I hope).
Aboleth are far too ugly to show up in my games in anything other than mouths of sharks feeding on them like big fat shrimp...
What, you don't see an Aboleth and automatically smile?
I do.
;)
I'll tap some of that setting darkness where I can though. I want to stick it to my players while they are still low level and vulnerable to Dekantur goblins with spears.
For me it's not so much "darker" as "mysterious."
You can't deny that converting the setting into a Points of Light setting does make it darker
You can't deny that converting the setting into a Points of Light setting doesn't make it darker
I think you meant to say "can't" and "does."
Obviously the setting has changed, but the Realms were already huge to begin with. Lots of open spaces and all that.
I think because the Realms always had a well developed history of merchants and caravans and trading costers and guardian mercenary companies to protect them all, that I can't automatically see the 4E Realms as different.
Nations, magic and whole lands have changed, but trade goes on. So I think it's less for me about the ominous, ethereal threat that might be over the next hill as it is about re-forging the trade links and roads that separate one town/city/city-state/nation from the next.
That is, it's more about the adventure to be had by sheer dint of travel than it is about a rising tide of darkness.
But that's me. YMMV.
I think you meant to say "can't" and "does."
Yup. Fixed
Sure, the Realms is still huge, but civilization or at least neutral/good governed civilization has lessened or been replaced with shadowy folks
Shaodwy folks have been in every city of the Realms as long as I can remember. Except for maybe Silverymoon because of that silly Mythal.
Worship of Shaundakul might even go up now that people hope that free trade will get better.
There is no Shaundakul I thought
Interesting way of looking at it Misc... might have to go look at it again with that thought in mind.
Rock on.
If I had my druthers I'd run a new 4E game where the characters are tasked with forging trade routes into lands relatively unknown by native Faerûnians, (like Akanûl or Tymanther), then confront them with practical questions like, "How exactly does one get a fully loaded wagon up into one of those floating Genasi cities anyway?"
A campaign like this would put the players front and center in the Points of Light concept and set them on their way to explore the new lands of the Realms (letting a DM's imagination run riot with their own ideas of how to portray these places), provide lots of roleplaying opportunities and skill challenge opportunities, and would have a built-in impetus for the players to "be good" and do heroic deeds along the way.
This is because the players wouldn't want to offend potential trade partners or be perceived as the beginnings of a much larger menace. On the contrary a heroic deed or two might provide them an opportunity to meet with local leaders and talk business.
Then there's the big fat reward from the merchants the players work for if they forge reliable trade contacts and manage to make it back home in one piece.
For me this kind of game would let me reuse the lore about merchants and trading consortiums from the Gray Box and also toy with the flow of goods map from the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting sourcebook.
There is no Shaundakul I thought
For me just because it isn't in the sourcebook does not mean he is not around. He got a PRC treatment in 3E when Mask didn't even get one so I am sure we will see him pop up. Plus some windtouched genasi would be upset if he disappeared. ;)
I believe they've intentionally left the timeline clear to set their novels in the 100 year gap, leaving the current "timepoint" at 1479 DR completely untouched by any metaplot or similar. If this is their plan it's an extremely good one and I really approve of it.
That is not WotC's plan--for better or for worse, your suspicions are incorrect.
As an aside, wasn't there an adventure included in the Gray Box eons ago? I left my set in Canada but I'm pretty sure that there was something at the back of one of the books. It may seem useless to include an adventure if you have access to the net and the free modules Dungeon's been offering, but it's very good if you don't; you can just then and there try it out without waiting for the coming module.
This is a fair point. Short adventures within the campaign setting books/boxed sets are not new.
Although I don't feel with how 4E has done things it is required explicitly, it is actually a very nice thing to have for "those" discussions were certain people. Something that makes it 100% clear, in the sourcebook itself that the DM can do what he wants can mean a big difference.
I just want to point out that that's nothing new either. The 3E FRCS had text that explicitly told people to make the setting their own.
I always liked Shaundakul (even though I could never spell it). His absence was just reason #126 why the new Realms suck canal water
There is no real absence. From the actual book sure but he is most likely still around. Perhaps he will get a DDI treatment.
My group is now going to play an FR game in 4E. Some of the PCs are ancestors of the PCs from my old game that I ran. One PC (windsoul genasi)
worshipped Shaundakul. He asked if he was still around. I said that he is not in the sourcebook but he very well could still be around, I mean there are still adventurers around and the need for free trade right? The DM agreed and my buddy gets to worship his favorite god. Good times for all. ;)
The 3E FRCS had text that explicitly told people to make the setting their own.
To be fair, the 3E FRCS didn't go nearly as far as the 4E FRCG guide does.
In the 3E FRCS, Elminster tells heroes the Realms are, "....yours to discover, reforge, and defend, yours to make anew in winning your own crown." The regular book text quickly follows with, "It (the land of Faerûn) is your land to shape, to guide, to defend, to conquer, or to rule." (pages 4 and 5, respectively)
Whereas the 4E FRCG states, "Remember, your setting is always unique to you. It is what you and your players make it. That's true whether you use every bit of a book like this one, or whether you use it as seasoning to spice up the world you've already made." (page 4)
The 4E Player's Guide goes even further, "You need not be a scholar of Toril's history to become an invested participant in the world."
3E went for grandiose, heroic and inspiring wording in order to tell players and DMs to invest themselves in the setting in order to make the most out of it, whereas 4E talked bluntly to DMs and players alike by telling them they don't need to know the lore and they can use the setting for homebrew play as much as for regular Realms play.
Some of the places that are more or less gone were those that were most clearly thinly disguised versions of the real world (or perhaps they were fantasias of the real world), or were most clearly dependent on dated fantasy concepts. The "Realmsian" South/Central America, Egypt & Sumer, and that "Africa" at least somewhat dependent on the troubled and troubling fictions of Haggard and Burroughs, all gone or radically altered. Likewise the "Shire by the Sea" at Luiren that was so far from the current Dungeons and Dragons conception of halflings, the high Renaissance technology center of Lantan, and the retro-pulp Vancian magic center of Halruaa, all gone.
In their places are countries and concepts that strike me as much closer to the hearts of Ed Greenwood's Realms, with its deep history, and of the modern version of Dungeons and Dragons, with its emphasis on player characters.
These are some insightful comments, and I think I can mostly agree with them except for the last bit. My reason? I just don't think "plaguelands" are as interesting (or necessarily as "Realmsian") as the old Halruaa (that's just the most prominent example from off the top of my head). Are plaguelands closer to Ed Greenwood's original conception of the Realms than the areas they replaced? I am inclined to think not, although none of us are Ed Greenwood, so who can say? Also, while some add-ons to the Realms could be dubious, I don't think they were necessarily "insalvagable" either.
There is no real absence. From the actual book sure but he is most likely still around. Perhaps he will get a DDI treatment.
Unfortunately, I will not be participating in DDi
This is the sound of me agreeing with you wholeheartedly, Stigger. I liked my Realms whimsical. I always felt that this is what continued, and continues, to bring me back to Ed's books time and again.
Needless to say, same here.
From what I've read of the newer material, I was left with the impression that the designers consciously wanted to make the setting less light-hearted than it used to be. Granted, that doesn't mean the new setting is an absolute hellhole where good guys don't win no matter what they do. The bottomline is, though, that overall atmosphere doesn't "read right" for me when I think "Realms".Those are some seriously general statements thecasualoblivion. Let's see if I can't address a couple directly and not in terms of them being blanket statements. The amount of civilization present in the old Realms was never boring for me... and no, there is not enough civilization left over to satisfy "those who prefer it" if that is supposed to include me. This is true (for me) not least because although there is some civilization, it has quite often moved. Waterdeep, for example, used to be a wonderful hotbed of noble intrigue. Where is it now? Isn't this what civilization allows?
I too am puzzled by the idea that "civilization is boring". Aside from the fact that there was always more wilderness in the Realms than civilization, the urban centers of the world (in the real world and in a fantasy world) are indeed the best places to find intrigue and drama. They are wonderful places to find adventure hooks.
I might go with the gnome since I have not played a lighthearted PC for a while and the elf might be a bit too grim being a hunter of monsters that go agaisnt the natural order and all.
Nonsense. The elf could be a gleeful, psychotic killer.
Anyway I am far from depressed. I think our group of heros will be able to take on anything that comes our way(I hope).
Those famous last words...:P
The party makeup so far is a air-genasi warlord (giant-slayer) a human fighter whose ancestor was from Kara-Tur (samurai) possibly a human swordmage, my gnome artificer, an orc, or dragonborn barbarian and an unknown party member. I forsee likes of pirate goodness happening as well as fey and giant shenanigans. All my guy wants to do is find out where all the gnomes went. ;)
I am very excited. I think we will all start out around Luskan then head to the Moonshaes.
The party makeup so far is a air-genasi warlord (giant-slayer) a human fighter whose ancestor was from Kara-Tur (samurai) possibly a human swordmage, my gnome artificer, an orc, or dragonborn barbarian and an unknown party member. I forsee likes of pirate goodness happening as well as fey and giant shenanigans. All my guy wants to do is find out where all the gnomes went. ;)
gnome artificer huh? Smells like Eberron
gnome artificer huh? Smells like Eberron
-Didn't the Realms have them first? ;) :P :D
18DELTA
-Didn't the Realms have them first? ;) :P :D
18DELTA
I had assumed he meant the base class
gnome artificer huh? Smells like Eberron
Smells like fun in an openminded campaign with great players and a fun DM. ;)
18DELTA
-Yes open-minded games are fun. What's that old saying "Free Thinkers are Dangerous"! :D
Being open-minded does not necessarily make one a "freethinker" (by the way, I don't see the term "freethinker" as being particularly relevant to the gaming hobby).
18DELTA ;)
Artificers were one of the best things about Eberron... I've definitely had them in my Realms for a while now. Was kind of fun, since I let on of my players 'introduce the class' to the world by letting her be the one who 'invented' the idea. Was definitely a very unique experience for the group, quite fun too.
That sounds like fun.
and after reading one other book I realized the setting was pretty nice. At one point though I was a complete Eberron hater.
Perhaps the Silver Marches came into the possession of several Lyres of Building that could speed up the process. Maybe the PCs could hunt down an artifact that could help the process along.
Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
I was pretty closeminded about the setting also until the only game group I could get into played in that setting. After reading the actual book and not just looking through it and deciding I hated it (I did that at first years before)
and after reading one other book I realized the setting was pretty nice. At one point though I was a complete Eberron hater.
Well, as I tried to say, I never disliked Eberron but have never played in it. Since I am now done with the Realms because of the changes, if I ever play again maybe I would give it a shot. I liked some of the concepts and some of the novels are decent.
If you like Pulp your good to go.
not particularly
If you like Final Fantasyesque stuff your good to go.
nada. I am sensing a problem
If you like Cults your good to go.
OK. Now thats good.
If you like Political/Espionage games where you need papers to cross nations borders your good to go.
Always cool
That war took a loooong time but the dragons allies the coutal bound the uber-demons (who were pretty much unkillable) underneath the planet intself (underdark). This process happened again 9but without the coutals who are gone forever) when great evils from Xoriat (the Far Realm) tried the same trick.
Anyway there are tons of crazy cultists trying to free those "Ancient Evils" and those cults really don't get along with each other so that is a Chuthulu elelment in there as well.
The reason dragons don't rule the planet now is that there is this Draconic Prophesy that they found out about and after they leanred of it they locked themselves away from the world on another continent.
See, if ya played in the current era you could say tons of Lantanese gnomes showed up and over the course of 100 years helped design the rail. Plus during the current era all the gnome in Luarur would be rich robberbaron types due to their great invention. ;)
Not even in 1100 DR just yet, so... presuming I even go with the 4e stuff at some point, its an incredibly long way off for the campaign. :D
Its funny, as when people asks: why the changes are bad? They get a simple and killer answer. Then what they reply? Ok, but talking about my taste...
The FR have a so huge fanbase that WotC almost made it the base realm for D&D 4th edition. What they did wrong was trash all the loved NPCs, locations, political status, and the FEEL of the FR.
I would really like changes to the setting. If it was for good, no problem, but was for bad. Thinking in the new players they bashed all the old ones. Why not appeal both?
I see that many people defending the changes are Eberron players, no problem i like Eberron and play there sometimes. But Eberron had his feel, as FR has his own. They changed the realms completely based on Eberron book formulae. How? why eberron got good critics reviews? What has changed in FR 4th edition? one answer fills the other.
The Chris Perkins argument that strong good NPCs takes the light from the players is terribly wrong, as its a DMs fault if this happen, not the Setting.
If Eberron won an award from best setting, so did FR 3rd edition.
They stripped all the good lore, saying that it outshines the players. On contrary, my players wanted to be a part of all that good lore!
The final argument is: dont change a winning team. Yes this need to be taken with a grain of salt, as even a winning team need some degree of change. BUT to take the WHOLE team and change it is a big fail.
Imagine if now they make the 4th edition Eberron Campaign Setting and put dozens of good NPCs, politian lore, and make there a exacly as FR 3rd was.
(including saying a comet fallen from the skies and destroyed the so loved Rail, and all warforged died from a stellar disease that causes malfunction)
Will it be good? Thats how the fanbase in general feel with the changes in FR.
-I can agree with your point, but no need to be so caustic.
sorry, it wasnt my intention
its because im still trying to wake up from this nightmare
I see that many people defending the changes are Eberron players, no problem i like Eberron and play there sometimes. But Eberron had his feel, as FR has his own. They changed the realms completely based on Eberron book formulae. How? why eberron got good critics reviews? What has changed in FR 4th edition? one answer fills the other.
The thing is people left the FR for Eberron and maybe even stopped buying FR books. Perhaps this was an attempt to gain those players back as well as others that left the game setting before Eberron because of certain dislikes (NPCs, gods, whatnot). I am not in that group really since I would play in either setting. I am playing in a FR game and running and EB one.
I saw some EB fans already complaining about certain possible changes in the EB 4E. Oh well. It will happen. Gamers like Comic fans have that love/hate when it comes to change. I have argued with those EB fans that complain about the slight changes that they feel will "ruin" Eberron. Every time a new comic writer comes onto a comic they have the chance to scare off some of the readers with some new ideas. It is a chance they take because they hope they can tell a good story while keeping the product fresh.
My 2 cents and I am sorry that they did trample a bit on some parts of FR that others may have liked. In the long run we will see if it helped the Realms longevity at all.
I see that many people defending the changes are Eberron players, no problem i like Eberron and play there sometimes. But Eberron had his feel, as FR has his own. They changed the realms completely based on Eberron book formulae. How? why eberron got good critics reviews? What has changed in FR 4th edition? one answer fills the other.
The thing is people left the FR for Eberron and maybe even stopped buying FR books. Perhaps this was an attempt to gain those players back as well as others that left the game setting before Eberron because of certain dislikes (NPCs, gods, whatnot). I am not in that group really since I would play in either setting. I am playing in a FR game and running and EB one.
I saw some EB fans already complaining about certain possible changes in the EB 4E. Oh well. It will happen. Gamers like Comic fans have that love/hate when it comes to change. Every time a new writer comes onto a comic they have the chance to scare off some of the readers with some new ideas. It is a chance they take because they hope they can tell a good story while keeping the product fresh.
My 2 cents and i am sorry that they did trample a bit on some parts of FR that others may have liked. In the long run we will see if it helped the Realms longevity at all.
Read the whole thread, and every bit of 4th edition pro-arguments failed terribly.
I'm glad you think so, funny, I think the exact same about all of your arguments.
Its funny, as when people asks: why the changes are bad? They get a simple and killer answer. Then what they reply? Ok, but talking about my taste...
The changes are bad for you. They are not objectively bad, for you they can be, for me they are excellent decisions that have reinvigorated my interest in running games in the realms (to which I now run 3).
The FR have a so huge fanbase that WotC almost made it the base realm for D&D 4th edition. What they did wrong was trash all the loved NPCs, locations, political status, and the FEEL of the FR.
Some people loved those NPCs, some people like me despised them and found they were nothing but a built in mechanic to derail the game and cause issues with certain players (Also no, I don't care to hear I'm a lazy and bad DM either, I can run a game and it's just the case that some players could become quite disruptive on this issue). That the world felt so "civilised" is a 50/50 for me. I like either or and so I can live with them.
But again, pretending your personal preferences are right is just laughable.
I see that many people defending the changes are Eberron players
I never liked Eberron actually, I just took the main book and grabbed ideas out of it.
The Chris Perkins argument that strong good NPCs takes the light from the players is terribly wrong, as its a DMs fault if this happen, not the Setting.
I disagree. It can be that players will have a perception or a feeling that this is the case, as do many other people who have criticised the high level NPCs problem of the former realms.
As for your Eberron changes I wouldn't care less. I have the old book, I am looking at it right now. If I want to, I could just use that (not that I would). If the new setting has interesting things or ideas, I'll just grab them. If the new Eberron does a lot of stuff that I like I might consider running it (but undoubtedly I won't because I rather like the 4E realms for a lot of reasons).
I'm glad you think so, funny, I think the exact same about all of your arguments.
The changes are bad for you. They are not objectively bad, for you they can be, for me they are excellent decisions that have reinvigorated my interest in running games in the realms (to which I now run 3).
Some people loved those NPCs, some people like me despised them and found they were nothing but a built in mechanic to derail the game and cause issues with certain players (Also no, I don't care to hear I'm a lazy and bad DM either, I can run a game and it's just the case that some players could become quite disruptive on this issue). That the world felt so "civilised" is a 50/50 for me. I like either or and so I can live with them.
But again, pretending your personal preferences are right is just laughable.
I never liked Eberron actually, I just took the main book and grabbed ideas out of it.
I disagree. It can be that players will have a perception or a feeling that this is the case, as do many other people who have criticised the high level NPCs problem of the former realms.
As for your Eberron changes I wouldn't care less. I have the old book, I am looking at it right now. If I want to, I could just use that (not that I would). If the new setting has interesting things or ideas, I'll just grab them. If the new Eberron does a lot of stuff that I like I might consider running it (but undoubtedly I won't because I rather like the 4E realms for a lot of reasons).
;) LoL
The changes are not bad just for me, but for the fans of FR in general. Just a run over FR fansites and you will get this.
To resume your reply is: "your taste is different from mine, i liked and you dont". Thats the fail in your points.
My main argue is that its not just mine, but the FR fans feel as a whole. I dont talk just about my preference, but the majority of FR fans. Exceptions like you are common, because some people dont care for the story or lore of the realms, just want some dungeons to pile. Thats nothing wrong with that, its your taste, but some people loved NPCs and know how to use them without frustrating the players.
Want an example? My players almost reached epic level and i gave them an oportunity to bash Drizzt. They won and felt really happy for this accomplishment. I just dont used him to help them and ruin my session, thats easy.
As you said, you dont care for Eberron changes, because you dont care for the lore of the world. Many, many people care, and as customers they should be heard. Its changing a winning team, dont you got?
As for FR losing some players to Eberron, thats just natural as Eberron lose players to a new interesting setting that WotC brings. A new FR with not so drastic changes, like with Returned Abeir (fantastic idea) but without spellplague, plus some of the good NPCs and more lore would have a better effect, with potential to appeal both new and old players.
To every change, even if it is the worst, there will be people supporting it. Some people dislike LotR, Harry, D&D, etc. I talk about not personal tastes only, but for a greater thing.
I respect your point of view, believe me, but you should respect also the feel of the fanbase of 3.x FR. Its so big that the wizards almost made FR the base realms for core D&D.
My main argue is that its not just mine, but the FR fans feel as a whole.
That's one howler of a giant logical fallacy there and deserves no further argument.
Exceptions like you are common, because some people dont care for the story or lore of the realms, just want some dungeons to pile.
I need a viable campaign setting, not a novel.
As you said, you dont care for Eberron changes, because you dont care for the lore of the world.
My point is the polar opposite. It was that I have my old books. I don't care what they change, because I can just use my old books and that's the end of anything they changed that I didn't like.
A new FR with not so drastic changes, like with Returned Abeir (fantastic idea) but without spellplague, plus some of the good NPCs and more lore would have a better effect, with potential to appeal both new and old players.
No it wouldn't have been. The "good NPCs" were part of the problem (among a host of other things) that I find are now solved pretty reasonably. The dumping of the metaplot is another excellent thing as well.
This is the first time I've wanted and enjoyed running games in the realms for years. Not just because I feel there is much more potential in a lot of different fields without the previous metaplot baggage weighting down the setting, but because distinct absences of "problematic" NPCs and more have made it impossible for those "antagonistic" players to be well, antagonizing anymore.
You'll never convince me that I would want to go back to something you've described as basically the same thing with a new coat of paint.
I talk about not personal tastes only, but for a greater thing.
Logical fallacies =/ viable argument. Your personal taste is not the most important. You'll just have to deal with that.
For someone who starts a post with "LOL" and their previous post with "every bit of 4th edition pro-arguments failed terribly" you've sure been short on anything resembling an argument that isn't just a string of logical fallcies of the "Argumentum ad populum" sort. Not to mention that I think that's also false, because just because people complain a lot on the internet doesn't make them right. Considering that the new realms have bought back both older DMs who gave up on the setting (such as me), new DMs and new players (my players seem to really enjoy my games both set in the realms, contrary to the usual arrogant opinion that anyone who doesn't like a metaplot filled mess is an incompetent DM) which in particular I've always had trouble finding for a realms based game: I have no complaints.
That's one howler of a giant logical fallacy there and deserves no further argument.
I need a viable campaign setting, not a novel.
My point is the polar opposite. It was that I have my old books. I don't care what they change, because I can just use my old books and that's the end of anything they changed that I didn't like.
No it wouldn't have been. The "good NPCs" were part of the problem (among a host of other things) that I find are now solved pretty reasonably. The dumping of the metaplot is another excellent thing as well.
This is the first time I've wanted and enjoyed running games in the realms for years. Not just because I feel there is much more potential in a lot of different fields without the previous metaplot baggage weighting down the setting, but because distinct absences of "problematic" NPCs and more have made it impossible for those "antagonistic" players to be well, antagonizing anymore.
You'll never convince me that I would want to go back to something you've described as basically the same thing with a new coat of paint.
Logical fallacies =/ viable argument. Your personal taste is not the most important. You'll just have to deal with that.
For someone who starts a post with "LOL" and their previous post with "every bit of 4th edition pro-arguments failed terribly" you've sure been short on anything resembling an argument that isn't just a string of logical fallcies of the "Argumentum ad populum" sort. Not to mention that I think that's also false, because just because people complain a lot on the internet doesn't make them right. Considering that the new realms have bought back both older DMs who gave up on the setting (such as me), new DMs and new players (my players seem to really enjoy my games both set in the realms, contrary to the usual arrogant opinion that anyone who doesn't like a metaplot filled mess is an incompetent DM) which in particular I've always had trouble finding for a realms based game: I have no complaints.
Man, man, take it easy. You are taking it to personal.
You think its a falacy, not me not a great deal of fans, here in my country and in USA.
Ive already pointed, do some internet research about the FR fans reception.
You are an exception, because you didnt liked the old book. You say its a falacy trying to prove your point, but you dont prove nothing.
The old book, winner of prizes for what it accomplished. You talk like the 3.x edition FR was the worst of all, and full of errors, or a novel like you said
The antagonistic NPCs doing wrong is a DM problem, not of the setting. You say like just the absence of old NPCs made you like the new setting. Ok just play FR 3.x and ignore all the good NPCs. Bam! you have a setting you could like.
Your problem has a easy solution, just ignore old NPCs. Our (FR fans) dont have, because we want canon lore of how empires fall and arise, canon lore about our loved NPCs. And here they didnt launched a good product.
Your arguments are yours, and I, different from some people, dont like everything that is throw at me. If you accept any change, sorry, but i have my standarts of quality.
Considering that the new realms have bought back both older DMs who gave up on the setting (such as me), new DMs and new players
thats your personal experience.
i talk about many people experience.
Thats the huge difference.
Man, man, take it easy. You are taking it to personal.
You think its a falacy, not me not a great deal of fans, here in my country and in USA.
It is in fact a fallacy. Not your opinion, but that your opinion is fact. So Aegeri is absolutely right for calling you on it.
Ive already pointed, do some internet research about the FR fans reception. You are an exception, because you didnt liked the old book. You say its a falacy trying to prove your point, but you dont prove nothing.
Yes the internet, everything on the internet is fact, and angry people are more likely to say something than happy people. Also he is not an exception, their are plenty of people who did not like what the FR had become. Most of them stopped coming here years ago.
And you do? Oh and by the way read the link he provided you, your comments are in fact a fallacy.
The old book, winner of prizes for what it accomplished. You talk like the 3.x edition FR was the worst of all, and full of errors, or a novel like you said
In my opinion it was, in fact everything after the Time of Troubles was a slow slide down a steep slope. I got fed up with it around 1998, and moved on peeking in now and again but not actively using the setting. I would read the occasional novel, but the setting as someplace I was interested in running games was a distant memory...until the 4th edition reset.
The antagonistic NPCs doing wrong is a DM problem, not of the setting. You say like just the absence of old NPCs made you like the new setting. Ok just play FR 3.x and ignore all the good NPCs. Bam! you have a setting you could like.
I think you misread, it was an antagonistic player, and I think Aegeri like myself had much bigger issues with what the setting had become than a couple of mary sue npc's.
Your problem has a easy solution, just ignore old NPCs. Our (FR fans) dont have, because we want canon lore of how empires fall and arise, canon lore about our loved NPCs. And here they didnt launched a good product.
Speak for yourself. I don't want cannon lore, I don't want a metaplot, I don't want world shaking events, I want a game setting that is usable out of the box. Oh and by the way I am an FR fan and have been for a very long time.
Your arguments are yours, and I, different from some people, dont like everything that is throw at me. If you accept any change, sorry, but i have my standarts of quality.
I don't take everything thrown my way either, hence why I did not run an FR game for about 10 years, well except for a two session game I did not have the interest in continuing. I hoped I could like, but realized it made for better reading than gaming.
thats your personal experience.
i talk about many people experience.
Thats the huge difference.
Hello, its more than just him. He is talking about many peoples experience also. Oh, guess what their is no difference.
Question: There is more books planned for FR? only 1 more acording to the 3 books prevision?
Just like I don't care about what my dog does in the backyard....
There are no other books on the schedule as of right now, but that could change on a whim with these guys - the schedule is pretty meaningless, since all the decisions are being based on what is selling and what is not. If they thought a book entitled The many colors of Elminster's Underwear would sell, we'd see it on the shelves by next month. They pretty much said as much - the schedule is subject to change and other items can be added (or removed).
I'm fairly sure that the metaplot is still going to be there to some degree really. If I recall correctly, Mr. Baker hinted as much in terms of DDI content taking events in novels into account, so I'm guessing there's going to be some grumbling over that at some point. Hopefully it will be kept to a minimum, but I kinda doubt it to be honest.
And just to spite LK... :P
I'm fairly sure that the metaplot is still going to be there to some degree really. If I recall correctly, Mr. Baker hinted as much in terms of DDI content taking events in novels into account, so I'm guessing there's going to be some grumbling over that at some point. Hopefully it will be kept to a minimum, but I kinda doubt it to be honest.
If they have a need to follow a metaplot I hope they take a cue from Exalted, which is really meta lite.
There are the two books that are out - the FRCG and the FRPG - and there is one adventure module, which may or may not be out already, because I really have no interest in weather it is or isn't.
Just like I don't care about what my dog does in the backyard....
There are no other books on the schedule as of right now, but that could change on a whim with these guys - the schedule is pretty meaningless, since all the decisions are being based on what is selling and what is not. If they thought a book entitled The many colors of Elminster's Underwear would sell, we'd see it on the shelves by next month. They pretty much said as much - the schedule is subject to change and other items can be added (or removed).
To be honest i think they should make money so we get more D&D material to use.
I really hope for a political-deity related book, doing what the actual FRCG lacks.
Metaplot: "The overarching storyline that binds together events in a role-playing game."
-As I said, the Forgotten Realms has had various "miniplots"- the Time of Troubles, the Rage of the Dragons, and other things of this vein. This isn't in any way the metaplot of the Forgotten Realms, however. The happenings Time of Troubles were only applicable in a single years. The happenings that take place during the Rage of the Dragon take place only during a single year every so often. Were these things metaplots, Dragons would always be raging, and deities would be confined to avatar forms indefinitely. This is not the case, however. The ToT and the Rage of the Dragons are only specific events, not overarching, ever-continuing rules that define the setting. Furthermore, of course, not all of the setting is/was affected by the above mentioned events. As far as we know, the Time of Troubles was pretty tame in Kara-Tur. As far as we know, the Rage of the Dragons did not cause all sorts of destruction in Kara-Tur. Same thing with Zakhara. And Maztica. And, the fact that, again, various regions exist that are free of the elements that most people use to define the Forgotten Realms- Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Chult, Maztica, Turmish, Mulhorand, Unther, and so on- again demonstrates that there is no overarching plotline/theme central to the setting itself. Regions? Yes. Specific locales? Yes. These are "miniplots", however, not metaplots.
-Again, I put out the challenge to define the metaplot of the Forgotten Realms: Give me a single sentence or two that describes the entirety of the setting, or the general plot threads of the setting. Dragonlance has one. Dark Sun Has one. The Forgotten Realms does not. Because there isn't one.
-No, no they don't. Shar and Mystra's battle is just one of the many ongoing plots taking place. There's also Shar and Selûne's battles, Shar and Sharess' battles, Mystra and Cyrics battles, Torm and Bane's battles, Shar and Masks' battles, and so on and so forth. There are "miniplots"- important plots going on (mini does not necessarily make it trivial)- but no metaplot. The metaplot would be the one story, the one plot that sums up the entire world. There is nothing that does that.
That's not a metaplot. I'll frame it like this, concerning Mystra, Shar, and their battle, specifically: Are the events and happenings of the setting contingent on Mystra and Shar's battle?
The very way 4th edition is now answers that question for you.
As much as I'm dumbfounded finding myself saying this, what Aegeri said. ;)
-You are agreeing with me, then.
-What Aegeri said supports what I am saying: Mystra does not exist in the 4e Forgotten Realms. Yet, the setting still exists, and is still going on. Thus, this proves the point that the Mystra-Shar conflict is not the metaplot of the setting as a whole. If it was, the setting would not be able to go on within Mystra and Shar's conflict.
That's so wrong I don't quite know how to begin. This is the equivalent of claiming that Gehenna in the White Wolf setting means there was no metaplot in the original Vampire: The Masquerade.
The original realms had a considerable metaplot and the very fact we see a massive difference in the realms now at the resolution of that metaplot proves your point utterly incorrect.
What you're talking about is only one style of metaplot, not the only style allowed to fall under that definition. If you're looking for a huge overarching idea behind everything, it wouldn't be hard to say that the Time of Troubles was never really settled as far as the deities were concerned, and that the Spellplague was the closing event on them, rather like WW2 being more of an extension of WW1 than a seperate event. As several 3e events directly or indirectly led up to the Spellplague, I'm just not seeing your point there. Mystra and Shar in conflict was an extension of that tension that had been set up, a symptom as it were. Not Dragonlance or Dark Sun to be sure, but there's still a definite metaplot at work there.
-The Forgotten Realms does not have an overarching storyline that binds together the events in the setting. The Shar-Mystra conflict had no bearing on the atrocities taking place in Helm's name in Maztica. The Shar-Mystra conflict had no bearing on the Rage of the Dragons. The Shar-Mystra conflict had no bearing on the cause of the Time of Troubles. As such, the Shar-Mystra conflict is not the metaplot of the setting. Were it, the Shar-Mystra conflict would have had a bearing on the atrocities in Maztica, on the Rage of the Dragons, on the Time of Troubles. But, this is not the case. This is what allows the Forgotten Realms to be a setting in which "anything goes", and elements from all across literature can be penned in. Bruce Cordell can use his aberrations, because things like that don't need to somehow be tied to the Mystra-Shar conflict, as they would have, if the Mystra-Shar conflict was the metaplot of the setting. Paul Kemp can write about Mask and Shar's conflict, because he doesn't need to somehow tie things to the Mystra-Shar conflict. R.A. Salvatore can write about Drizzt defending the Orcs, who have turned a new lead, because he doesn't need to somehow tie things to the Mystra-Shar conflict. Erik De Bie can write about the (mis)adventures of Fox-At-Twilight, and her problems with Erevan Illesere because he doesn't need to somehow tie things to the Mystra-Shar conflict. Jeff Grubb can write about Alias and the restoration of Finder Wyvernspur's good name because he doesn't need to somehow tie things to the Mystra-Shar conflict. Elaine Cunningham can write about Arilyn Moonblade coming to terms with who she is, and her past and future because she doesn't need to somehow tie things to the Mystra-Shar conflict. Richard Bysers can write about Szass Tam seizing control of Thay, and attempting to turn himself into a deity because he doesn't need to somehow tie things to the Mystra-Shar conflict. Rich Baker can write about an army of Elven retaking two abandoned Elven cities because he doesn't need to somehow tie things to the Mystra-Shar conflict.
I never knew what was 'meta' about it.
-Meta, as in we can use our perspective of being "out-of-the-game" to form patterns and connect the dots and threads and what not, that a perspective of "in-the-game" wouldn't afford us.
The Shar-Mystra conflict had no bearing on the atrocities taking place in Helm's name in Maztica.
This is streching of the highest order, because it did. Maztica is not there anymore. By all logical definitions, it almost assuredly did.
An example of a metaplot would be the Time of Troubles, The Spellplague. They have an overarching storyline composed of individual often seemingly unrelated plots, which however advance the agenda of a singular metaplot.
This is streching of the highest order, because it did. Maztica is not there anymore. By all logical definitions, it almost assuredly did.
Please explain how that works, and what "logical definitions" you used to determine that. Please explain how the Mystra/Shar conflict was THE cause of the activities in Maztica perpetuated by Helmites, instead of simply asserting that it was.
All I see here, at the moment, is a non sequitur.
Please explain how that works, and what "logical definitions" you used to determine that. Please explain how the Mystra/Shar conflict was THE cause of the activities in Maztica perpetuated by Helmites, instead of simply asserting that it was.
You seem to be confused as to the point I was making. Maztica is no longer there, so Lord Karsus is completely incorrect to state that the Shar-Mystra metaplot had no effect on this, because the spellplague ravaged the land and threw Maztica off the map. If the entire continent being tossed off the map into the realms is not a resolution inherently caused by what happened with shar and mystra, then what may I ask, would constitute that?
-Of course, I said X, and you are answering with Y. I asked if the Shar-Mystra conflict was responsible for the atrocities committed by the Helmites in Maztica, not if the Spellplague was related to the Shar-Mystra conflict.
No you didn't.
You wrote:
The Shar-Mystra conflict had no bearing on the atrocities taking place in Helm's name in Maztica.
Except for the key concept here that the spellplague and her death forcefully ended this plot thread in the realms. That means it almost certainly did have an effect on this, because it effectively ended this plot line. Now you are changing your argument to "did it have any bearing on" to "was it responsible". Two entirely different arguments.
But regardless of it it started it, the spellplague finished it and therefore, the spellplague is involved in that plot. Like it or not.
-The atrocities in Maztica being committed in Helm's name ended much before the 1,385 DR with the loss of political influence of Bishou Domincus.
Ok, I can accept that because that makes sense now (I knew about the atrocities that were being done, but I was not aware they had resolved them earlier).
That does not change the overall point that while there were many ongoing 'bit' plots over the realms, anything ongoing at the time of the spellplague invariably were forcibly ended by it (and that the Shar-Mystra antagonism, as well as the re-emergence of the Netherese) and that the entire plot with Shar is by definition a metaplot.
in the 3E setting, Elminster, Drizzt, Khelben, and a whole host of good guys get statted out, something that took up a lot of print space. kudos to the authors of this book for realizing that PCs aren't going to be murdering the good guys (at least not enough to justify statting them out) and to put that space to better work.
The fact that they barely had any characters in the book does kinda count against them though. Good aligned ones, that is.
clearly--there's a huge lack of villainous ones as well though, and they are more important for 99% of campaigns.
realistically, i don't need to know how to fight the Simbul.
clearly--there's a huge lack of villainous ones as well though, and they are more important for 99% of campaigns.
Actually, I have found this one curious for a while.
If the reason that the good NPCs haven't had more of a description (even down to missing races) is that it leaves the DM to work things out on their own... then why stat out the named antagonists? Minions and lower level flunkies I can certainly get, not least because of the number of them... but why not leave the antagonists just as mysterious and thus as unencumbered by useless information?
Or be more even handed about it?
Anyone?
But why not leave the antagonists just as mysterious and thus as unencumbered by useless information?
Because the information isn't useless.
Far from it. After all, lore, background and game stats are all there for the DM to use. The information is not set in stone; it's maleable.
When you have background, history, names and game stats, you can tweak, modify, change whatever you like to suit the needs of your campaign.
Nothing sets a campaign like a Big Bad Evil Guy with full stats and some description.
Actually, I have found this one curious for a while.
If the reason that the good NPCs haven't had more of a description (even down to missing races) is that it leaves the DM to work things out on their own... then why stat out the named antagonists? Minions and lower level flunkies I can certainly get, not least because of the number of them... but why not leave the antagonists just as mysterious and thus as unencumbered by useless information?
Or be more even handed about it?
Anyone?
I'm all for having antagonists be kept mysterious, as well.
Actually, I have found this one curious for a while.
If the reason that the good NPCs haven't had more of a description (even down to missing races) is that it leaves the DM to work things out on their own... then why stat out the named antagonists? Minions and lower level flunkies I can certainly get, not least because of the number of them... but why not leave the antagonists just as mysterious and thus as unencumbered by useless information?
Or be more even handed about it?
Anyone?
-Because, as you know, there is a remarkable double-standard on this matter. A powerful, say, Szass Tam is a 'good' thing, while a powerful Elminster is not.
Because the information isn't useless.
Far from it. After all, lore, background and game stats are all there for the DM to use. The information is not set in stone; it's maleable.
Well, now here is the kicker. From the looks of what you have said the information presented in stats and descriptions is maleable by the DM, may be useful to a DM and therefore has use.
Why does this only seem to be the case for antagonist NPCs?
Why, when similar information (even if you cut the stat blocks antagnoists get more description, background and lore in the current incarnation) is presented for non-antagonist is it regarded as a burden not as an advantage that may or may not be used according to the desires of the DM?
-Because, as you know, there is a remarkable double-standard on this matter. A powerful, say, Szass Tam is a 'good' thing, while a powerful Elminster is not.
It certainly is beginning to look that way, although I am not so much interested in "power" at this point, just the amount of characterisation that goes into these people. For there does seem to be an imbalance there.
I will, however, wait for Misc's reply before I make my own mind up on the matter.
-Because, as you know, there is a remarkable double-standard on this matter. A powerful, say, Szass Tam is a 'good' thing, while a powerful Elminster is not.
This has been explained quite a lot already (in previous discussions). PCs generally speaking do not go looking for high level evil NPCs, unless they are suicidal or plain stupid. High level statted good aligned NPCs cause problems due to the "seek them out for help" issue and other unrelated things (like who could beat X, Y, Z discussions: EG who is more powerful Elminster or Raistlin?).
In addition to this, high level antagonists due to their general complete lack of interaction with PCs (for the above reason) can have whatever stats they want. I find the minion or servitor monsters far more useful than a stat block for Szass Tam, but at the same time Szass Tam does provide a rough idea of the sort of power of a "native" epic level antagonist in Faerun. I don't require such things for good NPCs because I don't want them (for a multitude of reasons that 3rd edition delightfully exposed for me) and secondly, I prefer being able to dictate their power completely.
I have Elminster as heavily diminshed because of the Spellplague. He's still more powerful than a huge majority of NPCs in my game, but he's "only" a level 16 solo controller (albeit, with a lot of magical items and similar handy). This makes him more powerful than my PCs for a while, but he hasn't got the levels to really do anything to assist against the late paragon/epic tier threats that they face.
And again, I don't need or want "iconic" NPCs to be statted anymore, though if they do I prefer them to stat antagonists and not "friendly" (so to speak) NPCs. The logic again is simple, stat good NPCs = problems (because players can and do go looking for said characters, one of my players proves the point and is searching for the "missing" Simbul).
Without stats as well, I avoid the problem that I noted in 3rd edition where players had clear expectations of how powerful they were. 4th leaves it wonderfully ambiguous and provides me with good reasons to play with power levels of characters like Elminster. Or decide what power levels I want for any NPCs I want. This not being set in stone is far more work for me, but I much prefer to put this work in myself as it allows me to tailor what allies/antagonists my PCs face very strongly.
And again, I could care less if they stat Szass Tam, or Manshoon or whomever else. If I ever used those "official" antagonists I would certainly find the stats useful. If. My PCs don't go looking for Szass Tam. My PCs don't go looking for Manshoon. I don't need their stats because my PCs are never going to make having stats relevant. Where they might go searching for people are those high level good aligned NPCs. If they don't have stats I can set them at whatever I please (and the spellplague again gives me a lot of leeway to change/alter peoples power considerably). Without official stats making Elminster a level 33 archwizard, there is no "disconnect" in my game when a player knows that and yet he's only level 12 in my game.
It avoids the problem entirely (And I certainly found this in 3rd edition). Is it more work for me to make a statblock? Yes, the 5 minutes with a math cruncher and throwing some wizard abilities from the book (and perhaps a spellscar related power) later sure.
Well, now here is the kicker. From the looks of what you have said the information presented in stats and descriptions is maleable by the DM, may be useful to a DM and therefore has use.
For statblocks see the above.
But you do make a good point immediately after:
Why, when similar information (even if you cut the stat blocks antagnoists get more description, background and lore in the current incarnation) is presented for non-antagonist is it regarded as a burden not as an advantage that may or may not be used according to the desires of the DM?
I don't think having descriptions of them, lore and similar would be a bad thing.
Bear in mind, I hate stat blocks of "Iconic" NPCs period. Completely. Absolutely. Utterly. I despise them and my eyes roll out of my head on reading them. Sometimes I find them kinda useful, if I'm going to involve Thay or the Zhents or whomever, I might like a stat block of the main antagonists of such organisations. So really, I only tolerate the statblocks of evil NPCs because of their potential to be useful to me at some point (which admittedly, Szass Tam will be in future). I would sooner have NONE of them.
You should not mistake "tolerance" for a double standard. I hate both, I just tolerate one because it doesn't cause the issues the statted good aligned NPCs did in my previous games. That simple.
However, moving away from this point to your other main point about lore, descriptions and similar I fully agree. I don't mind descriptions of Elminster, what he's doing, or the Simbul, or more information on King Foril (albeit, I just wrote that myself for my own game) and such forth. Descriptions, information and similar are always invaluable and can be used easily in lots of different ways. A stat block however is an entirely different problem in my experience (with many different players over the years). A description without a statblock is the best gift I could possibly get.
But again if I'm forced to deal with a statblock, I'd rather it of something PCs are ever likely to bother going "searching" for to make it actually relevant (or cause the issues I've seen such things do in the past).
but why not leave the antagonists just as mysterious and thus as unencumbered by useless information?
*sighs* if only they would.
If only they would. Minding, my PCs are probably barely going to notice that Szass Tam is level 32 and not 30.
Probably.
Edit: Also, now I think about it, the description and just what he had been up to is what made me want to use him as an antagonist. His stat block was irrelevant and I've actually generally rewrote the whole thing anyway. The only things I really copied from his existing stat block were his actual SCDIWC stats and maybe a couple of other things. I completely rewrote it otherwise and added in everything I wanted him to have. I would have done this with or without the stat block, if I thought a character was interesting enough to actually bother using.
However, moving away from this point to your other main point about lore, descriptions and similar I fully agree. I don't mind descriptions of Elminster, what he's doing, or the Simbul, or more information on King Foril (albeit, I just wrote that myself for my own game) and such forth. Descriptions, information and similar are always invaluable and can be used easily in lots of different ways. A stat block however is an entirely different problem in my experience (with many different players over the years). A description without a statblock is the best gift I could possibly get.
Personally I have no interest whatsoever in there being statblocks for anybody. That may be because I am currently neither player or DM but I have heard the argument for not statting people out (just teaching people what they need to know to be able to stat things out effectively themselves) enough times to think I may well agree with it.
For me it is about the description, background and lore and the fairly obvious discontinuity between intended antagonist and non-antagonist characters. Taking the Szass Tam example, in the FRCG he gets about 190 words of description (not counting stablock or tactics) whereas High Lord Duirsar the ruler of Evereska gets about 100. Almost half. The same with Foril, King of Cormyr (about 90) versus Manshoon (too many for me to count) or Jarlaxle Baenre or even Fzoul. It bugs me and really doesn't help me when I am trying to stuff the cynic in myself (which suggests things like "Fight it or ignore it" as a new Realms design feature) back into the dark corner it came from.
Maybe I should ask Rich, although I doubt he will appreciate the question ;).
It certainly is beginning to look that way, although I am not so much interested in "power" at this point, just the amount of characterisation that goes into these people. For there does seem to be an imbalance there.
-By Mystra's lost spell! There's plenty of characterization and thought that goes into NPCs!
This has been explained quite a lot already (in previous discussions). PCs generally speaking do not go looking for high level evil NPCs, unless they are suicidal or plain stupid. High level statted good aligned NPCs cause problems due to the "seek them out for help" issue and other unrelated things (like who could beat X, Y, Z discussions: EG who is more powerful Elminster or Raistlin?).
-The "Problem of High Level NPCs" works both ways. Just as 'good' NPCs needed to be eliminated, so that characters didn't seek them out, so too can characters seek out villainous NPCs for assistance. You have a group of morally ambiguous Rogues, who need information on a specific magic item. They're just as likely to try to gain an audience with, say, Sememmon, as that party of Paladins is to try to gain an audience with, say, Elminster. Probably more likely, actually, since Elminster (and others) have shown various times that they don't really care about "random" people asking for their help. Nothing is being "solved".
-We still also have to contend with a separate-but-related issue: Why don't these aforementioned 'evil' high level NPCs simply going out a kill characters at low levels? At fifth level, you're working against Szass Tam. Why doesn't he just go out and kill you and your characters? If anything, that is more pronounced now, because of the emphasis on "antagonists", rather than "antagonists" and "protagonists". Just like it was not that logical that Elminster allowed PC characters to deal with world-ending plotlines, it is equally illogical that Szass Tam allows those working against him to rise in power, until they are on the same level as him, before he confronts them.
-Only one half of the "problem" was dealt with.
-The "Problem of High Level NPCs" works both ways. Just as 'good' NPCs needed to be eliminated, so that characters didn't seek them out, so too can characters seek out villainous NPCs for assistance. You have a group of morally ambiguous Rogues, who need information on a specific magic item. They're just as likely to try to gain an audience with, say, Sememmon, as that party of Paladins is to try to gain an audience with, say, Elminster. Probably more likely, actually, since Elminster (and others) have shown various times that they don't really care about "random" people asking for their help. Nothing is being "solved".
ah, but the chances of most parties having to fight Semmemon (or a similarly high-powered evil wizard) are far greater than their chances of fighting Elminster. just because he can be used as a plot device like any of the standard munchkins doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve being statted out for the convenience of a DM.
-We still also have to contend with a separate-but-related issue: Why don't these aforementioned 'evil' high level NPCs simply going out a kill characters at low levels? At fifth level, you're working against Szass Tam. Why doesn't he just go out and kill you and your characters? If anything, that is more pronounced now, because of the emphasis on "antagonists", rather than "antagonists" and "protagonists". Just like it was not that logical that Elminster allowed PC characters to deal with world-ending plotlines, it is equally illogical that Szass Tam allows those working against him to rise in power, until they are on the same level as him, before he confronts them.
that problem is addressed (albeit unsatisfactorily) in the 3E FRCS, on page 84, in the side block "The Concerns of the Mighty"
ah, but the chances of most parties having to fight Semmemon (or a similarly high-powered evil wizard) are far greater than their chances of fighting Elminster. just because he can be used as a plot device like any of the standard munchkins doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve being statted out for the convenience of a DM.
that problem is addressed (albeit unsatisfactorily) in the 3E FRCS, on page 84, in the side block "The Concerns of the Mighty"
-The same thing can be said of Elminster, or any other random NPC: "Just because [the NPC] can be used as a plot device like any of the standard munchkins doesn't mean that [the NPC] doesn't deserve being statted out for the convenience of a DM." To apply the principle to one side, or even cite it as being problematic for one side, but not the other, is the double standard I was alluding to with Iluvrien about. Elminster, with or without stats, can ruin a campaign when used in a "destructive" way. Szass Tam, with or without stats, can ruin a campaign when used in a "destructive" way. The 'Concerns of the Mighty' covers both "good guys" and "bad guys". The Simbul's Fallacy ("So, the Chosen are problems in your campaign...") works both forward and reverse as well (The "Meldred Principle", I will call it).
-The same thing can be said of Elminster, or any other random NPC: "Just because [the NPC] can be used as a plot device like any of the standard munchkins doesn't mean that [the NPC] doesn't deserve being statted out for the convenience of a DM." To apply the principle to one side, or even cite it as being problematic for one side, but not the other, is the double standard I was alluding to with Iluvrien about. Elminster, with or without stats, can ruin a campaign when used in a "destructive" way. Szass Tam, with or without stats, can ruin a campaign when used in a "destructive" way. The 'Concerns of the Mighty' covers both "good guys" and "bad guys". The Simbul's Fallacy ("So, the Chosen are problems in your campaign...") works both forward and reverse as well (The "Meldred Principle", I will call it).
i wouldn't call it a double standard. I would call it a matter of practicality: there are limited resources to go around (in this case, space and designer effort) and they should be efficiently allocated.
In this case, DM's are presumed to use good munchkins as plot devices and baddies as things to stick swords in. because D&D is fundamentally a game of mechanics, it makes sense to stat out baddies and not munchkins considering the limitations of space and perceived utility. now, you could argue that big baddies shouldn't be statted out--and that's a fair argument.
however, the DMs out there who don't want to put a lot of time into statting out complicated high-level villains would argue with you. the argument against statting high level villains can be extended indefinitely outwards: why do we need stats for orcs or umber hulks--the DM can do that himself based on a monster's description.
while this probably takes things too far--the monstrous manual not having mechanics would be an interesting exercise in uselessness--it does illustrate a point. there are dms for whom this information is important--just as there are dms for whom huge reams of fluff on various deific feuds is also important. the game designer has to balance these needs when he allocates space and effort.
i wouldn't call it a double standard. I would call it a matter of practicality: there are limited resources to go around (in this case, space and designer effort) and they should be efficiently allocated.
-Right. Either all higher level NPCs are problematic, or none of them are. As I said before, if Elminster can swoop in and "solve everyone's problems", Szass Tam too can swoop in and "kill everyone before they can become thorns in his side". You can't have your cake and eat it too (or however that saying goes). If it is a problem for one "side", it is a problem for both "sides". If it's not a problem for one "side", it's not a problem for both "sides".
now, you could argue that big baddies shouldn't be statted out--and that's a fair argument.
-Which is what I am saying. Either "everyone", regardless of race, alignment and level should gets stats, or "no one", regardless of race, alignment and level should get stats. One "side" isn't a problem, while the other is, and vice versa. If high level characters are a problem, they all are, no matter if they're Humans or Elves, Wizards or Psions, Good or Evil, and so on.
-Myself, I prefer people to have stats, so I'd like "everyone" to get stats- the Elminsters, the Szass Tams, the Drizzts and the Sememmons of the world. I don't hinge on stats (as in, "Hey, Drizzt can't do that!"), but I prefer having them to not having them, for the sake of completeness.
however, the DMs out there who don't want to put a lot of time into statting out complicated high-level villains would argue with you. the argument against statting high level villains can be extended indefinitely outwards: why do we need stats for orcs or umber hulks--the DM can do that himself based on a monster's description.
while this probably takes things too far--the monstrous manual not having mechanics would be an interesting exercise in uselessness--it does illustrate a point. there are dms for whom this information is important--just as there are dms for whom huge reams of fluff on various deific feuds is also important. the game designer has to balance these needs when he allocates space and effort.
-There is a difference between giving a race D&D statistics, and giving an NPC D&D statistics. That aside, this only tangentially touches my point. NPCs are NPCs, regardless of use. As I said before, any NPC has the potential to mess up a game, depending on how they are use. "Good" NPCs aren't inherently more destructive to a game than "evil" NPCs are, and vice versa. As such, "highlighting" "evil" NPCs, and "hiding" "good" NPCs seems foolhardy to me. Nothing is being done except less characters are getting stats. Remember, mind you, I don't use or know anything about 4e rules. It's simply the principle I disagree with.
-Right. Either all higher level NPCs are problematic, or none of them are. As I said before, if Elminster can swoop in and "solve everyone's problems", Szass Tam too can swoop in and "kill everyone before they can become thorns in his side". You can't have your cake and eat it too (or however that saying goes). If it is a problem for one "side", it is a problem for both "sides". If it's not a problem for one "side", it's not a problem for both "sides".
I don't see how this relates to the need for statting out characters. If a DM chooses to have Elminster, or Szass Tam swoop in and ice everyone, that's up to him. Heck, he can even have a standard kobold wipe out a legion of elder dragons. As WotC constantly (and rightly) points out: It's YOUR game.
Good/bad story telling has little to do with stats. However characters acting in combat, according to the mechanics of the game have everything to do with stats. And in this case, we have to look at our space distributions: what would we like statted out? We can say that there's a need to stat out Szass--the characters may fight him. We can say the same for Elminster. But the likelihood of parties fighting Szass is much higher than for them to fight the Sage of Shadowdale... and so he is more deserving of mechanics.
-Which is what I am saying. Either "everyone", regardless of race, alignment and level should gets stats, or "no one", regardless of race, alignment and level should get stats. One "side" isn't a problem, while the other is, and vice versa. If high level characters are a problem, they all are, no matter if they're Humans or Elves, Wizards or Psions, Good or Evil, and so on.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here.
I personally don't accept that high level characters ARE a problem: I'm fine with the "Concerns of the Mighty" explanation for why the big guns aren't constantly throwing their weight around.
-Myself, I prefer people to have stats, so I'd like "everyone" to get stats- the Elminsters, the Szass Tams, the Drizzts and the Sememmons of the world. I don't hinge on stats (as in, "Hey, Drizzt can't do that!"), but I prefer having them to not having them, for the sake of completeness.
But here we have space issues. We can't stat everyone. And realistically, good DMs aren't using Elminster to fight their party's battles. As such, saying "the Simbul is the greatest Sorceror in the world" is sufficient if a DM wishes to introduce her into a campaign--she can do what the DM wants her to do without binding her to stats and spell lists. she exists to move along the plot and to build atmosphere--not to be thrown into combat alongside the party. as such, her specific mechanics are unnecessary.
the brief level abbreviations (Sor20/Wiz5/Acm5) are a compromise that i personally find excellent for good NPCs. But the baddies--I'm lazy. I don't want to have to find feats and items (weapons and armor and wands are particularly challenging) that build an appropriate difficulty level for a high-powered NPC villain.
-There is a difference between giving a race D&D statistics, and giving an NPC D&D statistics. That aside, this only tangentially touches my point. NPCs are NPCs, regardless of use. As I said before, any NPC has the potential to mess up a game, depending on how they are use. "Good" NPCs aren't inherently more destructive to a game than "evil" NPCs are, and vice versa. As such, "highlighting" "evil" NPCs, and "hiding" "good" NPCs seems foolhardy to me. Nothing is being done except less characters are getting stats. Remember, mind you, I don't use or know anything about 4e rules. It's simply the principle I disagree with.
An NPC can only mess up a campaign if a DM allows him to. End of story.
I've had high level fighters get demolished by a few goblins in the opening encounter of an adventure just due to some odd dice rolls--good DMs let you make a re-roll here or there to keep things going. Good DMs also don't let Drizzt murder everyone that the party is supposed to kill. Even if a DM wants to throw in a munchkin for flavor, a good DM doesn't let that munchkin's power break the game... which is an argument against providing a lot of detail to the munchkins.
Calls have to be made on space allocation. This is indisputable. As such, it's important to look at what is ACTUALLY used by gamers. Most gamers aren't fighting Drizzt, they aren't fighting Elminster. They ARE fighting Manshoon and Szass Tam and their ilk.
To go outside of role playing, look at the comic character of Dr. Strange. What is his role in comics? What are his powers? The answer is that he has no powers... he's a pure plot device. Something happens and he whips out the Eye of SomeTHINGorOTHER and *boom* problem solved (or not). He's the perfect munchkin.
Elminster, Khelben, the Simbul... these are the Dr. Strange's of the FR. They do what the DM wants them to do, and no more. To say that their charisma is X or they have a Spot check of Y lessens the DMs capacity to use them to their fullest extent.
The "Problem of High Level NPCs" works both ways. Just as 'good' NPCs needed to be eliminated, so that characters didn't seek them out, so too can characters seek out villainous NPCs for assistance.
ROFLMAO.
No, it doesn't work like that at all. Sure, at high levels they may end up doing exactly that, but at high levels you'd expect them to be dealing with such characters. Most groups with generally good aligned parties are never going to walk into Thay to look for Szass Tam. Hell, I don't believe my party in one of my campaigns would survive more than a couple of days into Thay if they tried that.
They're just as likely to try to gain an audience with, say, Sememmon, as that party of Paladins is to try to gain an audience with, say, Elminster.
No they aren't.
For one thing, none of my players know who Sememmon is.
All of them, even the new players, know who Elminster is.
That immediately puts a gigantic stake through your argument here.
Nothing is being "solved".
Yes it has and my current games are proving that to me quite happily compared to my observations with 3rd edition.
Why don't these aforementioned 'evil' high level NPCs simply going out a kill characters at low levels? At fifth level, you're working against Szass Tam.
Only in a particularly far proxy way. If you understand how Heroic/Paragon/Epic tiers in 4th edition function and what they represent, you are hardly directly opposing Szass Tam in 4th edition at 5th level.
And if you are, consider if you're REALLY actually opposing such a character or are you dancing to puppet strings you aren't experienced enough to realise are there?
Why doesn't he just go out and kill you and your characters?
Strictly speaking, my PCs aren't going to be directly opposing anything Szass Tam cares about until around the beginning of Paragon tier (then they'll be annoyances) and only start to significantly draw his attention in late Paragon.
And then there are the antagonists who are using the PCs because in the characters believing they are opposing the antagonists goals, they are actually directly aiding what the antagonist wants to accomplish: so why would they do something about people proving themselves useful? Maybe after of course.
it is equally illogical that Szass Tam allows those working against him to rise in power, until they are on the same level as him, before he confronts them.
It's not, unless you don't get what 4th edition represents with Heroic/Paragon/Epic tiers. A 5th level character is not opposing Szass Tam directly in 4E. At paragon and epic levels he sure is though, in fact he is within striking distance when a party is level 23/24 by the general books power level. Of course it would be obscenely hard to hit him, but once you imposed a few AC/defensive penalties or so, a party could theoretically beat him.
Now the way I've statted Szass Tam...
The design conceits of 4th Edition are all geared towards the most common occurrence, they are not geared towards the exceptions. If you are going for the exception the designers have assumed that you are a DM with advanced skills and experience, and that based on this assumption you are fully capable of developing the background necessary for your modification of the basic setting. It is designed to draw in new players, not to fully satisfy those with many years of experience. Viewing the latest edition with the perspective lens given to us from the last will always leave you with the feeling that something is missing, whereas they have in fact brought back to D&D what was ripped out of it by the 3.x edition. What I felt was missing from the last edition was an assumption that every DM's table was going to be different. Every DM was going to create an incredibly different experience in all their games without regard to the common origin. 4th edition assumes that you will. That is the default game. Your game will be different from any other D&D game regardless of the setting.
The 4th edition FR is completely playable from a beginners standpoint and is easily raised to the level of an advanced gamers standpoint. It is meant to be played in and modified, and detailed to whatever degree the DM and players want. The FRCS assumed a degree of familiarity or a base level of knowledge only a serious fan or gamer would approach. It also assumed everyone wanted the same result, the same desire from the setting. The FRCG assumes you are fully capable of defining your own desire for the campaign. It changes the FR and its supplements, and articles from a historical approach to a what if approach. It changes discussion from what is cannon, to what is cool, what is interesting to play in.
I don't see how this relates to the need for statting out characters. If a DM chooses to have Elminster, or Szass Tam swoop in and ice everyone, that's up to him.
-Right. Exactly. Alignment, race, and so on has nothing to do with anything. Therefore, the policy of giving the stats for some, who happen to be villainous, over those who happen to not be, is, like I said before, a double-standard. The DM can make Elminster "ruin" things, he/she can make Szass Tam "ruin" things, he/she can make Patty the Purple People Eater "ruin" things.
Good/bad story telling has little to do with stats. However characters acting in combat, according to the mechanics of the game have everything to do with stats. And in this case, we have to look at our space distributions: what would we like statted out? We can say that there's a need to stat out Szass--the characters may fight him. We can say the same for Elminster. But the likelihood of parties fighting Szass is much higher than for them to fight the Sage of Shadowdale... and so he is more deserving of mechanics.
-That's assuming that there's a need to stat out Szass Tam because there is a pressing need to fight him. I don't think that most campaigns go long enough for these kinds of high-level stats to be relevant to "the masses", as we're defining here. My own game, it's been going for about three years now, and my players are reaching 10th Level. Give it another three, let's say, and they're up to 20th. That's about the time they'd be fighting the proverbial Szass Tams, and I think it is safe to say that most campaigns don't last six years.
-That aside, why isn't there a pressing need to have stats for Elminster? Like we agreed on before, Good/Bad, Human/Elf, Wizard/Fighter, and so on, these things do not dictate who should and should not have stats. Elminster is an "Epic Level plotter". Just as PCs can run afoul of Szass Tam's plans, and gain his enmity, can they not do the same with Elminster? Szass Tam has stats, and so, too, should Elminster. If one doesn't have stats, neither should. If one has stats, both should.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here.
I personally don't accept that high level characters ARE a problem: I'm fine with the "Concerns of the Mighty" explanation for why the big guns aren't constantly throwing their weight around.
-I'm getting at with what you effectively agreed with me, earlier: Alignment, race, class, outlook, location, and so on don't have (or, rather, shouldn't, since this is what I am finding fault with) have a bearing on what characters get featured and which ones don't. To use any of these factors is to apply a double-standard.
But here we have space issues.
-I wasn't saying that everyone should get stats. I mean, that would be ideal, but in the end of the day, like you said, there is a limited amount of space available. And, as such, space should not be biased to lean too much to one "side" or another, as it has in the FRCG book.
An NPC can only mess up a campaign if a DM allows him to. End of story.
I've had high level fighters get demolished by a few goblins in the opening encounter of an adventure just due to some odd dice rolls--good DMs let you make a re-roll here or there to keep things going. Good DMs also don't let Drizzt murder everyone that the party is supposed to kill. Even if a DM wants to throw in a munchkin for flavor, a good DM doesn't let that munchkin's power break the game... which is an argument against providing a lot of detail to the munchkins.
Calls have to be made on space allocation. This is indisputable. As such, it's important to look at what is ACTUALLY used by gamers. Most gamers aren't fighting Drizzt, they aren't fighting Elminster. They ARE fighting Manshoon and Szass Tam and their ilk.
To go outside of role playing, look at the comic character of Dr. Strange. What is his role in comics? What are his powers? The answer is that he has no powers... he's a pure plot device. Something happens and he whips out the Eye of SomeTHINGorOTHER and *boom* problem solved (or not). He's the perfect munchkin.
Elminster, Khelben, the Simbul... these are the Dr. Strange's of the FR. They do what the DM wants them to do, and no more. To say that their charisma is X or they have a Spot check of Y lessens the DMs capacity to use them to their fullest extent.
-You seem to be missing my point. Elminster, Khelben, The Simbul...Sure, if you want to define them as the Dr. Stranges of the Forgotten Realms, the term works. Szass Tam, Manshoon, Telamont Tanthul...They, too, are Dr. Stranges.
ROFLMAO.
No, it doesn't work like that at all. Sure, at high levels they may end up doing exactly that, but at high levels you'd expect them to be dealing with such characters. Most groups with generally good aligned parties are never going to walk into Thay to look for Szass Tam. Hell, I don't believe my party in one of my campaigns would survive more than a couple of days into Thay if they tried that.
-And, "bad" parties wouldn't do this? I think it's fairly obvious (to the point that it didn't need to actually be said) that good parties wouldn't. Likewise, "bad" parties wouldn't walk to Elminster and have him "solve all of their problems". Both entities exist as the "You Win" buttons if DMs allow their respective "side" (whatever types of characters people are playing) to do so. It's not that one inherently is, while the other inherently isn't. And, that's the approach that was taken, that one "side" inherently was, while the other wasn't, which is what I believe needs to be reversed.
No they aren't.
For one thing, none of my players know who Sememmon is.
All of them, even the new players, know who Elminster is.
That immediately puts a gigantic stake through your argument here.
-That's a "problem" with your players, then (It's not actually a problem). Elminster isn't universally known as a Harper, Chosen of Mystra, Super Archmage, and so on. But, to the fanbase, which trickles into the players, they do. Likewise, the fanbase knows Sememmon as a Zhent (former), Super Magician, and so on. Thus, characters so inclined to seek out the aid of an individual more powerful than they are who are of an "evil" alignment would seek out the Sememmons of the world, just like characters so inclined to seek out the aid of an individual more powerful than they are who are of an "good" alignment will seek out the Elminsters of the world.
Yes it has and my current games are proving that to me quite happily compared to my observations with 3rd edition.
Only in a particularly far proxy way. If you understand how Heroic/Paragon/Epic tiers in 4th edition function and what they represent, you are hardly directly opposing Szass Tam in 4th edition at 5th level.
And if you are, consider if you're REALLY actually opposing such a character or are you dancing to puppet strings you aren't experienced enough to realise are there?
Strictly speaking, my PCs aren't going to be directly opposing anything Szass Tam cares about until around the beginning of Paragon tier (then they'll be annoyances) and only start to significantly draw his attention in late Paragon.
And then there are the antagonists who are using the PCs because in the characters believing they are opposing the antagonists goals, they are actually directly aiding what the antagonist wants to accomplish: so why would they do something about people proving themselves useful? Maybe after of course.
It's not, unless you don't get what 4th edition represents with Heroic/Paragon/Epic tiers. A 5th level character is not opposing Szass Tam directly in 4E. At paragon and epic levels he sure is though, in fact he is within striking distance when a party is level 23/24 by the general books power level. Of course it would be obscenely hard to hit him, but once you imposed a few AC/defensive penalties or so, a party could theoretically beat him.
Now the way I've statted Szass Tam...
-But, do you see the point? Elminster and characters of that kind are seen as nuisances because, at lower levels, DMs allow them to interfere with their games. At the same levels, DMs can have other characters, like Szass Tam, equally interfere with their games. As such, certain characters can't be labeled as inherently problematic. Both are. Or, as I prefer, both aren't.
-And, "bad" parties wouldn't do this?
No.
Are you of the opinion that evil = completely stupid? Unless you had something to offer, the only place such characters are going at low levels is probably the nearest dungeon or execution yard. If I was playing in an evil game I wouldn't think of approaching Szass Tam, Manshoon unless I absolutely knew I had something they wanted and wouldn't dispatch me immediately to get anyway.
I think it's fairly obvious (to the point that it didn't need to actually be said) that good parties wouldn't.
Funny, a history of posts on this forum and my own experience proves otherwise.
I've heard many complaints about the chosen and other similar high level Good NPCs.
I cannot ever recall reading a single post that mentioned having anywhere near a similar problem with evil NPCs. Maybe it's because it's very easy for a DM to just say "They have you brutally murdered and your bodies raised as zombies for amusement" compared to how "good" NPCs would react (especially given their personalities and general dispositions from novels).
They aren't equivalent, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
And again, have you ever RAN an evil game before? Genuinely curious, because I have and I know for a fact evil characters don't even trust one another: why on earth do you think they would be insane enough to approach the likes of Szass Tam, Manshoon or similar unless they knew they could absolutely get away with it?
That's a "problem" with your players, then (It's not actually a problem).
Actually it is a problem with high level characters in general that can occur, oddly enough, when you have high level characters in a canon world supported by novels. It isn't even totally unique to FR either.
Elminster isn't universally known as a Harper, Chosen of Mystra, Super Archmage, and so on.
In your opinion. I actually entirely disagree on this point and certain novels do indeed give such an impression.
Likewise, the fanbase knows Sememmon as a Zhent (former), Super Magician, and so on.
None of my players have a single clue who that is.
None of my past players (and I've ran evil campaigns before) have sought him out either.
Thus, characters so inclined to seek out the aid of an individual more powerful than they are who are of an "evil" alignment would seek out the Sememmons of the world
And again, one questions if you've ever actually ran an evil campaign before.
But, do you see the point? Elminster and characters of that kind are seen as nuisances because, at lower levels, DMs allow them to interfere with their games. At the same levels, DMs can have other characters, like Szass Tam, equally interfere with their games. As such, certain characters can't be labeled as inherently problematic. Both are. Or, as I prefer, both aren't.
Actually they can and you've failed to support your point logically at all. You seem to fundamentally not understand the difference that evil and good campaigns have.
An evil campaign isn't a good campaign with a different alignment Lord Karsus. Please stop insisting this is the case. Evil campaigns are entirely different. They have entirely different mood and attitude. They have entirely different group dynamics compared with a regular campaign.
And again, never once in any evil campaign I've ran have evil PCs gone looking for high level evil NPCs for help. Not only is that stupid from their point of view anyway (because they are just as likely to die horribly as anyone else), but they are generally left wondering who in their own party is going to stab them in the back first. The guy who wants to go see his "buddies" the Zhents for aid is likely to find his wine poisoned by the guy quietly serving someone else who opposes the Zhents in the party and doesn't trust him.
Pretending evil = good is ridiculous. They don't. Good aligned NPCs of high levels present different problems than evil aligned ones. Once again, I've never ever had high level evil NPCs cause an issue. *Ever*. And I have run evil campaigns.
-Right. Exactly. Alignment, race, and so on has nothing to do with anything. Therefore, the policy of giving the stats for some, who happen to be villainous, over those who happen to not be, is, like I said before, a double-standard. The DM can make Elminster "ruin" things, he/she can make Szass Tam "ruin" things, he/she can make Patty the Purple People Eater "ruin" things.
I don't believe that this particular book is following a double standard.
The problem is that in the FR, good guys tend to not fight other "good guys".
Look at Eberron for instance. There's good reason to stat out a number of characters who are morally upright and just--there's pretty good reason for PCs to go and fight them without violating their own alignments/campaign tone.
In FR, that's not really the case. You don't see G v. G--even amongst nations.
Not saying that it doesn't happen, but that its rare. And that's where we come into the limited resources argument.
-That's assuming that there's a need to stat out Szass Tam because there is a pressing need to fight him. I don't think that most campaigns go long enough for these kinds of high-level stats to be relevant to "the masses", as we're defining here. My own game, it's been going for about three years now, and my players are reaching 10th Level. Give it another three, let's say, and they're up to 20th. That's about the time they'd be fighting the proverbial Szass Tams, and I think it is safe to say that most campaigns don't last six years.
It's arguable. Some people like to jump ahead in stats, or level up quickly so that they can fight more powerful monsters. They need the really strong NPCs to go against.... are you also complaining about including exceptionally powerful dragons or monsters in the MM?
-That aside, why isn't there a pressing need to have stats for Elminster? Like we agreed on before, Good/Bad, Human/Elf, Wizard/Fighter, and so on, these things do not dictate who should and should not have stats. Elminster is an "Epic Level plotter". Just as PCs can run afoul of Szass Tam's plans, and gain his enmity, can they not do the same with Elminster? Szass Tam has stats, and so, too, should Elminster. If one doesn't have stats, neither should. If one has stats, both should.
PCs can fight Elminster. But most games won't go that way.
I'll ask you a question: do you think that it was a smart decision on the part of WotC to include the Achaierai in 3E's MM1?
imho, it wasn't. most DMs aren't going to fight it, and there are better things to put in its place. these are the calls that designers have to make, and I think WotC learned its lesson throughout 3E. In fact, I know it did because this example is from their Worlds & Monsters book.
-I'm getting at with what you effectively agreed with me, earlier: Alignment, race, class, outlook, location, and so on don't have (or, rather, shouldn't, since this is what I am finding fault with) have a bearing on what characters get featured and which ones don't. To use any of these factors is to apply a double-standard.
I don't think that these factors were the deciding ones--the factors were: are DMs going to use this NPC in their campaign? Are PCs likely to fight this NPC? Is the NPC unique enough to warrant our statting of him/her/it?
Now these are just guesses, but when you think about it they make sense AND they just happen to exclude guys like Elminster. Most PCs will NOT fight him. They probably won't fight Szass Tam either, but the likelihood of them fighting either Szass or another high level lich that a DM can use Szass' stats are significantly higher than their chances of fighting Elminster.
-I wasn't saying that everyone should get stats. I mean, that would be ideal, but in the end of the day, like you said, there is a limited amount of space available. And, as such, space should not be biased to lean too much to one "side" or another, as it has in the FRCG book.
I don't believe the decision to include/exclude was based on "side" but on adventure utility.
There's a great line in Worlds & Monsters: We don't want to waste space on things players can't use.
-You seem to be missing my point. Elminster, Khelben, The Simbul...Sure, if you want to define them as the Dr. Stranges of the Forgotten Realms, the term works. Szass Tam, Manshoon, Telamont Tanthul...They, too, are Dr. Stranges.
You don't stick a sword in Dr. Strange--you do stick one in Manshoon.
No.
Are you of the opinion that evil = completely stupid? Unless you had something to offer, the only place such characters are going at low levels is probably the nearest dungeon or execution yard. If I was playing in an evil game I wouldn't think of approaching Szass Tam, Manshoon unless I absolutely knew I had something they wanted and wouldn't dispatch me immediately to get anyway.
-Of course they would. Lower-level "good" parties seem to "run to" Elminster, and others, often enough. Likewise, with players who are inclined to do so that are in "evil" parties will do the same. Does everyone do this? No, not everyone. In the same vein, not everyone runs to Elminster for help/solutions/etc. either. Those with the propensity to do are are going to do so. I know, if I were in a player in an organization with some sort of hierarchy, I'd probably report to my superiors about something, if I believed the need existed.
Funny, a history of posts on this forum and my own experience proves otherwise.
I've heard many complaints about the chosen and other similar high level Good NPCs.
-I've heard of people who have known people, who have heart that other people...and so on, but it isn't at all common to see people posting directly how their players ran to see Elminster, or whoever else. That, I think, is one of those illusions that have evolved over the years, that everyone does it/it happens to everyone, no matter what/etc. Just like every single little detail has already been detailed, and that there's no room for a singular person to develop their own stuff, or there's a 20th Level magician every under stone.
I cannot ever recall reading a single post that mentioned having anywhere near a similar problem with evil NPCs. Maybe it's because it's very easy for a DM to just say "They have you brutally murdered and your bodies raised as zombies for amusement" compared to how "good" NPCs would react (especially given their personalities and general dispositions from novels).
They aren't equivalent, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
And again, have you ever RAN an evil game before? Genuinely curious, because I have and I know for a fact evil characters don't even trust one another: why on earth do you think they would be insane enough to approach the likes of Szass Tam, Manshoon or similar unless they knew they could absolutely get away with it?
-I've run an "evil" Star Wars game, but never an "evil" D&D game. Settings and characters aside, it's all basically the same thing. That game didn't last very long, though. Three games, in total.
-Players who have the propensity to "push" problems that they have on other, higher-level characters (Let's say, they found a rip in reality that is slowly absorbing the Material Plane) are going to do so whether or not they are playing "good" characters, "neutral" characters, "unaligned" characters, or "evil" characters. That's a character trait of the people playing the characters, rather than the characters themselves. If you work for the Harpers, and find something that you think your superior needs to address, you pass on the information. If you work for the Zhentarim, and find something that you think your superior needs to address, you pass on the information.
Actually it is a problem with high level characters in general that can occur, oddly enough, when you have high level characters in a canon world supported by novels. It isn't even totally unique to FR either.
-Nope. I've played in a Star Wars game where we were Rebel operatives on Ord Mandell, a fairly neutral, out-of-the-way place, in terms of how all of that goes. Every time something fairly important happened (in terms of what happened on the planet), one of the characters always insisted that we alert Luke Skywalker. Mind you, this was after the destruction of the Death Star and all, but given who we all were and where we all came from, there was probably a good chance that our characters didn't even know who Luke Skywalker was.
In your opinion. I actually entirely disagree on this point and certain novels do indeed give such an impression.
-No, not in my opinion. It is canon fact that Elminster is not widely known as a savior to the proverbial masses. Most know him as a eccentric sage. A smaller few know him as a Wizard. A smaller few know him as a Harper. An even smaller few still know him as a Chosen of Mystra. Certain novels do give the impression that he is a word famous celebrity, that I agree with. The impression that certain novels give isn't how things are "in reality", though.
None of my players have a single clue who that is.
None of my past players (and I've ran evil campaigns before) have sought him out either.
-We can then use the situation of a group of fans who don't know who Elminster is, or don't know his relative significance to simulate the same thing, then, on the "flip side" of the coin; they're not going to bother with someone they don't know. For a while, I did not know who Elminster was, or why people talked about him so much. The fanbase, on the whole, knows who Elminster is, or who Sememmon is, and so on.
And again, one questions if you've ever actually ran an evil campaign before.
-Alignment of the characters doesn't matter; this is something that certain types of players in certain types of situations do.
Actually they can and you've failed to support your point logically at all. You seem to fundamentally not understand the difference that evil and good campaigns have.
-At this point, we are talking about characters, not campaigns. Characters, because of their alignments, are not more or less relatively problematic than others, in relation to the campaign. Elminster isn't any more or less problematic in a good/evil game than Sememmon is in a good/evil game. As such, certain characters shouldn't be minimalized for one point, while others aren't, on the exact same point.
An evil campaign isn't a good campaign with a different alignment Lord Karsus. Please stop insisting this is the case. Evil campaigns are entirely different. They have entirely different mood and attitude. They have entirely different group dynamics compared with a regular campaign.
-None of that changes the propensity for players to do certain things, as players, or for NPCs to be inherently problematic or not, Aegeri.
And again, never once in any evil campaign I've ran have evil PCs gone looking for high level evil NPCs for help. Not only is that stupid from their point of view anyway (because they are just as likely to die horribly as anyone else), but they are generally left wondering who in their own party is going to stab them in the back first. The guy who wants to go see his "buddies" the Zhents for aid is likely to find his wine poisoned by the guy quietly serving someone else who opposes the Zhents in the party and doesn't trust him.
-In the aforementioned Star Wars game in which the characters worked for the Empire, their commanding officer- they were the Empire's equivalent of Army Rangers- made sure that they inform him of any funny business going on at once. The plot of the game involved a possible spy on the base. I never actually got the point to use much of what I had in mind...But, anyway, insisting that "evil" characters keep to themselves, are prone to killing each other, and so on and such is not realistic. You mentioned "Evil = Stupid" somewhere earlier. I think such behavior is much more suited towards "Evil = Stupid".
Pretending evil = good is ridiculous. They don't. Good aligned NPCs of high levels present different problems than evil aligned ones. Once again, I've never ever had high level evil NPCs cause an issue. *Ever*. And I have run evil campaigns.
-I don't recall saying that evil is good. I can, in fact, recall typing "good" and "evil" numerous times, which shows to me that I am keeping the two terms separate. I have a paper cut on one of my typing fingers, so I'm avoiding using it, which is making typing that much more annoying.
-Of course they would. Lower-level "good" parties seem to "run to" Elminster, and others, often enough. Likewise, with players who are inclined to do so that are in "evil" parties will do the same.
No?
I had a problem player of those often described be perfectly normal in an evil campaign. I can't recall him wanting to meet Szass Tam at all or anyone else for that matter.
Again, disproving your assertion they are equivalent. Once again, they aren't.
That, I think, is one of those illusions that have evolved over the years, that everyone does it/it happens to everyone, no matter what/etc.
Funny, I never wrote that utterly anywhere, but I know it does happen and considerably often. The same NPCs are repeatedly mentioned and complained about.
None of those NPCs are evil.
Edit: Wait, I forgot the most obvious obnoxious and complained about evil NPC: Shar. My mistake (minding how I could have forgot that is a bit embarassing).
I've run an "evil" Star Wars game, but never an "evil" D&D game. Settings and characters aside, it's all basically the same thing. That game didn't last very long, though. Three games, in total.
Evil Star Wars IMO is actually different from DnD. Star Wars is entirely Black and White by design actually with a clearly defined "Dark Side" and a clearly defined "Light Side". On the other hand, you still have the same core problems with Sith characters where everyone wants to murder everyone else.
But again, in my experience running evil DnD games I've never had the same problematic PCs we often talk about do anything similar in an evil campaign. I know why this is now: many of them have no idea who these guys are and in an evil campaign, there is obviously a logical idea that "Evil people are going to kill me first".
And that difference in attitude makes them VERY different to their approaches.
Players who have the propensity to "push" problems that they have on other, higher-level characters (Let's say, they found a rip in reality that is slowly absorbing the Material Plane) are going to do so whether or not they are playing "good" characters, "neutral" characters, "unaligned" characters, or "evil" characters. That's a character trait of the people playing the characters, rather than the characters themselves.
Not true at all.
People in an evil campaign do things they would never do in a regular campaign. I played with the same people for over a year in a heroic campaign without an issue. The same people in an evil campaign disintegrated in a matter of weeks: Playing an evil campaign requires an entirely different mindset from your players and its not something that works for every group.
BECAUSE EVIL IS DIFFERENT INHERENTLY.
No, not in my opinion. It is canon fact that Elminster is not widely known as a savior to the proverbial masses.
Recent novels contradict that, where the main characters are clearly aware of Elminster and even writes as such that he is fairly well known to others. I'm afraid you can't just "pick and choose" your canon LK just because you disagree with it. "Canon" doesn't work like that.
The fanbase, on the whole, knows who Elminster is, or who Sememmon is, and so on.
I am playing with 17 people in 3 campaigns.
All of them can identify Elminster.
Not one of them knows who Sememmon is.
That's all the argument I need here, because I've played in FR easily with 30+ different people over the years due to shifting house, different groups, people moving on and such. All of them can tell me who Drizzt is, Elminster is and have a vague idea about the chosen.
None of them would know who many of the high level evil NPCs are.
Alignment of the characters doesn't matter; this is something that certain types of players in certain types of situations do.
And you're flat out, completely and off base here, indicating that you haven't really tried playing a lot of "evil" nature campaigns. I know you're wrong here and I will NOT concede this point at all. I have had these people before (see earlier posts from me in this forum for me) and these people react entirely different in an evil campaign. Evil campaigns turn normal, perfectly fine players into douchebags and people who are ordinarily idiots who heavily disrupt a group into delightful maniacal geniuses who actually enhance the game.
Characters, because of their alignments, are not more or less relatively problematic than others, in relation to the campaign.
2nd/3rd edition Paladins with Detect Evil. Go searching on way back or similar sites for discussions in "What's a DM to do" about Paladins and detect evil (as a special example). Go searching for "My player is evil in a group of good characters, what do I do" as another example. Go searching for "How do I run an evil campaign" or better, look at the recent DDI article talking about evil campaigns which makes my point for me.
Alignment makes a gigantic difference to how a player will approach and play a game of DnD on the Good/Evil scale. You are COMPLETELY incorrect here.
Elminster isn't any more or less problematic in a good/evil game than Sememmon is in a good/evil game.
I can't see this at all.
You have not ever ran a evil campaign in DnD (from what you've said earlier)
I have run both.
I have run both good aligned "Heroic" campaigns and evil aligned "Villainous" campaigns in FR.
I have had the classic "problematic" player who tries to go looking for high level good NPCs to solve their problems. I have had the exact same player in an evil campaign completely change the way they act. They did not go "Let's go run off to Semmemon for help", because for one he wouldn't know who that is and second, he was too busy backstabbing everyone else in the group. In fact, in my experience evil characters spend so much time stabbing one another in the back, actually going to someone else even MORE powerful and evil than themselves is anathema.
As such, certain characters shouldn't be minimalized for one point, while others aren't, on the exact same point.
But it's not the same. You've failed to prove that and everything you've written is contrary to everything I have ever read on this. I've read this forum for years, even longer than you and nothing you write matches with my experiences, and what many others have written. Especially about "evil" campaigns.
The plot of the game involved a possible spy on the base. I never actually got the point to use much of what I had in mind...But, anyway, insisting that "evil" characters keep to themselves, are prone to killing each other, and so on and such is not realistic.
Once again, one would encourage you to go searching the forum or even read the recent DDI article.
I'll quote the important bit of it for this, because the designers have the same understanding I do:
That's good advice at all times, but even moreso when evil is involved. As the Dragonlance saying goes, "evil turns on itself." When there is evil in the party, at some point in the campaign, things get selfish. Characters will not only battle the monsters, they'll also end up competing against one another. This is fun provided that you and the players know what you're getting into and treat it as fun. As soon as it stops being fun, stop the game. Maybe not the campaign, but don't let an interesting storytelling experiment get in the way of a good time. In literature, evil may be the easy path to power, but when it comes to campaigns, it is a harder to maintain.
So that is, in many ways the core problem of evil campaigns summed up very nicely (actually the entire article is good advice).
You mentioned "Evil = Stupid" somewhere earlier. I think such behavior is much more suited towards "Evil = Stupid".
Turning on one another is the nature of evil. It's part of why players want to play evil characters, so they can in fact end up doing things they wouldn't normally do (including stabbing their fellows in the back).
I don't recall saying that evil is good. I can, in fact, recall typing "good" and "evil" numerous times, which shows to me that I am keeping the two terms separate.
Except for your fundamental misunderstanding that comes through in your posts that you don't seem to understand there is a DEEP difference in how players do play an evil/good campaign. Everything you've wrote to me seems to indicate you think evil players do the same things good ones do: they don't. Not at all. One thing they don't do is deliberately get themselves enthralled to more powerful evil things if they aren't entirely stupid.
I suggest you search these forums and read "Save my game: Love me some Evil" to appreciate the differences in running an evil campaign. They are completely and absolutely not the same.
And neither do the same players react the same playing in a campaign where they are evil vs. good.
The FRCS...assumed everyone wanted the same result, the same desire from the setting.
How so? Can you cite some clear examples of this, directly from the book?
How so? Can you cite some clear examples of this, directly from the book?
It is clearly a matter of opinion, not to mention the fact that the comment you quoted is already being set up in an out of context manner. I will however indulge you by stating that to me the entire writing style, and content of the FRCS pushes for a world sim. The degree of detail will naturally suggest to a DM that the setting needs to be played or ran a certain way. For a beginning DM this is a poor method of introduction to the setting, especially if he is also a first time player. The FRCG has made the setting more accessible for newer players while assuming that advanced DM's will do what they have always done, which is to cut and add as needed for their group of players. I love my FRCS, but I always felt much of the information was pretty pointless, and generally useless for most games, but it made for a good read. The FRCG is not a good read, but there really is not much waste. It is as I stated my opinion, not fact.
Please remember people are entitled to opinions.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I think what is often missed is the fact that 4th Edition D&D and 4th Edition FR are written from the point of view of a movie director, a storyteller, or a writer. They are written from a behind the scenes view, and attempt to distill what a good DM does in a multitude of different ways to an easy to follow formula. Why don't the Good NPC's and Evil NPC's involve themselves in the plans of your low level PC's? They essentially neutralize each other, how this happens or why is ultimately meaningless in respect to most and I repeat most stories. The game is geared towards heroic play, not "villainous" play so the material is geared towards the largest audience possible.
The design conceits of 4th Edition are all geared towards the most common occurrence, they are not geared towards the exceptions. If you are going for the exception the designers have assumed that you are a DM with advanced skills and experience, and that based on this assumption you are fully capable of developing the background necessary for your modification of the basic setting. It is designed to draw in new players, not to fully satisfy those with many years of experience. Viewing the latest edition with the perspective lens given to us from the last will always leave you with the feeling that something is missing, whereas they have in fact brought back to D&D what was ripped out of it by the 3.x edition. What I felt was missing from the last edition was an assumption that every DM's table was going to be different. Every DM was going to create an incredibly different experience in all their games without regard to the common origin. 4th edition assumes that you will. That is the default game. Your game will be different from any other D&D game regardless of the setting.
The 4th edition FR is completely playable from a beginners standpoint and is easily raised to the level of an advanced gamers standpoint. It is meant to be played in and modified, and detailed to whatever degree the DM and players want. The FRCS assumed a degree of familiarity or a base level of knowledge only a serious fan or gamer would approach. It also assumed everyone wanted the same result, the same desire from the setting. The FRCG assumes you are fully capable of defining your own desire for the campaign. It changes the FR and its supplements, and articles from a historical approach to a what if approach. It changes discussion from what is canon, to what is cool, what is interesting to play in.
well put--particularly your last sentence.
The 4th edition FR is completely playable from a beginners standpoint and is easily raised to the level of an advanced gamers standpoint...
I'm glad we're all on the same page finally.
I guess I can skip right over that and play 3P - the edition for people with experience under their belt.
Anyhow, enough of the 'smart-ass' comments for a sec. I happen to agree with this philosophy - I actually support the design concepts that went into making 4e - the desire to bring it back to the game it was, that DMs controlled, not rulebooks.
However, I also feel 4e missed the mark completely, and despite the best of intentions, it wasn't nearly as good as I had imagined it would be.
When I looked over the previews (rules, NOT setting), I was very excited to see the designers had a lot of the same quibbles I myself did. After seeing the final product, I realized that somewhere along the way they 'over-designed' everything, and also boiled out the flavor.
I'm not knocking anyone for liking it, nor am I knocking WotC's efforts for trying to improve the game... I just think the quality of the product fell WAY SHORT of the mark.
So you guys agree then, that 4th edition is built from the ground-up for beginners?
I'm glad we're all on the same page finally.
No, actually we are not the setting book is designed for beginners. The game is designed to allow the full spectrum of play, and benefits the most in the hands of an experienced DM...
I guess I can skip right over that and play 3P - the edition for people with experience under their belt.
...whereas 3.x needed to be drugged, beaten, and tied up by an experienced DM to provide a modicum of pleasure. Beginners need not apply because we gave you a completely broken product right out of the box and you won't know for quite some time.
Anyhow, enough of the 'smart-ass' comments for a sec.
I guess I will follow suit.
I happen to agree with this philosophy - I actually support the design concepts that went into making 4e - the desire to bring it back to the game it was, that DMs controlled, not rulebooks.
However, I also feel 4e missed the mark completely, and despite the best of intentions, it wasn't nearly as good as I had imagined it would be.
Your comments were my initial reaction until I actually read everything (not saying you did not) without my 3.x glasses on, and realized they had produced the best designed edition yet.
When I looked over the previews (rules, NOT setting), I was very excited to see the designers had a lot of the same quibbles I myself did. After seeing the final product, I realized that somewhere along the way they 'over-designed' everything, and also boiled out the flavor.
The flavor removal was intentional, and the best thing they ever did to encourage DM's to run the game the way they want, to even suggest that they describe the action. 4th edition is designed to encourage players to come up with cool descriptions of even the most basic maneuvers, it is designed for a faster, looser, from the hip style of gameplay, because the mechanics are nowhere near as crunchy as 3.x. It promotes impromptu plans, sudden maneuvers, and descriptive narrative as its default, whereas 3.x encouraged you to roll...for everything.
I'm not knocking anyone for liking it, nor am I knocking WotC's efforts for trying to improve the game... I just think the quality of the product fell WAY SHORT of the mark.
I am not knocking you for liking 3.x, I applaud WotC for coming out with a superior product, and look forward to them continuing to exceed expectations.
Seriously MT I think your opinion is valuable, but I don't think you get 4th Edition, because everything you say screams 3.x colored glasses. Until you get rid of the glasses you won't get it.
No, actually we are not the setting book is designed for beginners. The game is designed to allow the full spectrum of play, and benefits the most in the hands of an experienced DM...
...whereas 3.x needed to be drugged, beaten, and tied up by an experienced DM to provide a modicum of pleasure. Beginners need not apply because we gave you a completely broken product right out of the box and you won't know for quite some time.
I guess I will follow suit.
Your comments were my initial reaction until I actually read everything (not saying you did not) without my 3.x glasses on, and realized they had produced the best designed edition yet.
The flavor removal was intentional, and the best thing they ever did to encourage DM's to run the game the way they want, to even suggest that they describe the action. 4th edition is designed to encourage players to come up with cool descriptions of even the most basic maneuvers, it is designed for a faster, looser, from the hip style of gameplay, because the mechanics are nowhere near as crunchy as 3.x. It promotes impromptu plans, sudden maneuvers, and descriptive narrative as its default, whereas 3.x encouraged you to roll...for everything.
I am not knocking you for liking 3.x, I applaud WotC for coming out with a superior product, and look forward to them continuing to exceed expectations.
Seriously MT I think your opinion is valuable, but I don't think you get 4th Edition, because everything you say screams 3.x colored glasses. Until you get rid of the glasses you won't get it.
Not many writers would agree. Also, if I could create and write like Ed Greenwood can I'd have little use for (any version of) the Realms as a roleplaying setting.
I think the FRCS was too much of an encyclopedia or catalogue. I think the answer is to give better guidance on the overall shape of the lore and how to use it. If I thought it was to stop producing additional lore entirely past a pretty basic point, I still wouldn't countenance imposing that philosophy on a world built on a different one, assuming no extreme situation like my livelihood being at stake.
'Cause, to me, it sounds like in the latter part you are agreeing.
I'm too tired to deal with it myself. ;)
FRCS = WIN
FRCG = FAIL
Not being a 'negative nelly' here, just being honest. When I first read the FRCS, I couldn't put it down. With the FRCG, I could barely force myself to keep reading it.
It wasn't because of what they did either... it was just... mediocre, at best. If Ed had written the exact same descriptions they did (as far as history and regional info goes), I may have still hated what they did, but at least I would have found it interesting.
Its like watching the world coming to an end.. and all you want to do is go to bed. If your going to destroy something, at least do it with style and and hold my interest.
It wasn't even good as 'shock value'.
Its simple basic arithmatic...
FRCS = WIN
FRCG = FAIL
Not be a 'negative nelly' here, just being honest. Wgen I first read the FRCS, I couldn't put it down. With the FRCG, I could barely force myself to keep reading it.
-Well, that is a personal opinion, there, skewed by a few factors that we know about you and the whats/whys/and so ons you like things.
-I do like that it is, at least a new term, rather than Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting again.
Your comments were my initial reaction until I actually read everything (not saying you did not) without my 3.x glasses on, and realized they had produced the best designed edition yet.
Seriously MT I think your opinion is valuable, but I don't think you get 4th Edition, because everything you say screams 3.x colored glasses. Until you get rid of the glasses you won't get it.
You are right, and I really shouldn't be commenting on a game I have never played.
I've said a few times in other threads I am looking forward to trying it out, but I don't want to DM it, so I need to find a group playing it.
And I gave 4eFR a fair chance, and it disappointed me - both the setting books, and the one 4e novel I have read - it simply doesn't have enough 'meat' to hold my interest anymore. At least now, however, I do not feel like a hypocrite for knocking the setting. I gave it the fairest chance possible, by reading a novel by an author I not only enjoy, but respect.
Unfortunely... you know the rest.
Kerym, your argument seems to assume that it's easier to create missing lore you want than to ignore lore you don't.
Here is the thing. I started running FR when the Grey Box first came out. This was the best product, TSR ever put out for the game, well at least to me, at the time. Every page dripped with ideas to run games, and no one knew how the setting was going to develop.
Compare this to the FRCS. The FRCS hands you everything, is encyclopedia like in detail, and size. There was no sense of wonder for me opening it, campaign ideas did not leap off the page. I cannot imagine a first time player/DM getting really excited over it. The FRCG takes me back to the feelings I had when I first read the Grey Box materials, and side by side compares very well in substance.
As to it being easier to create lore than ignore it. No it is not, but the lore creates itself in game for one, and it is not so much for me to ignore as it is for my players. If you play in the FR and you have read all the novels, and all the supplements, your character might be surprised about finding out a bit of lore, but you are not. You can't excise from your mind the fact that you already knew.
Not many writers would agree. Also, if I could create and write like Ed Greenwood can I'd have little use for (any version of) the Realms as a roleplaying setting.
Not all of us can write well, but it does not require writing ability to come up with lore, for your campaign.
I think the FRCS was too much of an encyclopedia or catalogue. I think the answer is to give better guidance on the overall shape of the lore and how to use it. If I thought it was to stop producing additional lore entirely past a pretty basic point, I still wouldn't countenance imposing that philosophy on a world built on a different one, assuming no extreme situation like my livelihood being at stake.
In some ways I wish they had simply progressed ten years and not been drastic, however I know I would not be enjoying running games in the FR as much as I am. All the lore from the FR past is now at my fingertips for immediate use. There is not a piece of it I would shy away from, because it won't force me to modify future product to fit into my campaign. This is also ignoring the fact that the lore from previous incarnations of the printed realms, is in fact still relevant to the 4eFR. I realize many would argue that this is not the case, and if we want to really get into a discussion of how the old lore is completely relevant to the new setting, it might provide for an interesting conversation, but I don't think this thread is the place to do it. Lastly they did not choose to stop producing lore, the novel line is still going, and I am sure if there is demand you will see supplements for FR, just don't be surprised if it is digital, or P.O.D..
Kerym, your argument seems to assume that it's easier to create missing lore you want than to ignore lore you don't.
This will depend on who you are playing with. Some people it's easier to put things into gaps because if there are gaps then nobody objects to what you do. In some cases, with some people when you want to change something that exists people can get particularly upset with you.
This is in fact a two way street, something you like to ignore it seems when making your points.
Not many writers would agree. Also, if I could create and write like Ed Greenwood can I'd have little use for (any version of) the Realms as a roleplaying setting.
I can write quite happily. I like to have a skeleton that I put the organs and meat on. I do not like to have a whole body and the toenail is mine.
But then again, some people prefer that because it's much less work to have a whole body than it is to make one from a skeleton. That's fine.
And again, this reminds me of first edition and the way things were back then. I do not buy a campaign setting for an extension of novel metaplot and detailing novel characters. I buy a campaign setting for a campaign setting and a place to run games in that campaign setting. 4E functions far better for me as a campaign setting than 3rd editions FRCS does, which felt like an encyclopaedia of various Faerunian lore and less like something giving me ideas how to begin writing a campaign in the realms.
You are right, and I really shouldn't be commenting on a game I have never played.
I've said a few times in other threads I am looking forward to trying it out, but I don't want to DM it, so I need to find a group playing it.
And I gave 4eFR a fair chance, and it disappointed me - both the setting books, and the one 4e novel I have read - it simply doesn't have enough 'meat' to hold my interest anymore. At least now, however, I do not feel like a hypocrite for knocking the setting. I gave it the fairest chance possible, by reading a novel by an author I not only enjoy, but respect.
Unfortunely... you know the rest.
Unfortunately I do know the rest, and the 4eFR is once again meant to be played in. I really hope you have the opportunity to play in a well run 4eFR campaign, it might change your opinion on things especially if your DM really understands the new setting, and what it brings to the table.
Also for the record:
FRCS = Win
FRCG = Win if you are not chained to the FRCS by what amounts to emotion
Anyway, I hope you get a chance to play.
Odd side note that may have been mentioned but it is interesting that they now call it a campaign guide rather than setting.
Sorry I missed this, but I have consistently addressed this point in all my posts, just not in so obvious a manner.
FRCS = Read about it
FRCG = Play in it
There we go some simple arithmetic.
Sorry I missed this, but I have consistently addressed this point in all my posts, just not in so obvious a manner.
FRCS = Read about it
FRCG = Play in it
There we go some simple arithmetic.
I know. That was the observation I was (poorly) making, it's notable only that I wonder how much thought went into the book name = book intent.
I know. That was the observation I was (poorly) making, it's notable only that I wonder how much thought went into the book name = book intent.
I think quite a bit, of course I am completely sold on 4e and 4eFR. I have run more D&D in the last six months than I have since 1992. The 3.x years were a desert to me, I ran two very brief games. Now I am DMing with the joy I had in high school for the game (of course that was 1st edition). Anyway with my obvious bias explained/exposed I do believe they made a conscious effort to emphasize game play throughout the book, including the name of the book. Everything about this edition has been geared towards game play, and I can see smart marketing top to bottom of the entire line. This is also the first time I have seen any D&D edition have a coherent long term business plan.
Anyway we must be careful or we will take this into EDITION WARS and the posts may get edited.
I think quite a bit, of course I am completely sold on 4e and 4eFR. I have run more D&D in the last six months than I have since 1992. The 3.x years were a desert to me, I ran two very brief games. Now I am DMing with the joy I had in high school for the game (of course that was 1st edition).
Yeah hopefully I'll finally get a game started in the next few weeks, just waiting for our last 3.5 game to wind down, RL has delayed the finish by nearly 6 months!
I haven't looked forward to running a game this much since I ran 'Night in the Underdark', an AD&D campaign, good one too. I salute the Justicars of Milborne, they made a little part of Cormyr that much safer.
Only thing I'm struggling with is what world to set it, homebrew, POL or adapt a published campaign and ultimately the direction I want it taking.
Anyway with my obvious bias explained/exposed I do believe they made a conscious effort to emphasize game play throughout the book, including the name of the book. Everything about this edition has been geared towards game play, and I can see smart marketing top to bottom of the entire line. This is also the first time I have seen any D&D edition have a coherent long term business plan.
Mmm, I really love this edition and I can definitely see they have a game plan, not sure it's that coherent though ;) . Too many delays, poorly thought out customer responses, their a lot better now mind but until they finish delivering the DDI they'll still see a lot of griping I think. However wrong forum for this discussion.
Back on point the FRCG, a good book to get a DM started giving a brief top down view of Faerun and it's component parts. A bit too bland and sparse for my tastes but I grew up in a different time and generally prefer more emotive and qualitative text. I had much the same problem with the FRCS although that also was too mechanical for my liking. I think if your just coming into the game it's a decent starting point but drivethru RPG and its pre 3.5 FR will be decent top up till Dragon catches up.
I've said a few times in other threads I am looking forward to trying it out, but I don't want to DM it, so I need to find a group playing it.
I'm with you on this point.
I would really be up for some of the screwballs around here joining a webcast gaming group to see how it goes.
I'm with you on this point.
I would really be up for some of the screwballs around here joining a webcast gaming group to see how it goes.
I'd listen to that :D .
Love to play if it weren't for that damn 6-8 hour time difference.
I'd listen to that :D .
Love to play if it weren't for that damn 6-8 hour time difference.
Well, stop being a European already!! CENSORED-noodle!
I would be up for it if I had this precious commodity known as scheduled time. I am hard pressed just keeping to my weekly game. Of course if I get this cushy job with the GOV I applied for... this might change.
Dude. I don't know if you have ever worked with the government before, but you get one of two deals: Whenever to Whenever or Real Early to Real Late. In which, both can pretty much end up the same.
Dude. I don't know if you have ever worked with the government before, but you get one of two deals: Whenever to Whenever or Real Early to Real Late. In which, both can pretty much end up the same.
I had the pleasur eof being at their disposal 24/7 for 6 years in the Marine Corps. Now I am looking at a Facility Manager position at a VA hospital. They don't operate that way, unless the **** hits the fan. Certainly more predictable than being self employed.
Well, stop being a European already!! CENSORED-noodle!
Fortunately as a Welshman I'm not
. I will under duress acknowledge myself as a British citizen. ;)First of all, the Loudwater section... I honestly can't recall the last time I saw something this bad published for FR (yes, even the fabled Marco Volo-series included) -- 'Once around the Realms'-novel, maybe, but I think it's a close tie. All the NPCs, the town map ('Four from Cormyr' is the last FR product, to my knowledge, to have maps this bad -- not to mention that the number of 40+ buildings couldn't house all the inhabitants by any living standards), the adventures... by Mystra's Lost Spell, I almost wept as I read it!
Secondly, how many "non-combatant" (as "not meant to be killed by the PCs") NPCs with backgrounds are there in the book? How many shops, merchant companies, city/town/village maps? I may be wrong, but I can't recall a single one of them.
Thirdly, how much 'current clack' stuff, or rumours? Poisons? Spellbooks and tomes? I loved that stuff in the Gray Boxed Set. How about deities... although the Gray Boxed Set didn't contain too much info on each deity, it did, at least, have descriptions on how they're usually depicted and seen by mortals.
I'm still using the good old Gray Boxed Set at every session -- I value it more than many 3E supplements, and I constantly find new details and pieces of lore on its pages, even after all these years.
I know that the "burden" of history and details in FR was too much for a lot of people, but I still prefer it to the "blank" slate. If you or your players don't care about the layout/map of the village, or what the blacksmith's and innkeeper's names are, that's fine -- but I do, and my players as well (and I better know his hair color and the name of his wife, too! ;)). Ergo, the "new" Realms, for me, require as much work as starting to write a new "homebrewed" setting (which is actually probably a bit easier, since I could disregard all those inconsistencies in 4E FR).
*Asgetrion teleports back to Candlekeep*
Just popping in to comment on something several posters have said... namely about the comparison between the 1E Gray Boxed Set and FRCG. Now, I've only read it through a couple of times when it came out (i.e. I don't own it, and would not buy it even if we switched to 4E), but I would never, *ever* even mention the two in the same sentence.
First of all, the Loudwater section... I honestly can't recall the last time I saw something this bad published for FR (yes, even the fabled Marco Volo-series included) -- 'Once around the Realms'-novel, maybe, but I think it's a close tie. All the NPCs, the town map ('Four from Cormyr' is the last FR product, to my knowledge, to have maps this bad -- not to mention that the number of 40+ buildings couldn't house all the inhabitants by any living standards), the adventures... by Mystra's Lost Spell, I almost wept as I read it!
Secondly, how many "non-combatant" (as "not meant to be killed by the PCs") NPCs with backgrounds are there in the book? How many shops, merchant companies, city/town/village maps? I may be wrong, but I can't recall a single one of them.
Thirdly, how much 'current clack' stuff, or rumours? Poisons? Spellbooks and tomes? I loved that stuff in the Gray Boxed Set. How about deities... although the Gray Boxed Set didn't contain too much info on each deity, it did, at least, have descriptions on how they're usually depicted and seen by mortals.
I'm still using the good old Gray Boxed Set at every session -- I value it more than many 3E supplements, and I constantly find new details and pieces of lore on its pages, even after all these years.
I know that the "burden" of history and details in FR was too much for a lot of people, but I still prefer it to the "blank" slate. If you or your players don't care about the layout/map of the village, or what the blacksmith's and innkeeper's names are, that's fine -- but I do, and my players as well (and I better know his hair color and the name of his wife, too! ;)). Ergo, the "new" Realms, for me, require as much work as starting to write a new "homebrewed" setting (which is actually probably a bit easier, since I could disregard all those inconsistencies in 4E FR).
*Asgetrion teleports back to Candlekeep*
You know I have seen you post elsewhere and I fully respect your old school point of view, however if you took a moment to really read the 4eFR as a complete beginner you would see the similarity between it and the Old Grey Box. It has a similar level of detail, however it is not written as well as Ed did it in the first place. While I hate Ed's writing novel wise, I loved his writing style when it relates to the game. When you mention how many bartenders of "x" level are described in the FRCG it makes me want to cry because you are missing the point of the FR which was to tell stories. That level of detail has rightfully been left to the storytellers now, the DM's of the FR vis the people making money off of RSE's. Their is a middle ground, and the pendulum will eventually move to the middle where it belongs, where it once was, in the beginning. Patience is what I advise, our setting started before the internet existed, and all it promotes is now, now, now. Give the story a chance to evolve, we did it before.
Tonight I went to buy the DMG to look at that and couldn't resist buying the FRCG, because I love FR. I got back at about 8 and immediately started reading. At about 9:30 I decided I was returning it and went on a rant about how horrible the book is to my room mate. Disregarding the fact that the setting was bent over backwards so far it's spine broke so that it would fit the drastically changed mechanics/cosmology/etc. and the fact that most of the major changes and guttings were explained in terse, uninteresting sentences, the book is just atrociously organized. It also makes me feel manipulated in a sense. The large text and almost complete omission of crunch was such a blatant way of forcing me to buy the Player's Guide to make the campaign mechanically workable that I felt somewhat betrayed and abused as a repeat consumer.
The distinct lack of both quality and quantity here is upsetting. I've only been into D&D since 3.5, so I can't imagine what longer time FR fans must be feeling. Yikes. Our of five Beholders I'd give it the rotting corpse of a Gibberling.
LK, how do you feel about the split of crunch and general setting fluff into two seperate books? It seems like a manipulative money grab, and I'm wondering whether it influenced your opinion in a way you may not have made.
-It didn't influence my rating of the books. It influenced my opinion, in general, though. Personally, I think it's an extremely stupid idea- of course, not monetarily. Like you said, it allows them to more-or-less double their profits. Players need the information in the FRCG to make up characters (It's hard to make up a character with a halfway decent background if you know nothing [or relatively nothing] about the setting). Otherwise, you end up with the famous Undead Werewolf Sha'ir Ninja Half-Drow Half-Yeti from Calimport, trained by the Twisted Rune in Evermeet. If you read my rating of the FRPG, I felt that there was a lot of extraneous, (and even repeated!) material. In lieu of making two...what were they, 200 page books, they should have made one big(ger) 250-300 page book.
This will depend on who you are playing with. Some people it's easier to put things into gaps because if there are gaps then nobody objects to what you do. In some cases, with some people when you want to change something that exists people can get particularly upset with you.
This is in fact a two way street, something you like to ignore it seems when making your points.
Since I see Ed's lifelong project of incrementally detailing the Realms in print as a hugely desirable end, one of the artistic high points of the cultural sphere of D&D, try as I might I can't take seriously the idea of largely calling a halt to it based on what seems to me an elementary DMing failure. (And I don't think it's a primary reason why Wizards did.) That would imply dooming every setting to a certain amount of detail but no more, and I think that's crazy.
I like to have a skeleton that I put the organs and meat on. I do not like to have a whole body and the toenail is mine.
There are many other settings that compel you to the former path. The Realms, on the other hand, would need ten times the lore it has in print, and you'd have to follow it strictly, thus against its own spirit, to approach the latter situation, unless you used nothing but published modules and avoided multiple event threads.
Ed makes reply to EvilKnight's query: "Hello Lady THO and Ed, I have had the pleasure the past few months (as part of WW DnD Day and hosting a library program) of introducing DnD and the various campaign settings to new players. I'm sure I didn't do the Forgotten Realms justice. I would like to hear what Ed would say to a group of teenagers (that know very little of DnD and the FR setting) about the Forgotten Realms. Maybe just what he would he emphasize about the realms that makes it unique."
So, heeeeere's Ed:
The Realms is a vast, very detailed world with a long and still-vigorously-unfolding history, and many, many characters. The Realms IS those characters, and if a DM doesn't present it as a vast, everchanging webwork of intrigues and clashing interests, where caravans move from A to B for good reasons, and rulers (unless mad) don't operate in a vacuum of whims but grapple with issues (the competing interests of their subjects, not just attacks from rival realms) small and large every day, the DM isn't really showing players the Realms.
Any style of gaming can be accommodated by the Realms, even the simplest dungeon-crawls or "exploring your own small village and the haunted keep on the hill," so those who play in it need not memorize huge reams of facts or have its entire bewildering complexity dumped on their heads at any time - - but unlike all of the other available published settings, the Realms has a LOT of detail available for the DM who wants to know WHY two noble families have been feuding for centuries, or who around this crowded royal council table has family or business ties or personal loves and hatreds with who else around the table, or what will happen diplomatically, as one consequence leads to another, if the PCs murder this envoy and frame a local bailiff for the killing (or the bailiff frames the PCs). In the Realms, people live 'real lives.' They need food (and usually money), they need water, they have to defecate somewhere, they usually have to obey local laws or customs (or flee to live "outlaw"), and almost all of that has been covered somewhere, in Realms fiction or DRAGON articles or Realms gaming products.
The trade routes (and winds, currents, shortages, and exports that affect them) are outlined, and a lot of Faerûnian laws and customs, slang, and even fashions have been written about: if you love detailed lore, or have a need to plunder that detail for your own gaming world or for any other purpose, it's there. This much detail isn't what all gamers want or like, but unlike most other settings, the Realms offers you a choice, because the information is there; we've done the work.
You know I have seen you post elsewhere and I fully respect your old school point of view, however if you took a moment to really read the 4eFR as a complete beginner you would see the similarity between it and the Old Grey Box.
I doubt you, I or Asgetrion has that beginner's mind to say unbiased one way or the other. As I've said before, I'd love to see someone genuinely new to the Realms read and compare the two. And Castlemourn, as well, which I think is a much better choice for someone who likes the Realms but wants something new.
Since I see Ed's lifelong project of incrementally detailing the Realms in print as a hugely desirable end
You are welcome to do so, perhaps you should be looking at novels and not a game campaign setting?
elementary DMing failure.
I could get nasty here easily over this, but I won't lower myself to your level to be quite frank.
That would imply dooming every setting to a certain amount of detail but no more, and I think that's crazy.
Then perhaps you should look to another company like Paizo then? Because it appears Wizards have developed a particular strategy with the way they do things, which is not the way previously in the past.
The Realms, on the other hand, would need ten times the lore it has in print,
Would need? I don't find it "needs" any more than it currently has because I enjoy the fact it is relatively lore and similar free in this edition, so I can put what I want onto the "skeleton" as I feel. You can feel it needs more lore, but I don't and am perfectly happy with the 4E approach in this regard.
You are welcome to do so, perhaps you should be looking at novels and not a game campaign setting?
It's the Realms' nature as an open-ended secondary world to support any number of roleplaying campaigns, rather than the narrow plot needs of finite, linear stories, that most drives its detailing.
I could get nasty here easily over this, but I won't lower myself to your level to be quite frank.
People cooperating on something have to start with agreeing on their objectives. To GM a roleplaying campaign you have to communicate with the players about what setting you're playing in (in this case, your version of the Realms, as intended, not an attempt to sim the official timeline), what ruleset you're using, what the style of play is, when to meet, and so on. Without these basic preliminary understandings, the campaign's not going to work. I don't know what's elementary if this isn't.
Then perhaps you should look to another company like Paizo then? Because it appears Wizards have developed a particular strategy with the way they do things, which is not the way previously in the past.
I'm used to the publishing of the Realms being compromised by factors external to it, and I'll wait 'em out.
I don't find it "needs" any more than it currently has because I enjoy the fact it is relatively lore and similar free in this edition, so I can put what I want onto the "skeleton" as I feel.
What I said is that the Realms would need to be far more developed in print for your 'toenail is mine' situation to apply.
It's the Realms' nature as an open-ended setting to support any number of roleplaying campaigns, rather than the narrow plot needs of finite, linear stories, that most drives its detailing.
Unless of course you are running a game in Tilverton and it gets destroyed (or whatever).
I remember those threads.
And IMO, 4E Realms functions far better than this than 3E version very easily.
People cooperating on something have to start with agreeing on their objectives.
This isn't always the case and people have to occasional "live with" one another sometimes (you know, that thing, it's called "reality"). Additionally, if I was to give a list of changes to what I would alter about the 3E realms it would be a book in itself. Some things that people can take exception to are things that I wouldn't have thought of as being an issue unless it turns up in game.
However, what you wrote there was not the interpretation I gained from what you wrote originally.
I'm used to the publishing of the Realms being compromised by factors external to it, and I'll wait 'em out.What I said is that the Realms would need to be far more developed in print for your 'toenail is mine' situation to apply.
IMO, it already was in 3rd edition from my experiences trying to run it. I always felt I had the toenail and nothing else. Now I don't feel that's the case at all (as there really is a dearth of lore in 4E compared to 3E). So there is far more room for me in 4E to do anything I felt like than there was 3E. As I've mentioned in the past, I never asked for it to be changed and it's just a happy coincidence it's the way I like it at the moment.
You know I have seen you post elsewhere and I fully respect your old school point of view, however if you took a moment to really read the 4eFR as a complete beginner you would see the similarity between it and the Old Grey Box. It has a similar level of detail, however it is not written as well as Ed did it in the first place. While I hate Ed's writing novel wise, I loved his writing style when it relates to the game. When you mention how many bartenders of "x" level are described in the FRCG it makes me want to cry because you are missing the point of the FR which was to tell stories. That level of detail has rightfully been left to the storytellers now, the DM's of the FR vis the people making money off of RSE's. Their is a middle ground, and the pendulum will eventually move to the middle where it belongs, where it once was, in the beginning. Patience is what I advise, our setting started before the internet existed, and all it promotes is now, now, now. Give the story a chance to evolve, we did it before.
As Faraer said, I don’t think any of us can look at a book through the eyes of a complete beginner. Having said that, whenever I open the Cyclopedia of the Realms or DM’s Sourcebook, I’m always excited and *inspired* by the amount and quality of lore and details in those books. I didn’t get that same feeling after reading through the FRCG – on the contrary.
Honestly, I find your comment above (namely, how FR is about stories) a bit contradictory, because to me it seems that 4E FR is only about the stories of the PCs. For example, if the village weaponsmith doesn’t serve the campaign either as a plot-hook or enemy to be killed, his story is “insignificant” to the new design philosophy. As a blatant generalization, it could be said that he only exists as the guy whose role is to provide PCs more equipment, and that’s it -- he doesn’t even need a name or description or history. How and when NPCs relate and connect to their stories, if at all, is secondary in the “new” Realms – all that matters is that the DMs have total control over the degree of details without too much information “confusing” them, or distracting the focus on the PCs (as it’s all about the PCs being the “stars”, and no other character should be able to “outshine” them in any way). And this is very different from how previous editions approached the stories in FR.
Now, if we were talking in a completely new setting, I would just shrug and say: “Alright, this setting seems pretty bland to me, and it has a lot of inconsistencies that I don’t like, but that’s fine: like Eberron, it may not be for me, and I’m sure that it will be popular among DMs who either wish to tinker a lot with it or don’t like details too much.”. However, we’re talking about the Realms here, which has *always* been about the thousands and thousands of stories – some which are about “insignificant” innkeepers, merchants, weaponsmiths, and bakers, and some of which are interconnected while most are not. There’s always something happening, everywhere – not just where and when the PCs happen to stroll by. Therefore, these new design principles seem very alien to me, because I *loved* the amount of lore and details, and never felt it was a “burden” to me. Even the smallest shops and minor characters in a backwater village have descriptions, names, problems and stories to tell in my campaigns, if the players are interested in them (and they are, because they also love the Realms for the same reason I do).
Don’t get me wrong – if you or your players don’t care about too many details, and want to keep the focus of every session on the PCs and the plot of the adventure, that’s just fine. But it was the wonderful amount of lore and the exquisite level of details that originally made me fall in love with the Realms – and I don’t think I was the only one.
To me it’s clear that the design team thought: “Alright, let’s remove the level of details, history and lore, and make it conform the needs of this new edition and new customer base, which should include more and more core fans, too… if the hard core FR fans are happy with it, that’s all and good, but in the end it’s all the same“. It’s a conscious choice to concentrate on the perceived needs and wants of a potential new generation of fans, instead of the “old guard”. Will this risk pay off? I don’t know, but I *do* know that none of the gamers I personally know have picked up 4E FR, and most of the FR veterans I see posting on the boards apparently have neither. I also find it sad, that they thought one word (‘Spellplague’) could explain *every* change made to the setting without any in-depth, case-by-case explanations, i.e. why the collapse of the Weave did not affect Shade, but yet reshuffled the planes and hurled gods from their thrones, or why the Chosen of Mystra lost their powers even though previous lore established that their powers are independent of the Weave or Mystra (compare to investing Divine Ranks in mortals). What’s even worse, to me, is that the designers have either ignored such questions posed to them, or replied that “we’ve not gone there yet” (which actually implies that “we’ve not even thought about it”). Nice work, design team… I wouldn’t hold my breath about them answering these questions in the future, either. And yet, I personally find it insulting that they ignored the pleas of their existing FR fans, and yet yielded to Eberron fans as soon as they started to clamor about not wanting to see the timeline advanced. Considering that Eberron also has quite a bit of history, lore and details to “burden” poor DMs… er, what was the reason again for removing those elements from FR?
When we’re talking about rules and implemented flavor, it’s another thing ; I don’t want a lot of flavor in the core rules. But when we’re talking about a campaign setting, lack of distinct flavor and details means, generally speaking, that it may be too “generic” and bland, and I would need to do a lot of pre-play work to add those details to my campaign. Honestly, where’s the “meat” of the “New Realms”? What’s the new “thing” or the “lure” that draws another generation of fans to adventure on Toril? And, where’s this same attention to detail and stories and minor characters you refer to? Where’s the excitement and inspiration I still find on the pages of the Gray Boxed Set?
Sure, I could write hundreds, even thousands of pages of stuff to fill in the blanks in the 4E Realms, but there’s nothing in the book that would *encourage* me to do so. Again, where’s the *inspiration* to do that, where’s the encouragement to tell the thousands upon thousands of stories that originally “hooked” me into playing in FR? Now it’s just a blank slate with no “personality” that does not have anything to differentiate it from other settings… unless you count the Swordmage and the Genasi as such. The only things worth anything to me in FRCG is the stuff about Abeir, and even then I would use it as a separate campaign setting.
I’m sure the amount of details and lore in the “New Realms”, if not the quality, will eventually match the pre-Spellplague era , but considering the slow publishing rate in relation to the cost of DDI, and the reluctance of the designers to come forward with plausible explanations to holes you could fly the Spelljammer through, I wouldn’t be betting my money on it happening before 7th or 8th Edition comes out. Talk about support, hey?
As Faraer said, I don’t think any of us can look at a book through the eyes of a complete beginner. Having said that, whenever I open the Cyclopedia of the Realms or DM’s Sourcebook, I’m always excited and *inspired* by the amount and quality of lore and details in those books. I didn’t get that same feeling after reading through the FRCG – on the contrary.
It is not about succeeding at looking at it in an unbiased light, it is the trying.
Honestly, I find your comment above (namely, how FR is about stories) a bit contradictory, because to me it seems that 4E FR is only about the stories of the PCs.
This is the way it has always been. At your game table do you wax poetic about the tale of the local baker if it serves no purpose? The answer is no you mention the baker’s tale because it either serves as a plot hook, or it serves as backdrop or flavor. Until you actually decide to use it, it does not exist in the context of your game. Sure you might say that a 2nd level commoner named Jeff the Baker lives in a particular dot on your city map, but what does that really mean until you need to know, and at that point do you really want Jeff the Baker, or someone relevant to the story you are telling.
For example, if the village weaponsmith doesn’t serve the campaign either as a plot-hook or enemy to be killed, his story is “insignificant” to the new design philosophy. As a blatant generalization, it could be said that he only exists as the guy whose role is to provide PCs more equipment, and that’s it -- he doesn’t even need a name or description or history. How and when NPCs relate and connect to their stories, if at all, is secondary in the “new” Realms – all that matters is that the DMs have total control over the degree of details without too much information “confusing” them, or distracting the focus on the PCs (as it’s all about the PCs being the “stars”, and no other character should be able to “outshine” them in any way). And this is very different from how previous editions approached the stories in FR.
No, this is absolutely not part of the design, but rather what you have decided to claim it is. The weaponsmith exists if you as the DM choose to use him. If you need him as plot hook, that is his purpose, if you need him as backdrop/flavor, that is his purpose. He can be a recurring NPC, but all of this develops from the interaction between your players, and you. His purpose is always as a tool for you to make a more interesting world for your players to interact with, and he does not exist outside of your need for him. The fact that a weaponsmith named Darian lives in a hamlet not far from Suzail means nothing if this knowledge does not somehow interact with your players. The NPC’s are tools for you the DM, the players are not. The players are the only real thing outside of the DM in the game. An NPC could “outshine” them, but he still has no life for the players outside of how he interacts with them as depicted by you.
As to the claims of removing confusing information, or distracting focus from the players, you make me ask when has it ever not been this way. What is the problem with vocally admitting that the people you are playing with should be the focus of the game you are running? One way or another any story worth creating, participating in is going to somehow involve your players as more than a sidekick, or witnesses. Every edition has been this way, this is just the first time they came out and said it. They are putting a stop to “Sim FR”, I applaud this, because it never started that way.
Now, if we were talking in a completely new setting, I would just shrug and say: “Alright, this setting seems pretty bland to me, and it has a lot of inconsistencies that I don’t like, but that’s fine: like Eberron, it may not be for me, and I’m sure that it will be popular among DMs who either wish to tinker a lot with it or don’t like details too much.”. However, we’re talking about the Realms here, which has *always* been about the thousands and thousands of stories – some which are about “insignificant” innkeepers, merchants, weaponsmiths, and bakers, and some of which are interconnected while most are not. There’s always something happening, everywhere – not just where and when the PCs happen to stroll by. Therefore, these new design principles seem very alien to me, because I *loved* the amount of lore and details, and never felt it was a “burden” to me. Even the smallest shops and minor characters in a backwater village have descriptions, names, problems and stories to tell in my campaigns, if the players are interested in them (and they are, because they also love the Realms for the same reason I do).
The problem is none of this assists game play. The game world only exists for your players on their personal experience. They don't hear about the thousands and thousands of stories unless you relate these to them. All the NPC's only exist or interact with the players based on your choice. 4eFR chooses to leave these little tales for you to fill out as needed instead of wasting pages on NPC's, and encounters that many will never use. It is a Campaign Guide, not a who’s who of the Realms.
Don’t get me wrong – if you or your players don’t care about too many details, and want to keep the focus of every session on the PCs and the plot of the adventure, that’s just fine. But it was the wonderful amount of lore and the exquisite level of details that originally made me fall in love with the Realms – and I don’t think I was the only one.
The detail of past editions is still there, and now I get to use a hell of a lot more of it than I ever could before. Once again you bring up this "focus on the PC's", it begs the question of who would you focus on? NPC's? Hey guys watch me have a conversation with myself, and you can interject once in a while. This whole issue with PC's being the focus is just so completely alien to me I have absolutely no idea what you would focus on outside of the only real thing in the game. Do you mean the plot is coincidental, and there are others more important to the unfolding of it, that's fine, but your game still only exists as far as how the players interact with it. The game still progresses only from the viewpoint of your players, unless you want to engage in segue but that kind of ruins the suspense.
To me it’s clear that the design team thought: “Alright, let’s remove the level of details, history and lore, and make it conform the needs of this new edition and new customer base, which should include more and more core fans, too… if the hard core FR fans are happy with it, that’s all and good, but in the end it’s all the same“. It’s a conscious choice to concentrate on the perceived needs and wants of a potential new generation of fans, instead of the “old guard”. Will this risk pay off? I don’t know, but I *do* know that none of the gamers I personally know have picked up 4E FR, and most of the FR veterans I see posting on the boards apparently have neither. I also find it sad, that they thought one word (‘Spellplague’) could explain *every* change made to the setting without any in-depth, case-by-case explanations, i.e. why the collapse of the Weave did not affect Shade, but yet reshuffled the planes and hurled gods from their thrones, or why the Chosen of Mystra lost their powers even though previous lore established that their powers are independent of the Weave or Mystra (compare to investing Divine Ranks in mortals). What’s even worse, to me, is that the designers have either ignored such questions posed to them, or replied that “we’ve not gone there yet” (which actually implies that “we’ve not even thought about it”). Nice work, design team… I wouldn’t hold my breath about them answering these questions in the future, either. And yet, I personally find it insulting that they ignored the pleas of their existing FR fans, and yet yielded to Eberron fans as soon as they started to clamor about not wanting to see the timeline advanced. Considering that Eberron also has quite a bit of history, lore and details to “burden” poor DMs… er, what was the reason again for removing those elements from FR?
Here we are in purely anecdotal land, my players, and most of my friends who run FR games have actually jumped on board and are enjoying 4eFR because it has ceased to be "Sims FR" and brought back a degree of mystery to the setting. Of course your mileage obviously varies. As to WotC ignoring the “Old Guard” I don’t think they did, they did much of what I had long hoped for, and I have been on board since I bought my Grey Box a day after the FLGS got them in. The FR lost a lot of people over the years, and I have seen some actually returning, of course this is all anecdotal hence pretty worthless/pointless in the grand scheme of things. I would however say assigning certain attributes, or suggesting certain individuals acted in certain ways is purely speculative, and rather unkind.
When we’re talking about rules and implemented flavor, it’s another thing ; I don’t want a lot of flavor in the core rules. But when we’re talking about a campaign setting, lack of distinct flavor and details means, generally speaking, that it may be too “generic” and bland, and I would need to do a lot of pre-play work to add those details to my campaign. Honestly, where’s the “meat” of the “New Realms”? What’s the new “thing” or the “lure” that draws another generation of fans to adventure on Toril? And, where’s this same attention to detail and stories and minor characters you refer to? Where’s the excitement and inspiration I still find on the pages of the Gray Boxed Set?
I can go through the FRCG and find something to use in game on nearly every page. It has nothing to do with the “new” thing, it has everything to do with disinterring it from beneath the corpulent mass it had grown to. You can actually see the FR again, hence it is shiny and new.
Sure, I could write hundreds, even thousands of pages of stuff to fill in the blanks in the 4E Realms, but there’s nothing in the book that would *encourage* me to do so. Again, where’s the *inspiration* to do that, where’s the encouragement to tell the thousands upon thousands of stories that originally “hooked” me into playing in FR? Now it’s just a blank slate with no “personality” that does not have anything to differentiate it from other settings… unless you count the Swordmage and the Genasi as such. The only things worth anything to me in FRCG is the stuff about Abeir, and even then I would use it as a separate campaign setting.
Like I said previously the only reason you would need to write thousands of pages of stuff to “fill in blanks”(because Joe the Baker needs to be defined for the universe to work) is if you want “Sims FR”. If that is what you really want stick with the old FR no one is twisting your arm. The 4eFR has enough detail for me at least to see it is still the Realms, however it has removed the items that tried to make it a world sim, instead of a game setting. It certainly has “personality” except it is no longer the guy in the stuffy suit.
I’m sure the amount of details and lore in the “New Realms”, if not the quality, will eventually match the pre-Spellplague era , but considering the slow publishing rate in relation to the cost of DDI, and the reluctance of the designers to come forward with plausible explanations to holes you could fly the Spelljammer through, I wouldn’t be betting my money on it happening before 7th or 8th Edition comes out. Talk about support, hey?
The FR has always suffered from issues in the quality of writing especially in so far as the novels are concerned, so I really won’t expect anything better. As to what you are seeing as holes there is a good chance it has intentionally been left somewhat open for either future development, or for you to specify for your FR. As to the rest of your comments they are somewhat inflammatory and unappreciated.
everything.
well said. totally agree.
i think people forget how the Realms started: at Ed Greenwood's gaming table. the FRCG gets back to the table, away from the weight of a hundred novels and dozens of fluff books.
well said. totally agree.
i think people forget how the Realms started: at Ed Greenwood's gaming table. the FRCG gets back to the table, away from the weight of a hundred novels and dozens of fluff books.
Actually, the Realms started as a world for a young Ed Greenwood to string together a series of short sword and sorcery stories, well before D&D was around.
First of all, the Loudwater section... I honestly can't recall the last time I saw something this bad published for FR (yes, even the fabled Marco Volo-series included) -- 'Once around the Realms'-novel, maybe, but I think it's a close tie. All the NPCs, the town map ('Four from Cormyr' is the last FR product, to my knowledge, to have maps this bad -- not to mention that the number of 40+ buildings couldn't house all the inhabitants by any living standards), the adventures... by Mystra's Lost Spell, I almost wept as I read it!
Awww, but that was the coolest NPC!:P
Also, to be fair, even the maps in previous editions always seemed to feature fewer buildings than you'd think would house the actual number of people in the town or city. That said, I agree with most of everything else you said, and the general spirit of your post.
Arawn, would you settle for being considered Eurasian, then?:P
What Uzzy said about the origin of the Realms as a setting is correct.
Arawn, would you settle for being considered Eurasian, then?:P
Nag ydw! Cymro ydw i!! Cymro am byth ;)
I'm sure my grammar is awful :embarrass. I don't hold with these newfangled super states.
Side track.....
Is it fair to say that Greyhawk & FR developed primarily at the tabletop, whereas Dragonlance & Eberron were developed for the tabletop?
What Uzzy said about the origin of the Realms as a setting is correct.
And when he did start DMing it, though he had the benefit of lore he'd developed over dozens of short stories, he had to do huge amounts of work to create the thousands of characters, places, magics, and plot threads that populated his complex campaign. As time went on, he was able to keep the densely rendered Realms seeming a real world by combining conscientious notes running to millions of words with his uncommonly fertile imagination.
The 4eFR has enough detail for me at least to see it is still the Realms, however it has removed the items that tried to make it a world sim, instead of a game setting.
I think that's pretty much the division here, but your terms are misleading for two reasons.
First, when I wrote 'sim the official timeline' above, I was suggesting a lifeless reproduction of the letter of the lore, which is not remotely the same thing as the model of Ed's campaign sketched above.
Second, games aren't nearly as narrow or specific as you suggest. Treating the setting as if it real and endeavouring to make it a whole, active world to inhabit, the golden thread running through Ed's Dragon articles and the heart of the Realms, is certainly no less effective or worthy an approach, no more or less a game, than the model (shorter, less lore context, fewer parallel threads, more emphasis on rules and character powers) Wizards currently promotes.
First, when I wrote 'sim the official timeline' above, I was suggesting a lifeless reproduction of the letter of the lore, which is not remotely the same thing as the model of Ed's campaign sketched above.
Which again, seems to suggest to me you should be looking at novels and not a game setting.
I do not think a game setting works well as a novel and my experience with 3rd edition gives me a firm indication of that.
Second, games aren't nearly as narrow or specific as you suggest. Treating the setting as if it real and endeavouring to make it a whole, active world to inhabit, the golden thread running through Ed's Dragon articles and the heart of the Realms, is certainly no less effective or worthy an approach, no more or less a game, than the model (shorter, less lore context, fewer parallel threads, more rules emphasis) Wizards currently promotes.
Personally, I feel it makes the world someone elses and again, supports firmly my previous contention of getting toenails instead of an actual setting to put aid putting things onto.
If I wanted to run Ed Greenwoods campaign under his name I would have asked him for his campaign notes: But I don't. So the approach of 3rd never suited me (minding, I just wrote my own worlds anyway and I did admittedly have the time to do so back then also). Nobody has in fact ever said this was wrong anywhere, but "Sim FR" is not a great approach to a game setting in my opinion for a lot of different reasons.
Wizards are currently making game settings that can be widely applied and facilitate people playing in them as a strategy. "Sim" settings IMO don't accomplish this easily and have their own problems compared to "Lore lite" settings (discussed many times previously).
In general, what you thought was a good goal or idea, I found got in the way of writing your own material and provided barriers to certain players in wanting to try playing in that setting (albeit if such barriers didn't truly exist: I couldn't care if my players knew about FR lore and never wanted to force them to read any of it, I just wanted them to play but alas, previous editions of FR built up a reputation that preceded it sadly in the minds of many players).
Is it fair to say that Greyhawk & FR developed primarily at the tabletop, whereas Dragonlance & Eberron were developed for the tabletop?
Good question. Ah, somewhat. Certainly the Realms and the World of Greyhawk grew in their home campaigns for many years before they were published, and a lot of what's valuable about them emerged from play. It was Ed's players' curiosity and questions that spurred the creation of large amounts of what we know of the Realms. Both settings used what Gary called gradual 'bullseye' worldbuilding, around Greyhawk City (and secondarily Hommlet) and Waterdeep and Shadowdale. But it did exist for years before D&D, and conversely the version of the World of Greyhawk -- in the sense of the geography and nations -- published in 1980 was largely devised by Gary in a couple of weeks specifically for the Gazetteer, though he adopted it afterward for his campaign. Dragonlance emerged out of a committee's concept for a product line, but gained its recognizable shape partly through the DL-module playtesting campaign which heavily influenced the first novel trilogy; though afterwards the Dragonlance game stuff became starkly secondary to the novels. Meanwhile, I've heard that Eberron began as Keith Baker's personal campaign, but haven't tried hard enough to dig up the details, so I don't know to what extent it's a happy accident/deliberate that it conforms as it does to 3E norms.
So, kind of, but it's complicated!
Which again, seems to suggest to me you should be looking at novels and not a game setting.
I'm not getting why you think so: the experience I'm talking about is as far from a passive, linear reading one as can be. And I'm not describing what I want out of the Realms, but rather the Realms' own nature as best as I'm able to understand and convey it.
I'm not getting why you think so: the experience I'm talking about is as far from a passive, linear reading one as can be.
That is what I feel you are primarily arguing for in your posts: You want it to basically be a novel that tells you more about the realms (The FRCS encyclopedia format) rather than being something that tells you how to use the realms as a game setting. The FRCS and FRCG are contrasts on this point. The FRCS was basically an encyclopedia with high level NPC stats (
), while the FRCG is the polar opposite: It's terrible for being a source of realms lore but is excellent on campaign ideas, setting material for how to run a game in the realms and a general overview of what is going on. One of these approaches is more 'novel' like and the other is the complete opposite, being gamist. Keryms "Sim FR" vs. "Beginners" argument in a nutshell.
It is not about succeeding at looking at it in an unbiased light, it is the trying.
Well, honestly, I don't think any of us can -- maybe, if we were "sitting on the fence", it would be different, but I think you, I, and Faraer all had formed more or less biased views months before the book came out. Yet *if* this book *had* contained well written material (beyond the stuff on Abeir), *maybe* I could have viewed it in a more positive light. However, it does not meet my standards for a well written campaign setting guide/book, and I would not *ever* compare it to the Grey Boxed Set. I just can’t get that same kind of “Sense of Wonder” out of FRCG, because I think the writing is very neutral and boring in tone, and I can’t see those same stories contained within its pages.
This is the way it has always been. At your game table do you wax poetic about the tale of the local baker if it serves no purpose? The answer is no you mention the baker’s tale because it either serves as a plot hook, or it serves as backdrop or flavor. Until you actually decide to use it, it does not exist in the context of your game. Sure you might say that a 2nd level commoner named Jeff the Baker lives in a particular dot on your city map, but what does that really mean until you need to know, and at that point do you really want Jeff the Baker, or someone relevant to the story you are telling.
No, I don’t “wax poetic” about anything, but I might offer the tale just to add some flavor, or because a PC asks another NPC about the baker, or maybe I just wish to throw a “red herring” at the PCs. Sometimes it serves a purpose, while other times it doesn’t – I might also tell it because my players *love* to hear such stories (even if the PCs necessarily wouldn’t).
I do prepare more than a handful of NPC backgrounds for each campaign I'm running. Some of them might serve as plot hooks, some as "red herrings" and some might not be related to anything at all (such as Joe the Baker's fear of Sembians, which might keep popping up as a topic if the PCs chat with him), and serve as flavor. And yet, some of this stuff may actually *become* relevant as a plot hook, such as a seedy Sembian merchant Joe the Baker warns the PCs about (and maybe even asks them to keep an eye on him, whether it’s related to any campaign/adventure plot in any way). If I didn’t know where Joe the Baker lived on the city/town/village map, sooner or later a player might want to buy some bread, and asks me about if there are any bakers in the settlement.
And, have you considered the advantage of having keyed city maps, with shopkeepers included? Because *that* is how it was in 1E and 2E FR products. I remember our first Waterdeep campaign, in which we were excited about the number of inns and shops in the city, and we constantly asked the DM questions like: “Which inns can we find on the Street of Swords?” and “Have I heard anything about this Hilmer?” and so on. All of them seemed to have distinct personalities, likes and dislikes, history, and a hundred stories to tell. Since that very first WD session two decades ago, to this day my PCs regularly interact with the various shopkeepers and innkeepers of the city. For example, some of my PCs have had dealings with “shadier” characters, such as Jannaxil Serpentil or Elaith Craulnober or -- and some of my “warrior-types” might favor Brian the Swordmaster’s wares over those find in Saern’s Fine Swords.
No, this is absolutely not part of the design, but rather what you have decided to claim it is. The weaponsmith exists if you as the DM choose to use him. If you need him as plot hook, that is his purpose, if you need him as backdrop/flavor, that is his purpose. He can be a recurring NPC, but all of this develops from the interaction between your players, and you. His purpose is always as a tool for you to make a more interesting world for your players to interact with, and he does not exist outside of your need for him. The fact that a weaponsmith named Darian lives in a hamlet not far from Suzail means nothing if this knowledge does not somehow interact with your players. The NPC’s are tools for you the DM, the players are not. The players are the only real thing outside of the DM in the game. An NPC could “outshine” them, but he still has no life for the players outside of how he interacts with them as depicted by you.
Please take a look at the DDI articles and what the designers have posted on the message boards -- it's pretty clear that both the thematical and mechanical focus was intentionally shifted in 4E, and one of the primary goals was to make PCs the “stars” of the campaign in a very literal sense (i.e. NPCs intentionally made weaker in the same way monsters are in relation to the PCs, the whole ‘Points of Light’-ideology, and so on). In the previous editions, the general spirit of the game was not “fun” in the context 4E uses it, but rather a more “gamist-simulationist” approach to the setting and the rules, i.e. that there are “movers and shakers” (enemies and “neutral” NPCs) that are inherently more powerful than the PCs, and the world/setting does not exist as their “playground” only. I will elaborate on this, if you want to, but I doubt it would lead to straying (even further) away from the topic.
NPCs play whatever part you and your players choose them to play. Sure, they don’t exist outside the game, but then it *is* all make-believe, right?
As to the claims of removing confusing information, or distracting focus from the players, you make me ask when has it ever not been this way. What is the problem with vocally admitting that the people you are playing with should be the focus of the game you are running? One way or another any story worth creating, participating in is going to somehow involve your players as more than a sidekick, or witnesses. Every edition has been this way, this is just the first time they came out and said it. They are putting a stop to “Sim FR”, I applaud this, because it never started that way.
Sure, the PCs are in the center of things in every campaign, but are they the only ones that matter in the setting? Because *that* is how I see the game shifting towards “if it doesn’t exist as a plot hook or something to be killed, the NPC is insignificant”-philosophy.
FR began as a setting for stories Ed Greenwood wrote ever since he was eight years old (I think the first place he created was the city of Zirta, now part of Scornubel?). You know, thousands and thousands of stories Ed wanted to tell, and I think this “spirit” is still there in his novels. Of course, we *could* ask the man himself about this, but I personally believe that he’d say that FR *is*, at its core, about the stories of its inhabitants – both the “high-and-mighty” archwizards to the humblest bakers in Waterdeep. Of course, later on, he began to use it to run D&D for his players, and to me it seems (based on his ‘Kinights of Myth Drannor’-trilogy and his stories from the campaigns he has run) that he runs his game based on those same principles, namely that Realms are about its characters – both the mighty and the meek.
The problem is none of this assists game play. The game world only exists for your players on their personal experience. They don't hear about the thousands and thousands of stories unless you relate these to them. All the NPC's only exist or interact with the players based on your choice. 4eFR chooses to leave these little tales for you to fill out as needed instead of wasting pages on NPC's, and encounters that many will never use. It is a Campaign Guide, not a who’s who of the Realms.
No, actually, they hear the stories if *they* choose to interact with the NPCs. For example, my players might engage a weaponsmith in a conversation about dwarvencraft items, or weapons forged in ancient Netheril. In any case they pretty much always ask his name (and what he looks like), whether he's married and so on. So, perhaps my players enjoy interacting with NPCs more than your "average" Joe Realmsplayer, and since I enjoy that, too, it’s a “win-win” situation for us. Sometimes a half the session might pass in idle chatter with NPCs – maybe some hints and plot hooks are revealed, maybe not. For example, Thulgard the Armorer might ask the players to deliver him some Mithral, so he can fulfill his promise to forge an armor made of it to some adventurer – maybe the PCs find Mithral or maybe they won’t, and maybe they even will interact with this adventurer who wants that armor or maybe they won’t. Sometimes such conversations might have consequences or result in plot hooks or even whole adventure arcs – such as the PCs hearing about a lost armory of the Ironstar clan hidden within the Thunder Peaks (and rumored to contain many suits of mithral full plates).
Naturally, if the players are not interested in such interaction, I’m not stuffing it down their throats. But then I need to sit down and discuss with them what each of us wants out of the game – if it’s character-optimizations and more combat than role-playing, I may not be the “ideal” DM for the group. In any case, both as a DM and a player, I expect that every campaign features at least *some* interesting NPCs in case the PCs want to interact with them.
The depth and amount of lore, and the works of many authors and designers *inspired* me, as a DM, and presented me with so many options and so many stories to choose from – practically *encouraging* me to embrace them and to modify stuff to suit *my* Realms. In that way, it assisted game play.
The detail of past editions is still there, and now I get to use a hell of a lot more of it than I ever could before. Once again you bring up this "focus on the PC's", it begs the question of who would you focus on? NPC's? Hey guys watch me have a conversation with myself, and you can interject once in a while. This whole issue with PC's being the focus is just so completely alien to me I have absolutely no idea what you would focus on outside of the only real thing in the game. Do you mean the plot is coincidental, and there are others more important to the unfolding of it, that's fine, but your game still only exists as far as how the players interact with it. The game still progresses only from the viewpoint of your players, unless you want to engage in segue but that kind of ruins the suspense.
No, as has been discussed to ad nauseaum on every forum, the 4E mindset, and the 'Points of Light'-philosophy removed NPCs pretty much from any role in the "spotlight". I’ve already mentioned this above, but to repeat: this is different from the previous editions, in which (especially in FR) NPCs might play a huge role in a campaign. Now it's discouraged to include NPCs that are higher level than the PCs into your campaigns, and level-based challenges are the “norm” under all the circumstances. For example, if the PCs go out to challenge the king’s bodyguards into combat, it‘s more or less expected that DM modifies the encounter so that it’s not “unfair” (i.e. not level-appropriate). Likewise, if some monsters withdraw and join forces with another group of monsters (i.e. another encounter), it’s encouraged that some of them are changed to Minions so that TPK can be avoided. And, furthermore, NPCs are mechanically treated as monsters, instead of being equal to PCs (yes, I know that truly "exceptional" NPCs *could* be statted as PCs, but the general idea is to avoid it).
The players may be real, and the PCs in the center of attention, but I don’t personally buy into the philosophy that all PCs are *born* heroes and should be the most important beings in the setting (note: my view is probably what GNS theory calls “simulationist”) from the very start. They’re protagonists in a campaign – not a fantasy novel.
Here we are in purely anecdotal land, my players, and most of my friends who run FR games have actually jumped on board and are enjoying 4eFR because it has ceased to be "Sims FR" and brought back a degree of mystery to the setting. Of course your mileage obviously varies. As to WotC ignoring the “Old Guard” I don’t think they did, they did much of what I had long hoped for, and I have been on board since I bought my Grey Box a day after the FLGS got them in. The FR lost a lot of people over the years, and I have seen some actually returning, of course this is all anecdotal hence pretty worthless/pointless in the grand scheme of things. I would however say assigning certain attributes, or suggesting certain individuals acted in certain ways is purely speculative, and rather unkind.
Sure, I never claimed it was a fact, did I? I'd like to point out that lack of information is not equal to "mystery", because if the Eberron team decided to hit the setting with something called 'Mournplague' and completely turn everything upside down, I don't think we could say that it would make Eberron more "mysterious" once again. FR has a lot of mysteries that have been mentioned in passing (such as the Pyramids of Ascore or Kraanfhaor's Door), but never fully dealt with.
I based my comments on personal observations of how I've seen FR fans respond to the changes on Candlekeep, EnWorld and here (i.e. lots of angry comments and reduced activity -- mostly here). And, also, the not-so-stellar reviews on Amazon.com, for example. Shemeska posted what I thought was a pretty good assessment of things over on the EnWorld -- I can post the link if you want to?
I can go through the FRCG and find something to use in game on nearly every page. It has nothing to do with the “new” thing, it has everything to do with disinterring it from beneath the corpulent mass it had grown to. You can actually see the FR again, hence it is shiny and new.
Um, that "corpulent mass" was the "thing" or the “spirit” of the Realms in my eyes. For example, if I ran a campaign in the Sunset Vale, I would have tons of information and NPCs and plot hooks to draw from (e.g. in Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast, FR Adventures, FRCS and the Grey Boxed Set-- and yes, all these books are still on sale on Amazon.com, for example). As I'm not running completely "canon-faithful" campaigns anyway (and, in fact, *none* of the DMs I know do so), I could take what I needed and "tweak" it to suit my needs.
The amount of information is not a problem, per se, but rather the fact that apparently many people are *intimidated* by it, and fearful that their players will make fun of any deviation from the Canon lore. Well, I know DMs who don't care a *whit* about canon or lack of it, and have played in their campaigns. They didn't have a problem with the "corpulent mass" of information, because they took some of it, and rewrote the rest. In fact, I've played with DMs who couldn't even *spell* 'Cormyr', and still ran campaigns taking place in Cormyr for years. I've also played in a Silverymoon campaign, in which the DM said that he didn't want to read the Savage Frontier or any other supplement just to "get the facts right", and we were all fine with it.
Look, I could argue that I know nothing about Eberron, and still I could probably run a campaign there -- perhaps not 100% faithfully to the canon, but if that proved to be a problem, I could always say that it's my take on the setting. If that's not still okay for Eberron hard core fans, it could be argued that then perhaps Eberron, too, suffers from the "bloat" of canon lore, right? After all, a lot of supplements plus dozens on canon articles were published for it -- maybe it needs to become "new and shiny" as well?
Like I said previously the only reason you would need to write thousands of pages of stuff to “fill in blanks”(because Joe the Baker needs to be defined for the universe to work) is if you want “Sims FR”. If that is what you really want stick with the old FR no one is twisting your arm. The 4eFR has enough detail for me at least to see it is still the Realms, however it has removed the items that tried to make it a world sim, instead of a game setting. It certainly has “personality” except it is no longer the guy in the stuffy suit.
Just as my comments may have been somewhat "loaded", your "Sims FR" makes me wonder if you were a fan of the previous editions at all -- because the way I see it, the "thousands upon thousands stories" and "sense of wonder" of the living, breathing world always *was* the "hook" or "lure" or "gimmick" or “spirit” of the Realms. At least for me and the fans I know in real life, and also to many I see posting on the message boards.
Peeling away the layers upon layers or lore and information does not result in “better” campaigns – it just removes the options for DMs who loved them, and adds to their work, while those DMs who hated it, could have ignored the canon lore anyway. I just don’t see any personality or “spirit” there, because so much of what I’ve grown to love was stripped away in 4E FR.
Furthermore, it's not that the universe does not work if I don't write or improvise a backstory for Joe the Baker. It's just that if the PCs want to chat with him, it adds a whole new realm of possibilities for the DM and also makes the world seem more complex and vivid. At least for everyone in the four groups I play in.
The FR has always suffered from issues in the quality of writing especially in so far as the novels are concerned, so I really won’t expect anything better. As to what you are seeing as holes there is a good chance it has intentionally been left somewhat open for either future development, or for you to specify for your FR. As to the rest of your comments they are somewhat inflammatory and unappreciated.
It's a different thing altogether, if the designers said: "Look, that is a subject that is going to dealt with in a novel or a DDI article". Well, as I said, I read the silence and unwillingess to comment as: "We have not thought about it". And I disagree with your claim about lack of quality in novels – I think that such authors as Ed Greenwood and Elaine Cunningham are both excellent and inspiring writers, and every novel by either of them has had an impact on my campaigns. However, since you admit that you didn’t like Ed Greenwood’s stories or the amount of lore and details in the setting, I wonder why you’ve originally chosen to use the Realms? What was the “thing” about FR for you, if it was not the stories and the amount and quality of Realmslore?
As to my final comments in the previous post: it doesn't look like FR articles -- at least giving relevant information about the events behind the Spellplague -- are going to appear in DDi in the near future. The only ones I've heard about are from Ed (who seems to "confined" to only writing about Abeir and nothing else) and Brian, who's a very talented writer but to my knowledge not part of the original design team.
The players may be real, and the PCs in the center of attention, but I don’t personally buy into the philosophy that all PCs are *born* heroes and should be the most important beings in the setting (note: my view is probably what GNS theory calls “simulationist”) from the very start. They’re protagonists in a campaign – not a fantasy novel.
And even if it was a fantasy novel, not all readers would be enamored of a protagonist who was born a hero and regarded by all as important. That setup would be unlikely to impress me, for sure, and I don't much care for it even as a player, either.
Shemeska posted what I thought was a pretty good assessment of things over on the EnWorld -- I can post the link if you want to?
Please do.
No, I don’t “wax poetic” about anything, but I might offer the tale just to add some flavor, or because a PC asks another NPC about the baker, or maybe I just wish to throw a “red herring” at the PCs. Sometimes it serves a purpose, while other times it doesn’t – I might also tell it because my players *love* to hear such stories (even if the PCs necessarily wouldn’t).
Reading over your point, there is nothing you've said there that is specifically required to be in the FRCG at all. You do not require details of Joe the Baker being afraid of Sembian spies, all you require in the book is that Cormyr and Sembia have tensions over territory, Joe the Baker is a natural extension of a simple premise.
Not something that requires detailing in the book.
And, have you considered the advantage of having keyed city maps, with shopkeepers included?
This I can certainly appreciate and agree with. I was expecting maps of major places like Baldurs Gate, Waterdeep and other places. These are incredibly useful game aids and it still baffles me they weren't included, or why Dragon hasn't stepped in to provide them instead. Such things were available in the likes of 2E/3E sourcebooks and I still find myself using these: despite the fact 4E has drastically changed both of those cities in key ways.
But again, I don't require the details of those cities, I can put Joe the Baker anywhere I see fit. I DO require the actual map because cartography is one of the few things I can't do myself easily. All of the following that you wrote is fine, but again is nothing that is required from a setting to be detailed. I do similar things with my PCs in 5 minutes off the top of my head and a random name generator. Later, I often return to such places after the session and if it interests me or I think of something, I sometimes detail them later for further use if I feel like it might be an interesting idea.
But again, this is not required of a game setting. Page space on providing mostly useless to me NPC stats I'll never use should be spent on the map of that city in question, which is aggravatingly absent at the moment.
Please take a look at the DDI articles and what the designers have posted on the message boards -- it's pretty clear that both the thematical and mechanical focus was intentionally shifted in 4E, and one of the primary goals was to make PCs the “stars” of the campaign in a very literal sense
True enough, but did you just play your games with yourself with your PCs as spectators or something? They should be the focus of the game, because I view my players as the actual protagonists of the campaigns story. They write the actions of the story and what happened, while I provide the "story", background and setup of the world and particularly the antagonists.
i.e. NPCs intentionally made weaker in the same way monsters are in relation to the PCs
Firstly, NPCs are basically similar to PCs in 4E anyway. One NPC does not challenge 5 PCs however, unless you are talking about monsters. Monsters in 4E actually have more overall survivability and "threat" than previous editions do (as they can take far more, minions excepting). So this statement somewhat confuses me.
A solo 30th level monster is far more powerful than a single 30th level PC.
In the previous editions, the general spirit of the game was not “fun” in the context 4E uses it, but rather a more “gamist-simulationist” approach to the setting and the rules, i.e. that there are “movers and shakers” (enemies and “neutral” NPCs) that are inherently more powerful than the PCs, and the world/setting does not exist as their “playground” only.
One of my campaigns my fifth level PCs are dealing with a 14th level Lich. The creature forces them to retreat and generally makes their lives somewhat miserable in the region of the Shadowfell they are currently stuck on. They've faced opponents they could not beat as well in the build up to the main plot arc, so they certainly aren't getting that impression at all.
The only impression they have thus far is that everything is descending into chaos around them and that as they grow in power (and knowledge), they're the ones who are going to have to ultimately do something about it. Like any other protagonist of any other story.
Otherwise why doesn't Frodo just hand the ring off to some 30th level guy who teleports to the Mountain of Doom and just throws it in?
Because it would be a boring story.
NPCs play whatever part you and your players choose them to play. Sure, they don’t exist outside the game, but then it *is* all make-believe, right?
You are right, which makes your objections all the more bizarre. I don't need the book to detail NPCs, only who might be in charge and other things. If I or you need an NPC of some description, it's not difficult to write one in with 4E and have it function however you like. I want NPCs to be of a specific power level within the realms as a general rule: 4E lets me do that. If you want it to have more powerful NPCs: 4E lets you do that as well.
It's that simple to me.
Sure, the PCs are in the center of things in every campaign, but are they the only ones that matter in the setting? Because *that* is how I see the game shifting towards “if it doesn’t exist as a plot hook or something to be killed, the NPC is insignificant”-philosophy.
But I see it as a far different philosophy, one where the DM decides if other NPCs are significant, who they are and what their rough level of influence/power is. Not the setting, the DM using the setting.
This is indeed a gamist vs. simulationist perspective. But a gamist perspective gives the DM more freedom to run the setting as they see fit, without having to worry about conflicts with canon sources and similar.
FR began as a setting for stories Ed Greenwood wrote ever since he was eight years old (I think the first place he created was the city of Zirta, now part of Scornubel?). You know, thousands and thousands of stories Ed wanted to tell, and I think this “spirit” is still there in his novels. Of course, we *could* ask the man himself about this, but I personally believe that he’d say that FR *is*, at its core, about the stories of its inhabitants – both the “high-and-mighty” archwizards to the humblest bakers in Waterdeep.
Go and read the novels then?
Of course, later on, he began to use it to run D&D for his players, and to me it seems (based on his ‘Kinights of Myth Drannor’-trilogy and his stories from the campaigns he has run) that he runs his game based on those same principles, namely that Realms are about its characters – both the mighty and the meek.
His Characters in his game sure.
In a published campaign setting for DMs to use, it becomes about that DMs characters in their game. I do not take an interest in "FR as run by someone else".
Something you don't seem to realise.
No, actually, they hear the stories if *they* choose to interact with the NPCs. For example, my players might engage a weaponsmith in a conversation about dwarvencraft items, or weapons forged in ancient Netheril.
And again, tiring as this may seem by now I fail to see where this needs to be detailed in the original book at all.
The depth and amount of lore, and the works of many authors and designers *inspired* me, as a DM, and presented me with so many options and so many stories to choose from – practically *encouraging* me to embrace them and to modify stuff to suit *my* Realms. In that way, it assisted game play.
I can see your point here.
No, as has been discussed to ad nauseaum on every forum, the 4E mindset, and the 'Points of Light'-philosophy removed NPCs pretty much from any role in the "spotlight".
Which I am fine with. As the DM, I am not there to play by myself and make myself feel important by constantly reminding the NPCs I can do whatever I want with the game. I am there to facilitate 5+ people having a good time playing a game, to facilitate playing a "communal story" my PCs are every part as important in as the characters I create are and that my PCs choose how that story plays out through their characters choices as much as possible.
NPCs are important to me only in the sense that my creations are there to facilitate the game, make it more "alive" and to provide (where appropriate) an even level of challenge for the PCs. I like to decide how powerful NPCs and similar are. Having NPCs in the book is also fine, but only when I can decide what they are doing (or how successfully) and also what their rough level of power is (minding if it's logical I don't mind usually).
Again, this is a gamist vs. simulationist approach.
I’ve already mentioned this above, but to repeat: this is different from the previous editions, in which (especially in FR) NPCs might play a huge role in a campaign.
I don't believe you understand at all what 4E tries to accomplish in this regard. That you don't have hugely powerful NPCs everywhere is one point, but the idea is that your PCs are the "heroes" who face down the threats yes; this does not mean they have no need or requirement for powerful allies however.
The concept is that these NPC allies are not the ones who have to solve the threats (or perhaps even could on their own). They are side characters in a supporting cast where the PCs are the main protagonists. This is not the same concept as NPCs not doing anything or being entirely unimportant.
Now it's discouraged to include NPCs that are higher level than the PCs into your campaigns, and level-based challenges are the “norm” under all the circumstances.
I have no idea what you are on about. Many many MANY combats in 4E feature creatures several higher levels than the PCs are. The normal "standard" encounter I run in nearly every campaign (and that works well) is EL + 1 or EL + 2. I typically use monsters up to 3-4 levels higher than my PCs as well, for either a harder overall combat or to provide harder targets to protect lower level creatures.
If you are meaning NPCs, I don't tend to stat out NPCs that are significantly higher than my PCs. This is something I've always done. If Daeran the head of the city watch is level 14, why doesn't he go and deal with the Goblins who are so low level, he could mince his way through them simply without threat? I could cop out and simply claim he's too "busy", or perhaps doesn't realise the Goblins present some larger threat he's unaware of (and hence doesn't deal with them).
Alternatively, I can have him be a reasonable level, such as five and then in a reversal, have him travel with the PCs as well. His level is not imbalancing (especially if the PCs are level 3/4ish), they get to know and travel with the man and I can build his character more (PCs develop a lot of affection for NPCs that are willing to travel and fight with them, not just send them off on random missions). It also helps build world verisimilitude, if the Goblins really are presenting a great threat to the supply lines/food/farmers of the village or whatever, having the head of the watch (presumably their best fighter) also go with the PCs shows the PCs that the problem matters and is significant for those people.
I can't do that if the setting decides everyone is retired level eleventy-billion adventurers.
For example, if the PCs go out to challenge the king’s bodyguards into combat, it‘s more or less expected that DM modifies the encounter so that it’s not “unfair” (i.e. not level-appropriate).
Depends on the DMing style. Personally, I would brutally murder them myself at this point for being stupid.
It's like you believe for some reason 4th edition makes a DM become completely illogical.
Likewise, if some monsters withdraw and join forces with another group of monsters (i.e. another encounter), it’s encouraged that some of them are changed to Minions so that TPK can be avoided.
Once again, one wonders how much 4E you've read or played. Although this can certainly be done, the official module Pyramid of Shadows says no such thing. In fact, the Pyramid of Shadows has an encounter that can be bolstered by nearby forces, even suggesting that it can become rapidly overwhelming forcing the PCs to retreat.
Scepter Tower of Spellgard has an impossible encounter for PCs of 2nd level if they are able to enter Spellgard directly. The initial fight will butcher them and the module states that the PCs have a minimal chance of winning (IMO, it's close to zero because the number of creatures and that they are all 5+ in level will ensure the PCs turn into sad red splats in no time). Instead of "reducing" the EL as you think it would say, it suggests instead the PCs have the utter snot beaten out of them and are captured. Then having to figure out a way of fleeing.
So please do go and actually read what 4E modules have to say before making up pure unadulterated nonsense.
And, furthermore, NPCs are mechanically treated as monsters, instead of being equal to PCs (yes, I know that truly "exceptional" NPCs *could* be statted as PCs, but the general idea is to avoid it).
Elite monsters/NPCs are roughly equivalent to a PC and can be allowed to use a second wind and PC powers. A solo monster/NPC is far more powerful mechanically than a single PC.
Again, have you even PLAYED 4E?
The players may be real, and the PCs in the center of attention, but I don’t personally buy into the philosophy that all PCs are *born* heroes and should be the most important beings in the setting (note: my view is probably what GNS theory calls “simulationist”) from the very start. They’re protagonists in a campaign – not a fantasy novel.
That's a very interesting differentiation you have there, because in my posts I would be thinking you and Faraer are doing that: treating it as a novel and not as a group being the protagonists in the story of a campaign.
I'll have to ponder about that.
I based my comments on personal observations of how I've seen FR fans respond to the changes on Candlekeep, EnWorld and here (i.e. lots of angry comments and reduced activity -- mostly here).
I can think of other much better reasons for reduced activity here to be honest.
Just as my comments may have been somewhat "loaded", your "Sims FR" makes me wonder if you were a fan of the previous editions at all -- because the way I see it, the "thousands upon thousands stories" and "sense of wonder" of the living, breathing world always *was* the "hook" or "lure" or "gimmick" or “spirit” of the Realms. At least for me and the fans I know in real life, and also to many I see posting on the message boards.
And at the same time, that was also viewed as a "corpulent mass", though I don't exactly agree with that wording by many others. Once again, it goes to the point of being a two way street.
What was the “thing” about FR for you, if it was not the stories and the amount and quality of Realmslore?
I got asked to run a FR game because of Baldurs Gate (yes, the computer game). I was the DM at the time and I only knew about it from the game, so that's why I started to run games in it: because my players asked me too.
Originally Posted by Mistwell
I like the new FR, and I have not seen some preponderance of critics panning it more than praising it, at least not any more or less than 3e FR.
Then you haven't been looking very hard at the reception it received.
Let's look at the Amazon reviews (by this point they've taken out the initial blind praise and on the opposite end of the spectrum the kneejerk rejection for the 4e one by now so a comparison would seem to be an honest one at this time).
4e FRCG - 65 reviews. 2.5 star avg.
3e FRCS - 70 reviews. 4.5 star avg.
That's a pretty stark comparison there to how the public reception of the book was.
Let's look at the reviews on RPG.net next - the 4e FRCG scored a 3 / 3 (3 on style and a 3 on substance - average) By comparison the 3e FRCS scored a 4 / 5, 4 / 3, and a 5 / 5 on the various reviews it received. Again, the worst review of the 3e book was better than the 4e book.
The disappointment over on the Candlekeep FR forum is palpable. There's a serious drop off in activity on the WotC FR forums, with much of the more active posting often taking the form of criticism of the 4e Realms.
So yes, I agree with the original poster. The 4e handling of the Forgotten Realms was a dismal failure. For the sake of Eberron fans (and Keith Baker too) I hope that some lessons have been learned by WotC in how not to handle an established campaign setting during the transition into a new edition of D&D. It's going to be remembered for years as an object lesson in how to mess up the value of your intellectual property.
Gotta love Amazon ratings.
The people who love FR the most are now all disgusted with it.
If that isn't telling, then the WotC must have some pretty potent 'rose-colored glasses'.
Then again, FR was last year's setting - I'm sure they don't care AT ALL about it this year... juts like they won't care about Eberron next year.
Two books does not a setting make, people. Thats not a setting, thats a 'starter set'.
Two books does not a setting make, people. Thats not a setting, thats a 'starter set'.
this is why the book is called a "campaign guide" not a "campaign setting"
I think the most telling factor is the CK forum.
The people who love FR the most are now all disgusted with it.
-Not really, no. The Candlekeep website primarily caters to a specific subset of Forgotten Realms fans. Many people bemoaned and griped about how the prequel Star Wars movies weren't good, "ruined Star Wars", and so on. The prequel Star Wars movies, of course, were smash hits, in the monetary and popularity senses of the word. Going by what the aforementioned website contributors vocalized, you'd get the sense that the Star Wars prequel movies tanked in every possible sense of the word.
this is why the book is called a "campaign guide" not a "campaign setting"
-No book thus far, in any addition, has been a true 'Campaign Setting'. That would entail a wholesale, comprehensive presentation of everything, which not a single Forgotten Realms book has ever done, 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e.
The 3E guide was fairly comprehensive.
-But in no way fully comprehensive. It was extremely, extremely, extremely far from fully comprehensive. There is so much that wasn't in that book, it's not even funny.
Well, honestly, I don't think any of us can -- maybe, if we were "sitting on the fence", it would be different, but I think you, I, and Faraer all had formed more or less biased views months before the book came out. Yet *if* this book *had* contained well written material (beyond the stuff on Abeir), *maybe* I could have viewed it in a more positive light. However, it does not meet my standards for a well written campaign setting guide/book, and I would not *ever* compare it to the Grey Boxed Set. I just can’t get that same kind of “Sense of Wonder” out of FRCG, because I think the writing is very neutral and boring in tone, and I can’t see those same stories contained within its pages.
You see I was on the fence, I did not know about it until I picked up the 4th Edition Core Books and realized I would want to actually run D&D games again, not just experiment with the new system. Naturally I considered either homebrew or my old standby, the FR. I did not make the decision to use it until after I read it, and realized the FR had essentially reverted to its Grey Box state by jumping 100 years into the future. As to the writing style and quality, that is entirely a matter of taste. I don’t need writing to inspire me, neither do I pick up a game book and expect it to be well written. I expect game books to give me information directly relevant to playing a game in the setting. The FRCG does this admirably in a straight forward all-business (play) manner.
No, I don’t “wax poetic” about anything, but I might offer the tale just to add some flavor, or because a PC asks another NPC about the baker, or maybe I just wish to throw a “red herring” at the PCs. Sometimes it serves a purpose, while other times it doesn’t – I might also tell it because my players *love* to hear such stories (even if the PCs necessarily wouldn’t).
My players love my NPC’s too, and I love involving them in the story, but I don’t want to pay for a book of NPC’s I will most likely never use. I can create NPC’s suited to my games needs and style far better than lifting them from some generic list.
I do prepare more than a handful of NPC backgrounds for each campaign I'm running. Some of them might serve as plot hooks, some as "red herrings" and some might not be related to anything at all (such as Joe the Baker's fear of Sembians, which might keep popping up as a topic if the PCs chat with him), and serve as flavor. And yet, some of this stuff may actually *become* relevant as a plot hook, such as a seedy Sembian merchant Joe the Baker warns the PCs about (and maybe even asks them to keep an eye on him, whether it’s related to any campaign/adventure plot in any way). If I didn’t know where Joe the Baker lived on the city/town/village map, sooner or later a player might want to buy some bread, and asks me about if there are any bakers in the settlement.
At the point that it becomes necessary for you to put Joe the Baker in a place on the map, until you choose to have him interact with your players or vice versa he does not need to be defined. When he does it is much easier for you to create a one paragraph description of the character, or create him entirely on the fly, than to force the rest of us to pay for a bunch of cookie cutter characters we will never use.
And, have you considered the advantage of having keyed city maps, with shopkeepers included? Because *that* is how it was in 1E and 2E FR products. I remember our first Waterdeep campaign, in which we were excited about the number of inns and shops in the city, and we constantly asked the DM questions like: “Which inns can we find on the Street of Swords?” and “Have I heard anything about this Hilmer?” and so on. All of them seemed to have distinct personalities, likes and dislikes, history, and a hundred stories to tell. Since that very first WD session two decades ago, to this day my PCs regularly interact with the various shopkeepers and innkeepers of the city. For example, some of my PCs have had dealings with “shadier” characters, such as Jannaxil Serpentil or Elaith Craulnober or -- and some of my “warrior-types” might favor Brian the Swordmaster’s wares over those find in Saern’s Fine Swords.
Something we actually agree on. I do miss detailed city maps, but I don’t miss the other details at all. Some general locations of historical interest, some suggested political conflicts, major trading houses, famous inns or stores, and leave the rest to me. A starting point, I don’t need an encyclopedia.
Please take a look at the DDI articles and what the designers have posted on the message boards -- it's pretty clear that both the thematical and mechanical focus was intentionally shifted in 4E, and one of the primary goals was to make PCs the “stars” of the campaign in a very literal sense (i.e. NPCs intentionally made weaker in the same way monsters are in relation to the PCs, the whole ‘Points of Light’-ideology, and so on). In the previous editions, the general spirit of the game was not “fun” in the context 4E uses it, but rather a more “gamist-simulationist” approach to the setting and the rules, i.e. that there are “movers and shakers” (enemies and “neutral” NPCs) that are inherently more powerful than the PCs, and the world/setting does not exist as their “playground” only. I will elaborate on this, if you want to, but I doubt it would lead to straying (even further) away from the topic.
I have read what they have posted, many times, and nothing was shifted. It has finally been articulated. If you are not playing a game, what exactly is the setting doing. Nothing, it is sitting on a shelf collecting dust. If the PC’s are not the center of the story, if they are not the characters that are followed around in a campaign, then who is? An NPC? Just because the PC’s are the focus does not make the world suddenly get a case of terminal stupidity, because nothing has changed, they have merely articulated what should be the case at your table. I recommend you read about what they are really saying, because you are clearly not getting it. As to prior editions being simulationist only 3.x really falls into this category, though I will say it was the culmination of a growing trend that drove many away from D&D.
NPCs play whatever part you and your players choose them to play. Sure, they don’t exist outside the game, but then it *is* all make-believe, right?
It is all make believe so why would you want every little square on a map defined, with 98% of the detail being completely irrelevant to your game? Why would you want to pay someone to do this for you? Like I said “Sims FR” is something I never wanted or needed.
Sure, the PCs are in the center of things in every campaign, but are they the only ones that matter in the setting? Because *that* is how I see the game shifting towards “if it doesn’t exist as a plot hook or something to be killed, the NPC is insignificant”-philosophy.
That is not how the game is shifting. Have you actually read the 4e Core Books? Have you played? Have you even read the FRCG? I suspect the answers to all these questions is no, because you probably just skimmed it.
FR began as a setting for stories Ed Greenwood wrote ever since he was eight years old (I think the first place he created was the city of Zirta, now part of Scornubel?). You know, thousands and thousands of stories Ed wanted to tell, and I think this “spirit” is still there in his novels. Of course, we *could* ask the man himself about this, but I personally believe that he’d say that FR *is*, at its core, about the stories of its inhabitants – both the “high-and-mighty” archwizards to the humblest bakers in Waterdeep. Of course, later on, he began to use it to run D&D for his players, and to me it seems (based on his ‘Kinights of Myth Drannor’-trilogy and his stories from the campaigns he has run) that he runs his game based on those same principles, namely that Realms are about its characters – both the mighty and the meek.
I really don’t care what Ed has to say about any of it. The FR stopped being about Ed and his game the day he sold it to TSR, and it became about the game at thousands of tables. So really bringing up Ed is entirely pointless to the discussion. Do I think the FR is all about story? Of course I do, but I think that about any setting I use, because any game I DM/GM is about story.
No, actually, they hear the stories if *they* choose to interact with the NPCs. For example, my players might engage a weaponsmith in a conversation about dwarvencraft items, or weapons forged in ancient Netheril. In any case they pretty much always ask his name (and what he looks like), whether he's married and so on. So, perhaps my players enjoy interacting with NPCs more than your "average" Joe Realmsplayer, and since I enjoy that, too, it’s a “win-win” situation for us. Sometimes a half the session might pass in idle chatter with NPCs – maybe some hints and plot hooks are revealed, maybe not. For example, Thulgard the Armorer might ask the players to deliver him some Mithral, so he can fulfill his promise to forge an armor made of it to some adventurer – maybe the PCs find Mithral or maybe they won’t, and maybe they even will interact with this adventurer who wants that armor or maybe they won’t. Sometimes such conversations might have consequences or result in plot hooks or even whole adventure arcs – such as the PCs hearing about a lost armory of the Ironstar clan hidden within the Thunder Peaks (and rumored to contain many suits of mithral full plates).
It takes all of zero prep time to come up with this on the fly. Once again why would I want to pay for something that in most cases will either not be used, or easily created in seconds? Even if these minor NPC’s were included I would sincerely hope they would not put in the FRCG because it is meant as an overview a Traveler’s Guide to Faerun, not a Traveler’s Guide to Waterdeep where I might actually expect to see local people of note, and maybe even Joe the Baker.
Naturally, if the players are not interested in such interaction, I’m not stuffing it down their throats. But then I need to sit down and discuss with them what each of us wants out of the game – if it’s character-optimizations and more combat than role-playing, I may not be the “ideal” DM for the group. In any case, both as a DM and a player, I expect that every campaign features at least *some* interesting NPCs in case the PCs want to interact with them.
I expect a campaign setting to give me descriptions of major NPC’s. I don’t want statblocks, I don’t want levels, I don’t want anything beyond a good description. I want to know why they are important to the setting, and how they might behave. I don’t need to know who Joe the Baker is unless he is important to the setting, because otherwise I can make him in seconds so why make me pay for him. The setting in the FRCG is an entire continent, not a hamlet. Why would you expect or want that degree of detail in an entry level product?
The depth and amount of lore, and the works of many authors and designers *inspired* me, as a DM, and presented me with so many options and so many stories to choose from – practically *encouraging* me to embrace them and to modify stuff to suit *my* Realms. In that way, it assisted game play.
You see lore to me is history, it is the tales of the realms, and guess what, there is nothing stopping anyone from using it. Additionally new lore is being created by authors writing novels. How has it changed beyond the fact that they decided to really shake things up, instead of continuing along with what everyone expected?
No, as has been discussed to ad nauseaum on every forum, the 4E mindset, and the 'Points of Light'-philosophy removed NPCs pretty much from any role in the "spotlight". I’ve already mentioned this above, but to repeat: this is different from the previous editions, in which (especially in FR) NPCs might play a huge role in a campaign. Now it's discouraged to include NPCs that are higher level than the PCs into your campaigns, and level-based challenges are the “norm” under all the circumstances. For example, if the PCs go out to challenge the king’s bodyguards into combat, it‘s more or less expected that DM modifies the encounter so that it’s not “unfair” (i.e. not level-appropriate). Likewise, if some monsters withdraw and join forces with another group of monsters (i.e. another encounter), it’s encouraged that some of them are changed to Minions so that TPK can be avoided. And, furthermore, NPCs are mechanically treated as monsters, instead of being equal to PCs (yes, I know that truly "exceptional" NPCs *could* be statted as PCs, but the general idea is to avoid it).
Why would you need NPC’s in the spotlight of your campaign? Who is the campaign about, your players, or you getting your rocks off in some sort of power trip while running around showing off how cool Mary Sue is? I really doubt that you grasp what POL is about. POL is about formalizing for the beginning player and DM what should be obvious to any DM worth his salt. The mantra is that D&D is a cooperative experience, and that is the real purpose of POL is to highlight that fact. The fact that this is the first time that the publisher of D&D has ever addressed it, and essentially made it part of the basic learning process of being a good player or DM is a huge step for the game. It is something that should be commended instead of reviled by people looking for a scapegoat for the changes in the setting they love.
The players may be real, and the PCs in the center of attention, but I don’t personally buy into the philosophy that all PCs are *born* heroes and should be the most important beings in the setting (note: my view is probably what GNS theory calls “simulationist”) from the very start. They’re protagonists in a campaign – not a fantasy novel.
If you are making characters it is essentially the default, and always has been that they were above the norm. They were never going to just Joe the Baker, or Gary the Woodsman, the fact you have someone playing them pretty much assures that their life as “nobodies” is done, unless you are running a campaign where they essentially do nothing exciting. They are going to be of some note, they are part of the cream, to suggest they are not the most important beings in the game means you are missing the point of the game in the first place. Nowhere does it suggest they are the most important beings in the setting so lets just lay that to rest or cite me some references, because I am just not seeing it. Once again POL does not mean a terminal case of stupidity is pending.
Sure, I never claimed it was a fact, did I? I'd like to point out that lack of information is not equal to "mystery", because if the Eberron team decided to hit the setting with something called 'Mournplague' and completely turn everything upside down, I don't think we could say that it would make Eberron more "mysterious" once again. FR has a lot of mysteries that have been mentioned in passing (such as the Pyramids of Ascore or Kraanfhaor's Door), but never fully dealt with.
Lack of information does not equal mystery, not knowing about events does. Speculating on what happened in that one hundred year gap creates mystery. All the unresolved events in the Old Realms are plot seeds, historical references, potentially new ruins, NPC backgrounds, PC backgrounds, all ripe for me to exploit. So yeah, I would definitely have to say the FR got more mysterious both in a general sense of the setting and from a meta-game perspective where not having information on something actually does add mystery especially for your players who knew everything there was to know about the Old FR. Being ignorant about the setting as it stands now is definitely a good thing for at least one of my players who has read all the novels. This is a Realms that is similar but different enough to surprise him (not just his character acting surprised).
I based my comments on personal observations of how I've seen FR fans respond to the changes on Candlekeep, EnWorld and here (i.e. lots of angry comments and reduced activity -- mostly here). And, also, the not-so-stellar reviews on Amazon.com, for example. Shemeska posted what I thought was a pretty good assessment of things over on the EnWorld -- I can post the link if you want to?
How is any of this surprising? Anytime you drastically change something especially in the niche group we are a part of there is going to be some serious nerd rage. Actually read the Amazon reviews and you might realize just about all of the “I hate the FR” reviews include commentary suggesting that “I hate 4th edition” is a common statement for these reviewers. In other words did they actually try to review it or just rant. I could easily lift some of the rants from here and insert it on Amazon and the difference would not be seen.
Um, that "corpulent mass" was the "thing" or the “spirit” of the Realms in my eyes. For example, if I ran a campaign in the Sunset Vale, I would have tons of information and NPCs and plot hooks to draw from (e.g. in Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast, FR Adventures, FRCS and the Grey Boxed Set-- and yes, all these books are still on sale on Amazon.com, for example). As I'm not running completely "canon-faithful" campaigns anyway (and, in fact, *none* of the DMs I know do so), I could take what I needed and "tweak" it to suit my needs.
Sorry I would have to completely disagree. When the writers, and developers have to have a degree in FR History to maintain the overall continuity of the setting, and there is so much background material that needs to be known to avoid conflicting with it, it is time for a change. I am sure anyone having to work under the scrutiny of the fans came to think of it as a corpulent mass, and when I have to become a whirling dervish of editing and removal just to pare it back down to something I want to start with (read cheese removal), it becomes hard to want to play or run a game in the Realms. For me the realms deviated from what it was about over a very long period of time.
The amount of information is not a problem, per se, but rather the fact that apparently many people are *intimidated* by it, and fearful that their players will make fun of any deviation from the Canon lore. Well, I know DMs who don't care a *whit* about canon or lack of it, and have played in their campaigns. They didn't have a problem with the "corpulent mass" of information, because they took some of it, and rewrote the rest. In fact, I've played with DMs who couldn't even *spell* 'Cormyr', and still ran campaigns taking place in Cormyr for years. I've also played in a Silverymoon campaign, in which the DM said that he didn't want to read the Savage Frontier or any other supplement just to "get the facts right", and we were all fine with it.
I think the expectation is really that if you buy the products you will be able to use it in your games. I don’t think experienced DMs were intimidated but I can easily see how a new DM would find greener less time consuming pastures.
Look, I could argue that I know nothing about Eberron, and still I could probably run a campaign there -- perhaps not 100% faithfully to the canon, but if that proved to be a problem, I could always say that it's my take on the setting. If that's not still okay for Eberron hard core fans, it could be argued that then perhaps Eberron, too, suffers from the "bloat" of canon lore, right? After all, a lot of supplements plus dozens on canon articles were published for it -- maybe it needs to become "new and shiny" as well?
Comparing Eberron and FR is disingenuous. Eberron is going on 5 years of publication, and the FR is over 20 years of active publication, do we really want to discuss this point.
Just as my comments may have been somewhat "loaded", your "Sims FR" makes me wonder if you were a fan of the previous editions at all -- because the way I see it, the "thousands upon thousands stories" and "sense of wonder" of the living, breathing world always *was* the "hook" or "lure" or "gimmick" or “spirit” of the Realms. At least for me and the fans I know in real life, and also to many I see posting on the message boards.
I just bought, and still have every FR game product since 1987 because I hate it, I simply despise it (dripping sarcasm); seriously get a grip. I have always loved the FR and when I was not happy with it, which occurred toward the end of 2nd edition I continued to follow it, and continued to support, and tried to use what was being produced. I like the FRCS, even though I don’t like a lot of what the setting had become by that point. I love the FRCG because I feel like they finally gave me what I was hoping for, for many years. Of course this is once again purely anecdotal; on both sides of the conversation, hence pretty pointless.
Peeling away the layers upon layers or lore and information does not result in “better” campaigns – it just removes the options for DMs who loved them, and adds to their work, while those DMs who hated it, could have ignored the canon lore anyway. I just don’t see any personality or “spirit” there, because so much of what I’ve grown to love was stripped away in 4E FR.
It has opened it up to a whole new generation of gamers, and for those of us who want to know more there is an abundant history. Sorry it all just sound like a serious case of sour grapes.
Furthermore, it's not that the universe does not work if I don't write or improvise a backstory for Joe the Baker. It's just that if the PCs want to chat with him, it adds a whole new realm of possibilities for the DM and also makes the world seem more complex and vivid. At least for everyone in the four groups I play in.
I don’t disagree, I just don’t want to pay WotC to write Joe the Baker for me.
It's a different thing altogether, if the designers said: "Look, that is a subject that is going to dealt with in a novel or a DDI article". Well, as I said, I read the silence and unwillingess to comment as: "We have not thought about it". And I disagree with your claim about lack of quality in novels – I think that such authors as Ed Greenwood and Elaine Cunningham are both excellent and inspiring writers, and every novel by either of them has had an impact on my campaigns. However, since you admit that you didn’t like Ed Greenwood’s stories or the amount of lore and details in the setting, I wonder why you’ve originally chosen to use the Realms? What was the “thing” about FR for you, if it was not the stories and the amount and quality of Realmslore?
I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, rather than assume incompetence. As to Ed Greenwood and Elaine Cunningham be excellent writers, well that is purely opinion, let me share. While Elaine Cunningham is technically proficient, and I like her writing style the D&D books she has written are essentially pulp. I truly enjoy reading them, but they are candy. They achieve what they set out to do, but they are not the best examples of fantasy literature out there, and often read like a Harlequin Romance novel.
As to Ed Greenwood, I have not picked up and read a single novel that he has written that I liked. I have dug through them to pick out useful tidbits, but I find his style of writing grating, and the characters are less than compelling. If this is the result of editing or expectations I don’t know. I love his short stories, and I love what he has done in the past for the setting in game products, but his novels are not worth the paper they are printed on.
As to what the FR meant to me, what its “thing” was/is a sense of wonder. A desire to go out and find out as much as I could about as a player, and as a DM to tell as much about it as I could. I want to watch my players discover it, and watch the ones who have played before rediscover it. I have that again, I have that feeling of being on a wild ride with no knowledge of where it is going to go. The Old FR had very much lost that for me, because I knew where things were going, and what was going to be beyond the bend.
As to my final comments in the previous post: it doesn't look like FR articles -- at least giving relevant information about the events behind the Spellplague -- are going to appear in DDi in the near future. The only ones I've heard about are from Ed (who seems to "confined" to only writing about Abeir and nothing else) and Brian, who's a very talented writer but to my knowledge not part of the original design team.
I think most of the transitional Spellplague info is going to be released in the novels, and as to further details, I am sure they will produce it if there is demand for it.
Comparing Eberron and FR is disingenuous. Eberron is going on 5 years of publication, and the FR is over 20 years of active publication, do we really want to discuss this point.
-You are dodging the point. The concept of a "bloat of information" appears as soon as anything more than a single word is written. Anything more may be more than a person wants- two words, two sentences, two paragraphs, two pages, two books, two trilogies, two volumes...Eberron has it, just like everything else, depending on what a person wants to define it as.
I think most of the transitional Spellplague info is going to be released in the novels, and as to further details, I am sure they will produce it if there is demand for it.
-The WotC designers have already stated that this will not be happening.
-You are dodging the point. The concept of a "bloat of information" appears as soon as anything more than a single word is written. Anything more may be more than a person wants- two words, two sentences, two paragraphs, two pages, two books, two trilogies, two volumes...Eberron has it, just like everything else, depending on what a person wants to define it as.
Regardless of where you set the bloat as occurring one is going to inevitably have more by whatever moving goal post of a definition is used than the other assuming we use the same definition. Ultimately I could care less if they reset Eberron, but I would guess it has not had enough time for the beginnings of a fan exodus to occur.
-The WotC designers have already stated that this will not be happening.
They have stated that nothing outside of what has already been planned as transitional novels will deal with it directly, however they have stated that we will often get tidbits of the past as part of a novel in the FR present. I guess I should have been clearer.
Regardless of where you set the bloat as occurring one is going to inevitably have more by whatever moving goal post of a definition is used than the other assuming we use the same definition. Ultimately I could care less if they reset Eberron, but I would guess it has not had enough time for the beginnings of a fan exodus to occur.
-The point that Asgetrion was making was that Eberron "suffers" from the same "bloat of lore"; that everything "suffers" from a "bloat of lore" that is entirely subjective.
Reading over your point, there is nothing you've said there that is specifically required to be in the FRCG at all. You do not require details of Joe the Baker being afraid of Sembian spies, all you require in the book is that Cormyr and Sembia have tensions over territory, Joe the Baker is a natural extension of a simple premise.
Not something that requires detailing in the book.
It's a natural extension to a veteran DM, and especially to experienced FR DMs, who might lift a very good description of Sembians out of FRCS or even 'Cormyr: A novel'. I don't think a "newbie" DM necessarily would realize the potential there, or how to use the information to add more flavour to his campaigns.
I think we have a slight disconnect here. I don't mean that all NPCs in a campaign setting book or boxed set should be bakers, merchants, cobblers, peddlers, innkeepers or weaponsmiths. However, I definitely would like to have *some* perspective to their life.
As an example, the City of Splendors boxed set (2E) included a rather lengthy look at a simple merchant's life and opinions and how the presence of magic or adventurers or the 'high-and-mighty' persons influence his life (if at all). It was really an eye-opening experience to me, in the same way that I loved to see the myriad cast of different NPCs in the Grey Boxed Set, and what makes them "tick". Likewise, the most useful part in 3E FRCS, to me, was the chapter about everyday life on Faerun.
It's easier to write interesting and colorful NPCs for experienced DMs, but well-written examples of NPCs from all "walks of life" helps and inspires you in the process. And that is where the Gray Boxed Set really outshines FRCG.
But again, I don't require the details of those cities, I can put Joe the Baker anywhere I see fit. I DO require the actual map because cartography is one of the few things I can't do myself easily. All of the following that you wrote is fine, but again is nothing that is required from a setting to be detailed. I do similar things with my PCs in 5 minutes off the top of my head and a random name generator. Later, I often return to such places after the session and if it interests me or I think of something, I sometimes detail them later for further use if I feel like it might be an interesting idea.
But again, this is not required of a game setting. Page space on providing mostly useless to me NPC stats I'll never use should be spent on the map of that city in question, which is aggravatingly absent at the moment.
It's not about stats -- name and history/backstory is what I mean. Even a short description helps a DM, such as "116. Home of the former mercenary captain and killer-for-hire Rhaster Glanth (N hm F9) who tutors warriors for a fee, and owns a collection of magical swords".
True enough, but did you just play your games with yourself with your PCs as spectators or something? They should be the focus of the game, because I view my players as the actual protagonists of the campaigns story. They write the actions of the story and what happened, while I provide the "story", background and setup of the world and particularly the antagonists.
No. For a reason I cannot understand, it seems to me that a lot of people think the PCs are protagonists in the literary sense (i.e. the main characters in a fantasy novel), which I find to be a misleading concept. Maybe this something do with the "absolute" mechanical and thematical focus on PCs in 4E? You see, in every previous edition, PCs started out as slightly more powerful than "commoner" NPCs, and the role of the setting and NPCs was far more stronger. In 4E, PCs are significantly more powerful than "commoners", and the game focuses on PCs as "born heroes" with a "Great Destiny" to fulfill. The setting or the "supporting cast" (NPCs) are not so important anymore (just take a look at the books and the DDi articles, such as the Greenbrier series or about the 'Points of Light') as the *story* and its *stars* are what 4E focuses on. This is backed up by the mechanics, i.e. 'minions', Hit Points as "plot armor" (which seems to be the prevalent interpretation), the mechanical difference between PCs and NPCs/monsters, and so on.
Does this clarify my point?
Firstly, NPCs are basically similar to PCs in 4E anyway. One NPC does not challenge 5 PCs however, unless you are talking about monsters. Monsters in 4E actually have more overall survivability and "threat" than previous editions do (as they can take far more, minions excepting). So this statement somewhat confuses me.
A solo 30th level monster is far more powerful than a single 30th level PC.
Regardless of who's got the most HPs, the fact is that PCs have more tactical *options* (powers) at their disposal than NPCs or monsters. NPCs stick use a limited number of "shticks", and often this is tied to their equipment. Let's consider Kas, for example... what happens if a PC manages to disarm him, or steals his sword? Looks to me like it would become a very one-sided slugfest, as nearly all of his abilities are tied to his unique magical sword (if I remember his stats correctly). If I *do* remember it correctly, he couldn't even regain the use of his powers with another large blade (which is just silly).
Otherwise why doesn't Frodo just hand the ring off to some 30th level guy who teleports to the Mountain of Doom and just throws it in?
Because it would be a boring story.
I don't think Middle-Earth has teleportation spells...
It's a commonly shared misconcept that high-level NPCs would meddle in every possible affair in their local area. Tell me: would your high-level PCs actually spend all his time flitting around and slaying bandits, kobolds, orcs and whatnot, if he has much more important things to do? Would you spend whole sessions playing those kind of adventures, which garner you very little XP and treasure, and probably prove to be quite unexciting? Especially if you know that there are low-level adventurers (whether they're NPCs or another group of PCs the DM is running the game for) capable of dealing with such petty threats in the area? If not, why on sweet Faerûn would Elminster, Khelben and the others do it, if they are busy in dealing with the plots of Szass Tam or Manshoon or Fzoul or Larloch?
The existence of powerful NPCs does not mean they want or have the time or need to meddle in every small thing going on in the Realms. There are plenty of folk (PCs and Harpers, at least) who can deal with such matters, right?
You are right, which makes your objections all the more bizarre. I don't need the book to detail NPCs, only who might be in charge and other things. If I or you need an NPC of some description, it's not difficult to write one in with 4E and have it function however you like. I want NPCs to be of a specific power level within the realms as a general rule: 4E lets me do that. If you want it to have more powerful NPCs: 4E lets you do that as well.
It's that simple to me.
It's simple to you and me, but it's strongly discouraged in the 'Points of Light'-philosophy and generally in 4E, because players might feel that it's not "fun" to have local NPCs who can "outshine" them.
Also, like I said, writing interesting, Realms-specific NPCs with personality is kind of hard without good examples -- especially to a new DM.
But I see it as a far different philosophy, one where the DM decides if other NPCs are significant, who they are and what their rough level of influence/power is. Not the setting, the DM using the setting.
This is indeed a gamist vs. simulationist perspective. But a gamist perspective gives the DM more freedom to run the setting as they see fit, without having to worry about conflicts with canon sources and similar.
No, a simulationist is not necessarily any more concerned about canon lore than a gamist ; shortly put, a simulationist is concerned about the *rules* and how accurately they model the setting, the beings and physics. For example, a simulationist might prefer the GURPS or Rolemaster rules over D&D, but would not care if the GM runs the campaign accordingly to canon lore or not, as long as he feels that the rules provide enough "realism" not to break his Suspension of Disbelief.
Go and read the novels then?
Oh, I do, regularly. And use them as a source of inspiration, such as when I lifted the Cult of Amalgamation from 'City of Splendors', or whole pages as historic recounts from 'Cormyr: A novel'. Not to mention how many names and NPC concepts and encounters I've stolen from Ed's novels. And details about the game world, such as architecture. The novels, especially when written by someone who really "gets" the "feel" or "spirit" of the setting (as Ed, if anyone, really does), can provide you with tons of ideas. I heartily recommend this to you.
His Characters in his game sure.
In a published campaign setting for DMs to use, it becomes about that DMs characters in their game. I do not take an interest in "FR as run by someone else".
Something you don't seem to realise.
There are such things as the "spirit" and "tone". You know, qualities that make the setting *feel* different in novels and at the game table. How is a FR campaign or novel different from their, say, Eberron counterparts? Now, these are things that Ed practically set standards for in in his novels and the Grey Boxed Set. Naturally, you can run your FR campaigns as you will, but that's how I think Ed (and many others) would define the "feel" the Realms.
Otherwise, what's the point of various campaign settings?
Like I've already said, I really loved it the way Ed provided insight to different kinds of NPCs via his myriad examples from slavemasters to sages and fences and weaponsmiths and merchants. He kind of said to us: "He's how a caravan master or mercenary captain in the Realms acts and thinks, and here's what kind of motivations and aims he might have and how me might bump into your PCs." And I, for one, found those examples to be *enlightening* as a DM. And, take a look at the inns, shops, innkeepers and shopkeepers in the various Volo's Guides (such as Waterdeep and the Sword Coast)... some of those NPCs and their businesses add so much flavour and potential plot hooks to a campaign, or even work as adventure locales themselves.
Which I am fine with. As the DM, I am not there to play by myself and make myself feel important by constantly reminding the NPCs I can do whatever I want with the game. I am there to facilitate 5+ people having a good time playing a game, to facilitate playing a "communal story" my PCs are every part as important in as the characters I create are and that my PCs choose how that story plays out through their characters choices as much as possible.
NPCs are important to me only in the sense that my creations are there to facilitate the game, make it more "alive" and to provide (where appropriate) an even level of challenge for the PCs. I like to decide how powerful NPCs and similar are. Having NPCs in the book is also fine, but only when I can decide what they are doing (or how successfully) and also what their rough level of power is (minding if it's logical I don't mind usually).
Again, this is a gamist vs. simulationist approach.
No, it's not. ;)
I don't believe you understand at all what 4E tries to accomplish in this regard. That you don't have hugely powerful NPCs everywhere is one point, but the idea is that your PCs are the "heroes" who face down the threats yes; this does not mean they have no need or requirement for powerful allies however.
The concept is that these NPC allies are not the ones who have to solve the threats (or perhaps even could on their own). They are side characters in a supporting cast where the PCs are the main protagonists. This is not the same concept as NPCs not doing anything or being entirely unimportant.
Sure, never contested that. But see what I wrote above about the thematical shift and what it implies.
I have no idea what you are on about. Many many MANY combats in 4E feature creatures several higher levels than the PCs are. The normal "standard" encounter I run in nearly every campaign (and that works well) is EL + 1 or EL + 2. I typically use monsters up to 3-4 levels higher than my PCs as well, for either a harder overall combat or to provide harder targets to protect lower level creatures.
If you are meaning NPCs, I don't tend to stat out NPCs that are significantly higher than my PCs. This is something I've always done. If Daeran the head of the city watch is level 14, why doesn't he go and deal with the Goblins who are so low level, he could mince his way through them simply without threat? I could cop out and simply claim he's too "busy", or perhaps doesn't realise the Goblins present some larger threat he's unaware of (and hence doesn't deal with them).
Alternatively, I can have him be a reasonable level, such as five and then in a reversal, have him travel with the PCs as well. His level is not imbalancing (especially if the PCs are level 3/4ish), they get to know and travel with the man and I can build his character more (PCs develop a lot of affection for NPCs that are willing to travel and fight with them, not just send them off on random missions). It also helps build world verisimilitude, if the Goblins really are presenting a great threat to the supply lines/food/farmers of the village or whatever, having the head of the watch (presumably their best fighter) also go with the PCs shows the PCs that the problem matters and is significant for those people.
I can't do that if the setting decides everyone is retired level eleventy-billion adventurers.
See above what I replied about tactical options. As for your last sentence, sure, I agree somewhat with this, and I've reduced levels pretty heavy-handedly (especially with Cormyte NPCs). I don't think it's a major thing, though.
Depends on the DMing style. Personally, I would brutally murder them myself at this point for being stupid.
It's like you believe for some reason 4th edition makes a DM become completely illogical.
Once again, one wonders how much 4E you've read or played. Although this can certainly be done, the official module Pyramid of Shadows says no such thing. In fact, the Pyramid of Shadows has an encounter that can be bolstered by nearby forces, even suggesting that it can become rapidly overwhelming forcing the PCs to retreat.
Scepter Tower of Spellgard has an impossible encounter for PCs of 2nd level if they are able to enter Spellgard directly. The initial fight will butcher them and the module states that the PCs have a minimal chance of winning (IMO, it's close to zero because the number of creatures and that they are all 5+ in level will ensure the PCs turn into sad red splats in no time). Instead of "reducing" the EL as you think it would say, it suggests instead the PCs have the utter snot beaten out of them and are captured. Then having to figure out a way of fleeing.
So please do go and actually read what 4E modules have to say before making up pure unadulterated nonsense.
No, there are a lot of things I like in 4E. The thing is, these issues have been discussed pretty extensively over on EnWorld by 4E fans (and even some WoTC staffers), and the general consensus seemed to me to be that sticking to level-appropriate challenges (such as my examples in the previous post) is far more important than "logical" encounters. I got the impression this reasons behind this opinion was that while 4E is much more balanced than 3E, that balance is fragile; it breaks easily. If the PCs get over their head, they won't have any "auto-win" options (i.e. "uber" spells or items). And, the less reliance on randomness, such as high-damage crits which could turn the tide in 3E, makes combats more predictable. Ergo, if you "trigger" two or more encounters, it may lead to a TPK, which means you need to readjust the encounter on the fly (for example, by changing half the monsters into minions).
This leve-appropriateness is also encouraged in the core mechanics, such as in how improvised actions work (DCs by Tier), encounter budget, magic items levels, etcetera.
Elite monsters/NPCs are roughly equivalent to a PC and can be allowed to use a second wind and PC powers. A solo monster/NPC is far more powerful mechanically than a single PC.
Again, have you even PLAYED 4E?
Again, take a look at my comments about tactical options.
That's a very interesting differentiation you have there, because in my posts I would be thinking you and Faraer are doing that: treating it as a novel and not as a group being the protagonists in the story of a campaign.
I'll have to ponder about that.
No, I don't think we are -- on the contrary. As I said before, 4E has made an attempt to include narrativist mechanics (skill challenges, minions, HPs as "plot armor", etc.) and themes in the game, which may make people think they're playing protagonists in a fantasy novel. You know, all that stuff about 'Points of Light' and PCs being "stars", born heroes, who gain semi-mystical and mythic abilities on their epic journey to save the world from evil deities and primordials.
I can think of other much better reasons for reduced activity here to be honest.
The negativity towards 4E FR? ;P
I'll try to post the link (if I don't manage to do that, I'll post the name and page of the thread) to Shemeska's post.
I got asked to run a FR game because of Baldurs Gate (yes, the computer game). I was the DM at the time and I only knew about it from the game, so that's why I started to run games in it: because my players asked me too.
You know, I was asked to do it because I bought the Grey Boxed Set. Baldur's Gate is a great game, although I personally prefer Icewind Dale II as the "best" FR computer game (and I'm still playing it).
The link to the post Shemeska made over on EnWorld is here. I'll quote it too, as it makes me rather happy to see.
Thanks for sharing.
It's easier to write interesting and colorful NPCs for experienced DMs, but well-written examples of NPCs from all "walks of life" helps and inspires you in the process. And that is where the Gray Boxed Set really outshines FRCG.
That's a very good point right there.
I can't speak for everyone, but the NPCs of the setting have certainly inspired me, even as a player.I don’t disagree, I just don’t want to pay WotC to write Joe the Baker for me.
And if your only opportunity to meet Joe the Baker is if WotC writes it? A lore-lite setting is all well and good if it is purely a game only setting.
The FR aren't. Whether you like it or not, there are more concerns that purely gamist ones here. Unless you advocate the cessation of all novel production, that is.
I think most of the transitional Spellplague info is going to be released in the novels, and as to further details, I am sure they will produce it if there is demand for it.
How much demand will it require? After all, how can sales that have not yet been made be measured? Especially when asking for a novel that might take a year or more in the writing. To ask question, how many novels do you think will deal with the transitional information when the focus, is firmly on the New Realms?
Part of me wants to know the answers to all of the questions I have buzzing in my head, but another part of me is scared of that answer. Why? Because (roughly) 70% of the characters I enjoyed reading about have died in this transition. This does not suggest to me that NPCs are likely to have the longevity they have enjoyed in past incarnations. My expectation is that the novels, almost certainly, and possibly the setting too will go the way of George R. R. Martin, Robin Hobb and Stephen Donaldson, with little "candy" escapism (which is what I want from these books thanks) and a far greater number of characters being killed instead of retiring to run a bar somewhere.
Sorry, that was longer than I had intended.
No. For a reason I cannot understand, it seems to me that a lot of people think the PCs are protagonists in the literary sense (i.e. the main characters in a fantasy novel), which I find to be a misleading concept. Maybe this something do with the "absolute" mechanical and thematical focus on PCs in 4E? You see, in every previous edition, PCs started out as slightly more powerful than "commoner" NPCs, and the role of the setting and NPCs was far more stronger.
Actually in every previous edition of the game my PCs typically started at level 3 because of the multitude of problems with starting at level 1. Every one of my campaigns in 4E begins at 1st level.
Something I have not done for years.
as the *story* and its *stars* are what 4E focuses on.
Again, what is the point of the Lord of the Rings if it isn't a bunch of people haphazardly put together by circumstances for the most part doing something that ends up incredibly heroic? The vast majority of the Lord of the Rings is about the Fellowship, not everyone else in the world.
Does this clarify my point?
I think you've made your point worse :P
Regardless of who's got the most HPs, the fact is that PCs have more tactical *options* (powers) at their disposal than NPCs or monsters.
As a party PCs have more options.
As an individual monsters actually outdo PCs for actions depending on their stat block.
Ammon from my Tides of Dust campaign has a stat block with 12 different abilities. Tiamat has 5 heads and several different actions she can take per turn (having 10 actions a round).
So it depends entirely on how the DM feels like making the stat block. Something that's pretty easy. Generally I feel solo monsters or NPCs should have 1-2 basic attacks, 2 encounter powers, a recharge power and maybe an option for extra mobility (either built in such as an at-will teleport, fly or similar or an encounter power shift).
But in any event, this is not strictly true at all.
NPCs stick use a limited number of "shticks", and often this is tied to their equipment. Let's consider Kas
Ironically picking out one of the only real examples in all of 4th edition, but I digress.
It is hardly "often". Please stop making things up. It's not doing your argument any good.
for example... what happens if a PC manages to disarm him
There is a whopping one power in the entire game that allows you to do this.
One. It's a fighter power and most people overlook it, because the times it's actually useful are not very many.
Looks to me like it would become a very one-sided slugfest, as nearly all of his abilities are tied to his unique magical sword (if I remember his stats correctly). If I *do* remember it correctly, he couldn't even regain the use of his powers with another large blade (which is just silly).
He requires the weapon for them.
On the other hand, unlike 3rd there aren't things like ridiculously overpowered disarming and sundering maneuvers. So this is rather bemusing.
Also, like I said, writing interesting, Realms-specific NPCs with personality is kind of hard without good examples -- especially to a new DM.
I don't really find that the case.
No, a simulationist is not necessarily any more concerned about canon lore than a gamist ; shortly put, a simulationist is concerned about the *rules* and how accurately they model the setting, the beings and physics.
And I'd point out that the canon is equally as important in that as anything else, especially the other characters in the setting. So I think you've just refuted your own point there. I am not at all concerned about the other NPCs other than from a verisimilitude point of view (which I find 4E does better IMO). Beyond that, I do not require nor want their detailing in canon or the setting, because it's simply not important to me.
A simulationist as you have just conceded does.
The novels, especially when written by someone who really "gets" the "feel" or "spirit" of the setting (as Ed, if anyone, really does), can provide you with tons of ideas. I heartily recommend this to you.
I liked Rising Tide, Icewind Dale and a few others. But FR has spawned some of the most horrific novels I've ever read and in fact the worst book I've ever read in my life, Spellfire. I never read another FR novel after that.
No, there are a lot of things I like in 4E. The thing is, these issues have been discussed pretty extensively over on EnWorld by 4E fans (and even some WoTC staffers), and the general consensus seemed to me to be that sticking to level-appropriate challenges (such as my examples in the previous post) is far more important than "logical" encounters.
Bollocks.
WotC designers must have zero input in their own adventures then. I have all the published adventures and MANY of them have an EL exceeding the parties level or monsters higher level than the party. The same trends are in Dungeon as well.
My own game uses a standard encounter of the parties level + 1 as a general rule.
The reason for the general use of encounters of EL = party level, or EL + 1 to maybe EL +2 is to fit more encounters into a session without resting. If you didn't have the reason for this backwards you would almost be making a point. Generally you give evenish or close to level encounters so that PCs face more than 1 encounter a day before resting, as healing reserves are very limited and a tough encounter can really drain a parties resources.
I got the impression this reasons behind this opinion was that while 4E is much more balanced than 3E, that balance is fragile; it breaks easily.
No.
You're just wrong. So absolutely wrong.
I will REPEAT the explanation, but this time now I think of it I'll also add some comments on balance:
The reason for the general use of encounters of EL = party level, or EL + 1 to maybe EL +2 is to fit more encounters into a session without resting. If you didn't have the reason for this backwards you would almost be making a point. Generally you give evenish or close to level encounters so that PCs face more than 1 encounter a day before resting, as healing reserves are very limited and a tough encounter can really drain a parties resources.
In terms of balance, 4Es balance is not fragile. It's problem is it works exactly as intended. Creatures that are higher level than the party are harder. They don't one shot them or anything, but the PCs have a very difficult time reliably hitting them (put a level 10 gibbering mouther, 500 XP vs. a level 5 party as an example). The PCs will win, but they will overall take more damage than they would receive from level equivalent monsters.
This makes perfect sense.
What you are saying is that it's "fragile", but this makes zero sense. It's 100% predictable (unlike 3rd). If I put level 7 monsters in an EL 4 encounter, they are going to do more damage and take less damage than a level 4 monster. This is 100% predictable and makes designing encounters about what you want to accomplish: not about guessing the PCs could roll a 20 on a hold person and wipe the encounter in one round, or fail a saving throw against an instant death effect and be wiped in one round.
If you're saying that it is "fragile" balance that an EL + 4 (say) encounter is going to be very difficult for that group of characters, then I'm frankly amazed. If you don't want your PCs to suffer a significant risk, why are you sending an EL + 4 encounter at them? I use many such encounters myself and have higher level creatures in them frequently, but my PCs survive because they have many options. If they think about what they are doing they can get through.
I also realise if I want my party adventuring and not resting all the time, I need to give them a balance of encounters. 4E is balanced very well, so well in fact that I am well aware if I make them fight hard encounters in a row the PCs are, 9/10 going to find those encounters hard. I never understand these complaints about 4E encounter design, because it's basically working completely as intended. If you want your PCs to have a hard time and tough battles, up the EL. If you want them to face more encounters or feel like they aren't facing particularly quality opposition, lower the EL to just below their level. If you want them to face a relatively even challenge that isn't likely to kill them, have an EL around their level.
This is a working and functional encounter design system. As it applies to NPCs, if you need your king to have elite bodyguards (as your example before), simply make them Elite Fighters (using the template from the DMG) with appropriate powers. A few PC daily powers like lasting threat and your PCs will be thinking twice before picking a fight with the kings bodyguards again.
On thinking about your example if it was in one of my realms games, Forils bodyguards in my notes are level 12 elite fighter template NPCs. They have a combination of powers, such as lasting threat and use a variety of weapons. Their tactics are to form lines with archers near the back (who are actually unique elite artillery, with several other powers to aid them), the front are pure melee with greatswords and heavy armour, with those with reach weapons (Halbards specifically and crack the shell as a encounter power) in the back.
The overall EL of this encounter ends up being something like 16. My PCs at this point will be level 7.
You can figure out for yourself I'm sure what is going to happen to the PCs if they pick a fight.
If the PCs get over their head, they won't have any "auto-win" options (i.e. "uber" spells or items).
This is somewhat true, it depends on the EL and the monsters in it. PCs in 4th edition are much tougher and can take more than previous editions.
Bear in mind you seem to forget that PCs have less chance of being one shot by creatures as well (in fact almost zero chance in many cases).
And, the less reliance on randomness, such as high-damage crits which could turn the tide in 3E, makes combats more predictable. Ergo, if you "trigger" two or more encounters, it may lead to a TPK, which means you need to readjust the encounter on the fly (for example, by changing half the monsters into minions).
Or you just beat the absolute snot out of them.
Honestly, I'm getting the impression you've not played 4E. I'm not going to play whack a mole here much longer as if you have read some of the published modules (Scepter Tower of Spellgard, "Infiltrating the Tower" segment would be an eye opening experience for you I am certain) you'd see that the official modules (and Dungeon modules) actually do not take such tones. Many encounters are somewhat harder than the PCs level and many encounters can get VERY hard (The reinforcements in the Arborean Temple in the Pyramid of Shadows as another example).
You are taking what are suggestions in the DMG for DMs who might not want to massacre their PCs as undeniable truth. But they aren't. Different modules have different approaches. Scepter Tower of Spellgard just says to essentially "Beat the snot out of them and capture them". Another module will have a different idea.
The core "assumption" of encounters that people debate is how many encounters do you face in a day? If you want to run multiple encounters you need to make them level appropriate because of the general attrition. If you want to have dramatic, very intense encounters that are "logical" as you put it, you can do that and the rules accomodate this extremely easily. Just don't expect them to walk through 3 encounters more after that easily without facing a significant uphill battle.
Consider as well that the DM suggests in general to have a couple of standard encounters (EL = party level, EL + 1) maybe a harder encounter (EL +2 to EL + 3) and perhaps a significantly harder encounter (EL + 4 or higher) as a climatic encounter.
That's a very good point right there.
I am not surprised that we feel the same way.
(@Uzzy: thanks for posting that link
)And even if it was a fantasy novel, not all readers would be enamored of a protagonist who was born a hero and regarded by all as important. That setup would be unlikely to impress me, for sure, and I don't much care for it even as a player, either.
Exactly. And the added narrativist elements (such as I listed in my reply to Aegeri) and the extensive use of the word "story" (as in "whatever suits your story") likely confuses people that they're playing in a fantasy novel. Not that I'm against such elements, because they would work wonderfully in a narrativist RPG, but in a highly gamist system like D&D they feel... a bit out of place, at least for me.
Conspiracy of Shadows is a good example of a game that succesfully combines gamist and narrativist mechanics, and yet works as a consistent and coherent system.
Let's consider Kas, for example... what happens if a PC manages to disarm him, or steals his sword?
He can pull out his backup bastard sword (or any other bastard sword around), because in reality his powers don't rely specifically on his weapon, just a bastard sword. In any event, if a fighter (IF) uses a specific power (IF) and manages to hit with said specific power (IF), Kas can simply dominate him and have the fighter hand the weapon right back to Kas (or just fetch it).
Kas can take an horrific beating from PCs and not really care as well (he regenerates, has several options for healing and he probably has friends with his level).
So the answer to your question is fairly straightforward. He just dominates whoever has his weapon (especially with his attack bonus, very likely to hit) and forces them to give it back. In the incredibly rare case he has to deal with the whole one or two powers in the game that disarms*
*I am also sure there is a power that might make an enemy drop a weapon, but I cannot for the life of me remember where it is off the top of my head.
While I answered this earlier, I wanted to point out Kas' stat block specifically a second time:
He can pull out his backup bastard sword (or any other bastard sword around), because in reality his powers don't rely specifically on his weapon, just a bastard sword. In any event, if a fighter (IF) uses a specific power (IF) and manages to hit with said specific power (IF), Kas can simply dominate him and have the fighter hand the weapon right back to Kas (or just fetch it).
Kas can take an horrific beating from PCs and not really care as well (he regenerates, has several options for healing and he probably has friends with his level).
So the answer to your question is fairly straightforward. He just dominates whoever has his weapon (especially with his attack bonus, very likely to hit) and forces them to give it back. In the incredibly rare case he has to deal with the whole one or two powers in the game that disarms*
*I am also sure there is a power that might make an enemy drop a weapon, but I cannot for the life of me remember where it is off the top of my head.
Wait, are you telling me that *only* fighters -- and specifically only those fighters who pick that particular power -- can try to disarm opponents in your game? I thought this sort of maneuvers were supposed to be possible as improvised actions, such Str vs. Ref?
Actually, you're correct about Kas -- his powers aren't tied to his magical sword, but he *does* need a bastard sword, though. I'd personally change that, because it is a rather surprising vulnerability (I'd have no problem with limitation to Large Blades, but weapon-specific abilities are silly. Imagine a PC fighter who was, for example, captured, and could not use ANY of his powers, even if he managed to find a dagger or a short sword.
That is what I feel you are primarily arguing for in your posts: You want it to basically be a novel that tells you more about the realms (The FRCS encyclopedia format) rather than being something that tells you how to use the realms as a game setting.
I'd like both.
As a point of possible interest, rather than of argument for or against anything: personally (so somewhat but not only selfishly), this is something like what I'd like to see published, all commercial and monetary factors aside:
-- an introductory book for people new to roleplaying, of 128 pages or less, and a larger one for established roleplayers (or brave readers not put off by 300-page volumes, as many newcomers are). This would be closer to the FRPG format than the FRCS, with a really evocative introduction to what the Realms is like and what it's about (like the one that opens Ed's Best of the Realms collection), a home base locale, small dungeon area, lots of adventure strands and current clack. The smaller one would have a geographical overview like the original World of Greyhawk box, the larger an expanded gazetteer with a lot of 'life in Faerûn' material applicable more or less wherever your campaign's set.
-- OR: a Forgotten Realms roleplaying game, based on D&D but lighter in rules than recent versions and customised to match the setting's feel and peculiarities, especially its quite-like-D&D-but-not-entirely-and-far-more-involved magic. (I.e., the opposite approach of changing the setting to match the rules.) There would be a short book for players that would be a true player's guide, i.e. information about the Realms PCs would know and some out-of-character guidance, and a longer introductory DMs' book much as above, with lots of Realms-specific DMing advice.
-- a series of huge, heavy leather-bound lore books, with rules information (which doesn't equate to game information -- all this lore is good in games, depending on the widely varying needs of particular campaigns!) in an appendix or separate online download.
-- lots of scenario and module material, including the original and complete Undermountain and all the other fabled dungeons mouldering in cardboard boxes, and at least one extended, open-ended, nonlinear, intrigue-laden mini-campaign
-- short story collections and some novels set in a variety of time periods, with a fixed or only slowly advancing timeline
-- all the above with distinctively Realms-appropriate art, including black-and-white illustration in the Ned Dameron/Valerie Valusek vein, and also that of Wandering Star/Del Rey's Robert E. Howard volumes, and some colour paintings of places (settlement scenes, landscapes) good for showing to players
Wait, are you telling me that *only* fighters -- and specifically only those fighters who pick that particular power -- can try to disarm opponents in your game? I thought this sort of maneuvers were supposed to be possible as improvised actions, such Str vs. Ref?
Essentially, because I remember how stupid 3rd edition got and have no intention of repeating mistakes solved in 4th edition. Strictly put, there is no by the rules disarming maneuver (as far as I'm concerned it's called "Reducing your opponent to zero hit points") and there are only a couple of powers (there is a rogue power *somewhere* that forces an opponent to drop their weapon, and the aforementioned fighter power) that can accomplish the same thing.
If someone did want to disarm him, it would be a LOT harder than rolling strength vs. reflex. It's a lot harder to disarm an opponent than just grabbing them (especially a trained opponent).
But again, there is no "by the rules" disarm in 4th edition. Nor has things like sundering come back.
Both of these are good things.
Actually, you're correct about Kas -- his powers aren't tied to his magical sword, but he *does* need a bastard sword, though. I'd personally change that, because it is a rather surprising vulnerability (I'd have no problem with limitation to Large Blades, but weapon-specific abilities are silly. Imagine a PC fighter who was, for example, captured, and could not use ANY of his powers, even if he managed to find a dagger or a short sword.
It's not required however, because again, there is no disarm in 4E and such things were removed. So it's rather irrelevant if he needs it or not, but the reason it will be stating the blade is required is because of the damage calculation. The stat block assumes he uses that weapon because it's a +5 weapon, so adds +5d6 damage on a critical hit. Without that weapon the stat block would be incorrectly giving you the wrong damage.
This is simple to correct: Remove the +5d6 damage from his weapon attacks. His attack bonus and level are those for a level 26 creature, he does not have the +5 from his weapon factored in. So his attack bonus and damage dice will be identical, excepting for the effects of his magical weapon.
So basic melee (not with his lifedrinker weapon) is simple +33 vs. AC; 2d10 + 14 damage.
There you go, it now no longer requires his weapon. For the stat block as is originally written to be valid, he DOES require his weapon, because otherwise he won't get the +5d6 damage on a critical hit.
But again, this isn't relevant because the abilities that caused many encounters to become complete walkovers aren't present for balance reasons (the spiked chain opportunity attack disarm specialist comes to mind). If you add them back in and don't compensate creatures for it, then you've just made your own new and unique problem :P
*ducks, runs out of thread*
:D
Actually in every previous edition of the game my PCs typically started at level 3 because of the multitude of problems with starting at level 1. Every one of my campaigns in 4E begins at 1st level.
Something I have not done for years.
We always start at level 1 in 3E. Usually the DM compensates for any “flaws” in the group build-up (such as if there’s no fighter or healer in the party) by adjusting the encounters accordingly. Having said that, I definitely think that if you run the game as per RAW, you’ll eventually run into myriad problems with balance, some of which become glaringly obvious at high levels. In this regard, 4E does better than 4E.
Again, what is the point of the Lord of the Rings if it isn't a bunch of people haphazardly put together by circumstances for the most part doing something that ends up incredibly heroic? The vast majority of the Lord of the Rings is about the Fellowship, not everyone else in the world.
First of all, Lord of the Rings is not a good analogy, because it was written as a novel before D&D (or any RPG, for that matter) came out. Therefore, I don’t see the point in thinking about it in RPG terms. Secondly, there are numerous “NPC-like” characters who manage to do just as heroic things as the protagonists (Eomer, for example). Although they’re not in the “spotlight”, their actions are often mentioned as well. Furthermore, many “off-screen” characters are far more powerful or influential than your PCs ever could be (whether we measure them in MERP or D&D stats). Besides, I’ve yet to see a non-narrativist RPG that would model fantasy fiction well. And yet, fiction is always fiction, and it follows different rules than RPGs – not even D&D novels follow the game rules slavishly.
As to the point of LoTR, I can’t recall if Tolkien actually *had* any (besides writing an entertaining novel and striving to create a work of mythopoeia – a genre that he himself named).
I think you've made your point worse
Please elaborate on this.
As a party PCs have more options.
As an individual monsters actually outdo PCs for actions depending on their stat block.
Ammon from my Tides of Dust campaign has a stat block with 12 different abilities. Tiamat has 5 heads and several different actions she can take per turn (having 10 actions a round).
So it depends entirely on how the DM feels like making the stat block. Something that's pretty easy. Generally I feel solo monsters or NPCs should have 1-2 basic attacks, 2 encounter powers, a recharge power and maybe an option for extra mobility (either built in such as an at-will teleport, fly or similar or an encounter power shift).
But in any event, this is not strictly true at all.
Well, how many different powers do Epic Level (which I think Ammon or Tiamat as adversaries belong to) PCs have? I may not have a Major in Math, but I think it’s more than most high-level NPCs or monsters in 4E have – especially as they usually have a certain “shtick” or “gimmick” all the abilities relate to.
I could create an NPC or monster with 50 different powers, but that is not an indication of... well, anything other than I like to give monsters lots of powers, right?
Ironically picking out one of the only real examples in all of 4th edition, but I digress.
It is hardly "often". Please stop making things up. It's not doing your argument any good.
It isn’t? Well, I have to check it out, but I’m fairly sure Kas isn’t the only one.
He requires the weapon for them.
On the other hand, unlike 3rd there aren't things like ridiculously overpowered disarming and sundering maneuvers. So this is rather bemusing.
And I’m fairly sure that you could use an improvised action to Trip or Disarm. As a very simulationist-minded gamer, I don’t buy into the “You can only disarm or trip once per combat if you’ve spent years training for it”-school of thought. I’m fairly sure that even I (without any martial training) could at least *TRY* it, and succeed at least *sometimes*. I readily admit that the sunder/disarm/trip in 3E – while more “realistic” – was not really balanced. Especially as you could build your whole character concept around one of these Feats. However, that doesn’t mean that they should not be doable, or could not be balanced (e.g. by making them Full-Round Actions, or “once-per-round” actions).
I don't really find that the case.
Well, are you a new DM? I got the impression that this is not the case. To you and I it’s probably very obvious how a Zhentish slavemaster differs from a Sembian merchant – to a DM who’s running his first campaign in the Realms, this is not the case.
And I'd point out that the canon is equally as important in that as anything else, especially the other characters in the setting. So I think you've just refuted your own point there. I am not at all concerned about the other NPCs other than from a verisimilitude point of view (which I find 4E does better IMO). Beyond that, I do not require nor want their detailing in canon or the setting, because it's simply not important to me.
A simulationist as you have just conceded does.
Canon is not important to everyone, and this isn’t dependant on whether you’re a simulationist, gamist or narrativist. Just take a look at these boards – it’s simply about whether you care about canon or not. Did you miss my “I don’t run campaigns exactly faithful to the canon”-comment? In fact, I’ve ignored *ALL* those 3E RSEs in my campaigns, including the events of the ‘Return of the Archwizards’, Rage of the Dragons, and the ‘Last Mythal’-series. So, no, I'm not a "canon fanatic", even though I'm a simulationist. A simulationist is primarily concerned about the *rules* and how "realistically" they model the characters and the setting (i.e. so that they won't disrupt his Suspension of Disbelief) -- *not* if every detail is faithful to the canon. For example, a simulationist is concerned about such things as what I wrote about Disarm and Trip above.
Feel free to check the GNS theory, if you don’t believe me.
I liked Rising Tide, Icewind Dale and a few others. But FR has spawned some of the most horrific novels I've ever read and in fact the worst book I've ever read in my life, Spellfire. I never read another FR novel after that.
Are you aware that ’Spellfire’ was absolutely *butchered* in editing, and that editors rewrote parts of it? It’s not the same novel Ed submitted to them.
I'm surprised you liked Rising Tide, because I personally hated it...
Bollocks.
WotC designers must have zero input in their own adventures then. I have all the published adventures and MANY of them have an EL exceeding the parties level or monsters higher level than the party. The same trends are in Dungeon as well.
My own game uses a standard encounter of the parties level + 1 as a general rule.
The reason for the general use of encounters of EL = party level, or EL + 1 to maybe EL +2 is to fit more encounters into a session without resting. If you didn't have the reason for this backwards you would almost be making a point. Generally you give evenish or close to level encounters so that PCs face more than 1 encounter a day before resting, as healing reserves are very limited and a tough encounter can really drain a parties resources.
*SNIP*
You're just wrong. So absolutely wrong.
I will REPEAT the explanation, but this time now I think of it I'll also add some comments on balance:
The reason for the general use of encounters of EL = party level, or EL + 1 to maybe EL +2 is to fit more encounters into a session without resting. If you didn't have the reason for this backwards you would almost be making a point. Generally you give evenish or close to level encounters so that PCs face more than 1 encounter a day before resting, as healing reserves are very limited and a tough encounter can really drain a parties resources.
In terms of balance, 4Es balance is not fragile. It's problem is it works exactly as intended. Creatures that are higher level than the party are harder. They don't one shot them or anything, but the PCs have a very difficult time reliably hitting them (put a level 10 gibbering mouther, 500 XP vs. a level 5 party as an example). The PCs will win, but they will overall take more damage than they would receive from level equivalent monsters.
This makes perfect sense.
What you are saying is that it's "fragile", but this makes zero sense. It's 100% predictable (unlike 3rd). If I put level 7 monsters in an EL 4 encounter, they are going to do more damage and take less damage than a level 4 monster. This is 100% predictable and makes designing encounters about what you want to accomplish: not about guessing the PCs could roll a 20 on a hold person and wipe the encounter in one round, or fail a saving throw against an instant death effect and be wiped in one round.
If you're saying that it is "fragile" balance that an EL + 4 (say) encounter is going to be very difficult for that group of characters, then I'm frankly amazed. If you don't want your PCs to suffer a significant risk, why are you sending an EL + 4 encounter at them? I use many such encounters myself and have higher level creatures in them frequently, but my PCs survive because they have many options. If they think about what they are doing they can get through.
I also realise if I want my party adventuring and not resting all the time, I need to give them a balance of encounters. 4E is balanced very well, so well in fact that I am well aware if I make them fight hard encounters in a row the PCs are, 9/10 going to find those encounters hard. I never understand these complaints about 4E encounter design, because it's basically working completely as intended. If you want your PCs to have a hard time and tough battles, up the EL. If you want them to face more encounters or feel like they aren't facing particularly quality opposition, lower the EL to just below their level. If you want them to face a relatively even challenge that isn't likely to kill them, have an EL around their level.
This is a working and functional encounter design system. As it applies to NPCs, if you need your king to have elite bodyguards (as your example before), simply make them Elite Fighters (using the template from the DMG) with appropriate powers. A few PC daily powers like lasting threat and your PCs will be thinking twice before picking a fight with the kings bodyguards again.
On thinking about your example if it was in one of my realms games, Forils bodyguards in my notes are level 12 elite fighter template NPCs. They have a combination of powers, such as lasting threat and use a variety of weapons. Their tactics are to form lines with archers near the back (who are actually unique elite artillery, with several other powers to aid them), the front are pure melee with greatswords and heavy armour, with those with reach weapons (Halbards specifically and crack the shell as a encounter power) in the back.
The overall EL of this encounter ends up being something like 16. My PCs at this point will be level 7.
You can figure out for yourself I'm sure what is going to happen to the PCs if they pick a fight.
Well, there *is* the table for DCs that is based on Tiers, right? And the encounter budget and treasure parcels and magic item levels are what the encounter system is *built* on, right?
I can’t comment on the official modules (I tend to ignore such anyway, as I prefer writing my own material), but I’ll clarify my comments on “fragile” balance: let’s assume that the PCs trigger (by accident) three different encounters into a single combat. Let’s assume that there’s one Solo, two Elites, a number of Brutes and Skirmishers and Controllers… you still think they’ve got a fighting chance? *That* was the scenario discussed over on the EnWorld, i.e. that the PCs end up splitting the party, and opening too many doors, so that they are fighting the “Boss Monster” and his lieutenants plus half of the rest of the crew AT THE SAME TIME. Now, as we’ve agreed, there are no “auto-win” options and combats are less random (i.e. more predictable) in 4E, so the outcome is pretty clear, unless the Dice Gods directly intervene on the PCs’ behalf, *OR* the DM adjusts the fight so that *most* of the critters are “transformed” into minions on the fly. Of course, the PCs can flee, but that was not the point of the discussion.
In 3E, PCs could win it by using certain spells or good luck with crits. In 4E, this is practically impossible, because nobody “one-shots” anyone anymore. More on this below…
Or you just beat the absolute snot out of them.
Honestly, I'm getting the impression you've not played 4E. I'm not going to play whack a mole here much longer as if you have read some of the published modules (Scepter Tower of Spellgard, "Infiltrating the Tower" segment would be an eye opening experience for you I am certain) you'd see that the official modules (and Dungeon modules) actually do not take such tones. Many encounters are somewhat harder than the PCs level and many encounters can get VERY hard (The reinforcements in the Arborean Temple in the Pyramid of Shadows as another example).
You are taking what are suggestions in the DMG for DMs who might not want to massacre their PCs as undeniable truth. But they aren't. Different modules have different approaches. Scepter Tower of Spellgard just says to essentially "Beat the snot out of them and capture them". Another module will have a different idea.
The core "assumption" of encounters that people debate is how many encounters do you face in a day? If you want to run multiple encounters you need to make them level appropriate because of the general attrition. If you want to have dramatic, very intense encounters that are "logical" as you put it, you can do that and the rules accomodate this extremely easily. Just don't expect them to walk through 3 encounters more after that easily without facing a significant uphill battle.
Consider as well that the DM suggests in general to have a couple of standard encounters (EL = party level, EL + 1) maybe a harder encounter (EL +2 to EL + 3) and perhaps a significantly harder encounter (EL + 4 or higher) as a climatic encounter.
Again, besides from hearing that the adventure does not really confirm to previous lore about Spellgard (e.g. it should be oval, to my knowledge), I can’t comment on this. As to the encounter design, you’re correct – this was not my point; my point was the situations in which PCs trigger several encounters *simultaneously*. It may be attributed to inexperience, or overconfidence/hubris, but it has happened to people (I think one of the examples on EnWorld was from KotS?). I got the impression that the general consensus (or the suggestion getting most support) was that you should adjust the numbers on the fly, i.e. change some of the monsters into minions, even at the cost of “realism” (i.e. half of the Dragonshields the PCs have fought turn out to be minions equipped identically to/disguised as Dragonshields). Would I do that? Probably not. But considering the “absolute” balance in 4E, it shows that as each of the encounters is meant to be faced on its own, or the balance shatters as surely as in 3E (and yet, in 3E there may be means for the PCs to turn the tides in such cases; in 4E, you’d either need to flee or be really, REALLY lucky).
EDIT: I'll say this much, though: please don't use such expressions as "which should have always been the case at your table" or "any DM worth his salt", because they're actually quite condescing in tone, and as a DM with 20+ years under my belt, I don't need *anyone* to tell me how I *should* be running my campaigns. Thank you. Because considering that I and my players are all having fun, I can't be doing it all wrong, right?
-- all the above with distinctively Realms-appropriate art, including black-and-white illustration in the Ned Dameron/Valerie Valusek vein...
I miss that art.
Anyway, you have a lot of great ideas there.
If those products ever were made, I'd definitely purchase them.Because considering that I and my players are all having fun, I can't be doing it all wrong, right?
I wouldn't think you're doing anything wrong. If people are having fun, that's all that really matters.
First of all, Lord of the Rings is not a good analogy, because it was written as a novel before D&D (or any RPG, for that matter) came out.
It's not a poor analogy, because the Lord of the Rings is in many ways part of the inspiration FOR DnD.
And in LotR, while you are correct there are other powerful individuals within middle earth none of them are doing the important part of the story: Taking the Ring into Mount Doom. Which is why I feel this undermines your point so well.
Well, how many different powers do Epic Level (which I think Ammon or Tiamat as adversaries belong to) PCs have?
PCs always have 4 encounter and 4 daily powers, plus a few other options depending on paragon paths and items. Due to restrictions on using items and such, they end up having about 9-10 things each.
Which isn't much more than Ammon or Tiamat. Tiamat does PCs in for actions though, as she has 10 per turn (2/round) and activates 5 times per turn.
I may not have a Major in Math, but I think it’s more than most high-level NPCs or monsters in 4E have – especially as they usually have a certain “shtick” or “gimmick” all the abilities relate to.
It's not significantly more. Kas for example is approaching about the same number of powers, especially when you consider most PCs are likely to have expired some before fighting him.
I could create an NPC or monster with 50 different powers, but that is not an indication of... well, anything other than I like to give monsters lots of powers, right?
You can, but its not required to make monsters in 4E challenging. Monsters in 4E get away with their stat blocks because they don't need long lists of incomprehensible immunities or risk being rendered ineffective easily.
It isn’t? Well, I have to check it out, but I’m fairly sure Kas isn’t the only one.
The vast majority of large solos are monsters like Dragons with natural weaponry. A few published modules have enemies with weapons, but they are either mooks or they don't particularly care.
Tiamat, Vecna and Mual-Tar (the current top 3 in power) don't care about weapons at all.
And I’m fairly sure that you could use an improvised action to Trip or Disarm.
Nope.
I will repeat again: There are no rules for trip or disarm. Knocking a target prone is actually one of the more powerful abilities, but is a part of numerous powers. Disarming has no rules and quite frankly, the mess that was 3rd edition convinces me it will NEVER EVER be allowed again.
As a very simulationist-minded gamer, I don’t buy into the “You can only disarm or trip once per combat if you’ve spent years training for it”-school of thought.
I'd just say "Reduce them to zero hit points" as reducing an enemy to zero hit points represents their inability to continue fighting (for whatever reason).
Well, are you a new DM? I got the impression that this is not the case. To you and I it’s probably very obvious how a Zhentish slavemaster differs from a Sembian merchant – to a DM who’s running his first campaign in the Realms, this is not the case.
Admittedly no :P I've been doing it for over 10 or so years now. But I don't feel it is hard to come up with your own characters, it's much harder to come up with your own adventures.
Did you miss my “I don’t run campaigns exactly faithful to the canon”-comment? In fact, I’ve ignored *ALL* those 3E RSEs in my campaigns, including the events of the ‘Return of the Archwizards’, Rage of the Dragons, and the ‘Last Mythal’-series.
Excepting the point here is that you require more base information. I require less information for what I do, because the less the better because I decide the extent of power and similar in the world. For a simulationist, you require more because it becomes important to know why X country hasn't invaded Y because of their relevant NPC power levels and similar.
Canon information likes this aids you far more than it does me.
For example, a simulationist is concerned about such things as what I wrote about Disarm and Trip above.
I am aware. But the rules in 4E it's important to realise are not.
Are you aware that ’Spellfire’ was absolutely *butchered* in editing, and that editors rewrote parts of it? It’s not the same novel Ed submitted to them.
I did not, but it sounds like an excuse for such an incredibly terrible novel. I will comment that while Ed Greenwoods other novels don't approach the same level of sheer horrifyingly bad, I still wouldn't really consider them to be very good either. I have always liked his supplements and similar though that he's written (the new Dragon article is a good example). But I can't stand his novels and Mary-Stu characters.
Well, there *is* the table for DCs that is based on Tiers, right? And the encounter budget and treasure parcels and magic item levels are what the encounter system is *built* on, right?
Yes, this is to assist in encounter design. If you want it harder, pick harder DCs and such.
There is nothing wrong with making an encounter system predictable.
I can’t comment on the official modules (I tend to ignore such anyway, as I prefer writing my own material), but I’ll clarify my comments on “fragile” balance: let’s assume that the PCs trigger (by accident) three different encounters into a single combat.
Depends on the EL of these encounters, making this a meaningless argument. An EL+1, EL = party and EL + 3 is likely to rapidly turn into an overwhelming encounter. But 3 EL = party level encounters (Albeit not the norm) is likely to be doable, especially at beyond heroic tiers.
Let’s assume that there’s one Solo, two Elites, a number of Brutes and Skirmishers and Controllers… you still think they’ve got a fighting chance?
Yes, because this is meaningless until you tell me what the EL of the three encounters would be. It also depends on the terrain: a single fighter can completely halt the advance of all of those monsters if tactically positioned in the correct place. Buying time and funneling the enemies into a narrow killzone, preventing the overall DPS the party takes from getting extreme.
Not to mention such an encounter just screams to have every daily power the PCs have blown on it (assuming they still have most of them).
*That* was the scenario discussed over on the EnWorld, i.e. that the PCs end up splitting the party, and opening too many doors, so that they are fighting the “Boss Monster” and his lieutenants plus half of the rest of the crew AT THE SAME TIME.
Then they deserve to get thumped.
I don't actually see the problem here. If you pick too much of a fight then you deserve to get thumped.
This is better than 3rd edition where a CR 1/2 Orc could progressively one shot an entire party if the PCs got unlucky. I think having a system where a tough fight is, apparently this is stunning or something, actually predictably tough vs. the "guess the challenge" of 3rd edition is a vast improvement.
And again, I would just murder them.
Now, as we’ve agreed, there are no “auto-win” options and combats are less random (i.e. more predictable) in 4E, so the outcome is pretty clear, unless the Dice Gods directly intervene on the PCs’ behalf, *OR* the DM adjusts the fight so that *most* of the critters are “transformed” into minions on the fly. Of course, the PCs can flee, but that was not the point of the discussion.
Why? Fleeing should be an obvious choice and while humiliating, is often one of the best courses of action. If you pick a fight with about a bazillion gelatinous cubes, you run or you find advantageous terrain to even the odds.
In 3E, PCs could win it by using certain spells or good luck with crits.
The alternative, especially at low levels was that PCs would frequently die to "simple" encounters because a monster rolled one or two crits too many. This effect is also gone from 4th edition.
Again, besides from hearing that the adventure does not really confirm to previous lore about Spellgard (e.g. it should be oval, to my knowledge), I can’t comment on this.
It's mostly a destroyed ruin and the outline is sort of circular shaped.
As to the encounter design, you’re correct – this was not my point; my point was the situations in which PCs trigger several encounters *simultaneously*. It may be attributed to inexperience, or overconfidence/hubris, but it has happened to people (I think one of the examples on EnWorld was from KotS?)
There is one specific encounter I can think of from KotS where this would be a problem (many others would actually not be a problem, as the EL would simply become difficult but not overwhelming). That's probably the Kobolds with the waterfall. That's already a pretty challenging encounter, but going through the waterfall would also bring out Irontooth and his lot, which are very tough by themselves. That would cause the encounter to rapidly become overwhelming.
This is unwinnable for 2 reasons though, distinct from your specific complaint:
1) The terrain is extremely open.
2) PCs are first level at this point, maybe 2nd and do not have enough powers to sustain a long term fight.
I've seen PCs win EL + 6 encounters (albeit taking a massive beating) at paragon and epic tiers. This is only really a major issue at Heroic, where PCs don't have enough powers and they will quickly run out of things beyond at-will powers.
I got the impression that the general consensus (or the suggestion getting most support) was that you should adjust the numbers on the fly, i.e. change some of the monsters into minions, even at the cost of “realism” (i.e. half of the Dragonshields the PCs have fought turn out to be minions equipped identically to/disguised as Dragonshields).
That's one of the things the DMG suggests.
One.
There are other suggestions, again noting the advice given in Scepter Tower of Spellgard as a great example from the designers themselves.
Probably not. But considering the “absolute” balance in 4E, it shows that as each of the encounters is meant to be faced on its own, or the balance shatters as surely as in 3E
You have not proven this. 2 encounters of equal party level is not going to kill the party (and this I know for a fact). Even 3 encounters of equal party level is not going to kill the party. It depends entirely on what the EL of those encounters are and the terrain.
I stuck together two entirely different groups of monsters, an EL + 3 encounter and an EL + 2 encounter from Pyramid of Shadows into a single fight.
My PCs still won. That's an EL MUCH higher than the party (+7 IIRC, I'd need to look it up). So I find this is a position taken not on actual play experience: PCs in 4E are bloody tough just like monsters. Just because more monsters enter doesn't mean the PCs are screwed; the monsters have no ability to one shot the PCs either...
What was it about the 3rd Edition and previous Forgotten Realms that restricted DM's freedoms?
Ignoring the constant side distraction of the debate about the 4th Edition rules (which doesn't belong here), I've a simple question.
What was it about the 3rd Edition and previous Forgotten Realms that restricted DM's freedoms?
You're absolutely correct -- we're derailing the thread with Aegeri.
I find it funny that only the Realms seem to suffer from this "bloat" of information that "restricted" DMs, while Eberron, for example, does not. Like LK said, from my perspective there actually was quite a bit of lore published for it during those five years (and almost every Eberron product and Dragonshard-article seems to quite "lore-heavy"). What's the difference between me trying to pick up all the Eberron books, and a DM new to FR doing the same?
What was it about the 3rd Edition and previous Forgotten Realms that restricted DM's freedoms?
Absolutely nothing. Ask the same question of someone picking it up for the first time and you get a different answer. Whether the answer is factual or not, does not change the validity of their perception.
I find it funny that only the Realms seem to suffer from this "bloat" of information that "restricted" DMs, while Eberron, for example, does not. Like LK said, from my perspective there actually was quite a bit of lore published for it during those five years (and almost every Eberron product and Dragonshard-article seems to quite "lore-heavy"). What's the difference between me trying to pick up all the Eberron books, and a DM new to FR doing the same?
Nothing whatsoever, well except for the monetary investment, which will be much larger with FR just due to the greater number of books available. Expect to see a similar treatment of Eberron in layout, and design.
As to the perceived "bloat", I can't tell you why, but the perception is there, and has been for a long time. There is no way to prove it does not exist to someone who perceives it, because it is simply a matter of opinion, one which was apparently prevalent at WotC. So they did what they felt was necessary.
Nothing whatsoever, well except for the monetary investment, which will be much larger with FR just due to the greater number of books available. Expect to see a similar treatment of Eberron in layout, and design.
Interesting. Forgotten Realms had from 20 Accessories, 7 Adventures, 15 Anthologies and 215 Novels published before the release of 4th Edition. Eberron had 17 Accessories, 5 Adventures, 1 Anthology and 23 Novels published prior to the release of 4E.
Granted, my statistics don't show all the 1st edition, 2nd edition and magazine articles that have been published for the Realms, but from a 3rd Edition perspective the monetary investment for game accessories and adventures looks to be about even between the two.
EDIT: Modified the Forgotten Realms numbers since I noticed that Cormyr:ToW and Shadowdale:tSotL were listed as Accessories instead of Adventures, and the Spider Queen Miniatures box was listed as Forgotten Realms instead of Miniatures. *All totals are based of the Product Listings on WotC's website.
Interesting. Forgotten Realms had from 23 Accessories, 5 Adventures, 15 Anthologies and 215 Novels published before the release of 4th Edition. Eberron had 17 Accessories, 5 Adventures, 1 Anthology and 23 Novels published prior to the release of 4E.
-Your numbers concerning novels are way off. By my count, during the 3e era, there were 89 Forgotten Realms novels (including short story anthology compilations), not 215.
-Your numbers concerning novels are way off. By my count, during the 3e era, there were 89 Forgotten Realms novels (including short story anthology compilations), not 215.
Actually, I said prior to the release of 4E, since I didn't want to classify novels as being edition specific (and the fact that many novels were re-released outside of the 'edition' they were originally released in).
Actually, I said prior to the release of 4E, since I didn't want to classify novels as being edition specific (and the fact that many novels were re-released outside of the 'edition' they were originally released in).
-In that case, you should also include the 1e and 2e sourcebooks and adventures, which then throws the data way out of proportion, concerning the Forgotten Realms and Eberron.
-Ultimatley, however, the point that you are making remains- there is plenty of information for both settings. If the case can be made that there is "too much" for one, it can certainly be made for the other.
-In that case, you should also include the 1e and 2e sourcebooks and adventures, which then throws the data way out of proportion, concerning the Forgotten Realms and Eberron.
I would have, but I based it all off of the Product listing on WotC's main site. I have the complete published list from my Collector's checklist, but I haven't generated the numbers off of that (yet).
Nothing whatsoever, well except for the monetary investment, which will be much larger with FR just due to the greater number of books available. Expect to see a similar treatment of Eberron in layout, and design.
Curious. Did WoTC take money out of people's pockets and give them FR books? You seem to be implying that because there are more books out there, a greater monetary investment is required, which is flawed. I mean, one could come back with the statement that while the 3rd Edition Realms needed just one, bigger book, the 4th Edition Realms needed two.
All one needed to run a campaign in the Forgotten Realms was the FRCS. Every other book was an optional extra. Not a required purchase. I personally would rather have the 3rd Edition system, whereby you just need one book to run a campaign, but there are more, optional books out there if people want them.
Now, this may very well have been a presentation issue. This is a shame, but it's understandable that WoTC would imply that other books are needed, purely to get them sold. If it was a presentation issue, then that's what needed changing. Not the Realms.
Either way, it's nice to see you finally acknowledge that there wasn't anything preventing DM freedom in the 3rd Edition Realms.
I would have, but I based it all off of the Product listing on WotC's main site. I have the complete published list from my Collector's checklist, but I haven't generated the numbers off of that (yet).
-It's obtuse, but I compiled three different listings of WotC soucebooks, novels, adventures, and 'other things' for 1e, 2e, and 3e. That's where I got the number 89- I counted all of the novels that came out during, or were involved in the transition to the 3e era.
Either way, it's nice to see you finally acknowledge that there wasn't anything preventing DM freedom in the 3rd Edition Realms.
When did I ever not acknowledge this?
Did the FR ever require anything outside of the Old Grey Box?
The fact that you can't seem to move on past the FRCS does not excuse you from needless attacks against people who have zero problem doing so. Get a grip and move on.
Which should be applied to the pro-4e and pro-3e sides of things equally I think...
When did I ever not acknowledge this?
Constantly. You and the other 4th Edition 'Realms' supporters consistently assert that 4th Edition offers DM's freedom to design their own campaign. Which is technically true, but the emphasis on it makes it apparent you didn't believe previous editions offered the same. Which is false.
Constantly. You and the other 4th Edition 'Realms' supporters consistently assert that 4th Edition offers DM's freedom to design their own campaign. Which is technically true, but the emphasis on it makes it apparent you didn't believe previous editions offered the same. Which is false.
Just because I prefer 4th edition mechanics, just because I think the FRCG is a better starting point for a new DM than the FRCS, just because I thought that after 20 years of following the setting it just might need to be shaken up, in no way suggests that I thought the previous editions were not usable. In fact if you bothered to read what I have written in the past, you would realize that I consistently recommend using the lore of the previous editions to create mythic threads in the telling of tales in the 4th edition time line.
Just because I think it is easier to make changes, and hence think that this ease is a feature, does not mean I did not make changes to the setting in the past. I have not run a purely canon FR since the Time of Troubles, that is a pretty long time to be tinkering with the setting and making it my own. That the preparation for my current FR Campaign has been drastically reduced in comparison to my last FR Campaign, was proof positive for me that this perceived ease of use was a feature. Some of this is directly tied to the changes in the setting and the changes to its mechanical underpinnings. Some of it is purely a personal reaction, I just like a less defined FR.
Oh, nice straw man by the way.
Quote:
You see I was on the fence, I did not know about it until I picked up the 4th Edition Core Books and realized I would want to actually run D&D games again, not just experiment with the new system. Naturally I considered either homebrew or my old standby, the FR. I did not make the decision to use it until after I read it, and realized the FR had essentially reverted to its Grey Box state by jumping 100 years into the future. As to the writing style and quality, that is entirely a matter of taste. I don’t need writing to inspire me, neither do I pick up a game book and expect it to be well written. I expect game books to give me information directly relevant to playing a game in the setting. The FRCG does this admirably in a straight forward all-business (play) manner.
Sure, it is a matter of taste. But unless I’ve misunderstood your points, here’s the difference between us: you liked the Grey Boxed Set and 1E FR for the “mystery” (i.e. gaps and holes for the DM to fill), while I loved it for all those “juicy” tidbits, NPCs with personality and the whole Sense of Wonder and amazement at the level and quality of the details.
My players love my NPC’s too, and I love involving them in the story, but I don’t want to pay for a book of NPC’s I will most likely never use. I can create NPC’s suited to my games needs and style far better than lifting them from some generic list.
No, I wasn’t referring to books about NPCs – my point was well-written NPCs with personality and background. Such as Brandon, Hawkstone, Emperel, Deior, Asbras, et al. All kinds of NPCs from suave villains to friendly sages and innkeepers. Those 20 pages or so in the Grey Boxed Set have been an endless source of inspiration for me.
I don’t need their stat blocks, or even a list of their magic items. And the Grey Boxed Set truly delivered in that regard, while 4E FRCG, I think, did not.
At the point that it becomes necessary for you to put Joe the Baker in a place on the map, until you choose to have him interact with your players or vice versa he does not need to be defined. When he does it is much easier for you to create a one paragraph description of the character, or create him entirely on the fly, than to force the rest of us to pay for a bunch of cookie cutter characters we will never use.
Well, I believe it’s quite useful, because you might take a look at local shopkeepers and maybe get some additional ideas from there as well, i.e. “this swordsmith might easily link to adventure Z and maybe PC Y…” and so on. As for “Joe Bakers”, our drow party once killed a baker and his mother in Waterdeep, because we needed their house, but that’s a long story.
As I posted to Aegeri, I think a short description is enough (such as of the former mercenary captain) is enough to inspire me. I like that there are all sorts of shops on FR city maps, from coopers and shoemakers to armorers and fences – if my PCs ask for a perfumer, for example, I know where it is, and can also mention the shopkeeper’s name. Of course, I *can* improvise as much information as needed, down to his family members and hobbies, but if I hadn’t been “mentored” by Ed’s writing (his novels, short stories and game products) , I’m not sure if I could. Definitely I couldn’t have back then, on my own. I can’t express it in any other way but that Ed kind of showed me how to add a whole new layer of depth to my games.
I have read what they have posted, many times, and nothing was shifted. It has finally been articulated. If you are not playing a game, what exactly is the setting doing. Nothing, it is sitting on a shelf collecting dust. If the PC’s are not the center of the story, if they are not the characters that are followed around in a campaign, then who is? An NPC? Just because the PC’s are the focus does not make the world suddenly get a case of terminal stupidity, because nothing has changed, they have merely articulated what should be the case at your table. I recommend you read about what they are really saying, because you are clearly not getting it. As to prior editions being simulationist only 3.x really falls into this category, though I will say it was the culmination of a growing trend that drove many away from D&D.
As I posted before, please don’t tell me how I should or should not be running my game. Secondly, several of the Design & Development articles speak of the “significant shift in philosophy”, and the Dungeoncraft-series speak of how the author does not “want a powerful NPC in town who has every reason to do the PCs' jobs for them”.
As for the ‘Points of Light’, here's what the article says:
Quote: “But one of the new key conceits about the D&D world is simply this: Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world.
Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between, and the world isn’t carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands.
…
“The common folk of the world look upon the wild lands with dread. Few people are widely traveled—even the most ambitious merchant is careful to stick to better-known roads. The lands between towns or homesteads are wide and empty. It might be safe enough within a day’s ride of a city or an hour’s walk of a village, but go beyond that and you are taking your life into your hands. People are scared of what might be waiting in the old forest or beyond the barren hills at the far end of the valley, because whatever is out there is most likely hungry and hostile. Striking off into untraveled lands is something only heroes and adventurers do.
Another implication of this basic conceit of the world is that there is very little in the way of authority to deal with raiders and marauders, outbreaks of demon worship, rampaging monsters, deadly hauntings, or similar local problems. Settlements afflicted by troubles can only hope for a band of heroes to arrive and set things right.”
While this has been, more or less, how things are in Savage Frontier or similar “borderlands”, I didn’t see this being the case with civilized areas. What 4E did, was shift the philosophy towards “all PCs are born heroes with unique abilities and practically only they can the save the World”, and make that the “norm”, instead of implying that while there are lots of people capable of just that, it’s the DM’s job to make sure the job falls on the PCs’ shoulders. Furthermore, the game doesn’t just encourage it; it practically enforces it in the mechanics. To clarify: in all the previous editions the PCs had to *struggle* their way to glory and fame, while 4E makes sure that they’re already there even in the beginning. I never had any trouble with high-level NPCs “stealing their thunder”, but in 4E the “norm” is that nobody else in the world should capable of doing that.
And, not every campaign featured World-Shattering Events or combats with Deities, or required the PCs to pick up the pieces where Elminster or Mordenkainen failed. In 4E, this was changed as well – it’s the norm that you fight Gods and Primordials and Demon Lords and whatnot at Epic Levels. While it suits Epic Fantasy well, not all campaigns concentrated on such themes, even at high levels.
No, the “camera” isn’t on NPCs in my campaigns, but that doesn’t mean the PCs are the only important beings in the setting. So, as I’ve said, I use plenty of NPCs in my campaigns – some of them significantly more powerful than the PCs, and some of them even are prominent local figures.
Also, I happen to think that campaigns featuring “dysfunctional” parties were the most fun to run or play in – you know, PCs holding grudges against each other, arguing, fighting amongst themselves, denying to heal a “blasphemer”, and so on. It feels very refreshing from the forced party dynamic “hardwired” into 4E. But that’s just how we prefer things in my group.
It is all make believe so why would you want every little square on a map defined, with 98% of the detail being completely irrelevant to your game? Why would you want to pay someone to do this for you? Like I said “Sims FR” is something I never wanted or needed.
First of all, my "it's all make-believe" was meant to be a sarcastic comment. And, I never said I want *everything* on the world map detailed. And, I *do* use most of the stuff described in many supplements, such as the Volo’s Guides. I’m not role-playing *everyone* in the setting, or constantly “waxing poetic descriptions” about every scene, but descriptions – even short ones – help a lot.
As far as adventures go, what *I* don’t need is wasted pages in the ‘Delve’-format, in which more effort is put into showing you which mini goes into which square, and which actions every monster uses on each round. I like detailed and flavorful room, NPC and item descriptions instead of that.
That is not how the game is shifting. Have you actually read the 4e Core Books? Have you played? Have you even read the FRCG? I suspect the answers to all these questions is no, because you probably just skimmed it.
It isn’t? Yes, I have read them all carefully through, many times (and no, I don’t own them – one of my friends does, however). Let’s get something straight here: I like many mechanics and the added balance in 4E; not everything (such as the powers), and I may think they went too far in the quest for “ultimate” balance. And yes, I *do* have perspective on this to analyze the system this way; it may only be my opinion, but I've played and ran a huge number of RPG systems in those 20+ years I've gamed. Therefore, saying that I haven't ran 4E does not equal to being ignorant.
I think the issue here is that while you, I, and half the WoTC staff have experience with the previous editions, a group introduced to D&D in 4th Edition doesn’t. And while Joe Designer may say: “I think NPCs were too complex or disruptive to the campaign in the previous editions, and therefore need to be mechanically simplified and have officially their status reduced.”, Joe New DM doesn’t have such perspective. You and I do. And when we post that “no, this is X and not Y or Z”, it comes from years and years of experience, through all the editions of the game. Still, the designers openly admit that there *is* a philosophical shift that affected pretty much everything in 4E.
I really don’t care what Ed has to say about any of it. The FR stopped being about Ed and his game the day he sold it to TSR, and it became about the game at thousands of tables. So really bringing up Ed is entirely pointless to the discussion. Do I think the FR is all about story? Of course I do, but I think that about any setting I use, because any game I DM/GM is about story.
Take a look at what I wrote to Aegiri about Ed setting the standards for what the “feel” or “spirit” of the Realms are. You can’t have hated that, if you claim that you’ve been a fan since the Grey Boxed Set, right? And you know what? Ed’s answers (whenever he isn’t prevented by NDAs in answering certain questions) are official, or canon, because that’s part of his contract (as long he does not contradict an existing publication). So, yes, what he has to say *does* matter.
It takes all of zero prep time to come up with this on the fly. Once again why would I want to pay for something that in most cases will either not be used, or easily created in seconds? Even if these minor NPC’s were included I would sincerely hope they would not put in the FRCG because it is meant as an overview a Traveler’s Guide to Faerun, not a Traveler’s Guide to Waterdeep where I might actually expect to see local people of note, and maybe even Joe the Baker.
Zero prep for you and me, but let’s consider newbie DMs – I know it wouldn’t have been easy for me without the Gray Boxed Set. Note that this is once again a pretty moot point anyway, since we two already *HAVE* that information and experience at our disposal. Joe New DM doesn’t. And, furthermore, he even won’t get it, since they’re not publishing any new 4E FR accessories, and I’m not exactly holding my breath for any insightful DDi articles either.
I expect a campaign setting to give me descriptions of major NPC’s. I don’t want statblocks, I don’t want levels, I don’t want anything beyond a good description. I want to know why they are important to the setting, and how they might behave. I don’t need to know who Joe the Baker is unless he is important to the setting, because otherwise I can make him in seconds so why make me pay for him. The setting in the FRCG is an entire continent, not a hamlet. Why would you expect or want that degree of detail in an entry level product?
We probably have a slight disconnect there; I don’t want to have all the bakers in the world listed or statted or described in detail. But I don’t mind if city maps include the location Joe’s Bakery and maybe some short description of Joe himself (i.e. “91. Joe’s Wondrouds Breads, prop. Joe the Jolly Baker (NG hm Com2/Exp4), famous around the Dragonreach for his tasty pies and dark bread. Secretly a member of the Night Fingers.”). And, once again, entry-level products is *all* there will be in 4E FR, right?
You see lore to me is history, it is the tales of the realms, and guess what, there is nothing stopping anyone from using it. Additionally new lore is being created by authors writing novels. How has it changed beyond the fact that they decided to really shake things up, instead of continuing along with what everyone expected?
How has it changed? Well, for start, most of the lore established in the previous edition is now redundant. And, as LK ably pointed out, the lore (quality of which, in my opinion, has been questionable so far) is not being published exactly at the same rate than previously, and will not be. How many DDi articles we’ve seen for the Realms during the last half a year? Two? Three? Aside from the novels (which I’ve tried to read but found not to my taste), FR lore doesn’t seem to be a top priority for WoTC – probably even less so as they’re concentrating on Eberron now. Without Brian’s active “push” for more FR articles, I doubt they would not have published even the two recent ones.
No, as has been discussed to ad nauseaum on every forum, the 4E mindset, and the 'Points of Light'-philosophy removed NPCs pretty much from any role in the "spotlight". I’ve already mentioned this above, but to repeat: this is different from the previous editions, in which (especially in FR) NPCs might play a huge role in a campaign. Now it's discouraged to include NPCs that are higher level than the PCs into your campaigns, and level-based challenges are the “norm” under all the circumstances. For example, if the PCs go out to challenge the king’s bodyguards into combat, it‘s more or less expected that DM modifies the encounter so that it’s not “unfair” (i.e. not level-appropriate). Likewise, if some monsters withdraw and join forces with another group of monsters (i.e. another encounter), it’s encouraged that some of them are changed to Minions so that TPK can be avoided. And, furthermore, NPCs are mechanically treated as monsters, instead of being equal to PCs (yes, I know that truly "exceptional" NPCs *could* be statted as PCs, but the general idea is to avoid it).
Why would you need NPC’s in the spotlight of your campaign? Who is the campaign about, your players, or you getting your rocks off in some sort of power trip while running around showing off how cool Mary Sue is? I really doubt that you grasp what POL is about. POL is about formalizing for the beginning player and DM what should be obvious to any DM worth his salt. The mantra is that D&D is a cooperative experience, and that is the real purpose of POL is to highlight that fact. The fact that this is the first time that the publisher of D&D has ever addressed it, and essentially made it part of the basic learning process of being a good player or DM is a huge step for the game. It is something that should be commended instead of reviled by people looking for a scapegoat for the changes in the setting they love.
And, as I have already said, phrases such as “any DM worth his salt” are quite snarky and insulting in tone. Please stop using them. They imply that you think your way (now officially embraced in the new edition) is the “best” or “only” way of running the game, and that guys like me are doing it “wrong”. And, what is a “good player”?
As I said before, we like “dysfunctional” groups that don’t always operate in perfect harmory, or even play together. And we think it’s fun. Are we, perhaps, playing D&D “wrong”?
Furthermore, is PoL really the “best” kind of setting? The way I see it, yeah, it's more "DM-friendly"; trembling commoners lock their doors after dark, and only wait for their PC-saviors to deliver them from Evil. No need for overly complex plot hooks, because the PCs are the only ones *capable* of doing something. And somehow, by pure chance or luck or the protection of the Gods, the Darkness has not crushed all those tiny, flickering points within it – even without any (ugh!) high-level NPCs to keep it in check. Some people don’t care about stuff like this, but I do. It’s not a “scapegoat”, because I just don’t think the world of PoL would work very well as presented. And, furthermore, I don’t like the changes in 4E FR, because most of them do not make sense to me (such as Shar and Cyric killing Mystra in her own place of power).
It’s not a case of “terminal stupidity”, but rather it feels to me like the designers simply wanted to get rid of every extra details, i.e. unless it’s absolutely relevant to your session, it’s not there (until it becomes relevant). Even the Dungeoncraft-articles seem to encourage more “relaxed” (or even lazy) pre-play prep, with “steal this and make that when your PCs go there” – which is fine, if your PCs don’t care too much about history and flavor. But I wouldn’t be satisfied with the DM saying: “Alright, your character is from the City of Braskol, but I haven’t done it yet, so I’ll give you information about it when you go there the first time.”
If you are making characters it is essentially the default, and always has been that they were above the norm. They were never going to just Joe the Baker, or Gary the Woodsman, the fact you have someone playing them pretty much assures that their life as “nobodies” is done, unless you are running a campaign where they essentially do nothing exciting. They are going to be of some note, they are part of the cream, to suggest they are not the most important beings in the game means you are missing the point of the game in the first place. Nowhere does it suggest they are the most important beings in the setting so lets just lay that to rest or cite me some references, because I am just not seeing it. Once again POL does not mean a terminal case of stupidity is pending.
In the *setting* -- PCs are not by default at 1st level the most important beings in the *setting*, at least in my games. And, there’s a difference between Mike the Farmboy who’s trained honed his swordmanship skills, and Mike the Farmboy who’s developed “proto-mystical” weapon skills that smack of action movie stunts, and could beat the living hell out of half the minio… er, villagers.
We’re seriously derailing this thread, but if I’ve understood it correctly, one of the points in 4E is to make the PCs “stars” of the game once again (I’m fairly sure I saw this phrase in one of the articles… I have to dig out the reference), i.e. more heroic right out of the book, with no local higher-level NPCs to “do their job” (see the Dungeoncraft articles on Greenbrier).
And no, I’m not having “Mary Sue”-type of NPCs running around. It’s just that like I wrote to Aegiri, I want the world to be vibrant and feel alive. If the PCs won’t deal with a plot hook (i.e. if I clearly see that they’re not interested in it at all), someone else does. Likewise, if the PCs go banging at the doors of Manshoon’s tower, they’re begging for trouble. They’re the most important beings in the campaign, but not the setting, and their actions (or lack of them) always have consequences.
Lack of information does not equal mystery, not knowing about events does. Speculating on what happened in that one hundred year gap creates mystery. All the unresolved events in the Old Realms are plot seeds, historical references, potentially new ruins, NPC backgrounds, PC backgrounds, all ripe for me to exploit. So yeah, I would definitely have to say the FR got more mysterious both in a general sense of the setting and from a meta-game perspective where not having information on something actually does add mystery especially for your players who knew everything there was to know about the Old FR. Being ignorant about the setting as it stands now is definitely a good thing for at least one of my players who has read all the novels. This is a Realms that is similar but different enough to surprise him (not just his character acting surprised).
No, knowing *something* about events and places and characters, but not the ultimate answers, does. What or who is the Evil rumored to be imprisoned under the Pyramids of Ascore? Telling the players the answer like “Oh, it’s some sort of Primordial that you guys could fight at Epic Levels” does not.
Likewise, that the players know right out of the book that the “secret” of Saharelgard is Lady Saharel who can predict their futures is pretty anti-climatic and takes away a lot of the mystery. Knowing that there’s something vastly powerful and mysterious in Saharelgard, perhaps an artifact, that many evil organizations have tried to find, feels more mysterious. Not knowing the ultimate truth about the Mournlands or the Draconic Proophecy also does.
How is any of this surprising? Anytime you drastically change something especially in the niche group we are a part of there is going to be some serious nerd rage. Actually read the Amazon reviews and you might realize just about all of the “I hate the FR” reviews include commentary suggesting that “I hate 4th edition” is a common statement for these reviewers. In other words did they actually try to review it or just rant. I could easily lift some of the rants from here and insert it on Amazon and the difference would not be seen.
So we can chalk it all up on nerd rage? Where are the excited 4E FR fans, then? Don’t they write reviews, or actively post on the boards?
Sorry I would have to completely disagree. When the writers, and developers have to have a degree in FR History to maintain the overall continuity of the setting, and there is so much background material that needs to be known to avoid conflicting with it, it is time for a change. I am sure anyone having to work under the scrutiny of the fans came to think of it as a corpulent mass, and when I have to become a whirling dervish of editing and removal just to pare it back down to something I want to start with (read cheese removal), it becomes hard to want to play or run a game in the Realms. For me the realms deviated from what it was about over a very long period of time.
I disagree. I can understand why a DM might feel this way, but not the authors or the designers, because it’s part of their *JOB* to do research like this. You see, in my job I need to read dozens of books I couldn’t care less about every year, but I have to do it, so that I can do Readers’ Advisory or book talk about them. It’s part of my job and I get paid for it. It’s professionalism. If you (and that's a generic "you"), as developer or author, think it's too much of an effort to keep up with lore to do your job, maybe you need another job?
Comparing Eberron and FR is disingenuous. Eberron is going on 5 years of publication, and the FR is over 20 years of active publication, do we really want to discuss this point.
As LK pointed out, yes, it’s relevant, because for a completely new Eberron DM all those dozens of novels and game accessories represent a huge amount of information. And then there are the Dragonshards-articles, too. Not to mention that Eberron products seem to be just as heavy with flavor as FR.
It has opened it up to a whole new generation of gamers, and for those of us who want to know more there is an abundant history. Sorry it all just sound like a serious case of sour grapes.
I hope that whole new generation of 4E FR gamers is out there, somewhere, because my impression is that most of the Old Guard are not exactly cheering the design team for the changes. And yes, compared to the juicy tidbits and quality of Realmslore from certain developers (Ed, Steven and Eric, to name a few), this “New Realms” *does* taste like sour grapes.
I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, rather than assume incompetence. As to Ed Greenwood and Elaine Cunningham be excellent writers, well that is purely opinion, let me share. While Elaine Cunningham is technically proficient, and I like her writing style the D&D books she has written are essentially pulp. I truly enjoy reading them, but they are candy. They achieve what they set out to do, but they are not the best examples of fantasy literature out there, and often read like a Harlequin Romance novel.
As to Ed Greenwood, I have not picked up and read a single novel that he has written that I liked. I have dug through them to pick out useful tidbits, but I find his style of writing grating, and the characters are less than compelling. If this is the result of editing or expectations I don’t know. I love his short stories, and I love what he has done in the past for the setting in game products, but his novels are not worth the paper they are printed on.
]As to what the FR meant to me, what its “thing” was/is a sense of wonder. A desire to go out and find out as much as I could about as a player, and as a DM to tell as much about it as I could. I want to watch my players discover it, and watch the ones who have played before rediscover it. I have that again, I have that feeling of being on a wild ride with no knowledge of where it is going to go. The Old FR had very much lost that for me, because I knew where things were going, and what was going to be beyond the bend.
Not incompetence as much as indifference. Lack of passion, and lack of desire to *really* have thought everything through (e.g. why did not Shade crash down, or why did Elminster lose his powers as a Chosen, or why did Mythals brush away Spellplague and yet it shook the planes and dethroned gods, and so on).
As for the Sense of Wonder, I don’t think trashing everything and saying: “Look, I have this flying Aboleth Fortress of Quaxxilpitzifthgal’Kthulhu here, ain’t it cool? And these Horror Elves who are cannibals and worship Gruumsh and aberrations here in the shattered remnants of Kthulruaa, which was know as Halruaa, only now it sounds cooler” makes it all more mysterious or better. Well, maybe it’s better if we just agree that it’s different strokes for different people, right?
I think most of the transitional Spellplague info is going to be released in the novels, and as to further details, I am sure they will produce it if there is demand for it.
What if there isn’t? And regardless that even if there was, I think they’re already concentrating on more relevant matters, such as Eberron coming out this year. Sure, they’ve promised that there will be new articles every month for FR, but didn’t they say so last year, as well? You know what, my personal impression is that 4E FR did not sell *enough* to justify any real effort in that regard. Of course, I may be wrong, since my claim is based on anecdotal evidence, but that’s a pretty strong “hunch” for me.
LoTR:
It does? Look, fiction plays by its own rules, especially novels which had nothing to do with RPGs when they were published. LoTR may have *inspired* DMs and RPGs in general, but it should not be seen as a campaign, or its protagonists as PCs. Even D&D fiction does not confirm to the game rules very well.
In LoTR, Tolkien explains it all with motivations, i.e. hubris, ignorance and reluctance to change “status quo”. And, also, that the mighty are more susceptible to the Ring’s corrupting powers (like Galadriel demonstrates). Not to mention that Sauron would likely sense their approach. These are some of the reasons why none of the “High-Level” beings want to accept the Ring and take it to Mount Doom. They all (the ones who are aware of things) know it would be a doomed attempt; either someone would replace Sauron as the Dark Lord, or likely have to face him on his home ground. That is why someone innocent and “meek” and invisible to Sauron’s scrutinizing gaze must act as the ring-bearer.
Having said that, wouldn’t such explanations also apply to high-level FR NPCs, or “Mary Sues”, such as Elminster and the rest of the Chosen?
Simulationism:
Correct, 4E rules are not, which I struggle with. You see, someone else may completely ignore such things and concentrate on the “fun factor” of being able to pull off “cool” stunts right from the start. I can’t. I need to know how the ‘Hammer Shot’ works on an Iron Golem, or ‘Split the Tree’, or ‘Blinding Barrage’. Or why I can’t even *try* tripping an opponent. Unless the DM can come up with *very* good explanations, it breaks my Suspension of Disbelief. Really. And “reduce them to zero hit points” to disarm them is not exactly an explanation good enough for me. Like I posted, I think there are ways to balance Disarm and Trip.
As far as the setting goes, a simulationist does not require more information per se, but rather he insists that the information he is provided in logical and internally consistent. For example, he might voice his doubt about the existence of a magic item shop in a small village, because he thinks it’s not “realistic”. Or that the besieged border town in the war between Sembia and Cormyr should not have fully-equipped shops – whether that was is part of the FR canon or not. He might not be aware if country X should realistically be winning the war or not, but if he *does* discover that fact, he then expects the campaign to reflect it.
Dragonshields:
Yeah, that was the encounter in question, i.e. half the kobolds retreated to alert Irontooth, and they all banded together to squash the PCs. Other DMs chimed in with similar experiences (someone said that the PCs had opened three doors simultaneously, triggering encounters at the same time) and I’m only saying that it seemed to be the general consensus that it’s better to “tweak” the encounter than think of “realism”. I doubt many of them had read Scepter Tower. Sure, 4E combats are more “predictable”, and there won’t be “one-shots” as often, but many have said that all too often the result of the battle becomes soon clear, and then it’s just a matter grinding through those HPs (wraiths were used as an example in one such discussion). I, for one, don’t like the added emphasis on tactical combat (note: as in: “even more than in 3E”), because I’m not a tactically-inclined DM or player.
Spellgard:
Yeah, but that’s not actually oval, and seems very different my own image. Also, see what I wrote to Kerym about the “mystery”. I think the plot hooks are really weak in this module (note: at least the ones in the excerpt), and my impression is that it’s little else beyond a huge dungeon (i.e. very little flavor). Of course, that is solely based on reviews and posts regarding the adventure.
4E & Balance:
There is now a discussion going on (EnWorld and here, I think) about how PHB 2 had to include the Weapon Expertise –feat as a “must-have” Feat instead of Errata, because the numbers are “off” at Epic Levels (i.e. ACs are too high). Then there’s discussion about the Pyramid of Shadows and much critical it is for the DM to stick to the Level-Appropriate numbers (in this case, magic items). And several threads have dealt with non-optimized groups struggling against EL+2 encounters, especially if they are not playing “smart”. That shows, to me, that it’s not all well and good, when it comes to the math underlying the mechanics. You players may be able to occasionally survive EL+7 encounters, but what have you proven by that? That all those posters don’t know how to play?
In the same vein, you *could* play 3E in the way that it doesn’t completely break down at high levels, but that requires “rules mastery” and total co-operation between the players, and that the DM is very lenient with magic items. That doesn’t change the fact that the math is way off.
And yet, no there’s nothing wrong in more predictability, but I feel it takes away a lot of excitement from combats (i.e. they easily become “grinds”). I like that 4E added balance, but I think it wen’t too far, and that delicate balance is, in my opinion, too easily shattered anyway – unless the whole group really strives to maintain it (via magic items, feats, powers, etc.).
Just because I prefer 4th edition mechanics, just because I think the FRCG is a better starting point for a new DM than the FRCS, just because I thought that after 20 years of following the setting it just might need to be shaken up, in no way suggests that I thought the previous editions were not usable. In fact if you bothered to read what I have written in the past, you would realize that I consistently recommend using the lore of the previous editions to create mythic threads in the telling of tales in the 4th edition time line.
Just because I think it is easier to make changes, and hence think that this ease is a feature, does not mean I did not make changes to the setting in the past. I have not run a purely canon FR since the Time of Troubles, that is a pretty long time to be tinkering with the setting and making it my own. That the preparation for my current FR Campaign has been drastically reduced in comparison to my last FR Campaign, was proof positive for me that this perceived ease of use was a feature. Some of this is directly tied to the changes in the setting and the changes to its mechanical underpinnings. Some of it is purely a personal reaction, I just like a less defined FR.
Oh, nice straw man by the way.
For someone who decried strawmen, you seem good at creating one. I never put forward the idea that you thought previous editions were unusable. Rather, I put forward (and then supported) the idea that you thought previous editions of the Realms offered less freedom for the DM.
Now, given that you've just gone and said this (with your 'Just because I think it is easier to make changes' comment), I'd like to see you support that. Why does 4th Edition FR offer more freedom to DM's?
Sure, it is a matter of taste. But unless I’ve misunderstood your points, here’s the difference between us: you liked the Grey Boxed Set and 1E FR for the “mystery” (i.e. gaps and holes for the DM to fill), while I loved it for all those “juicy” tidbits, NPCs with personality and the whole Sense of Wonder and amazement at the level and quality of the details.
I understand that, the thing is the pendulum swung fully into your camp for many years. After 20 years I finally got changes I was happy with. I think there is a middle ground, and as the setting develops I believe it will be met.
No, I wasn’t referring to books about NPCs – my point was well-written NPCs with personality and background. Such as Brandon, Hawkstone, Emperel, Deior, Asbras, et al. All kinds of NPCs from suave villains to friendly sages and innkeepers. Those 20 pages or so in the Grey Boxed Set have been an endless source of inspiration for me.
I don’t need their stat blocks, or even a list of their magic items. And the Grey Boxed Set truly delivered in that regard, while 4E FRCG, I think, did not.
I disagree in that I think the FRCG did just fine in presenting Organizations, and in some instances NPC’s. As to inspiration I have never really needed something to get my creative juices flowing as regards gaming.
Well, I believe it’s quite useful, because you might take a look at local shopkeepers and maybe get some additional ideas from there as well, i.e. “this swordsmith might easily link to adventure Z and maybe PC Y…” and so on. As for “Joe Bakers”, our drow party once killed a baker and his mother in Waterdeep, because we needed their house, but that’s a long story.
As I posted to Aegeri, I think a short description is enough (such as of the former mercenary captain) is enough to inspire me. I like that there are all sorts of shops on FR city maps, from coopers and shoemakers to armorers and fences – if my PCs ask for a perfumer, for example, I know where it is, and can also mention the shopkeeper’s name. Of course, I *can* improvise as much information as needed, down to his family members and hobbies, but if I hadn’t been “mentored” by Ed’s writing (his novels, short stories and game products) , I’m not sure if I could. Definitely I couldn’t have back then, on my own. I can’t express it in any other way but that Ed kind of showed me how to add a whole new layer of depth to my games.
I can understand where you are coming from, but would like to respond to you by simply saying that others have the exact opposite response to the kind of stimulus you are describing. As to Ed’s writing (outside of his novels) , it does provide the base flavor of the realms, most especially when he approached it with a less focused field of view, and particularly when he avoided details involving his numerous Mary Sues.
As I posted before, please don’t tell me how I should or should not be running my game. Secondly, several of the Design & Development articles speak of the “significant shift in philosophy”, and the Dungeoncraft-series speak of how the author does not “want a powerful NPC in town who has every reason to do the PCs' jobs for them”.
As for the ‘Points of Light’, here's what the article says:
Quote: “But one of the new key conceits about the D&D world is simply this: Civilized folk live in small, isolated points of light scattered across a big, dark, dangerous world.
Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between, and the world isn’t carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands.
…
“The common folk of the world look upon the wild lands with dread. Few people are widely traveled—even the most ambitious merchant is careful to stick to better-known roads. The lands between towns or homesteads are wide and empty. It might be safe enough within a day’s ride of a city or an hour’s walk of a village, but go beyond that and you are taking your life into your hands. People are scared of what might be waiting in the old forest or beyond the barren hills at the far end of the valley, because whatever is out there is most likely hungry and hostile. Striking off into untraveled lands is something only heroes and adventurers do.
Another implication of this basic conceit of the world is that there is very little in the way of authority to deal with raiders and marauders, outbreaks of demon worship, rampaging monsters, deadly hauntings, or similar local problems. Settlements afflicted by troubles can only hope for a band of heroes to arrive and set things right.”
The “your table” I was referring to was meant as a generalization for what the core books have been designed with in mind. A new player/DM has no experience to base what should be occurring at the table and how things are being handled. His only reference really is the books. By providing a clearly defined mission statement, and solid recommendations they have really just helped define what should have always been clear. For those of us who like a narrative, roleplaying intensive game it is often surprising, and often ignored that there is a vast segment of the D&D crowd for whom the default setting is a dungeon hack. What POL is about is trying to sell what for those of us who are on the narrative side of things is our default assumption, to those gamers who may have never been exposed to this style of play. (I hope that made sense.)
While this has been, more or less, how things are in Savage Frontier or similar “borderlands”, I didn’t see this being the case with civilized areas. What 4E did, was shift the philosophy towards “all PCs are born heroes with unique abilities and practically only they can the save the World”, and make that the “norm”, instead of implying that while there are lots of people capable of just that, it’s the DM’s job to make sure the job falls on the PCs’ shoulders. Furthermore, the game doesn’t just encourage it; it practically enforces it in the mechanics. To clarify: in all the previous editions the PCs had to *struggle* their way to glory and fame, while 4E makes sure that they’re already there even in the beginning. I never had any trouble with high-level NPCs “stealing their thunder”, but in 4E the “norm” is that nobody else in the world should capable of doing that.
I assumed this was the norm since I started running games 28 years ago. The characters are central to the plot. We might disguise them as farmboy, tavern wench, and loner, but underneath it they are exactly what they are meant to be, the focus of the story. How this is really different from previous editions I don’t get, except that mechanically I don’t have to worry about my Wizard having a run in with an ornery house cat.
And, not every campaign featured World-Shattering Events or combats with Deities, or required the PCs to pick up the pieces where Elminster or Mordenkainen failed. In 4E, this was changed as well – it’s the norm that you fight Gods and Primordials and Demon Lords and whatnot at Epic Levels. While it suits Epic Fantasy well, not all campaigns concentrated on such themes, even at high levels.
And who says it does now?
No, the “camera” isn’t on NPCs in my campaigns, but that doesn’t mean the PCs are the only important beings in the setting. So, as I’ve said, I use plenty of NPCs in my campaigns – some of them significantly more powerful than the PCs, and some of them even are prominent local figures.
Again the comments of make your PC’s the star are simply there to remind you to think of them during the process of planning games. It is there as a guideline for a new DM. Clearly with experience you can and probably should deviate, and I think that is also consistently presented in the books.
Also, I happen to think that campaigns featuring “dysfunctional” parties were the most fun to run or play in – you know, PCs holding grudges against each other, arguing, fighting amongst themselves, denying to heal a “blasphemer”, and so on. It feels very refreshing from the forced party dynamic “hardwired” into 4E. But that’s just how we prefer things in my group.
I roll the same way and like the arguing, but I also know that this is not an ideal situation for a new DM to have to handle on a regular basis, in fact if you look at the “What’s a DM to do” forum it is a common recurring issue. I also don’t see any forced mechanical harmony I do see a mechanical award when you employ teamwork, which is exactly how it should be. If you choose to not play as a team, you will be less efficient, hence less successful.
First of all, my "it's all make-believe" was meant to be a sarcastic comment. And, I never said I want *everything* on the world map detailed. And, I *do* use most of the stuff described in many supplements, such as the Volo’s Guides. I’m not role-playing *everyone* in the setting, or constantly “waxing poetic descriptions” about every scene, but descriptions – even short ones – help a lot.
I think there is a happy medium to be had, and over time you will get more of what you consider to be vital. The problem as I stated is that for many years you got to feast, and myself and others were stuck in a famine, or at least in having foods we did not particularly like piled in front of us.
As far as adventures go, what *I* don’t need is wasted pages in the ‘Delve’-format, in which more effort is put into showing you which mini goes into which square, and which actions every monster uses on each round. I like detailed and flavorful room, NPC and item descriptions instead of that.
Well I just never had much use for printed adventures to begin with, however in this instance the adventure at the beginning of the FRCG is assuming a novice level DM, picking up a setting book for the first time. It attempts to provide an example of play in the FR. I understand why it is there even though it is mostly useless for me, and accept that it needed to be there for some. Something this edition seems to be doing very well is getting new players, and recapturing old players. I would think that things like this adventure that many of us don’t need is part of the approach, so I really don’t mind paying for part of something I won’t use, after all I have been doing it for years anyway.
It isn’t? Yes, I have read them all carefully through, many times (and no, I don’t own them – one of my friends does, however). Let’s get something straight here: I like many mechanics and the added balance in 4E; not everything (such as the powers), and I may think they went too far in the quest for “ultimate” balance. And yes, I *do* have perspective on this to analyze the system this way; it may only be my opinion, but I've played and ran a huge number of RPG systems in those 20+ years I've gamed. Therefore, saying that I haven't ran 4E does not equal to being ignorant.
It does not mean you are ignorant, but you must admit you might be less knowledgeable than someone playing/running it on a regular basis. Also the rules actually play differently than they read.
I think the issue here is that while you, I, and half the WoTC staff have experience with the previous editions, a group introduced to D&D in 4th Edition doesn’t. And while Joe Designer may say: “I think NPCs were too complex or disruptive to the campaign in the previous editions, and therefore need to be mechanically simplified and have officially their status reduced.”, Joe New DM doesn’t have such perspective. You and I do. And when we post that “no, this is X and not Y or Z”, it comes from years and years of experience, through all the editions of the game. Still, the designers openly admit that there *is* a philosophical shift that affected pretty much everything in 4E.
If you mean that the designers actually decided to go back to the basics, then yes there has been a philosophical shift. As to some diminution of NPC’s, I can’t say that I see it. As always an NPC does whatever the DM requires of him/her. They have moved into the realm of storytelling, and moved away from dungeon hack. The player really does not need to see behind the curtain and the DM can play by whatever rules he needs to, which brings to mind D&D before the 3.x years.
Take a look at what I wrote to Aegiri about Ed setting the standards for what the “feel” or “spirit” of the Realms are. You can’t have hated that, if you claim that you’ve been a fan since the Grey Boxed Set, right? And you know what? Ed’s answers (whenever he isn’t prevented by NDAs in answering certain questions) are official, or canon, because that’s part of his contract (as long he does not contradict an existing publication). So, yes, what he has to say *does* matter.
Ed does not matter a whit to how the FR plays out at most tables. Everyone gets a different view, a different take on what the realms means to them. While the initial creation was wholly his the FR of today has been added to by scores of writers. I did love the Old Grey Box, because it was simple, clean, detailed enough, but not too much, covered a large area of land, but did not focus in too much. It really was a superior product, and I would probably attribute that to a good job of editing it and limiting its scope. Lastly to suggest canon somehow matters is to suggest that what you do at your table matters less, and I completely disagree.
Zero prep for you and me, but let’s consider newbie DMs – I know it wouldn’t have been easy for me without the Gray Boxed Set. Note that this is once again a pretty moot point anyway, since we two already *HAVE* that information and experience at our disposal. Joe New DM doesn’t. And, furthermore, he even won’t get it, since they’re not publishing any new 4E FR accessories, and I’m not exactly holding my breath for any insightful DDi articles either.
Yes, but Joe new DM has available the best DM’s Guide to date. Also all the details to develop a campaign are in fact provided. I find the lack of spoon fed details like a breath of fresh air because it assumes that with the basic tools the new DM will create something. If he needs the spoon fed details, well that is what adventure modules are for.
We probably have a slight disconnect there; I don’t want to have all the bakers in the world listed or statted or described in detail. But I don’t mind if city maps include the location Joe’s Bakery and maybe some short description of Joe himself (i.e. “91. Joe’s Wondrouds Breads, prop. Joe the Jolly Baker (NG hm Com2/Exp4), famous around the Dragonreach for his tasty pies and dark bread. Secretly a member of the Night Fingers.”). And, once again, entry-level products is *all* there will be in 4E FR, right?
The problem with this is that these types of descriptions add up, and chew up word count. I would prefer to have something more useful for my money, than Joe the Jolly Baker. He should make an appearance in an adventure module where he might be relevant, not in a general overview of larger areas.
How has it changed? Well, for start, most of the lore established in the previous edition is now redundant. And, as LK ably pointed out, the lore (quality of which, in my opinion, has been questionable so far) is not being published exactly at the same rate than previously, and will not be. How many DDi articles we’ve seen for the Realms during the last half a year? Two? Three? Aside from the novels (which I’ve tried to read but found not to my taste), FR lore doesn’t seem to be a top priority for WoTC – probably even less so as they’re concentrating on Eberron now. Without Brian’s active “push” for more FR articles, I doubt they would not have published even the two recent ones.
I don’t see how the lore is redundant, and I question the supposed lack of quality of material coming out for the FR. Settings in the past have not exactly been cash cows (outside of the novel lines), and this is the reason for a more cautious approach to setting releases. Also DDI is part of WotC long term plan for the future of the game, and keeping FR articles exclusive to it provides incentive to get it. I won’t be surprised if you see settings become more of a digital product with a print on demand option.
No, as has been discussed to ad nauseaum on every forum, the 4E mindset, and the 'Points of Light'-philosophy removed NPCs pretty much from any role in the "spotlight". I’ve already mentioned this above, but to repeat: this is different from the previous editions, in which (especially in FR) NPCs might play a huge role in a campaign. Now it's discouraged to include NPCs that are higher level than the PCs into your campaigns, and level-based challenges are the “norm” under all the circumstances. For example, if the PCs go out to challenge the king’s bodyguards into combat, it‘s more or less expected that DM modifies the encounter so that it’s not “unfair” (i.e. not level-appropriate). Likewise, if some monsters withdraw and join forces with another group of monsters (i.e. another encounter), it’s encouraged that some of them are changed to Minions so that TPK can be avoided. And, furthermore, NPCs are mechanically treated as monsters, instead of being equal to PCs (yes, I know that truly "exceptional" NPCs *could* be statted as PCs, but the general idea is to avoid it).
Once again the behind the curtain aspects of NPC’s have been developed to simplify the job of being a DM. If you want to go through the process of making full characters nothing is stopping you. If you don’t want to assign stats and simply give the NPC a description that is fine too. No one is suggesting you play the game differently, but the books do suggest that you remember that the game is about the players, not about the DM’s ego.
And, as I have already said, phrases such as “any DM worth his salt” are quite snarky and insulting in tone. Please stop using them. They imply that you think your way (now officially embraced in the new edition) is the “best” or “only” way of running the game, and that guys like me are doing it “wrong”. And, what is a “good player”?
As I said before, we like “dysfunctional” groups that don’t always operate in perfect harmory, or even play together. And we think it’s fun. Are we, perhaps, playing D&D “wrong”?
I apologize for the tone. As to the rest of it I pretty much address the point earlier in this post. I would also note that I don’t think there is really a wrong way to play D&D, I am just happy that the default now seems to be more than a dungeon hack.
Furthermore, is PoL really the “best” kind of setting? The way I see it, yeah, it's more "DM-friendly"; trembling commoners lock their doors after dark, and only wait for their PC-saviors to deliver them from Evil. No need for overly complex plot hooks, because the PCs are the only ones *capable* of doing something. And somehow, by pure chance or luck or the protection of the Gods, the Darkness has not crushed all those tiny, flickering points within it – even without any (ugh!) high-level NPCs to keep it in check. Some people don’t care about stuff like this, but I do. It’s not a “scapegoat”, because I just don’t think the world of PoL would work very well as presented. And, furthermore, I don’t like the changes in 4E FR, because most of them do not make sense to me (such as Shar and Cyric killing Mystra in her own place of power).
PoL is designed as a framework for a starting DM. It is designed to be the backdrop for your game, and much like in a movie it is not meant to be scrutinized. For a beginner it is an excellent set up focusing the attention on the action, and the story rather than over the horizon or to other planes. For me some of it works, and some of it does not.
It’s not a case of “terminal stupidity”, but rather it feels to me like the designers simply wanted to get rid of every extra details, i.e. unless it’s absolutely relevant to your session, it’s not there (until it becomes relevant). Even the Dungeoncraft-articles seem to encourage more “relaxed” (or even lazy) pre-play prep, with “steal this and make that when your PCs go there” – which is fine, if your PCs don’t care too much about history and flavor. But I wouldn’t be satisfied with the DM saying: “Alright, your character is from the City of Braskol, but I haven’t done it yet, so I’ll give you information about it when you go there the first time.”
I completely disagree here. The pre play prep is different but certainly not lazy. The skill that they are attempting to develop is improvisational ability. In my experience the best DM’s are the ones who can think on their feet and quickly develop these details, or creatively postpone the need for it, or a combination of both. Player’s are always going to throw you a curve ball, and all the written prep in the traditional sense is not going to help you as a DM, but being able to improvise will.
In the *setting* -- PCs are not by default at 1st level the most important beings in the *setting*, at least in my games. And, there’s a difference between Mike the Farmboy who’s trained honed his swordmanship skills, and Mike the Farmboy who’s developed “proto-mystical” weapon skills that smack of action movie stunts, and could beat the living hell out of half the minio… er, villagers.
But you have no problem with a starting Wizards Apprentice turning someone into a crispy fried critter? Magic is not a universal excuse anymore, and it probably never should have been. Extraordinary feats of martial prowess exist throughout literature. Also if you don’t like minions the solution is simple, you don’t use them.
We’re seriously derailing this thread, but if I’ve understood it correctly, one of the points in 4E is to make the PCs “stars” of the game once again (I’m fairly sure I saw this phrase in one of the articles… I have to dig out the reference), i.e. more heroic right out of the book, with no local higher-level NPCs to “do their job” (see the Dungeoncraft articles on Greenbrier).
And no, I’m not having “Mary Sue”-type of NPCs running around. It’s just that like I wrote to Aegiri, I want the world to be vibrant and feel alive. If the PCs won’t deal with a plot hook (i.e. if I clearly see that they’re not interested in it at all), someone else does. Likewise, if the PCs go banging at the doors of Manshoon’s tower, they’re begging for trouble. They’re the most important beings in the campaign, but not the setting, and their actions (or lack of them) always have consequences.
I don’t see how the players being the stars and things not getting done if they don’t do it, tie together. The idea is to not have them running around being some ones errand boys (Knights of Myth Drannor I am looking at your literary incarnations), but to instead be pro active. Have them become aware of the problem instead of it always being brought to them, or having an NPC being the motivating factor. This goes into the not everyone plays D&D like you or me category.
No, knowing *something* about events and places and characters, but not the ultimate answers, does. What or who is the Evil rumored to be imprisoned under the Pyramids of Ascore? Telling the players the answer like “Oh, it’s some sort of Primordial that you guys could fight at Epic Levels” does not.
Likewise, that the players know right out of the book that the “secret” of Saharelgard is Lady Saharel who can predict their futures is pretty anti-climatic and takes away a lot of the mystery. Knowing that there’s something vastly powerful and mysterious in Saharelgard, perhaps an artifact, that many evil organizations have tried to find, feels more mysterious. Not knowing the ultimate truth about the Mournlands or the Draconic Proophecy also does.
You do realize the FRCG is meant as a DM book. There is nothing in there that they need to be reading, so I really don’t see why they would be. It is akin to reading an adventure module before you play in it.
So we can chalk it all up on nerd rage? Where are the excited 4E FR fans, then? Don’t they write reviews, or actively post on the boards?
Uhmmm…you are talking to one or two on this thread at least. Most of us avoid this subject because there are so many people who are touchy. You might find that the 4E FR fan is actually creating material for use in games, and engaging in playing, rather than dealing with posting here where some individuals have a habit of taking a dump in any thread that touches on 4th edition. Lastly individuals who have an axe to grind are generally more motivated to share their feelings.
I disagree. I can understand why a DM might feel this way, but not the authors or the designers, because it’s part of their *JOB* to do research like this. You see, in my job I need to read dozens of books I couldn’t care less about every year, but I have to do it, so that I can do Readers’ Advisory or book talk about them. It’s part of my job and I get paid for it. It’s professionalism. If you (and that's a generic "you"), as developer or author, think it's too much of an effort to keep up with lore to do your job, maybe you need another job?
I am not saying they would not do it, but that WotC would rather they pump out product than spend hours verifying that something does not conflict. It is pretty obvious that there was a general consensus that the editing process, and the creation process was being stymied by the quantity of lore it needed to be checked against.
As LK pointed out, yes, it’s relevant, because for a completely new Eberron DM all those dozens of novels and game accessories represent a huge amount of information. And then there are the Dragonshards-articles, too. Not to mention that Eberron products seem to be just as heavy with flavor as FR.
I responded to this in another post, regardless I expect Eberron will receive the same treatment, in style and layout.
I hope that whole new generation of 4E FR gamers is out there, somewhere, because my impression is that most of the Old Guard are not exactly cheering the design team for the changes. And yes, compared to the juicy tidbits and quality of Realmslore from certain developers (Ed, Steven and Eric, to name a few), this “New Realms” *does* taste like sour grapes.
I am pretty sure there are, but anything I could provide would be purely anecdotal. Once again time will tell. As regards the lore I have seen no appreciable drop in its quality.
Not incompetence as much as indifference. Lack of passion, and lack of desire to *really* have thought everything through (e.g. why did not Shade crash down, or why did Elminster lose his powers as a Chosen, or why did Mythals brush away Spellplague and yet it shook the planes and dethroned gods, and so on).
As for the Sense of Wonder, I don’t think trashing everything and saying: “Look, I have this flying Aboleth Fortress of Quaxxilpitzifthgal’Kthulhu here, ain’t it cool? And these Horror Elves who are cannibals and worship Gruumsh and aberrations here in the shattered remnants of Kthulruaa, which was know as Halruaa, only now it sounds cooler” makes it all more mysterious or better. Well, maybe it’s better if we just agree that it’s different strokes for different people, right?
We are clearly not going to agree on any of this. My point is that while many things I liked were removed, many things I like now were added. The FR was in my opinion in desperate need of major changes, and apparently WotC agreed.
What if there isn’t? And regardless that even if there was, I think they’re already concentrating on more relevant matters, such as Eberron coming out this year. Sure, they’ve promised that there will be new articles every month for FR, but didn’t they say so last year, as well? You know what, my personal impression is that 4E FR did not sell *enough* to justify any real effort in that regard. Of course, I may be wrong, since my claim is based on anecdotal evidence, but that’s a pretty strong “hunch” for me.
For the FR the game side of it is a secondary thought, there is no real money in it. The novels are the focus. DDI is a focus and FR is an important IP, so they will start doing regular articles to entice people to join. As to hunches I have some pretty strong hunches too and that is that they sold very well, and that is also based off of purely anecdotal evidence also.
For someone who decried strawmen, you seem good at creating one. I never put forward the idea that you thought previous editions were unusable. Rather, I put forward (and then supported) the idea that you thought previous editions of the Realms offered less freedom for the DM.
I apologize I misread your post.
Now, given that you've just gone and said this (with your 'Just because I think it is easier to make changes' comment), I'd like to see you support that. Why does 4th Edition FR offer more freedom to DM's?
The level of freedom is the same, the amount of work that had to go into exercising that freedom increased tremendously with the advent of 3rd edition. It was not so much the quantity of lore, but the mechanical underpinnings for the game that made it harder.
From a lore standpoint the Old FR starts with the Old Grey Box (I know not technically, I was there reading away), and the New FR starts with the FRCG. A similar amount of lore exists, and the mechanical underpinnings have a similar degree of ease of use. Naturally I am going to say that the 4eFR is the easiest to use because it has the least available material for it, and has easy to use mechanics. I could easily see the argument being made that 1st edition FR is equally easy. However when we bring in 2nd edition, and 3rd edition into the equation there is no contest.
So once again it is not a difference in degree of freedom, but how easily a DM can exploit that freedom.
LoTR: It does? Look, fiction plays by its own rules, especially novels which had nothing to do with RPGs when they were published.
This is avoiding the point I made: It's the main characters in the book who function as the protagonists and whom the story hinges on. The other characters outside of that group are aside from them, they are there but not important to the core of the story. If you removed them, the story would not be significantly altered, because the core story is not about them.
This is the point.
Simulationism:
Like I posted, I think there are ways to balance Disarm and Trip.
Yes, remove them as at-will abilities (more or less) and make them limited.
Many powers already knock "prone" and do so for specific balance reasons. This turns out to work extremely well, especially because "prone" as a condition can affect anything in 4E (because prone does not actually exactly mean knocked off your feat, eg an ooze can be knocked prone as prone as a condition does not physically require a foot trip or similar).
As far as the setting goes, a simulationist does not require more information per se, but rather he insists that the information he is provided in logical and internally consistent.
Seems to me you've argued in your posts exactly the opposite.
I don't care about having NPCs in the books detailed at all, or even named. I just need the map and where things are, maybe a few things here and there. I can create everything else myself to suit what I need (and prefer to). It seems to me you've argued the direct opposite in every post.
For example, he might voice his doubt about the existence of a magic item shop in a small village, because he thinks it’s not “realistic”.
Up to the DM. I usually have the odd guy with some "curiosities" or similar in town that the PCs can occasionally find low level magical items. In general I decide based on requirement and game balance.
He might not be aware if country X should realistically be winning the war or not, but if he *does* discover that fact, he then expects the campaign to reflect it.
Wham, bam, thank you mam for proving my point.
No, it *shouldn't* be expected just because the book writes it, because a DM could have an entire different idea or even have changed things. But when books DO state this sort of thing, when someone like me wants to run in an entirely different direction we do indeed encounter the problems with people who have "discovered" some random fact and expect you to make it the same.
Thanks for demonstrating part of my argument why it shouldn't be.
Dragonshields:
Yeah, that was the encounter in question, i.e. half the kobolds retreated to alert Irontooth, and they all banded together to squash the PCs.
That encounter is still actually pretty winnable, depending on the parties general composition. It's not "overwhelming" at all to be honest. Overwhelming is ghouls + ocher jellies and skeletons.
Now THAT is overwhelming.
Other DMs chimed in with similar experiences (someone said that the PCs had opened three doors simultaneously, triggering encounters at the same time)
What module was that?
and I’m only saying that it seemed to be the general consensus that it’s better to “tweak” the encounter than think of “realism”.
If the DM feels like yes. I don't and my 3 groups with widely varying experience are perfectly alive currently.
Then again, I do admit my encounter design is generally very consistent and I think very heavily about how encounters are set up and designed. It is hard to "Open three doors" in ANY campaign of mine and trigger 3 encounters. Unless you're right in the middle of an enemy barracks you're unlikely to have 3 entirely different sets of monsters just minding their own business 5 feet from one another. Don't you think the major problem here is that the monsters in all those rooms aren't part of the same encounter to begin with?
Are you expecting me to believe you take this argument seriously, yet have been arguing for "logic" and "realism", yet seem to think monsters in adjacent rooms won't notice a fight happening right outside?
Seriously? :P
Sure, 4E combats are more “predictable”, and there won’t be “one-shots” as often, but many have said that all too often the result of the battle becomes soon clear, and then it’s just a matter grinding through those HPs (wraiths were used as an example in one such discussion).
Not every encounter is a fight for your life, many times it's a fight over resources such as how many healing surges and similar a party has left. I view the better a party does in initial encounters, the better off they are for tougher and more significantly challenging ones.
I, for one, don’t like the added emphasis on tactical combat (note: as in: “even more than in 3E”), because I’m not a tactically-inclined DM or player.
With the exception of the shifting, sliding and similar, it's about as tactical as 3rd edition. The core combat system of 3E is the same, but actually more tactical than 4E in many ways. So I don't understand this complaint at all. The only thing about 4E in terms of 3E for being more fiddly are slides, pulls and pushes.
Spellgard:
Yeah, but that’s not actually oval, and seems very different my own image.
Personally, I couldn't care less what it is supposed to look like only: Is the module functional, fun and actually any good?
If yes then I don't really mind. Thus far as I'm running it, I'm finding it has some issues actually, but my players are enjoying it.
I think the plot hooks are really weak in this module (note: at least the ones in the excerpt), and my impression is that it’s little else beyond a huge dungeon (i.e. very little flavor). Of course, that is solely based on reviews and posts regarding the adventure.
I've complained about that previously actually. I rewrote the whole thing and why people were going there anyway however. I characterized Thoran, made there some more sinister undertones in the module, made it slightly less of a random dungeon crawl in the middle of nowhere and have tied nearly everything into the plot.
And my players are really eager to meet Lady Saharel (I just retained the same name, but different location and person ultimately).
4E & Balance:
There is now a discussion going on (EnWorld and here, I think) about how PHB 2 had to include the Weapon Expertise –feat as a “must-have” Feat instead of Errata, because the numbers are “off” at Epic Levels (i.e. ACs are too high).
Once again:
At Epic tiers the balance is off because it was expected that leader bonuses, for example, would make up the difference as well as seeking things like combat advantage. Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise appear to be an admittance on the part of Wizards that this concept of requiring leader bonuses (and similar) to hit at mid paragon and epic tiers was a key mistake. Now they have corrected the discrepancy in the maths with this feat.
It is indeed a "must-have" feat however and different DMs are solving this in various ways. I am making it an automatic feat gained for free at 5th level (when the first major attack vs. AC discrepancy begins). This is a simple fix that requires no further attention from me now for the rest of the time I play 4E however. It is not required for game balance, I merely do it because I want PCs selecting feats that make their characters more interesting: not obvious feats everyone will take which WE and IE are.
Then there’s discussion about the Pyramid of Shadows and much critical it is for the DM to stick to the Level-Appropriate numbers (in this case, magic items).
And? PCs magical items and stuff is built into the characters effectiveness and balance in 4E. They are expected to have certain bonuses by certain levels. In the end, this works out very nicely and magic items (in general, some odd exceptions) end up being nice balanced additions to a party: not infinitely game breaking.
Their lack though is :P
And several threads have dealt with non-optimized groups struggling against EL+2 encounters
Every time you say this I'm going to ignore you, because this is so meaningless it isn't funny.
What EL + 2 encounter? What creatures? What party composition? I can probably, if I'm in the mood, make a EL 1 encounter for 1st level PCs that probably kills one of them guaranteed. One wraith, one ghoul and 5 skeletons (minions) for a distraction would probably be all I required.
That's not a good encounter though for numerous obvious reasons.
Unless I have some idea what on earth you are talking about in terms of creatures, levels and similar, this doesn't actually mean a thing.
That shows, to me, that it’s not all well and good, when it comes to the math underlying the mechanics.
The maths work perfectly fine. Read above for the explanation and reason for weapon expertise. It's roughly +4 off at epic tiers and now will be +1 for most parties. Again, this is assumed to be because it was deemed unreasonable to expect leader bonuses and similar to make up the difference at Epic tiers.
While I disagree this was required from my own play experience at epic levels, Wizards evidently did and I don't design 4E. I just live with what they decide to do :P
You players may be able to occasionally survive EL+7 encounters, but what have you proven by that?
It was just to disprove your blanket assertions and nothing further.
That all those posters don’t know how to play?
No, but I do know what my encounters consist of. I know what my party consists of. I do not know what they encounter was and I do not know their party composition. If they are using a heavy amount of undead against a party without any radiant damage, I would expect that to be more challenging than not.
Here is the key difference: If the DM does not design their encounters well in 4E you just end up with an easier/difficult fight, but not often a TPK (albeit, I made a really hilariously bad encounter once that did, I've detailed it below to illustrate another point).
If the DM does the same thing in 3rd edition you end up with a cakewalk or an almost guaranteed TPK.
So one is a major improvement on the other in my experience.
That doesn’t change the fact that the math is way off.
It's not "way off". By epic tier it's +3-+4 off. This is easily compensated by leader bonuses, magic items that inflict AC penalties and a multitude of powers that do similar effects.
Please stop these ridiculous blanket statements.
In addition to this, the game still works out fine at Epic levels. I'll point out this post from the Weapon Expertise thread you mentioned where others point out that at Epic levels, they noticed no significant problem. Those who have actually played 4E in Epic levels seem to find it perfectly fine, which is why I find WE (but IE is fine for separate reasons) to be such a strange choice of feat. It's not truly required for Epic level balance, for a multitude of reasons.
What this will do is make leader based buffs to attack rolls less essential and more of a bonus that's nice to have in late paragon and epic tier.
And yet, no there’s nothing wrong in more predictability, but I feel it takes away a lot of excitement from combats (i.e. they easily become “grinds”).
lol.
I've had more intense and interesting combats in 4E than I have in the entire time I ever ran 3rd edition.
And I've never ever ever ever ever ever had a single boring, one round anti-climatic battle in ALL of 4E. That's a huge improvement to excitement and interest for everyone around my tables (both real and even virtual).
I like that 4E added balance, but I think it wen’t too far, and that delicate balance is
This is just your dubious unproven assertion. Many others including myself find 4E functions just fine. The balance works very well and has done since it comes out. There are a few spikes in places, but overall PCs better survivability, lack of being one-shotted and generally greater options means they can get through even significant challenges. They may be hammered in the process, but the balance is not "delicate".
Unless you are meaning doing completely ridiculous things like having EL + 4 encounters repeatedly or creatures significantly higher level than the party (Over 5 levels as a general rule) then the maths works fine.
If you disagree, please post SPECIFIC encounters of a SPECIFIC EL, with SPECIFIC creatures and SPECIFIC PCs. And then I can understand where you may either be going wrong or get a sense of what point you're trying to make.
I have 3 campaigns going, one running Pyramid of Shadows, another running a module of my own design and one running Scepter Tower of Spellgard. The levels go from 8 in the first game, 6 in the second and 2 in the last one. Each party has different characters, widely different experience in even playing Dungeons and Dragons and faces many different enemies/scenarios. I have never once seen 4Es math "break" as you put it with my own encounter design, bar once where I used a truly hideous combination of creatures.
But again, when I 'broke' 4E I did so because of my own stupidly designed encounter that was obviously far too hard. If I had your point and posted it, anyone should be able to look at it easily and tell it was too hard (I didn't always understand how the maths worked, which is why that one slipped through so easily). That was an EL + 4 encounter, with Otyughs and Corruption Corpses against a level 4 party. The result was immensely predictable as 3 characters were purely melee orientated with no ranged attacks.
Today, I would not make such an elementary balancing mistake as I would immediately grasp the inherent problem there (the -4 or -5 to attack Aura of the corruption corpses, if you're wondering) and not repeat it. To prove my point, one of my other groups faced an identical encounter but with one key difference: I had modified the corruption corpse monsters to remove their aura. The battle was very tough, but did not end in a TPK.
Albeit, that encounter does say something about how stupid corruption corpses are. But returning to the point when you make such statements I just go and roll my eyes. Encounter design in 4E is more than just maths, albeit the core maths works perfectly predictably, but it's also about what creatures are in those encounters and what tactics they employ.
4E would be a terribly boring game if every combat was decided purely by a mathematical formulae and not actually what those creatures did. This also makes statements like "an EL + 2 encounter is impossible!!11111" and meaningless. Unless you tell me WHAT that encounter is, you've made utterly no point. If it's an EL + 2 encounter that's all ghouls against 1st level PCs, well what the hell do you expect
unless the whole group really strives to maintain it (via magic items, feats, powers, etc.).
The DM in 4E is expected to be handing out treasure in a manner that "upgrades" (if you will) PCs along the maths curve, keeping them in line.
Some people do miss the random treasure and in fact, the treasure parcel system of 4E is one thing I dislike a lot. But I live with it because it produces a better balanced and more logical result in the end.
(and please, *please* strive to keep them a cohesive whole, instead of repeating points and arguments several times as you reply to single phrases in my posts -- it's much easier for us both if we do it.)
TThis is avoiding the point I made: It's the main characters in the book who function as the protagonists and whom the story hinges on. The other characters outside of that group are aside from them, they are there but not important to the core of the story. If you removed them, the story would not be significantly altered, because the core story is not about them.
This is the point.
I could argue that if Boromir or Legolas or even Aragorn or Gandalf would have been removed or replaced with, say, Elrond or Glorfindel or Eomer, I don’t doubt LoTR would have been a classic anyway. My point is that the original goal of Tolkien was not to create this story, but a work of mythopoeia, a history of elves and men (i.e. Middle-Earth). Originally he worked on Silmarillion, and The Hobbit and LoTR just kind out “grew out” of it all (the latter, I think, at the behest of the publisher’s wish for continuing the tale began in The Hobbit). That is why the world seems so real; it was there first, and not created as the background/backstory for the books or the characters.
None of the characters is too “important” to the story, except maybe for the hobbits (and even then, if not for The Hobbit, they could be replaced as well). Maybe the story would be altered a bit in places, but I think it would work just as well – perhaps even *better* (for example, I always found Boromir to be less than exciting as a character, and if Glorfindel had served in his stead, I think it would have made for a better story – but that’s just my opinion).
Seems to me you've argued in your posts exactly the opposite.
I don't care about having NPCs in the books detailed at all, or even named. I just need the map and where things are, maybe a few things here and there. I can create everything else myself to suit what I need (and prefer to). It seems to me you've argued the direct opposite in every post.
Really? When? I think I’ve consistently said that a simulationist does not, per se, care whether the DM runs a canon-faithful campaign or not, as long as nothing breaks his Suspension of Disbelief. To a simulationist it’s more important that the PCs, NPCs and monsters all feel “realistically” portrayed in the rules. The setting, likewise, should feel “alive” and “realistic” – it’s not a big issue if the DM rewrites half the stuff portrayed in the canon lore, as long as everything makes sense.
Alright, I’ll elaborate, because I just realized that my last reply was a bit “vague”. A simulationist, as a player, does not require all the information – just the information he thinks his character would know, and if he thinks he needs to more, or something bothers him (like the existence of a magic item shop), he puts those questions to the DM when such situations come up during play. For example, if my character is from the City of Purskul, I expect the DM to give me some information about it – even if he wasn’t running the game in that area, or had planned to detail it later. But as such, if the DM gives me enough background information, I don’t need to know *everything* or more than a gamist player (unless my character has invested heavily in Knowledge-skills).
As a DM, a simulationist might want to make sure it all feels as “realistic” to players as possible. The local economy, laws, habits, politics, a bunch of minor and major NPCs – all that, and more, is often detailed with what I would call “just-in-case-they-ask”-type of philosophy in mind. If you improvise something, you instantly write it down. Often a simulationist prefers not to “wing it”, at least about any major issues, because quick ideas may prove to be bad or “unrealistic” in hindsight.
Wham, bam, thank you mam for proving my point.
No, it *shouldn't* be expected just because the book writes it, because a DM could have an entire different idea or even have changed things. But when books DO state this sort of thing, when someone like me wants to run in an entirely different direction we do indeed encounter the problems with people who have "discovered" some random fact and expect you to make it the same.
Thanks for demonstrating part of my argument why it shouldn't be.
Read my posts again: a simulationist does not, per se, care whether the DM runs a canon-faithful campaign or not, as long as nothing breaks his Suspension of Disbelief. To a simulationist it’s more important that the PCs, NPCs and monsters all feel “realistically” portrayed in the rules. The setting, likewise, should feel “alive” and “realistic”.
Now, that part about discovering the fact that country should be winning would be *in character*. He does not care if the whole war is the DM’s idea, or if country X has Q amount of War Wizards in the canon lore, if his *character* is provided a suitable explanation why country Y is winning.
Like I said, I’ve played in campaigns set in Cormyr, and the DM constantly misspelled the name and didn’t bother to read a single supplement on it. He practically rewrote *everything*, and the only pieces of canon lore were the locations on the map, and Azoun + Vangey. I’ve also played in a Savage Frontier campaign, which implemented the whole Greyhawk pantheon into FR, and several locations as well (Hommlet, Verbobonc, Temple of Elemental Evil, and so on). I didn’t have any issues with that, either. All those elements made sense to my PCs, except for the weird civil war in Cormyr, which was there for the sake of flavor, but without any actual consequences (e.g. no shortage of items or supplies).
What module was that?
I can’t recall, because there were other examples as well (from all the modules, I think). It may have been Thunderspire Labyrinth, or maybe it was “homebrewed”?
If the DM feels like yes. I don't and my 3 groups with widely varying experience are perfectly alive currently.
Then again, I do admit my encounter design is generally very consistent and I think very heavily about how encounters are set up and designed. It is hard to "Open three doors" in ANY campaign of mine and trigger 3 encounters. Unless you're right in the middle of an enemy barracks you're unlikely to have 3 entirely different sets of monsters just minding their own business 5 feet from one another. Don't you think the major problem here is that the monsters in all those rooms aren't part of the same encounter to begin with?
Are you expecting me to believe you take this argument seriously, yet have been arguing for "logic" and "realism", yet seem to think monsters in adjacent rooms won't notice a fight happening right outside?
Seriously?
Well, that is kind of a moot point, since wasn’t that one of the changes in 4E encounter design anyway, i.e. that “dungeon ecology” and thinking why certain creature types co-exist peacefully with each other is not important anymore? In 4E FR, I think they also added the “Less Evil fighting Evil”, so that Evil NPCs would not “do the PCs’ jobs for them”.
But I agree with you – if there are three rooms adjacent to each other with monsters in them, that should be a single encounter in 4E (that’s why I think it was a homebrewed adventure).
Not every encounter is a fight for your life, many times it's a fight over resources such as how many healing surges and similar a party has left. I view the better a party does in initial encounters, the better off they are for tougher and more significantly challenging ones.
With the exception of the shifting, sliding and similar, it's about as tactical as 3rd edition. The core combat system of 3E is the same, but actually more tactical than 4E in many ways. So I don't understand this complaint at all. The only thing about 4E in terms of 3E for being more fiddly are slides, pulls and pushes.
It’s significantly more tactical than combats in 3E, partly because of the added elements of sliding, pushing, pulling but also the terrain and hazards (and how to best take advantage of them) play a major part in 4E combats. And yet, the ”hardwired” party dynamics, i.e. power bonuses and effects that affect your allies are *very* important to the group’s success in 4E.
So, yes, that’s why I feel 4E combats are much more tactical.
Well, that is kind of a moot point, since wasn’t that one of the changes in 4E encounter design anyway, i.e. that “dungeon ecology” and thinking why certain creature types co-exist peacefully with each other is not important anymore?
You mean like how Scepter Tower of Spellgard explains what creatures are where, why they are there and what they are doing there?
You mean like how Keep on the Shadowfell explains why the cavern creatures tend to stay within their area of the keep and not harass the other occupants of the keep much?
You mean like how Thunderspire Labyrinth does the same thing?
You mean like how Pyramid of Shadows has a full 2 pages dedicated to the relationships between the creatures within the Pyramid alone, recommendations for how these creatures might deal with one another and not to mention elsewhere explains why the place is as zany as it is (and it is really zany).
Really, one could just read any one official module here
You mean like how Scepter Tower of Spellgard explains what creatures are where, why they are there and what they are doing there?
You mean like how Keep on the Shadowfell explains why the cavern creatures tend to stay within their area of the keep and not harass the other occupants of the keep much?
You mean like how Thunderspire Labyrinth does the same thing?
You mean like how Pyramid of Shadows has a full 2 pages dedicated to the relationships between the creatures within the Pyramid alone, recommendations for how these creatures might deal with one another and not to mention elsewhere explains why the place is as zany as it is (and it is really zany).
Really, one could just read any one official module here
No, I can't comment on the WoTC modules, because I don't own them (should I buy them just to form an opinion?). I think it was in one of the Design & Development articles, or DMG; namely, that Dungeon Ecology is less important than using a "motley" group of monsters (some which exist at adjacent rooms) to make "interesting" encounters.
No, I can't comment on the WoTC modules, because I don't own them (should I buy them just to form an opinion?)
At least, before making blanket statements about how 4E "supposedly" does things, be aware of what the ACTUAL modules say, otherwise you are not actually making a fair or valid argument.
There are currently six official published modules. Not one of them just randomly throws monsters into rooms with no explanation of why they are there or haven't homicidally murdered their neighbors.
The only one that even REMOTELY gets near your description is the Pyramid of Shadows. It's exceptional in terms of modules and "zany" is certainly the word for it, being rather like one of those odd 2E modules from back in the day.
However, even though it is literally a "motley assortment of monsters", the explanations for why the creatures are around is still there. In fact, Pyramid of Shadows makes perfect sense given the circumstances and that in reality, they are all plotting to murder one another anyway. The problem is they are all too paranoid to do anything about the other factions they dislike.
I think it was in one of the Design & Development articles, or DMG; namely, that Dungeon Ecology is less important than using a "motley" group of monsters (some which exist at adjacent rooms) to make "interesting" encounters.
Which is a valid opinion and in fact, is something that older modules were like. I remember the good ole "Tournament style" 2E modules which were zany encounter after encounter.
You're very obsessed with taking individual opinions and then painting them as the stone in which 4E is written, especially when you can make sure these are ridiculous positions that the designers seem to be utterly ignoring when writing their own modules. This also is not the position of the DMG in terms of encounter and world building, it's probably a Design and Development Article. The DMG suggests a range of options actually (which do, IIRC include that), but I'm a biologist so I naturally think about how different monsters act (or if they are allied or not) and it depends on what I want to accomplish.
Scepter Tower of Spellgard, once again demonstrates the opposite principle. All of the creatures there entirely hate one another and maintain their own patches (or ran through it wrecking large portions of it in one case...), it just so happens they are between the PCs and their objective.
In general, most encounters that I've read (now even moving into Dungeon articles) explain why monsters are there and how they might interact. One module in Dungeon, as another example in the official Scales of War path, even has two warring factions of monsters. With one particularly interesting encounter being an entirely a 3 way fight between the PCs and both groups of creatures.
Returning to your points above, now I have time:
Really? When? I think I’ve consistently said that a simulationist does not, per se, care whether the DM runs a canon-faithful campaign or not, as long as nothing breaks his Suspension of Disbelief. To a simulationist it’s more important that the PCs, NPCs and monsters all feel “realistically” portrayed in the rules. The setting, likewise, should feel “alive” and “realistic” – it’s not a big issue if the DM rewrites half the stuff portrayed in the canon lore, as long as everything makes sense.
Alright, I’ll elaborate, because I just realized that my last reply was a bit “vague”. A simulationist, as a player, does not require all the information – just the information he thinks his character would know, and if he thinks he needs to more, or something bothers him (like the existence of a magic item shop), he puts those questions to the DM when such situations come up during play. For example, if my character is from the City of Purskul, I expect the DM to give me some information about it – even if he wasn’t running the game in that area, or had planned to detail it later. But as such, if the DM gives me enough background information, I don’t need to know *everything* or more than a gamist player (unless my character has invested heavily in Knowledge-skills).
As a DM, a simulationist might want to make sure it all feels as “realistic” to players as possible. The local economy, laws, habits, politics, a bunch of minor and major NPCs – all that, and more, is often detailed with what I would call “just-in-case-they-ask”-type of philosophy in mind. If you improvise something, you instantly write it down. Often a simulationist prefers not to “wing it”, at least about any major issues, because quick ideas may prove to be bad or “unrealistic” in hindsight.
But this is the argument I have made WRT to the FRCG. I don't need Sembian Merchants or anything else detailed in the book (or see the requirement of them to do so) when all that is required is that Sembia is at War with Cormyr. Logic automatically can fill in the remaining blanks easily, with word space then being dedicated to other more important things like locales, maps, adventure spots and anything else relevant (like the current "now" situation as the FRCG more or less explains this as).
The problem comes that IMO, simulationist type PCs are more or less the same people who do things like "Go looking for Elminster" because logically, that's something that makes sense when the world is at risk of being consumed by Daemons (or whatever). In my experience with GNS theory (and yes, I am familiar) S ends up being closest to canonists and similar. This is why I dislike having things written in stone for precisely the example you gave; it gives certain people the excuse they need to be highly disruptive to a group. EG: Finding X NPC for help, complaints about why that NPC died horribly/crippled/depowered/is gone to another plane (or whatever explanation given) because "That doesn't make sense realistically because" or my favourite "but that's not canon" etc.
It makes running in a world with lots of detail a crapshoot, because some people really do care if you change things in ways they dislike (this board is PRIME evidence of this point entirely). Some people won't care at all. If it's never there at all to change, then there is acceptance in general. My realms games for example are building up "Aegeri lore" that is specific to my campaigns and players actions. Some have already started the ball rolling towards majorly messing up some places or realising some of the true threats that abound, but I've written into many gaps things I wanted because I feel I can do that now. The timejump for example annoys many people, especially with how undetailed it is.
But it's a treasure trove for me. I can poke so many things into that timejump BECAUSE of the fact its not detailed and feel perfectly free to do so (as I know I won't be sticking something on some other random event). I can establish a history since the spellplague of many villains and other things (including building some new places onto the map if I feel so inclined) because without that detail, there just isn't any risk of a contradiction causing a problem with a certain kind of player (minding, I don't think any of my current players would care though so long as they can continue playing DnD, which is remarkable given how many different people I play with now and my previous experiences; for the record most of them would be G or N).
Edit, to return to this point though because I love making witty remarks:
The setting, likewise, should feel “alive” and “realistic” – it’s not a big issue if the DM rewrites half the stuff portrayed in the canon lore, as long as everything makes sense.
The 4E realms doesn't make sense to begin with. It's basically had a magical nuclear weapon dropped on it that decided to be specific (not affecting Netheril, who have these giant magical floating cities that apparently didn't mind the spellplague at all), popped some Archmages and depowered others while seemingly forgetting about those extremely high level Liches.
Etc.
Personally, I've rewrote or added to many things for my own games and notes. Have a read of the "Undeath" thread in Realmslore about the novel where Szass Tam casts the ritual that makes Thay a dead land. Some of the events in that novel in terms of canon are so incredibly ridiculous, it doesn't matter what you are GNS wise to find it almost moves you to tears with how terrible it is. So I'll stick with my explanation, sequence of events and reasons for why things happened (and the Liches current goals...) that I wrote beforehand anyway.
But always knowing that the canon explanation is so silly, I would like it to be never explained at all. Even though my PCs will get my (hopefully better overall) idea about how it happened for my campaigns context, I can't "unlearn" what I know is the canon explanation. That unfortunately, dulls my enthusiasm a great deal if it's just completely silly and kills my interest in the setting. One of the things that eventually turned me off the previous realms. Especially the ridiculous events in some of the novels, like Troy Dennings series about Netheril or whatever returning (Archwizards?) where he basically portrayed Elminster as a member of the three stooges.
Edit again!: It's "Unholy". I've actually gone to the effort of getting that book (from a library) just so I can facepalm while reading it in real life.
A quick reply to your comment about encounter design: I don't care how the "official" or "actual" modules are written, or organized, or how they may vary from the "core assumptions". What's in DMG is much more relevant to that subject than what designers X and Y wrote in module Z. Also, I prefer to write my own material, as do my friends, and lots of other DMs here as well.
Those comments about dungeon ecology might have been in Design & Development articles and/or designer interviews (if not in DMG) -- I can't honestly recall where I saw them. I know that I've seen it *somewhere*, though.
I think we need to continue the rules discussion in PMs (or otherwise LK will unleash his wrath upon us both, and we know that he ain't no NPC, no matter what 4E FRCG says ;)).
Aegiri,
A quick reply to your comment about encounter design: I don't care how the "official" or "actual" modules are written, or organized, or how they may vary from the "core assumptions". What's in DMG is much more relevant to that subject than what designers X and Y wrote in module Z.
Except that the modules are written by people using those assumptions (in general).
This would only be applicable however if it was correct, but it's not. The DMG does not state that you should just throw monsters into dungeons without thought to how they work together. It explicitly states the opposite in fact and gives both positions.
Also, I prefer to write my own material, as do my friends, and lots of other DMs here as well.
I use it as a mechanics guide in some ways, because they often do interesting things with monsters in adventures they don't do in other published forms until later. Multiple activation solos in one turn for example, was something I first saw in a module (and has since had a couple of non-module examples). In addition to this with the exception of Keep on the Shadowfell, which I don't like much I find these modules are pretty well designed (oh and Spellgard being level 2 starting).
As I run 3 games, I balance my time between running official modules that I rewrite to various degrees and my own scratch made modules.
Those comments about dungeon ecology might have been in Design & Development articles and/or designer interviews (if not in DMG) -- I can't honestly recall where I saw them. I know that I've seen it *somewhere*, though
I am searching through the DMG and the design and development articles, but I am currently drawing a blank. Due to the official modules being the exact opposite, I don't take much stock in this.
I am searching through the DMG and the design and development articles, but I am currently drawing a blank. Due to the official modules being the exact opposite, I don't take much stock in this.
An official (probably Mr. Baker) said something to this effect in one of the "Ask the Realms authors / designers" threads IIRC. This tidbit was met with rather unhappy responses.
DB
An official (probably Mr. Baker) said something to this effect in one of the "Ask the Realms authors / designers" threads IIRC. This tidbit was met with rather unhappy responses.
DB
I am still drawing a blank, despite searching both of those threads by author for such a quote. The 4E DMG on inspection approaches things from both ideas, that dungeons can be designed realistically or the ole 2E "Throw stuff at the players for amusement" part. I've even gone to the point of reading nearly every dungeon adventure I have AND the official modules, but not ONE does this at all.
Quite frankly, I cannot find this anywhere and even if someone can prove this I doubt that it is actually 4Es "official" approach. Given nearly every Dungeon adventure and every official module didn't get the memo.
I am still drawing a blank, despite searching both of those threads by author for such a quote. The 4E DMG on inspection approaches things from both ideas, that dungeons can be designed realistically or the ole 2E "Throw stuff at the players for amusement" part. I've even gone to the point of reading nearly every dungeon adventure I have AND the official modules, but not ONE does this at all.
Quite frankly, I cannot find this anywhere and even if someone can prove this I doubt that it is actually 4Es "official" approach. Given nearly every Dungeon adventure and every official module didn't get the memo.
It's important to remember that regardless of what the DMG says (on either approach), we all have our own well-established DMing styles. I, for example, approach the game and the setting from a simulationist's point of view, i.e. I always make sure everything "fits" and makes sense to PCs, and my adventures contain a lot of intrigue, interaction and details (flavor), rather than dynamic or "interesting" combat encounters. So do the designers. I doubt that if you, designer X or I all write adventures, we tend to (more or less) ignore the DMG guidelines, and rather stick to our own habits and conventions. I definitely think I've already seen the designers post their houserules, and unless I'm completely wrong, at least Pyramid of Shadows includes some creatures and encounters that are "borderline" cases in terms of 4E RAW (according to some reviews -- I don't own it, so I can't verify if this is indeed the case). New DMs are another thing, and speaking from experience, it took me years to have the guts to ignore "official" guidelines in the AD&D DMG, or make my own houserules.
Besides, speaking of PoS, I've read reviews that are not exactly complimenting the Ecosystem, backstory and creature motivations presented in the module (such as the one *here*). Also, there's a thread or two at EnWorld that also deal with the same issue. Of course, your opinion may vary.
I too remember something to the effect that Dungeons don't need explanantions - if the DM wants one, its their job to think of one, otherwise they exist just to provide an evening's entertainment.
Thats not a new idea, BTW, that goes all the way back to OD&D, when there were no settings, merely Dungeons floating in the ether.
It's important to remember that regardless of what the DMG says
This is irrelevant, because you are proclaiming that 4E states something like "Does not care about how monsters fit together or ecology" and then running now from supporting this statement.
If the DMG does not
If the official modules do not
If the official dungeon modules do not
Then you are incorrect.
So yes, when you claim the DMG says something it doesn't the DMG is entirely relevant.
unless I'm completely wrong, at least Pyramid of Shadows includes some creatures and encounters that are "borderline" cases in terms of 4E RAW
No.
Most things in Pyramid of Shadows most people thought were beyond normal have since been followed up in official books. Multiple activation solos for example is one thing I've seen it do that was followed in other books. This was only valid when it was first published, but it's clear that anyone reading how the design of solo creatures especially has evolved over time realises there have been some changes.
The one major departure from RAW is that a couple of solo monsters have additional HP over and above their normal HP totals (calculated from the DMG). Not everything follows this in nearly every supplement, so it's not particularly exceptional.
Besides, speaking of PoS, I've read reviews that are not exactly complimenting the Ecosystem, backstory and creature motivations presented in the module (such as the one *here*). Also, there's a thread or two at EnWorld that also deal with the same issue. Of course, your opinion may vary.
Yes. I don't find it an issue at all and simply demonstrated in the book. The review for example fails to account for the fact some groups are mostly apathetic (the White Dragon for example) and other groups can't act against their enemies without opening themselves up to another nearby enemy. It is more a cold war situation than anything else, especially given that most of the creatures no longer need to eat or drink and have widely varying levels of power (they do actually slightly balance out). Their problems in terms of the modules logic are that:
A) They are stuck there
B) There isn't really anything worth fighting for in particular as they don't need resources to survive (beyond maintaining their territory from other more homicidal members)
The best point he makes is that when the other enemies are eliminated is that other creatures may be provoked into action. I myself don't find this to be very relevant to the context of the module however, but I have in fact already done this in several cases (depending on the creatures involved). For example, my players are in for a nasty surprise the second time they venture onto the second floor.
It is extremely easy to up the realism of this module as required if the DM desires, the module itself suggests ways of doing this easily. There are also much better reviews from people who understand what H3 as a module was trying to achieve, as it reminds me very much of old "tournament style" 2nd edition modules in fact.
His review is more a series of suggestions (actually more generally specific ones) and many of them actually covered well enough in the book anyway on how to move things around if desired. By far the dumbest encounter is the first outside the pyramid, but I fixed that easily by just exchanging it with something more interesting. That encounter is just hideously bad.
This also says nothing about the fact H2, P1 and P2 are all fantastic adventures. I don't personally like H1, but again, H1 still manages to note where appropriate how things fit together in the dungeon (the cavern creatures and the rest of the keeps occupants for example).
Really, I find it hard to take your opinions on these seriously or find them relevant if you are not going to read the 4E DMG for yourself or the modules in question. It's pointless to argue with someone else by proxy who is not here to defend their opinions (EG the reviewer above). I suggest reading the 4E DMG and modules yourself so you can see for yourself what they ACTUALLY say about things.
I too remember something to the effect that Dungeons don't need explanantions - if the DM wants one, its their job to think of one, otherwise they exist just to provide an evening's entertainment.
Yes.
The DMG suggests that if you want to run a zany encounter, even if it doesn't make sense, if it's going to be fun and memorable to just sod realism and do it anyway. It also suggests the opposite approach on how creatures interact (are they hostile?) and such forth.
That it does both seems to be some amazing thing and it absolutely SHOULDN'T say that if you think something will be fun, even if it doesn't make sense, you should choose the option that leads to more fun and not the realistic one if you want. I mean, this is shocking stuff here apparently.
You know, what DnD has been doing since 1st edition
While trying to avoid the whole 3e/4e argument here, the whole argument does seem a bit... weak. That someone said that logic could be tossed out the window in terms of dungeon design is meaningless. Its always been the case, and I'd probably is best viewed as an encouragement to inexperienced DMs not to get intimidated or overwhelmed notions of realism. Its essentially a way of saying that so long as everyone's having fun, then there's not a problem. Eventually, with enough experience, they'll figure out how to make more sense of things once they're comfortable with the material... really, isn't that how most of us figured stuff out, by experimenting with it in ways that, in retrospect, were pretty stupid?
This is irrelevant, because you are proclaiming that 4E states something like "Does not care about how monsters fit together or ecology" and then running now from supporting this statement.
If the DMG does not
If the official modules do not
If the official dungeon modules do not
Then you are incorrect.
So yes, when you claim the DMG says something it doesn't the DMG is entirely relevant.
I thought you said it does *both*, i.e. that dungeon ecology is not important if "realism" gets in the way of "fun" and in that case you should "sod realism", but if you care about it, nothing prevents you from doing just that? Now, I may be wrong, but I do recall that the emphasis in DMG was on the "fun" and "memorable" encounters over internal consistency and "realism". So am I wrong here?
Markus may indeed be right, and I may have originally caught that in one of the interviews.
Now, I don't know how you see it, but I thought the goblin attack on Loudwater was a good example of an encounter that doesn't make any sense (at least to me). Why didn't they just sneak into town, or climb over the wall? Why would a small group blast a hole in the wall of a large town, and instantly gain the attention of every damn guardsman and adventurer in it? The whole premise of the encounter doesn't just feel right. Oh yeah, it wouldn't have been as much "fun"...
Another example of a "zany-but-fun" encounter is the first one in Scales of War AP, which also felt a bit awkward to me.
Of course, when we're speaking of veteran DMs, it all comes down to your own preferences, and those of your players. If my players wanted "fun" and "memorable" encounters and didn't pay any attention to "realism", maybe I *would* mostly run "zany-but-fun"-type of encounters and didn't bother to think too hard about consistency and dungeon ecology and motivations. However, if I ran them the adventures from FRCG "as is", the first question posed to me would probably be: "WTH? Why didn't they just climb over the wall?!? There's something fishy going on here... maybe those goblins were charmed to act so stupidly, or something?".
No.
Most things in Pyramid of Shadows most people thought were beyond normal have since been followed up in official books. Multiple activation solos for example is one thing I've seen it do that was followed in other books. This was only valid when it was first published, but it's clear that anyone reading how the design of solo creatures especially has evolved over time realises there have been some changes.
The one major departure from RAW is that a couple of solo monsters have additional HP over and above their normal HP totals (calculated from the DMG). Not everything follows this in nearly every supplement, so it's not particularly exceptional.
Yes. I don't find it an issue at all and simply demonstrated in the book. The review for example fails to account for the fact some groups are mostly apathetic (the White Dragon for example) and other groups can't act against their enemies without opening themselves up to another nearby enemy. It is more a cold war situation than anything else, especially given that most of the creatures no longer need to eat or drink and have widely varying levels of power (they do actually slightly balance out). Their problems in terms of the modules logic are that:
A) They are stuck there
B) There isn't really anything worth fighting for in particular as they don't need resources to survive (beyond maintaining their territory from other more homicidal members)
The best point he makes is that when the other enemies are eliminated is that other creatures may be provoked into action. I myself don't find this to be very relevant to the context of the module however, but I have in fact already done this in several cases (depending on the creatures involved). For example, my players are in for a nasty surprise the second time they venture onto the second floor.
It is extremely easy to up the realism of this module as required if the DM desires, the module itself suggests ways of doing this easily. There are also much better reviews from people who understand what H3 as a module was trying to achieve, as it reminds me very much of old "tournament style" 2nd edition modules in fact.
His review is more a series of suggestions (actually more generally specific ones) and many of them actually covered well enough in the book anyway on how to move things around if desired. By far the dumbest encounter is the first outside the pyramid, but I fixed that easily by just exchanging it with something more interesting. That encounter is just hideously bad.
Well, 'everything-in-stasis' is the lazy DM's option to explain the lack of motivations, and truth be told, I never liked the tournament/delve modules anyway. Maybe it worked 20 years ago, but I think my taste, at least, has evolved from those days.
Now, I haven't read the module, but I got the impression that everyone is too passive to have tried anything, i.e. forming alliances or trying a desperate attack on their neighbors? Well, if everyone really is that afraid of the next room's inhabitants, and never dare to leave, the arrival of the PCs puts that balance of terror into complete disarray. What that would mean, in my eyes, that any intelligent prisoner inside the pyramid would first try to reason with the PCs, and bribe/threaten them to kill the competition. In essence, clever players could walk through most encounters without any need for combat (unintelligent monsters are another thing). The whole bit, based on the comments and reviews, feels like a giant dungeon filled with creatures that have resigned to their fate -- no motivations or sense of despair. Sure, maybe there's not much to fight for, but IMO any intelligent creature would try to either eliminate the competition (more treasure, especially no food/resources are needed) or form alliances to pool resources together... you know, to get out ("Maybe the dragon has an item or ritual that he's not aware of which would let us escape this place?") or to occupy their time with.
Maybe the module gives you the tools and tips to do just that, but why does the premise look different, then? Why is it mostly about "interesting" combat encounters (and not about internally consistent motivations and dungeon ecology), if that's not the bottom line in 4E?
Really, I find it hard to take your opinions on these seriously or find them relevant if you are not going to read the 4E DMG for yourself or the modules in question. It's pointless to argue with someone else by proxy who is not here to defend their opinions (EG the reviewer above). I suggest reading the 4E DMG and modules yourself so you can see for yourself what they ACTUALLY say about things.
I've already read the DMG many times. And as far as the modules go, I pretty much trust what EnWorld posters and other reviewers have said on them. After all, these are guys who have been running 4E since it came out, and frankly, I don't think your claims of what the modules ACTUALLY say or not is any more valid than theirs, and quite a many respected posters have commented that the BBEG is an interesting character, but otherwise the module smacks of lazy writing, and you really need to "up" the realism factor and tweak some encounters in it. Of course, your mileage may vary, and it's highly dependant on your players' tastes as well.
Yes.
The DMG suggests that if you want to run a zany encounter, even if it doesn't make sense, if it's going to be fun and memorable to just sod realism and do it anyway. It also suggests the opposite approach on how creatures interact (are they hostile?) and such forth.
That it does both seems to be some amazing thing and it absolutely SHOULDN'T say that if you think something will be fun, even if it doesn't make sense, you should choose the option that leads to more fun and not the realistic one if you want. I mean, this is shocking stuff here apparently.
You know, what DnD has been doing since 1st edition
Sure, and like I said above, if that's what you prefer, it's fine. But if I was a player in your group, and you tried running the game with "sod realism"-attitude, I wouldn't care how "fun" or "interesting" or "memorable" those encounters were; I *would* walk out after the first session, because I probably wouldn't find your style to my taste. I think that as the rules have evolved, so has the game matured a bit as a whole -- I don't use the same guidelines or methods for writing adventures anymore (for example, no giant spiders "hanging out" with carrion crawlers or dire/giant rats, unless there's a very good reason for it). When we look back to those 1st edition adventures, often it's due to nostalgia rather than because they were so stunningly well-written or balanced (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, anyone?).
Now, if it says both without any emphasis on either method, it's one thing (in that case, I think either of us are wrong), but if it deals with adding realism in one or two phrases with the emphasis on the "fun factor" over any realism, that's another.
I thought you said it does *both*, i.e. that dungeon ecology is not important if "realism" gets in the way of "fun" and in that case you should "sod realism"
Yes it does decide to do both. It suggests having environments like this, or sometimes you should just do what is going to be the most interesting.
What about this is requires me to repeat it so many times?
Markus may indeed be right, and I may have originally caught that in one of the interviews.
How funny that nobody can support this, though I am sure some 4E designer does indeed hold that position it is not my position, or that which the modules or DMG takes. I don't particularly feel you have done anything to substantiate your claim.
Now, I don't know how you see it, but I thought the goblin attack on Loudwater was a good example of an encounter that doesn't make any sense (at least to me).
*shrug*
I don't particularly care as I thought the adventure in the FRCG was pretty poor anyway. It seemed like a jumble of random ideas thrown together more than anything else.
If my players wanted "fun" and "memorable" encounters and didn't pay any attention to "realism", maybe I *would* mostly run "zany-but-fun"-type of encounters and didn't bother to think too hard about consistency and dungeon ecology and motivations.
Where have I ever claimed this as my approach? You are talking about something neither I or 4E as a whole takes as its official position (especially when said proof of said positions is sorely lacking). I'm tiring of this quickly.
Your interest in making up other peoples positions is most aggravating.
Well, 'everything-in-stasis' is the lazy DM's option to explain the lack of motivations
Typical.
None the less, there are many individual justifications per group (some have other things to worry about than just their neighbours, their particular time within the pyramid itself [some are newer than others] and such forth).
I can't be bothered justifying this to you any further and have no interest in doing so however.
and truth be told, I never liked the tournament/delve modules anyway.
Good for you.
Now, I haven't read the module
This is painfully clear by this point.
Sure, and like I said above, if that's what you prefer, it's fine. But if I was a player in your group
You aren't.
I'm thinking at this point that it's a very good thing too.
Just IMO.
Now, if it says both without any emphasis on either method, it's one thing (in that case, I think either of us are wrong), but if it deals with adding realism in one or two phrases with the emphasis on the "fun factor" over any realism, that's another.
You could read it and find out, as I certainly do think that it encourages DMs to run the game how they want. As every other DMG has (including the 3.5 DMG).
I'm done and have quite enough by this point on this particular derail. This is the last response you get from me on this.
So anyway... out of curiosity, have there been any DDI updates to the FRCG, or updates generally?
-I know there are errata boards for the FRCG and the FRPG. I don't know what WotC intends to do with them, if anything, but...
-I know there are errata boards for the FRCG and the FRPG. I don't know what WotC intends to do with them, if anything, but...
They haven't really done very much, just fixed a few things. For example Sharn changed alignment from Chaotic Evil to Unaligned (keeping consistency with the Sharn article I imagine) and Rorn is correctly put as a solo brute (primordial is not a monster role).
We had the Cormyr article with the excellent map, although that was in the free period... what's generally come out for FR in the DDI, in terms of new lore, since it went paid DDI? Just wondering.
Nothing else immediately springs to mind.