Now, maybe it's just nostalgia, but there is one thing I really like about the 4e realms that was missing in 3e: the original purpose of the Realms - mystery, purity, and a focus on the land itself and the heroes, rather than a huge variety of magnanimous NPCs. A lot of the comic book feel is now gone, replaced with a proper slate primed for player-focused adventure in strange and mysterious lands. Of course, there are things I dislike - the two biggest being the treatment of the gods/pantheons, and the lack of content/fluff in all the official material.
The reason I refer to it as nostalgia is this - 1st/2nd edition realms were the best. What I really dislike about the 4e realms, and where I think they could have done a better job, is returning the setting to its roots rather than having an apocalyptic reboot. I loved all the gods and religions, and I loved the "fantasy mirror Earth" concept (herein lie the lost lands), which the spellplague effectively destroyed for good. What I hated were the changes that were gradually impelemented in 2nd and 3rd based on events that took place in novels that gradually pushed the setting in the aformementioned comic-book direction. I realize that people that love the novels would disagree that this is a bad thing, but I feel very strongly like too many over-the-top dramatic plotlines and superpowered characters really sabotage the suspension of disbelief and consequently undermine the overall quality of the setting.
In my idealized version of the Realms, for example, gods never walked the land. They just function like Eberron gods, they exist in the beliefs of people and their churches operate as political institutions, but they aren't otherwise *known*. However, this very basic idea is irreconilable with every version of the realms except the earliest ones, which bothers me. While the earliest realms talk about the gods as if they actually are real, it is easy to explain them away as myth in metagame because little to no real-world events occurred that involved their direct influence. In later editions, this isn't the case.
I guess what I'm saying is - I'm curious what other people think of the various editions of the realms, when you include the 1st and 2nd, rather than just focusing on 3e and 4e. What aspects of each do you like and dislike? I'm kind of interested in running a 1st edition Realms game, I wonder how difficult it would be to make it 4e compatible? I would imagine not terribly hard.
That said, I don't see 4E Realms as being any less "comic book"... in fact, when I hear or read about spellscars, I can't help but immediately think of mutant powers. There are differences of course, but having to live with a special superpower that often is tied to a disadvantage, that's just pure Stan Lee X-Men to me. Nice tieflings, non-evil drow, and dragon-people with boobs are abundant. Also, the crazy landscapes modeled after "Yes" albums don't help. Nor do the overpowered supervillains who ALL managed to survive somehow, and are the "threaten the world / all of existence" types. Abeir as a twinned planet is way too over the top. Novels in 4E focus (so far, for the most part) on angels and divas as main characters and not on mortals.
I agree that 1E-2E was the best Realms, although RSE mistakes like the Time of Troubles and Bhaal wandering around on Moonshae started so very early. IMO the best Realms novels focused on mortals and pure adventure; only a few authors really knew how to keep a cap on epic storylines such that they didn't go insanely overboard. But with a number of novels in 4E that feature devas as their main characters, spellscarred "mutants" and NPCs from planar-themed "new" races, I don't see any evidence that superpowered comic-booky themes have been toned down. Just the opposite, I think it's grown worse.
Your idealized version of the Realms is much like mine: 1E, with a variety of distant, inscrutable gods that don't walk the lands. Import the good, non-epic details from lore, such as Ed's Waterdeep gossip and news, and the richly fleshed-out histories, cities and backgrounds for nations, and you have pure gold. Allow for powerful NPCs, even those that overshadow PCs, but keep them busy with their own affairs. It is unrealistic to have PCs always walking around as THE most powerful people, all the time. Greyhawk did this well, but then there weren't a whole lot of Greyhawk novels either. ;)
The mysterious ruins from ancient cultures, and the adventure hooks that were created originally for gamers to use and develop further, they should have been left that way. Too many authors lifted well-crafted and unresolved plot threads from 1E and used them for their own stories. Sometimes, this gave us more of that awesome, rich lore that many of us loved. But just as often, it took amazing tools away from DMs and ended up in yet another RSE.
There were things from late 2E and 3E that I really liked, though. The development of Halruaa and the Shining South were high quality. The rich backgrounds and settings of the Oriental eastern empires were excellent. The tie-ins to Planescape and extraplanar adventures were often elegantly done. Many of the ancient empires were amazingly cool. Old Vaasa, Thay, Rashemen, and Aglarond (minus the Simbul) were terrific. On the other hand, I never liked Spelljammer that much (too goofy), and places like Mulhorand, Unther, and Maztica had some serious flaws in their implementation.
As to making the Realms compatible with the 4E ruleset, honestly I don't see any problem at all. Start off with magic "always having been this way" and there's no need for a ridiculous spellplague or any other RSE. If you really need drow magic to survive when taken to the surface, do it... just don't feel any need to explain it. Not everything needs to be explained or given a narrative reveal. Then again, the decay of drow magic is one of those classic thematic elements that I think should've stayed.
It’s just a given that I’ll use the contents of the first Realms boxed set in some way.
As to likes/dislikes: I’m a firm believer that 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons made the Realms the best setting it could be.
Because 3rd edition was one of the worst offenders when it came to 3rd person statements of canon, and because most of the best plot hooks (those created and meant for DMs, originally) were used by authors in their stories, there's a lot of resolution and finality seen in 3E. And a lot of the "mysteries" that were generated in early 3E end up being solved, or at least resolved, by the end of 3E. The Grand History of the Realms wraps up even more plots. Sometimes in an untidy and far-too-quick way. Many of the wrap-ups, since they didn't unfold in a novel, come across as clumsy kludges that made a lot of us scratch our heads in wonder... they didn't feel like organic natural developments, and we didn't see their evolution on-page.
They were clearing the way, of course, for 4E and they wanted everything to be "fresh" and wiped clean. But the absence of information (particularly the 100-year jump with a "ban" on narrative) didn't serve to create mystery so much as it did emptiness. And they're already well on their way to answering the few mysteries that did arise (what happened to Mystra, etc). So if you're going back to 1E in search of the mystery that once was... just be aware that your players may -still- have expectations on various "truths" that were established in 3E.
I firmly believe that when some people say, "the Realms were too hard to get into because of all the canon," what they really mean is that there was too much that was made "true" in 3E and no longer retained that "unreliable source" feeling of mystery. Too much material was never the problem (honestly, people are begging for more material in 4E!), it was that too much of the mystery was resolved and made "true" at the same time.
So if you do create your idealized Realms with a focus on 1E, just bear in mind that player expectations usually aren't their fault. Few people can avoid metaknowledge, even if they make a concerted effort. Be really clear that you're going with a near-total variant, not just in timelines but also in core aspects of the "reality" their PCs will discover through play. You could even say something like, "we are going with a Realms that isn't at all like the one you know... it will likely have more in common with Ed's original vision than things that happened in the novels and in later editions." And then do something fun like turning Elminster into a simple old man, a sage in near poverty with only the ability to cast cantrips and a few 1st level spells. Don't have Chosen, for any deity. Have Elminster's sage-based information be wrong, or only partially true, because he's a simple historian and not a powerful mage. Do things like that, and those feelings of mystery will be restored in huge ways.
Because 3rd edition was one of the worst offenders when it came to 3rd person statements of canon, and because most of the best plot hooks (those created and meant for DMs, originally) were used by authors in their stories, there's a lot of resolution and finality seen in 3E. And a lot of the "mysteries" that were generated in early 3E end up being solved, or at least resolved, by the end of 3E. The Grand History of the Realms wraps up even more plots. Sometimes in an untidy and far-too-quick way.
Contrast this point of view with Candlekeep.com, where to this day you'll find the same people lamenting over the 3rd Edition Realm's "failure" (there words, not mine) to continue plot threads from 2nd Edition. Manshoon wars, etc...
At the start, 3rd Edition did a great job of carrying over/playing off of events that were happening in the novels. the 3E FRCS set the stage for adventure perfectly for an updated Realms that was alive and ready for adventure.
We must also remember that the people that "closed off" 3rd Edition weren't all the same ones who ushered it onto the stage.
What bothered me about the end of 3rd Edition was that a few of the best places to adventure in (Myth Drannor, and later Undermountain in 4E) got used up, which was disapointing.
Good point regarding the set-in-stone nature of sourcebook material, as well the "and that's a wrap!" feeling GHotR left in its wake.
[EDIT: Now that I think about it, when it comes to awarding the title for worst offender for third person statements of canon, the 2nd Edition era of the Realms has got to be the hands down winner.]
While the FRCS was a very good book overall, I didn't think the impressions it gave in the descriptions of everyday life in Faerun meshed too well with what came before. After reading the various sections, I saw a lot of injection of medieval culture into a setting that, while having some of the physical trappings of medieval and rennaisance culture, was nothing like medieval or rennaisance culture as it actually occurred. I think that 3e's authors tended to miss a lot of the nuances and implications 1e and 2e made, and just saw the technology and magic, and stuck a feudal label on things without really understanding what that term actually implied or consisted of, at least in a historical sense of the word.
While 2e did some stuff that bothered me, especially towards the end of its run, it remains for me the pinnacle of Realmslore, with its reliance on unreliable narratorship for a lot of its regional sourcebooks and its giving us the Volo's Guides, which to me were something 3e sorely missed in favor of its preference for the omniscient 3rd person perspective in relating lore. 4e... honestly, I've never invested in the 4e Realms, much less 4e in general, largely because I see the structure of the current class system as regressive towards 2e conceits that I tend to loathe. While I could probably live with the changes 4e made if the base system was generally appealing, the lack of appeal for 4e as a ruleset to me just left 4e Realms dead in the water for me, to the point where I didn't even bother looking at it more than cursorily at the bookstore, and never bothered actually purchasing it.
My overall impression of it was that it was a very dark place, and while that would have been appealing when I was in my twenties, now that I'm nearly in my forties, I want something a bit more light-hearted and hopeful to occupy my time, particularly given the current state of the world and the depressing realities that it brings.
I don't really understand what it is about having to become to god-like figure and saving the planet. That's what generic homebrew settings are for. I like the fact that there are big dogs that have been running kingdoms for decades and even centuries. We like to play in the Realms as if it is a living and functioning thing, not a huge battlefield where we kill and pillage.
...I don't really understand what it is about having to become to god-like figure and saving the planet. That's what generic homebrew settings are for. I like the fact that there are big dogs that have been running kingdoms for decades and even centuries. We like to play in the Realms as if it is a living and functioning thing, not a huge battlefield where we kill and pillage.
That's the core philosophy of the Points of Light concept. Players "should feel" like they are the most important people, all the time, and the only ones who can do the job. Even if you think about it from the 4E rules by themselves, there are reflections there of the same philosophy: demigod destinies, etc.
And of course, you and I know that the Realms was intentionally designed such that players are never intended to feel like they're always at the top of the food chain. Rather, it was meant to be more realistic (at least at first, before all the RSEs). Changing the Realms into a Points of Light setting made it essential that they kill off, depower, severely cripple, or drive most of the flavorful NPCs into insanity.
It doesn't matter that only horrible DMs used those NPCs as DMPCs and saviors. It "had to be done" because people who didn't understand how to use them made a huge fuss.
But honestly, that's just a red herring. They didn't do it to appease players. The real reason was that this design group wanted to "make room" for newer authors and their characters. If you -really- look closely, they're introducing powerful characters just like before. Many current novel characters are devas or fallen angels, demons, high-level spellscarred mutants, or god-influenced in some way. They are the new Chosen. Mystra's even back as a novel character.
So all this stuff about making it better for players? Ha! I don't buy that for a hot minute.
Changing the Realms into a Points of Light setting made it essential that they kill off, depower, severely cripple, or drive most of the flavorful NPCs into insanity.
Did you know the post-Spellplague Realms are not (at least, not as or Rich Baker's comment on the subject) intended to be a Points of Light setting?
After the Spellplague? Sure. Everything's a mess. But after 100 years, things have settled considerably.
WotC tried to pull the rug out from under the Realms in order to (amongst other things) appeal to a wider demographic, and from what I can tell they failed.
However, the loss of mighty NPCs, the advancement of the timeline, etc...wasn't done for the sake of creating a Points of Light setting, it was done to widen the appeal of the Realms by providing a break from the mass of lore and information about the setting.
I realiize I'm not going to change your opinion, Jorunhast. The information I'm presenting is for everyone else, so the wrong ideas don't spread.
But honestly, that's just a red herring. They didn't do it to appease players. The real reason was that this design group wanted to "make room" for newer authors and their characters.
I'm curious why WotC can't have more than one reason to do something?
As in: let's try and widen the appeal of the Realms to new players andmake some room for established authors and new authors to tell stories in the Realms.
There was no "screw the players" conspiracy.
If you -really- look closely, they're introducing powerful characters just like before. Many current novel characters are devas or fallen angels, demons, high-level spellscarred mutants, or god-influenced in some way. They are the new Chosen.
I haven't read all or most of the new novels, but that reads like one hell of a stretch to me.
Mystra's even back as a novel character.
Ouch. Some kind of spoiler alert would have been helpful there.
In closing, these are the forums for the Realms. Yes, the Spellplague will always be a topic, but the back story regarding WotC's motivations really ought to be left out of such discussions.
Some people will always jump at the chance to make Wizards of the Coast out to be the bad guy. Some people will always have very negative opinions of WotC.
This doesn't mean every thread worth participating in should get turned into a discussion of why some people think WotC is evil.
I want to talk about the Realms.
Can we get back to this:
I guess what I'm saying is - I'm curious what other people think of the various editions of the realms, when you include the 1st and 2nd, rather than just focusing on 3e and 4e. What aspects of each do you like and dislike? I'm kind of interested in running a 1st edition Realms game, I wonder how difficult it would be to make it 4e compatible? I would imagine not terribly hard.
Please?
From the 4E FRCG, under "Your Campaign in 1479" subsection "Traveling the World" para #2:
...But to the bold, venturing into the darkness between points of light remains an exciting and...
From the LFR writer's guidelines (v16, Mar 2009, p.3):
...Use the civilized points of light that are presented in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide rather than...
It's not simply an "opinion"... and I'm not at all saying that PoL is a bad philosophy. It's just a very different philosophy than the one used by the original Realms developers. That, I think, is very urbane to the topic at hand, if someone wants to go back and re-create the original feel of the Realms in 1E.
WOTC_RichBaker:
Hi, Mr. Miscellany --
While it's true that Faerun is more "points-of-lightish" in 1479 than it was in 1375, it's not really supposed to be a points-of-light campaign. The term "points of light" is intended to refer to a default campaign style that the core rulebooks will assume when discussing monster lore, artifact history, paragon path writeups, adventure background, etc. -- any place where some story framework is required to implement some part of the game. It was always our intention that the world descriptions for Eberron or Forgotten Realms would "overwrite" default assumptions like PoL. So the fact that Faerun is darker, less explored, and more dangerous than it used to be is really more of a coincidence than a deliberate move to match the default assumptions of the Realms to those of the core rulebooks.
(emphasis mine)
I happily concede the PoL theme runs in the Realms, just as it always has (see below).
I'll also admit to some initial confusion over Baker's response to my questions to him regarding PoL and the post-Spellplague Realms (after all, I've read the same lines you qouted).
What I want to make clear is that from Rich's comment we see that WotC didn't make major changes to the Realms for the sake of turning into a Points of Light setting.
...and I'm not at all saying that PoL is a bad philosophy. It's just a very different philosophy than the one used by the original Realms developers.
Can we be so sure about that?
Consider the comments by Elminster in The Cyclopedia of the Realms (1st Edition D&D), page 4 (oh how I miss the greatest of all unreliable narrators!): Civilization is still a novelty in much of this world, even the oldest of cities on the Inland Sea, or the founding of Waterdeep, the greatest City of the North, are within the memory of the oldest living elves of Evermeet.
To me that portrays a world where civilization isn't widely entrenched, but on the rise. That's very similar to the Points of Light concept.
If Einlanzer is running a 1st Edition game (1356 or thereabouts), I think using the 4E rules in that era won't interfere with the Realms feel in that time period.
The rules could be tricky to implement, I think.
Maybe I’m missing something here, so rule editions aside, I don’t understand what the fuss is about. Empires in the Realms have always risen and fallen and if there is one thing for certain, there will always be change. Are people upset that they don’t like the 4E realms story wise and/or that there are really no more lore books? For example if you like that “Mask” died, why you can’t just say “hey he didn’t die in my campaign?” Is it a canon thing? I changed lots of things in my 4E campaign. I even made a map to go along with it and a few people were flustered that it wasn’t “canon.”
I’ve read every book (with exception of last 3 years) and own every FR game book (including the grey box) and I have always changed things to my liking. Ed Greenwood created the realms but in my opinion, he created the building blocks for me to create “my world” out of it. Again, I’m sure I’m missing something here but, I’m guessing that the problem lies with some people upset that if it isn’t canon then it isn’t the true Realms, which then feeds into the bigger issue of 3E Realms vs 4E Realms and how everything sucks now? Please enlighten me.
Now I know there are people who like the current setting, but it doesn't take a genius to see that the bulk of the fans who carried the setting along for so many years have split and not enough new fans have made up for it.
Bottom line is- I am not happy with the new Realms and I want it to change back into what it once was and continue from there.
Maybe I’m missing something here, so rule editions aside, I don’t understand what the fuss is about. Empires in the Realms have always risen and fallen and if there is one thing for certain, there will always be change. Are people upset that they don’t like the 4E realms story wise and/or that there are really no more lore books? For example if you like that “Mask” died, why you can’t just say “hey he didn’t die in my campaign?” Is it a canon thing? I changed lots of things in my 4E campaign. I even made a map to go along with it and a few people were flustered that it wasn’t “canon.”
I’ve read every book (with exception of last 3 years) and own every FR game book (including the grey box) and I have always changed things to my liking. Ed Greenwood created the realms but in my opinion, he created the building blocks for me to create “my world” out of it. Again, I’m sure I’m missing something here but, I’m guessing that the problem lies with some people upset that if it isn’t canon then it isn’t the true Realms, which then feeds into the bigger issue of 3E Realms vs 4E Realms and how everything sucks now? Please enlighten me.
Well, first off... I don't think you're missing anything, and you're totally right about all of the following:
- change happens, and is expected in a "living" campaign setting
- empires rise and fall, especially true in the Realms
- anything, even everything, can be changed for your own game world
- no one actually uses or plays in a totally canon Realms with zero alterations
- any campaign setting is meant to provide ideas and building blocks for your game
That said, the Realms are more than just a game setting, and it's nearly impossible to decouple those other parts from the setting itself. It's also a world with a rich, shared-author novel factory. I don't mean that in a bad way at all, I just mean to say that there are tons of novels, and feeling a part of that canon world is kind of a big deal for many fans. And the other part... because of the shared novel setting and decades of novels, it slowly generated a large community that wants deep lore.
The community drew in people who were fans of the game setting, fans of the novels, and fans of both. It also appealed to people who love deep, rich mysteries, and those people still question, argue, share, generate, compile, analyze, and even fight over different interpretations of said lore. In many ways, the combined effect of the spellplague, the subsequent resulting changes, and the 100-year "clearing out" jump (with a lack of follow-up explanations or sourcebooks) took a major toll on the community.
The "points of light" shift involved far more than just far-apart cities, dangerous roads and untamed wildlands in-between, it also required that NPCs (from PoL town to town) don't overshadow PCs in power; clearing out the many, many NPCs of high (and low) power was a big part of the overhaul... it cut off, shelved, or simply ended many potential storylines (of novel characters) and much of the lore-flavor that the community had come to expect.
But that's a discussion for another place... glad to expand on it further in another thread, if you wish. But ultimately I think Xun ValDorl is correct: the outcome is what we have to deal with now. Arguing over which specific changes were good or bad isn't going to help things all that much.
I gotcha and your explanation does help. Like I said I have every single book and novel (with the exception of novels not read in the last 3 yrs). I too miss certain aspects of 3E Realms and especially some of the characters. For the most part I stopped reading FR because I was so disappointed at one point as well. I really miss the lore books the most and some of the characters so much.
That said, I finally took a good look at 4E Realms I’ve grown to like certain things about it. With the end of the Age of Humanity … I actually see the Realms coming into its own. No longer is there the Middle Earth like elven retreat and dwarven decline. The Central-America Mazteca, the Egyptian Mulhorand and the Africa like Sharr are also gone too. I guess what I’m saying is, I think the current Realms has a much richer Fantasy setting. No longer is the Realms so easily compared to history or someone else’s work. I think more than before it has become its own unique world.
I think the biggest thing I like about 4E is the apparent suggestion to make the Realms into whatever you or I or even the community sees fit, with the deep lore as a building block. I’m guessing that’s what the Living Realms is for? For example, I never wanted Serpentes to disappear… so it didn’t and all I had to do was map it.
One thing for certain is WoTC isn’t going to go back in time and change things to our liking and say the Spell Plague never happened. There’s lots of lore out there, created by other people (I dare to say some ideas are better than that of WoTC writers, including Ed, anyhow) and I am no longer upset about losing 3E but rather using 4E as opportunity to make the Realms my own creation. Just my 2 cents.
With all the discussion about 3E vs 4E it's been making me wonder what happens when they make a 5th edition
I'm kinda thinking that essentials is a prelude to it anyhow. All my players like the Classes much better that standard PH4E.
My overall impression of it was that it was a very dark place, and while that would have been appealing when I was in my twenties, now that I'm nearly in my forties, I want something a bit more light-hearted and hopeful to occupy my time, particularly given the current state of the world and the depressing realities that it brings.
It's not. It's marginally more dangerous for the traveller, and there are a few more places of wild danger, but it's far from a dark place.
As much as I like it more than previous iterations of the setting, it still strikes me as a place that doesn't really need heroes.
It could go for a few heroes, sure, but it's not starving for them. Realistically, all the major threats of the setting could be tackled by one group of PCs in one campaign, no problem. Probably before Epic. That's not a dark place.
Major threats... not something I particularly care about to be honest. I don't really count those towards the darkness or light of a setting. My concern was places like Sembia with its Sharran sympathies, Amn with its even darker culture, and (very) general societal attitudes being more accepting of evil next door. Its a place of extreme attitudes, at least it seemed so on my read through, with the good being shining examples and the evil being bastions of darkness, with a lot of people in between, but willing to deal with both, which to me implies a certain banality of evil that wasn't really present before. Which to me is plenty dark enough, at least for my tastes.
Eh. It's got a few dark places (no more than before the spellplague) and most of the major other places are about the same. I would advise actually reading the books.
...It could go for a few heroes, sure, but it's not starving for them. Realistically, all the major threats of the setting could be tackled by one group of PCs in one campaign, no problem. Probably before Epic. That's not a dark place.
Are you talking just solely about Neverwinter (which, IIRC is advertised as only heroic tier)?
Because if you're referring to ALL the threats in the entire FRCG (i.e. the "campaign setting"), then you funny!
No matter what the reason is the outcome is still the same. The Realms has not done well at all and lot's of die hard fans have packed up and moved on. We can analize all day long why these changes were made but the big questions is will it continue. Now if they go back and make changes then that will be admitting that they screwed up, but if they continue with the current state of the setting then they could risk everything continuing down the drain.
Now I know there are people who like the current setting, but it doesn't take a genius to see that the bulk of the fans who carried the setting along for so many years have split and not enough new fans have made up for it.
Bottom line is- I am not happy with the new Realms and I want it to change back into what it once was and continue from there.
So based on the activity of these boards your saying the Realms are dying? I can't really agree with you there, even though I know the boards aren't what they used to be. I think the content published over the last 3 years by WotC is good evidence that the Realms are a well played setting. They've even gone off their "1 setting book, players book, and into adventure per setting" scheme when they announced the production and release of the Neverwinter Campaign Guide and the Neverwinter game. Plus, take into account all the DDI articles that directly talk about the Realms (ex. Eye on the Realms pieces) and so forth, the new Drizzt board game and I think it's apparent that the Realms are at least doing well enough for them to showcase the setting like it is.
And I think it's a bit fool-hardy to assume that the Realms would benefit from yet another drastic change to the campaign setting. Doing a re-set (to any period of the Realms) would not only infuriate the current fans who enjoy a Post-Spellplague Realms but those who've had enough of WotC messing with the setting as a whole. People who like putting a lot of emphasis on continunity of the Realms would be mad because you can't just ignore the 3+ years of the 4E-Realms setting, the things that characters in that time have accomplished, and so forth. It would be far, far worse, IMO, if they had done a re-boot. Espically when it invalidates the whole reason for the advanced timeline, spellplague, and 4E's mark on FR as a whole in the first place. It just isn't gonna happen.
I think the biggest thing I like about 4E is the apparent suggestion to make the Realms into whatever you or I or even the community sees fit, with the deep lore as a building block. I’m guessing that’s what the Living Realms is for? For example, I never wanted Serpentes to disappear… so it didn’t and all I had to do was map it.
I agree with this. Even when the FRCS (3e) specifically says that you can make the Realms however you like, I've never felt like I could because I'd be going against established knowledge of what everyone knows to be "true". It never sat right with me. And, like I've said other times, the PCs are the main part of the reason why your playing in the Realms. NPCs shouldn't overshadow your character, yet be there in case the DM needs them to help along the plot (or for the PCs to fight). The problem is that with campaigns in popular areas where there PCs are mid-level (10-12) or higher, NPCs become more of a threat to PC spotlight.
For example, the adventuer Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land takes place in the heart of the Dalelands and Shadowdale but Elminster isn't there. Thats because if he were, there'd be little reason for the PCs to take on the major threat. So what's the point of NPCs when your just going to have to remove them to advance the plot/story for the PCs in the first place?
With all the discussion about 3E vs 4E it's been making me wonder what happens when they make a 5th edition
Really? While I enjoy the Essential classes, a multi-powerd Fighter or Warlord has always grasped my fancy better. Essential classes are often too focused as a class to really get me to enjoy their style (though I love the Knight and Bladesinger. The Slayer is pretty impressive as well, but too easy to break in terms of balance for me). I do hope, however, that they don't abandon the system of A/E/U/D in favor of Essential style from now on becuase I'd love to see more content for the Seeker, Runepriest, and Monk than additional sub-classes of other clsases.
I don't think, though, that this is any sort of ramp-up for 5E. If anything WotC will milk 4E for everything it's worth and then go to another edition. I've been very content with 4E/Essential stuff and I'm just not feeling another edition. If they do come out with 5E before say....2015 I probably won't buy it. I won't say it's bad or anything, I just have soo much stuff that I want to do now that I can't contemplate learning something all over again just because it's the new and supported edition.
Seriously, I think you have to play some of the other essential classes. The Mage is better than the arcanist/wizard, the Hunter, is insanely fun to play, I could go on and on. FYI… The slayer can do crazy damage as he advances. I don't think they replace some of the PH4E classes out but they definitely are more grounded and similar to the 3E system. I think if WOTC made the essential classes first, there wouldn’t be as much distain for 4E; I’m not saying there wouldn’t be any, just not as much (at least with the martial classes).
As far as a 5E, I agree there won’t be anything out there for a while… but WotC will definitely make one. I only mentioned it as a “matter of fact” that the realms will once again “change.” It’s become apparent that with each edition released, there’s something major that affects the Forgotten Realms.
A few points:
Much of the disjoint, to me at least, is less about the events that have transpired over the various editions of the realms and more about how much the style of the setting has changed over the years. For example, I don't necessarily mind powerful characters that make the PCs seem weak, but I do like a certain amount of subtlety and "realism". 1st edition FR had just the right balance of intrigue, adventure, mystery, interesting/believable characters, and mayhem, which is why it exploded in popularity. The balance has shifted in various ways since then, usually not for the better IMO. In particular, as I implied in the original post, I don't like how the deities play such direct roles in the lore because, apart from the soap-operaish feel, I like to imagine that religion works the same way as it does in the real world (and in most fantasy settings) - as mythical and mostly unknowable creation of sentient beings. This is very much a matter of personal taste, but I find that 1st edition works much better for me in that regard.
Another major point of interest for me, and I think I'm in the minority on, is in the appeal of a "fantasy Earth". Most people criticize that component of FR, which it has moved away from drastically, but I always loved it. The setting was originally created as a fantasy mirror of Earth (even stating that the former had slowly drifted apart from the latter, hence the name "Forgotten Realms"), in much the same way the 4e Feywild is an embellished reflection of the core world. It drew heavily from real world history and culture, and real world cultures along with their beliefs and myths were explored heavily. In this sense, you could almost think of the FR as being "secret history" rather than pure fantasy, which is something that appeals to me a great deal.
I also want to echo the same sentiment regarding altering the canon. While it is of course feasible to do that, it is difficult because there is an established reality that conflicts with any revision you attempt. It's essentially the same thing as trying to use houserules - it can work, but it's often a lot of effort and not nearly as ideal as a setting being enough to your liking to not feel compelled to do it.
So, the crux of my issue is:
I think they went in both the right and the wrong direction with 4e Realms. I like the idea of "refreshing" the world, flushing out a lot of the drama and plot threads of previous editions, etc.
But many things weren't handled all that well: the nonsensical and hokey god drama; the near complete destruction of the old kingdoms (one of the more interesting parts of the realms, as well as Maztica (underdeveloped, but unique and had tons of potential) only to replace it with generic fantasy-land (and the story with Abeir in general); and the return of a few too many lost empires... it's just a bit much.
In many ways, they are drifting further and further away from the original concept of the Realms, which is a pill I have a hard time swallowing.
...It could go for a few heroes, sure, but it's not starving for them. Realistically, all the major threats of the setting could be tackled by one group of PCs in one campaign, no problem. Probably before Epic. That's not a dark place.
Are you talking just solely about Neverwinter (which, IIRC is advertised as only heroic tier)?
Because if you're referring to ALL the threats in the entire FRCG (i.e. the "campaign setting"), then you funny!
First, I said major threats.
The stuff going on in loudwater can probably be ignored. Some local guards could take care of it, realistically.
I'm sure you could throw together a party of hirelings/henchmen, say a dozen to two dozen, depending on the threat, and take care of many of the threats in the FRCG.
For the major stuff, yes, one party of heroes can take care of all of them. Take down the power structures in Calimport and Memnon and put an at least semi trusted npc in charge or forming a new government. Kill each of the leaders of the major evil factions. Destabilize Netheril and Sembia, lead offensive into their lands to take down their regimes for good. I could go on.
I've run this campaign, just for kicks. We weren't technically one group, there were some line-up changes over the course of the campaign, but it was one 6 person group's worth of XP from level 3 to level 29, IIRC. We rotated DMs to make different threats feel different, etc.
It was basically a bunch of encounters, though, because we didn't want to spend two years doing it.
If you put enough side quests and random attacking goblin bands, etc in the party's path, you will make it impossible, sure. But it is certainly possible if everyone is on board.
I wouldn't ever do that again, but it was worth doing once, just to have done it.
It was basically a bunch of encounters, though, because we didn't want to spend two years doing it.
So if I understand correctly, you only did the "boss fights" and "skipped all the trash"?
Additionally, "before Epic" implied lvl 21+ to me. Seemed rather odd to say you could do all the major threats (e.g. Telamont, Szazz Tam, Xxiphu, and all the rest of the heavy hitters) without being 21+ in level, even if they were only boss encounters.
Just saying.
Einlanzer, in many ways I agree with you. 3E Realms had a number of flaws, many of which were magnified problems that actually began in 2E with the Time of Troubles. Honestly, much of the verisimilitude for me was broken with the Avatars walking Faerun; it was an interesting and intriguing concept, but the execution was indeed very "comic book" style and it set the stage for further RSEs and craziness. It also created some of the worst deities imaginable: Midnight and Cyric.
That said, I don't see 4E Realms as being any less "comic book"... in fact, when I hear or read about spellscars, I can't help but immediately think of mutant powers. There are differences of course, but having to live with a special superpower that often is tied to a disadvantage, that's just pure Stan Lee X-Men to me. Nice tieflings, non-evil drow, and dragon-people with boobs are abundant. Also, the crazy landscapes modeled after "Yes" albums don't help. Nor do the overpowered supervillains who ALL managed to survive somehow, and are the "threaten the world / all of existence" types. Abeir as a twinned planet is way too over the top. Novels in 4E focus (so far, for the most part) on angels and divas as main characters and not on mortals.
I agree that 1E-2E was the best Realms, although RSE mistakes like the Time of Troubles and Bhaal wandering around on Moonshae started so very early. IMO the best Realms novels focused on mortals and pure adventure; only a few authors really knew how to keep a cap on epic storylines such that they didn't go insanely overboard. But with a number of novels in 4E that feature devas as their main characters, spellscarred "mutants" and NPCs from planar-themed "new" races, I don't see any evidence that superpowered comic-booky themes have been toned down. Just the opposite, I think it's grown worse.
Your idealized version of the Realms is much like mine: 1E, with a variety of distant, inscrutable gods that don't walk the lands. Import the good, non-epic details from lore, such as Ed's Waterdeep gossip and news, and the richly fleshed-out histories, cities and backgrounds for nations, and you have pure gold. Allow for powerful NPCs, even those that overshadow PCs, but keep them busy with their own affairs. It is unrealistic to have PCs always walking around as THE most powerful people, all the time. Greyhawk did this well, but then there weren't a whole lot of Greyhawk novels either. ;)
The mysterious ruins from ancient cultures, and the adventure hooks that were created originally for gamers to use and develop further, they should have been left that way. Too many authors lifted well-crafted and unresolved plot threads from 1E and used them for their own stories. Sometimes, this gave us more of that awesome, rich lore that many of us loved. But just as often, it took amazing tools away from DMs and ended up in yet another RSE.
There were things from late 2E and 3E that I really liked, though. The development of Halruaa and the Shining South were high quality. The rich backgrounds and settings of the Oriental eastern empires were excellent. The tie-ins to Planescape and extraplanar adventures were often elegantly done. Many of the ancient empires were amazingly cool. Old Vaasa, Thay, Rashemen, and Aglarond (minus the Simbul) were terrific. On the other hand, I never liked Spelljammer that much (too goofy), and places like Mulhorand, Unther, and Maztica had some serious flaws in their implementation.
As to making the Realms compatible with the 4E ruleset, honestly I don't see any problem at all. Start off with magic "always having been this way" and there's no need for a ridiculous spellplague or any other RSE. If you really need drow magic to survive when taken to the surface, do it... just don't feel any need to explain it. Not everything needs to be explained or given a narrative reveal. Then again, the decay of drow magic is one of those classic thematic elements that I think should've stayed.
What's so wrong with dragon boobs?
My first thought after reading your post, Einlanzer, was this: no matter what edition of the Realms I’m using, when I start a campaign I always turn to the Old Grey Box first.
It’s just a given that I’ll use the contents of the first Realms boxed set in some way.
As to likes/dislikes: I’m a firm believer that 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons made the Realms the best setting it could be.
I use every bit of the Realmslore I like and throw out the rest. None of my players really read the novels. If they did and said to me "That's not cannon!" I'd tell them to go and play in a "cannon" campaign.
What's so wrong with dragon boobs?
They're not mammals.
Yeah, just wrong biology... probably why Yuan-Ti have never sat well with me either.
Heh! At least with the yuan-ti, they have the history of having been genetically and magically experimented upon by the ancient Sarrukh (breeding actual humans with snakes).
Dragon people are just, y'know... leeeeezards!
What's so wrong with dragon boobs?
They're not mammals.
I always thought that was pretty ignorantly hokey too, like to the point of laughability. Ditto with those frog people.
It was basically a bunch of encounters, though, because we didn't want to spend two years doing it.
So if I understand correctly, you only did the "boss fights" and "skipped all the trash"?
Additionally, "before Epic" implied lvl 21+ to me. Seemed rather odd to say you could do all the major threats (e.g. Telamont, Szazz Tam, Xxiphu, and all the rest of the heavy hitters) without being 21+ in level, even if they were only boss encounters.
Just saying.
We didn' skip the trash. We skipped adventure hooks of little consequence. Each threat had at least one encounter of lead up before the boss fight. And I mispoke, I meant without hitting 30. A few of them we actually managed to assassinate, rather than having prolonged battles. (4e rules made it impossible to one shot any of them, obviously, but a good suprise round wherein the target is helpless for part of it makes combat much shorter.) Most of them we had to fight legit, though.
The Abolithic Sovereignty was a problem. That actually took up a huge chunk of time.
JH: Abeir as a twin planet is a nice bit of fluff. And the landscape stuff, to me, did a lot to make the setting feel infused with magic.
Teiflings were never restricted to being bad people, IIRC. And in 4e they aren't assumed to be nice. I think it might be flat out stated that many of them are terrible and evil, but that it's far from universal.
And non evil drow is FAR from a 4e thing. Don't even try with that one. You absolutely cannot blame 4e for non evil drow. If you want to be angry at someone for that, go knock on Salvatore's door.
While you're there, smack him on my behalf for making the dwarf women with beards thing popular again.
What's so wrong with dragon boobs?
They're not mammals.
They nurse their young.
They're also warm blooded.
They're not lizards. They are explicitly not reptiles.
Here's the link I was sent.
So... yeah.
DBW: Abeir is a cheesy comic book development, IMO. Random floating earthmotes and bizarro landscapes are silly beyond measure, IMO. Tieflings are no longer unique and special, they're as ubiquitous as non-evil drow. And no, I don't actually blame 4E for the concept of non-evil drow... I thought Salvatore's -one- was unique and interesting. But the preponderance of non-evil drow near the end of 3E (gamers demanded, and the designers provided), and their quite literal explosion and massive return to the surface afterwards, is practically a feature in 4E. And not Salvatore's fault, either.
As someone said, the "Age of Humanity" is indeed over for the Realms in 4E. Interestingly, the Old Realms were often described as a "kitchen sink" of settings, because it was perceived as having too many cultures similar to our old real life Earth cultures. But I actually liked 90% of those similar cultures.
New Realms may not be that, in that sense, but in making the dragonborn, tieflings, non-evil drow, genasi (of all types), shadowvar, aboleth, extraplanars, and pretty much every other race (almost all of which used to have quite small representations in the Realms) so widespread, I can't help but see 4E Realms as merely a different type of kitchen sink.
Oh hang on... I was just sent a (ridiculous) article about dragonborn being warm-blooded, and although they lay eggs for their young they do indeed nurse their young. So the boobs do have a function for them after all.
Here's the link I was sent.
So... yeah.
DBW: Abeir is a cheesy comic book development, IMO. Random floating earthmotes and bizarro landscapes are silly beyond measure, IMO. Tieflings are no longer unique and special, they're as ubiquitous as non-evil drow. And no, I don't actually blame 4E for the concept of non-evil drow... I thought Salvatore's -one- was unique and interesting. But the preponderance of non-evil drow near the end of 3E (gamers demanded, and the designers provided), and their quite literal explosion and massive return to the surface afterwards, is practically a feature in 4E. And not Salvatore's fault, either.
"Twin worlds" is a common theme in fantasy and sci fi. And there isn't much bizarre landscape other than the earthmotes. Unless you count what existed before 4e.
drow: There were non evil drow gods before 4e. Elaine Cunningham also has a good Drow(and she's a pre 4e character). She doesn't start that way, but she does get influenced to becoming good as the story progresses. (Very good story, btw. The Rashemen barbarian character and the Drow girl are both pretty awesome)
With respect, your arguments strike me as the arguments of someone who decided at some point to not like the new realms, and isn't going to actually consider arguments which are contrary to your conclusion.
I hope that's a misinterpretation, though.
Calimshan would be the Genasi empire.
Ebonfar would be the Shades/Shadar Kai.
Narfell would have been Bael Turath. The Rhumithari(sp) would have been Arkosia.
Cormyr would be only 199 years old Myth Drannor's Mythal wouldnt have been raised yet.
The Future Waterdeep would be a sleepy fishing village with Halaster's Hold by it. Halaster would call periodic "Hunts" into the future Undermountain(great paragon tier dungeon
)!There is so much lore out there...
"Twin worlds" is a common theme in fantasy and sci fi. And there isn't much bizarre landscape other than the earthmotes. Unless you count what existed before 4e.
Concepts can be good, but can still have terrible implementation.
Bizarre landscape changes:
- the plaguechanged lands
- earthmotes, watermotes, junglemotes, etc.
- some normal mountains changed to glassy spires
- swapping out several nations *bing!*
- Halruaa entirely borked for no apparent reason
- collapse of the Underdark beneath Shaar
- the lifting of Thay's plateaus, for no apparent reason
- even changing certain starry constellations
A major example is Chondath, which becomes Akanûl:
"...The land today is characterized by crazed stone spires, cavernous ravines, and cliffs like petrified waves. Freefloating earthmotes host miniature forests, grasslands, lakes, and ever-replenishing waterfalls that mist the land below in draperies of mist..."
Magical? Sure, in a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon kind of way. Or a copy of WoW's Nagrand.
drow: There were non evil drow gods before 4e. Elaine Cunningham also has a good Drow(and she's a pre 4e character). She doesn't start that way, but she does get influenced to becoming good as the story progresses. (Very good story, btw. The Rashemen barbarian character and the Drow girl are both pretty awesome)
I agree with your assessment that Liriel Baenre's story was awesome. But I don't think you're getting my point. Drizzt's story was of a good person escaping from an evil society. Unique. Liriel's story was one of personal, deep transformation and the adoption of alien cultural values. Also very unique.
But by the end of 3E, beyond a handful of Eilistraee's faithful in isolated spots, a significant and large portion of the drow race was spiritually redeemed and no longer evil by default. That carried over into 4E. That was a massive change.
With respect, your arguments strike me as the arguments of someone who decided at some point to not like the new realms, and isn't going to actually consider arguments which are contrary to your conclusion.
I hope that's a misinterpretation, though.
Ah, I see. Because I disagree with you, it's simple to explain me away as just a "hater" and nothing more. How wonderfully dismissive.
For context, here's a little background about me: I've been with the Realms for decades. I read Ed's original articles in Dragon's Pages from the Mages, and begged to know more. I played the Grey Box until the pages fell out of my books. Although I missed a lot of game play during 2E (due to college and work), I faithfully followed it with novels through all of 2E and 3E. I never agreed with everything that happened, and there were a few novels I didn't get to read (yet). But none of that killed the Realms for me. In 4E, though, the changes are too drastic, and IMO too over-the-top cartoony.
In any case, I'm not quite sure why you care what I think, or why you're trying to "argue" for elements specific to the 4E Realms. Apart from my brief tangent on dragon boobs (and with apologies on that to the OP), this thread is about the OP wanting to take the Realms back to a 1E state, what people liked about it, and what things gave 1E its unique qualities... and ultimately how to use 1E with the 4E rule-set. It's really not the best place to try and convince me you're right. I'm glad to continue such a discussion with you by PM if you like, though. But honestly, I've studied the old and new Realms in great depth and I know very well what I like and don't like.
Anyhoo Jorunhast, you say you don't know why people are arguing, but damn if yr not fueling the dragonboob fire. Tittys aside, If you like Dragonborn, use 'em! If not, trash 'em! It is your world! Don't like earthmotes? Earthmotes don't exist!!! Like the Grey Box? Use that (I have spent a lot of time updating old editions). Bitching and moaning about minutia of different races does nothing. If you like something from the past, update it and USE IT!!! I like 3E FR stuff, but I also like the 4E system better than 3E. What do I do? Adapt and overcome. You like what you like is all I'm saying.
Thanks for the mammories!TPKDM
the rest, eh. you see cartoony, I see a fantasy world with some magically altered landscape.
And most of the lands that are gone, I am super happy to see gone. I really didn't care for X Earth place in FR. But it's an aspect of the changes that is even more subjective than the rest.
I just think that we need more lore. And then some more.
But I think that for Eberron as well.
And we need Dragonlance and maybe Mystara.
And/or a new setting. Maybe a fill in the blanks book for Nerath.
I want a lot of things. :P
Boobs, dragon or otherwise, are great! Why y'all gotta hate on 'em?!
I don't hate boobs. In fact, I'm quite the fan.
*cough*
But I don't like fake boobs. Or fakey anything, really.
And I preferred the original dragonborn of the old Realms. Way better than these "kinda-sorta dragony, but not really reptilian, semi-mammalian scaly people." They seem fakey to me.
Anyhoo Jorunhast, you say you don't know why people are arguing, but damn if yr not fueling the dragonboob fire. ... Adapt and overcome. You like what you like is all I'm saying.
And I agree with you: use what you like. And I've already apologized for the tangent about dragonboobs. But I did want to respond to DBW. Sorry if that whole thing bothered you.
Ultimately, I like verisimilitude and that's part of what this thread is supposed to be about. To me, 1E just had way more realism than in susequent editions. If that makes me a crotchety grognard, send me my membership certificate.
You should take some medicine for that *cough*
Dude, you realize the whole of D&D is fake right?
You should take some medicine for that *cough*
Now you're just trolling. Have fun with that.
Legit question! What's so realistic about a genasi compared with a dragonborn? The image is all in yr storytelling and concept. In my 4E games, Tieflings can look like just about anything. I don't give an eff if the book says they all have horns and tails. The original concept was that they were part human, part something else...I like that. If you like yr version of dragonborn, keep it that way by writing it up and using it. Hell, I might even use it if you write it well enough! Fact of the matter is, IT IS ALL FAKE!!!! You use your imagination to make it into whatever reality you see fit. You are free to do whatever you want in yr own world!
The question now is am I an Ice Troll or a Bladerager Troll???
cant we all just get along?
oh, and
I like the Realms period.
Dont matter to me if its in the future, or in the past, the Realms is still the Realms, knowatimean?
First, I cannot really bring any thoughts onto the original subject matter since I don't own the Grey Box or 1E Realms stuff. I didn't get into the Realms til late 2E/AD&D so no help there.
But to some of the other conversations going on, lets start with Dragonborn. Did we have them in 3E? Yes. Did they look the same? Who cares? Continunity aside, it's purely cosmetics and has little relevance to your Realms games. So what if they have breasts or 5 fingers or even a tail or not. Unless someone is attempting to gain some sort of mechanical benefit, cosmetics can change at the whim of the player or DM. Don't want your tiefling to have a tail or have huge, dramatic horns? Then *WHAM* they don't and use an illustration from Planescape or 3E. I'm just not seeing the big deal here.
As for non-evil Drow: This is silly silly talk. Drow have been available for PC-usage since 2E and forever afterwards. I don't understand the idea or the presumption is that they're no longer "evil". Are they showcased as a choice for PCs? Yes, probably more so than any other edition, but that doesn't change their culture's traditions or history. They're still a vile, hate-filled race who loathes the surface world and everyone on it. It says as much in the FRPG. But what it doesn't do is limit a player from choosing a Drow as an option. So to some, this may be advertising that they're just a new flavor of elf but I don't think that's the case. If a DM allows that attitude, he/she has only themselves to blame (not an editioin).
And as for the whole notion that the rarity of non-human (aka Standard Races) becoming popular; it's because they're NOT traditional and the access to them is more accepted now than in prior editions. Does this mean that there's a great resurgence of those races? Well no, that's an absurd notion by any rate. The rules just don't reduce player's options because it feels that there should be less non-standard races to choose from. Why should a player be handicapped because they don't want to be and elf, dwarf, human, or halfing? What's really so wrong with playing a Genasi? If it's because a DM is afraid there will be NO non-standard races, then there should be a mandate created by the DM saying that 50% of the party should be a Race from the PHB or an elf, human, etc... to make it more "realistic" (if such a thing is even possible in a fantasy setting). And just because the options are there, doesn't mean a DM can't restrict them. I've played with DMs who say "NO DROW! PERIOD!" and yea, it's a bit annoying because my options are limited, but then I go onto something else.
@ Jorunhast: You said "Ultimately, I like verisimilitude and that's part of what this thread is supposed to be about." but what I don't understand is how the topics (dragonborn, non-standard races, etc...) discussed break from that (maybe due to 4E, maybe not)? Is it because there are more player options for non-standard races or because there aren't things in place that hinder and/or turn players away from non-standard races such as Level Adjustments or stat penalties? I've always felt that the verisimilitude should be first and foremost the DMs job to maintain. There were loads of player options in 3e/v3.5 and it was practically up to the DM to say "Sorry, but no races with Level Adjustments allowed" or "No classes from such-and-such book" because their inclusion broke from (their perception) of the setting or campaign's known truths. From my own experiences with 4E-Realms, the supplements therein and the novels based upon the setting, there hasn't been too much in the way of breaking from the norm aside from talking about Earth-Motes and some Spellplague stuff (mostly in the backround). And the terrain changes you mentioned earlier are fantastic representations of their (Wonders of the World) IMO. I don't think you'll see Earth-Motes or Jungle-Motes whereever you look or find Plagelands over every other hill. They're there, yes, but not so abundant as the FRCG makes them appear.
First, I cannot really bring any thoughts onto the original subject matter since I don't own the Grey Box or 1E Realms stuff. I didn't get into the Realms til late 2E/AD&D so no help there.
Well, it's possible that having the experience of the 1E gray box might be necessary not only for adding to the OP's discussion, but also for understanding what I'm talking about.
But to some of the other conversations going on, lets start with Dragonborn. Did we have them in 3E? Yes. Did they look the same? Who cares? Continunity aside, it's purely cosmetics and has little relevance to your Realms games.
*sigh* It's not just about cosmetic appearances. The old dragonborn had a very different origin and backstory as well.
So what if they have breasts or 5 fingers or even a tail or not. Unless someone is attempting to gain some sort of mechanical benefit, cosmetics can change at the whim of the player or DM. Don't want your tiefling to have a tail or have huge, dramatic horns? Then *WHAM* they don't and use an illustration from Planescape or 3E. I'm just not seeing the big deal here.
No offense, but I don't care about mechanics at all. It's not about mechanics, or cosmetics, it's about how they fit into the Realms story-wise.
As for non-evil Drow: This is silly silly talk. Drow have been available for PC-usage since 2E and forever afterwards. I don't understand the idea or the presumption is that they're no longer "evil". Are they showcased as a choice for PCs? Yes, probably more so than any other edition, but that doesn't change their culture's traditions or history. They're still a vile, hate-filled race who loathes the surface world and everyone on it. It says as much in the FRPG. But what it doesn't do is limit a player from choosing a Drow as an option. So to some, this may be advertising that they're just a new flavor of elf but I don't think that's the case. If a DM allows that attitude, he/she has only themselves to blame (not an editioin).
Are you not aware of the redemption story for the drow at the end of 3E, which culminated in a massive spiritual cleansing of a big percentage of the drow? "Dark elf" is indeed a new flavor of elf, as they can be of any alignment, and perhaps even come from the city that was brought back by Khelben and colleagues. Hardly "silly talk", it's a major thematic element with a full backstory of redemption.
And as for the whole notion that the rarity of non-human (aka Standard Races) becoming popular; it's because they're NOT traditional and the access to them is more accepted now than in prior editions. Does this mean that there's a great resurgence of those races? Well no, that's an absurd notion by any rate.
An entire nation of these new dragonborn were plopped down into the Realms. Akanul for the genasi was plopped into the Realms. The redeemed dark elves are pretty much everywhere. That's not absurd, it's a fact. They are no longer rare.
@ Jorunhast: You said "Ultimately, I like verisimilitude and that's part of what this thread is supposed to be about." but what I don't understand is how the topics (dragonborn, non-standard races, etc...) discussed break from that (maybe due to 4E, maybe not)? ...
No offense, but maybe you're not seeing it because you choose not to, maybe you gloss over story and history because it's not that important to you as long as you have mechanically balanced characters and encounters, or perhaps it really is the case that it's necessary to have experienced 1E to fully understand. But 2E and 3E stretched verisimilitude for many of us and 4E seems to have broken it for many of us. I prefer immersion-style roleplay, rule systems and mechanics don't mean much to me, perhaps that is also a major part of our different perspectives.
*sigh* It's not just about cosmetic appearances. The old dragonborn had a very different origin and backstory as well.
I was speaking from a purely cosmetic perspective, hence "Continunity aside". I understand Dragonborn were radically different in their story and flavor of previous editions. I'm of the opinion that both are farily easy ways to introduce them into the Realms. But I don't put as much stock into the history of the Realms to be perturbed by the chagnes brought on by their appearance. I find that it's easy for someone who doesn't like the Spellplague (but does like 4E mechanics) to just use the other versions of Dragonborn's history and lore and go from there.
No offense, but I don't care about mechanics at all. It's not about mechanics, or cosmetics, it's about how they fit into the Realms story-wise.
Right, I get that, which is why I was confused by the complaints about their looks. As far as their involvement in the Realms, I'm rather fond of it partly due to the fact that I did not like what was there previously in the prior editions and the added Dragonborn element was something different and not so...."blah" for my tastes. I can, however, respect your enjoyment of previous cultures that places like Akanûl(sp?) replaced and why your resentful of what is there presently.
Are you not aware of the redemption story for the drow at the end of 3E, which culminated in a massive spiritual cleansing of a big percentage of the drow? "Dark elf" is indeed a new flavor of elf, as they can be of any alignment, and perhaps even come from the city that was brought back by Khelben and colleagues. Hardly "silly talk", it's a major thematic element with a full backstory of redemption.
Oh I'm aware of Elistraee's redemption but I'd hardly say it was a big percentage of Drow (some decends of the Ilythiiri mostly). But I'd fair a guess to say that it's probably less than 1/4 of the Drow population as a whole (were it more, wouldn't we see Drizzt's transformation??). Because there isn't much on the subject or lore to tell us real numbers, it's hard to guess how many of the Drow were redeemed and I'd even say the numbers are fewer if she reserved her Redemption to those deemed worthy (ie. not evil or under Lloth's thumb). As for their alignment, since when was there an alignment requirement for them? I'd venture to say that most drow are evil or at least self-serving enough not to work well in a party that isn't just as self-serving or evil. But, again, just because the rules allow for them to be used as PCs doesn't necessarily mean they should be used such by the DM.
An entire nation of these new dragonborn were plopped down into the Realms. Akanul for the genasi was plopped into the Realms. The redeemed dark elves are pretty much everywhere. That's not absurd, it's a fact. They are no longer rare.
Hmmm, I'm going to have to disagree. The nation of Dragonborn would no doubt explore the surrounding area and so they'd be pretty prominent in that region. But in Thay? In Vaasa? In The North or Western Heartlands? In Impiltur or Nar? No, not soo much. To me, it seems like complaining that there are just too many half-elves in Aglarond or too many Ors in the Spine of the World (seeing as that's where a good portion of them live to begin with). I could see the argument if there were Dragonborn commonly walking the streets of Silverymoon or Tantras and no one batting an eye but I've yet to see such creatures or such reactions to them outside their Nation. Same could be said of the Redeemed drow, as I think your grossly exaggerating their numbers. Drow are not so common as to be walking willy-nilly through the streets of even the most tolerable cities such as Waterdeep (or again, Silverymoon). Unless, that is, you have imperical evidence or lore that stat otherwise? So yea, I think they're still rare, at least still much more rare than humans, elves, and dwarves.
No offense, but maybe you're not seeing it because you choose not to, maybe you gloss over story and history because it's not that important to you as long as you have mechanically balanced characters and encounters, or perhaps it really is the case that it's necessary to have experienced 1E to fully understand. But 2E and 3E stretched verisimilitude for many of us and 4E seems to have broken it for many of us. I prefer immersion-style roleplay, rule systems and mechanics don't mean much to me, perhaps that is also a major part of our different perspectives.
I'm cool with letting bygones be bygones. I can understand your attitude to the great and sweeping changes to the Realms and how it's changed for (in your case) the worst. I can understand that the verisimilitude is broken because possibly the "fantastic" was taken out of non-standard races in order to show-case them as more important characters in the Realms. For what it's worth, I don't feel a lof of that was lost in the novels. While i've not read a LOT of novels post-spellplague date (a few like Swordmage, Corsair, Downshadow, etc..) but it's been pretty standard as far as the races protrayed therein. I think the only "exceptional" race was a Tiefling sorcerer named Sarth. Other than that, mostly Humans, Dwarves, Halfings and a few elves. I didn't get the impression what so ever that non-standard races were all that common (only one mention of Akanûl and drow are still feared to death) in the Realms.
Legit question! What's so realistic about a genasi compared with a dragonborn? The image is all in yr storytelling and concept. In my 4E games, Tieflings can look like just about anything. I don't give an eff if the book says they all have horns and tails. The original concept was that they were part human, part something else...I like that. If you like yr version of dragonborn, keep it that way by writing it up and using it. Hell, I might even use it if you write it well enough! Fact of the matter is, IT IS ALL FAKE!!!! You use your imagination to make it into whatever reality you see fit. You are free to do whatever you want in yr own world!
The question now is am I an Ice Troll or a Bladerager Troll???
So based on the activity of these boards your saying the Realms are dying? I can't really agree with you there, even though I know the boards aren't what they used to be
Not just these boards, all the FR boards I used to visit are all but dead since shortly after 4e (and the last time before that it was basically all reduced to just complaints about 4e realms)
So based on the activity of these boards your saying the Realms are dying? I can't really agree with you there, even though I know the boards aren't what they used to be
Not just these boards, all the FR boards I used to visit are all but dead since shortly after 4e (and the last time before that it was basically all reduced to just complaints about 4e realms)
Meh, they're slow. A good portion of people left with a small portion to fill the big ol' hole. We see posts about various topics that vary from a few hours to about 5 days. That, to me, says slow to moderate attention and definitly NOT dead by any means. Candlekeep still has interesting thread and a lot of designers/authors still post there quite frequently.
I should, however, start posting threats I've started there here too. Jorunhast helped me get the "Shark-Themed Armor" idea off the ground and I've got the Helm done and I'm looking at getting the Hand/Boots statted up soon. I think the problem is people around here are just sorta *Blah* about discussion because it's already been re-hashed before. Many times if it's about 4E, it disintegrates into silly wars. If it's about pre-spellplague stuff, there's little in the way of actual know-how since a good portion of Realms-Lore people have left.
... If it's about pre-spellplague stuff, there's little in the way of actual know-how since a good portion of Realms-Lore people have left.
We are like the dead gods of the Realms. We may be lurking, or silent for a while, but we always find a way to come back.
... If it's about pre-spellplague stuff, there's little in the way of actual know-how since a good portion of Realms-Lore people have left.
We are like the dead gods of the Realms. We may be lurking, or silent for a while, but we always find a way to come back.
lol... great comment
From the descriptions here, Dragonborn sound more like monotremes than anything else... except their not nearly as cute as the mighty platypus or echidna. Which kinda sucks for them. As to the rest, while I agree with Jorunhast by and large, its not something I feel like getting involved in at the moment. Maybe later after there's more coffee in me.
Spiny anteaters are cute, especially the ones with stubby noses.
D'awwwww!
I just read the new Daggerdale Backdrop... I liked it. If they did more of these backdrops and added more Realms content via Dragon and Dungeon (or lord forbid a lore book or two which I know they aren't doing)... things would be a lot better in my mind.
Well your in luck. 3 Forgotten Realms specific articles for Dungeon and 1 article for Dragon magazine plus Neverwinter Campaign Guide comes out in 4 days. Also, I read that they're gonna be putting in more options for Asian-themed characters and specifically talking about Kara-Tur (yet another Realms area) plus celtic-themed characters from Heroes of the Feywild and Moonshae Isles stuff (yet another Realms area).
I just read the new Daggerdale Backdrop... I liked it. If they did more of these backdrops and added more Realms content via Dragon and Dungeon (or lord forbid a lore book or two which I know they aren't doing)... things would be a lot better in my mind.
Well your in luck. 3 Forgotten Realms specific articles for Dungeon and 1 article for Dragon magazine plus Neverwinter Campaign Guide comes out in 4 days. Also, I read that they're gonna be putting in more options for Asian-themed characters and specifically talking about Kara-Tur (yet another Realms area) plus celtic-themed characters from Heroes of the Feywild and Moonshae Isles stuff (yet another Realms area).
Sounds freakin AWEESOME!!!
;)
So that being said, I think the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is really well done. Good job, folks. (Your FLGS might have the book already.)