There is also one thing they all have common: they know everything about the Realms. Everything. All the way from the Creator Races down to The Year of the Haunting. I commend their thirst for knowledge and even have a small sense of envy.
Well, the problem arises with this new edition. The designers want it to be accessible to all, which means utilizing a lore that doesn't leave people reeling. If someone wants to run a campaign that really feels like it's a part of the Realms, a large amount of study is needed. That's liable to make most players turn-tail and run. Hell, any question about Realms lore on these boards is met by answers (from guess who) featuring a multitude of books to read.
It makes me sad when I read those answers. Now, to create the campaign with the feel he wanted, he has to tell his players to hang back a couple of months so he can read 6 or 7 books?
So, with these new Realms in 4E, WotC is making something that everyone can just jump into. Personally, when I read the excerpts, I get excited at all the prospects laid out in front of me. The PC's can go here, they can do this, and there's no one to stand in their way. No one. And it is that very reason that I believe the old-school Realms fans are dismayed by what they see. It doesn't seem as rich as it did before.
Every time you turned around in the Forgotten Realms, there was some new character, old character, resurrected character that jumped in with some ground-shaking event. This undead army, that orc army, his united races army, their lesser deity... As someone who came into FR late in the game, I found it borderline frustrating that, in order to make it feel like a living world, they had to overload me with events. I couldn't even get a good feel for when I wanted to play in the timeline. It pretty much just ended up being that I used FR locations and nothing else.
But, these are things that the old players grew up with (or grew older with). They were there every step of the way. Now that it's being taken away and the Realms are not so "heavy," the word "dull" springs up more and more. I say, the mindset has to change. If a new generation is to take the reigns, as they always do, then they have to find the Realms accessible. If they don't, then the reigns will never pass, and the Realms will die. I implore the old players to leave their minds open as they visit the new Realms. Let all the old lore and NPC's and deities wash away as if you're reading it for the first time again.
I, for one, want to have others rejoicing with me.
I like it when they discover stuff, not in a sourcebook or novel, but when I present it too them.
Else, they loose their 'sense of wonder' with everything I throw at them.
Case in point - my nieces boyfriend told me he had an interest in the Realms, and wanted to play in one of my games (with my two older sons and their friends). I asked him if he had played the Baldur's Gate games (wondering what drew his interest, since he never played D&D), and he told me he had played the first one, but it was really the Drizzt novels that sparked his interest.
After that, I really didn't really want him in my games.
He was ruined, as far as I was cocerned. The novels are an over-the-top representation of what the PCs could become with much hard work, and the disillusionment they cause amongst new players is what killed the Realms...
NOT Grognardism.
Just an opinoin, mind you, but I like to be the ONLY guy in-the-know at MY table.
But you are correct, and I have been trying to curb my 'enthusiasm' as much as humanly possible of late.
--- Sorry :embarrass
If you have a problem with strong characters and events, you should never try Dragonlance. In the Realms you do not need the novel chars, what you need a bit is to know about some history of the place where you are playing, like someone who comes from there, something about your race and thats it. Most stories of the novels aren't that realmshaking and I am not sure if someone in Amn knows so much about Drizzt and cares about his gang. But in Krynn there are the main events and heros everywhere present, that's really hard to fit in with a small group.
thats in insult just to tell people that.
oh and, things change not often for the better, so why should our mindset change?
and its not often the change its the its being used to explain something else that pisses people off.
so my opinion of the 4e 4gotten realms is currently at meh, you know what it wont change becuase the tidbits that they threw were boring, to little knowledge, and some of it i did not like.
and my final opinion will be when i look at the 4e 4gotten realms setting myself.( edit: the cormyr one enjoyable)
so please dont tell me my mindset has to change, your asking for flames doing that
edit: my spelling is horrible
so please to tell me my mindset has to change, your asking for flames doing that
I actually look forward to any replies, negative or not. My post was, I believe, well thought-out and presented what I feel when I read these boards sometimes. I welcome others to do the same. I wouldn't have even bothered posting if I felt differently.
Thus far, I think the replies are good reads.
It seems a trifle odd to come to a board with the sentence :
"Discuss the rich and colorful history of the Forgotten Realms, as well as the people and places that make them up, here."
in it and tell people that they should forget the rich and colourful history of the Realms.
You do not get to tell me how I should feel about this train wreck. It is an appalling mess, and I don't particularly want to encourage people in anyway to look into the Realms. I don't care for it, nor do I care for people telling me that I should be 'open minded'. They killed the setting for the sake of a mythical quick buck.
Frankly, everything I've seen in the previews makes me want to despise the new setting even more.
Just an opinoin, mind you, but I like to be the ONLY guy in-the-know at MY table.
No offense, but I'm glad you aren't my DM. :D The whole reason I want to play the game is because it allows me to throw myself into another realm for a short time. Personally, reading other peoples ideas, like the Drizzt novels, doesn't ruin anything for me. If anything, it makes me want to play even more. They inspire me to throw my own ideas out there. Of course, I will occasionally adopt something for my character that I find particularly intriguing, such as duel wielding scimitars. 
However, I don't believe this means my experience is ruined. I want to be inspired by what others have done so that I can make my own experience all the better. I think this applies to just about everything in life.
case in point - Thank You. ;)
Seriously though, I want my players to grow and make their own mistakes, not play-out the novels they love. Don't get me wrong, I pretty much made my kids read LotR and Harry Potter (only the first of each - after that they were hooked), so I encourage reading (even splat-books), but I prefer that the FR lore stay 'hidden' until I reveal it.
Just my style, is all - I have nothing against DMs who like their players to know everything about a setting - It leads to some evening-filled arguments where very little adventuring gets done, but to each his own.
and tell people that they should forget the rich and colourful history of the Realms.
No kidding.
You don't need to dumb down the Realms to make it accessable. The realms are so big that you can run *any kind of campaign you want* without having high-lvl personalities and events affect it at all.
You can also make The Forgotten Realms work in 4th edition without ruining the campaign setting by having the deities do fantastically stupid and uncharaceristic things.
Tyr killing Helm over marrying the goddes of luck? Huh? Killing some of the more popular deities for cleric PCs in the realms (Helm, Lathander, Cyric, Mystra) seems like a very bad move to me.
OK, and killing the goddes of magic for the 3rd time makes all magic and the planes (independant universes not linked only to the FR) go poof? That totally ignores what happened the previous 2 times and ignores the fact that Ao would take notice of this as well.
I get that 4th eidtion wants lower magic, but if someone wants to play Eberron they'll go play Eberron. If people want high magic, they'll play high magic.
People like the Realms for the rich background, high magic, and plethora of deities....and you're taking that all away and demanding that *they're* the ones who need to change?
This seems to be more of an example of not giving people what they want but *telling* them what they want and demanding they like it.
You're basically saying "Hey, I know you wanted a steak, but here a hamburger and if you're disappointed, well, you're mindset needs to change!"
This pretty much encapsulates the "issue" with 4th eidtion.....
You wanted to duel-wield scimitars?
case in point - Thank You. ;)
I guess I wasn't clear. I said that just because I like someone else's idea, it doesn't mean the Realms are suddenly ruined for me. In point of fact, my favorite character that I play is a Swordmage in 4e. I haven't read a lot of FR books, but the ones that I have suggest that wizards and other spellcasters are evil jerks. My point was that I can take what others throw out and not let it overwhelm my own creativity.
Seriously though, I want my players to grow and make their own mistakes, not play-out the novels they love. Don't get me wrong, I pretty much made my kids read LotR and Harry Potter (only the first of each - after that they were hooked), so I encourage reading (even splat-books), but I prefer that the FR lore stay 'hidden' until I reveal it. Just my style, is all - I have nothing against DMs who like their players to know everything about a setting - It leads to some evening-filled arguments where very little adventuring gets done, but to each his own.
Again, no offense intended, but how can you tell someone what to read and what not to read, yet still say, "to each his own"?
Assume you are a e.g. diehard Texas Rangers supporter. And you have been for 15odd years. You love their game of baseball too. Now, for some reason, the owners of the team come to the assumption that baseball is yesterday's sport, people want something new, more feasible, actionlike or what have you. So they close the club down, sell all the valuables and declare that from now on, the team that will play at Arlington will be an American Football team.
Hey, that's fun too! And you gonna love it! Rest assured, that little hick-up in the Rangers' history in 2008 will soon be forgotten, come the next two or three generations of supporters ... or so.
That's what I thought when a) I had my first encounter with 4E and b ) my first encounter with the FR events. I felt like a Texas Rangers baseball fan staring at the news on the football team.
NB: Just in case, I have no clue about either sport or the Texas Rangers. My beloved heroes play at Ibrox.
"Hey, I know you wanted a steak, but here a hamburger and if you're disappointed, well, you're mindset needs to change!"
Puh, a hamburger, better than the guy who want to give you a salad or some kind of sojabrewed fleshthing instead of a steak. :D
That's what I thought when a) I had my first encounter with 4E and b ) my first encounter with the FR events. I felt like a Texas Rangers baseball fan staring at the news on the football team.
That is exactly how I've felt.
From a buisness standpoint, I think WoTC handled the Mechwarrior Universe much better. They licensed out the complex stuff for Old School people who wanted that, but made the clicky/simple stuff and advanced the timeline 20 years for the younger crowd.
Nothing wrong with either. I've played both and like both, but at different times. When I want a steak, I'll ask for a steak, when I want a hamburger, I'll ask for one.
I think it would have made a *lot* more sense to just flesh out the minis game for "simple" D+D and let the pencil-paper "advanced" D+D alone; give people a choice, not make some Frankenstein-like hybrid that satisfies neither.
Don't let the chase you off. I'm more-or-less in agreement with your post, but I also believe MarkusTay63's post reflects my thoughts and feelings as well.
I love the lore of the Realms. It's what draws me to the setting. It's what inspires me to play in it. The 4E Realms more-or-less diminishes that greatly.
However, on the other hand, I love gaming in the Realms just as much. I wouldn't dream of saying that I know as much about the lore (especially recent lore) as some others on this forum, but I like to think that I at least have a firm grasp on things. Because of my love of lore I feel almost compelled to include it into any game - how could I let such wonderful stuff go to waste? Yet, at the same time, it can easily feel overwhelming when I'm trying to cram it all in - trying to remember the history of this location or that. Trying to remember various important past (and current) conflicts so I can accurately portray the mindset of the NPC's, etc. If it can feel overwhelming for me, then I am sure others feel the same.
Like MarkusTay63 I love the sense of discovery and wonder people have when they experience the Realms the first time. I hate it when people read the novels, because as he points out it 'ruins' them. They get an unbalanced prospective of the setting and if you play in a game where dragons and armies are actually a threat - not something to wave away with your all-powerful hand - then your game can feel underwhelming in comparison.
The new 4E Realms has potential in my eyes. While I do not necessarily like all the new stuff - in fact I hate Abeir and all things tied to it - and I hate the method in which we got to 4E, the 4E Realms feels more adaptable. It feels as if a chain has been cut and a heavy weight lifted from my shoulders. Since WotC is not going to really fill in the time line for the 100 Year Jump, I'm going to be able to do that myself. I will have more of a free reign and control over the Realms than I ever could before - and just because I loved the Lore didn't necessarily mean I agreed with it all.
I may have to retcon things, but that's fine - I don't feel beholden to the 4E Lore. It won't really matter, to me, what happens in the 4E Novels because I won't be paying any attention to them. No longer will I have to worry about someone being 'ruined' by reading the novels - my world will differ greatly from cannon as to be a somewhat-similar world rather than an exact copy.
I am also excited at the prospect of sharing my world with others as I personally fill in the time line, and make changes to the setting. I feel more like WotC is giving me a construction kit than anything else, and world building is something I greatly enjoy, so I am somewhat cautiously optimistic about the new 4E Realms.
With each excerpt (or what-have-you) we're given, I'm seeing the same reviews from the same people over and over. Words like "meh," "boring," and "uninspired" abound. These people, who I really don't have to name, are pretty much the bread and butter of the Forgotten Realms Boards. The new threads are started by them, the community views are swayed by them, and (most importantly) the FR efforts and events that are organized outside of WotC are all created or pushed along by them.
Well, sorry for having an opinion. I really wanted to like the 4E Realms, it's impossible, simply because they destroy so much of it that they aren't the Realms anymore.
There is also one thing they all have common: they know everything about the Realms. Everything. All the way from the Creator Races down to The Year of the Haunting. I commend their thirst for knowledge and even have a small sense of envy.
Well, this forum has its fair share of lorekeepers, I don't belong to them, I'm more a librarian computer/holocron for Star Trek/Star Wars. I like the realms a lot, but I bought the Campaign Setting just a few weeks ago because I got panic, that it would be sold out when the 4E ones are released. Until then there were always rulebooks that where more important to me like Savage Species. I played Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and read a bit in the Forgotten Realms Wiki, but that's it.
Well, the problem arises with this new edition. The designers want it to be accessible to all, which means utilizing a lore that doesn't leave people reeling. If someone wants to run a campaign that really feels like it's a part of the Realms, a large amount of study is needed. That's liable to make most players turn-tail and run. Hell, any question about Realms lore on these boards is met by answers (from guess who) featuring a multitude of books to read.
The problem is not that the FR become more accessible. The problem is how they make it. See it this way: If you never worked with a computer before it's a bit overwhelming (I know what I'm talking about, at the moment I'm teaching my mother how to use it). You have a lot of options, don't know what icon does what, Mozilla, Firefox, Excel, Word could as well be chinese etc. Some kind of assistant that explaines everything would be really cool... But instead of a good assistant for the really cool Forgotten Realms (Quadcore CPU, kickass graphic chip 2000 GB RAM
) we get a Fisher Price version of it.It makes me sad when I read those answers. Now, to create the campaign with the feel he wanted, he has to tell his players to hang back a couple of months so he can read 6 or 7 books?
The campaign setting (which needs a bit of order) and a bit of internet searching should be enough for starting a campaign.
So, with these new Realms in 4E, WotC is making something that everyone can just jump into. Personally, when I read the excerpts, I get excited at all the prospects laid out in front of me. The PC's can go here, they can do this, and there's no one to stand in their way. No one. And it is that very reason that I believe the old-school Realms fans are dismayed by what they see. It doesn't seem as rich as it did before.
It isn't as rich as before. And the problem is, that you can maybe do now whatever you want, but we couldn't do anything but stand by and see how the Realms we loved and the gods our characters worshipped got destroyed or merged in a complete senseless and unbelievable way.
Every time you turned around in the Forgotten Realms, there was some new character, old character, resurrected character that jumped in with some ground-shaking event. This undead army, that orc army, his united races army, their lesser deity... As someone who came into FR late in the game, I found it borderline frustrating that, in order to make it feel like a living world, they had to overload me with events. I couldn't even get a good feel for when I wanted to play in the timeline. It pretty much just ended up being that I used FR locations and nothing else.
That's a problem, that a simple timeline could solve. It would've been perfect for the D&D Insider to have all the lore well-ordered in digestible chunks, but instead: Fisher Price
But, these are things that the old players grew up with (or grew older with). They were there every step of the way. Now that it's being taken away and the Realms are not so "heavy," the word "dull" springs up more and more. I say, the mindset has to change. If a new generation is to take the reigns, as they always do, then they have to find the Realms accessible. If they don't, then the reigns will never pass, and the Realms will die. I implore the old players to leave their minds open as they visit the new Realms. Let all the old lore and NPC's and deities wash away as if you're reading it for the first time again.
I wouldn't consider myself an old player. I'm 23 (and I guess one of the as you would call it "new generation") but I still hate the changes, because they removed everything that I loved about the realms. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to understand why you think that it was necessary to destroy the realms to make them more accessible. Organizing the lore would have been a lot better. And I have absolutely no reason to "let all the old lore etc wash away". I loved the Forgotten Realms for what they were and I see no reason why I should spend money on new products just because they have "Forgotten Realms" written on them.
I, for one, want to have others rejoicing with me.
Just wait a bit. When all the expected new players come who don't know about what the Forgotten Realms were and don't want to know we will vanish.
That's just my
:DThat is exactly how I've felt.
From a buisness standpoint, I think WoTC handled the Mechwarrior Universe much better. They licensed out the complex stuff for Old School people who wanted that, but made the clicky/simple stuff and advanced the timeline 20 years for the younger crowd.
Nothing wrong with either. I've played both and like both, but at different times. When I want a steak, I'll ask for a steak, when I want a hamburger, I'll ask for one.
I think it would have made a *lot* more sense to just flesh out the minis game for "simple" D+D and let the pencil-paper "advanced" D+D alone; give people a choice, not make some Frankenstein-like hybrid that satisfies neither.
I wasn't aware that WotC had anything to do with the Mechwarrior/Battletech license. Last I heard it was owned by Wizkids. If it was a WotC license, it would have been rolled into the D20 system...
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Or in other words, since I can't get the kinda lore I want, I'm stuck with whatever they give us, and I'll just deal with it.
Again, no offense intended, but how can you tell someone what to read and what not to read, yet still say, "to each his own"?
Okay, I can see your point. Lets just say I don't 'recommend' any FR books, and since I'm so well-read (in SciFi and Fantasy), I can make MANY recommendations well outside the Realms.
I do not tell anyone they CAN'T read FR novels, if that is their choice, and my eldest son (19) has expressed interest in reading the Drizzt series for awhile now, and I don't have any problem with that.
I won't lend him my copies, because he is a careless clod and I'll never get them back (he moved out from me a couple months back, so that means they would be beyond my control). If he stays with me a few days, as he sometimes does, I would be happy to lend him my books... so long as they don't leave the house.
I don't run anything in the North (yet), so he can read until his heart's content, and it won't effect the games we are playing. I think if he wanted to read about Elminster or Cormanthor or the Dales I *might* have some trouble with that, but I certainly wouldn't disallow it - I tell everyone right off the bat that my games are only 'based on' the Realms, and I diverge quite a bit from canon.
I would never stop anyone from reading anything, but I can surreptitiously steer them in other (usually better) directions. ;)
Don't beat-up Petey[...]
I AM INVINCIBLE!!!
I'd have to agree that the grumbling about 4e has gone on too long. I'll be the first to admit to having partaken in it. I've gotten into, quite frankly, a stupid debate over it. WotC isn't going to change 4e just because not everyone likes every aspect. "Oh well! We tried! Everyone send your books back in to us for a full refund! We apologize for doing what we want with our own product! Instead we'll send you all a blank notebook in which you can write your own idea of what the Realms should be. Oh, wait, you can already do that!" Let's be honest. You don't have to stick to exactly what is written in any of the books. Not even the rules...The WotC police aren't going to break down your door and arrest you because you house-ruled something. Just ignore the whatever you don't like and add what you do like (back in). The game is there for your enjoyment. The only way you are going to completely defeat the purpose of 4e is by ignoring the entire game system entirely. Go back to 3.5 if you want. No one said you had to play 4e. I won't think badly of you. It's taken some consistent convincing on my fiance's part to get me to try 4e at all. I was upset by the drastic changes, too. I started playing D&D in the Forgotten Realms. I wouldn't have it any other way. But, I'm having fun with character creation and I've even tried my hand at DMing. I think he fell in love all over again.
That's just my
I understand what you're saying, but if a lot of people stick with 3.5 because 4.0 is so unlikable to them, well, that's a*very* bad way to ensure a future for your intellectual property.
It didn't take a lot of convincing to get me to change from 2.0 to 3.0. 3.0 was "simpler" in some ways, but was still D&D and streamlined the rules; making them more logical and playable.
Simplification is good. Oversimplification is bad, especially when done to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Some people don't get LE, LN or CG alignments. So....we just delete them? Evil Paladins, magic missiles that miss? Some people RP very badly so the new guide places all the emphasis on combat?
Plus what's happened to the realms. People liked the realms for the high magic, many interesting deities, and vast cities/people for background.....so you're taking that all from us?
My hobby doesn't have a good future and, yeah, that annoys me.
I wasn't aware that WotC had anything to do with the Mechwarrior/Battletech license. Last I heard it was owned by Wizkids. If it was a WotC license, it would have been rolled into the D20 system...
Yeah, you're right, made an error there.
I still think it's a valid point. Hobbies like this are "nitche" hobbies that do well with a small, dedicated, long-term base of customers. If you go too far outside of that nitche, you loose that base.
It's why Games Workshop has said they'll never make 40K "clicky". Oh, shure, they'll license the IP for other video games and books, but they know who their core customers are and appeal to them.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
That's the motto of quislings, dear.
Now, WoTC is a company. Companies care about one thing, and that's profit. So, by buying the FRCG, you are saying that you want that sort of thing from them, as it improves their bottom line. All the complaints on here may not affect WoTC, but I know that not purchasing the FRCG or the other sourcebook will.
This is quite apart from the rather bizarre aspect of you buying a product that you dislike most of.
If someone comes here to criticize or offer a dissenting view of 4e, they get blasted over and over by largely the same people on these boards. I see the underpinnings of a police state emerging in the mindset of the people of this country and it is displaying symptoms on these boards and in other areas of life.
If this is America, then we should be encouraging freedom of expression, and encouraging complex, engaging, and insightful content and fluffy details. I just don't see 4e or 4gotten Realms living up to those qualities. Yes, I expanded my critique to include the rest of the country, but I see them interconnected.
Sorry if it seems like a rant, it is, but I just feel very strongly about the long term intellectual integrity of America
Don't beat-up Petey - he's kinda right, in that mnay of us have driven the point of our dislike home already, a hundred times over. We are just beating a dead horse here, and that's why I've given up any hope that WotC is listening to us, and just creating whatever setting they think will appeal to the instant-gratification crowd.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Or in other words, since I can't get the kinda lore I want, I'm stuck with whatever they give us, and I'll just deal with it.
Okay, I can see your point. Lets just say I don't 'recommend' any FR books, and since I'm so well-read (in SciFi and Fantasy), I can make MANY recommendations well outside the Realms.
I do not tell anyone they CAN'T read FR novels, if that is their choice, and my eldest son (19) has expressed interest in reading the Drizzt series for awhile now, and I don't have any problem with that.
I won't lend him my copies, because he is a careless clod and I'll never get them back (he moved out from me a couple months back, so that means they would be beyond my control). If he stays with me a few days, as he sometimes does, I would be happy to lend him my books... so long as they don't leave the house.
I don't run anything in the North (yet), so he can read until his heart's content, and it won't effect the games we are playing. I think if he wanted to read about Elminster or Cormanthor or the Dales I *might* have some trouble with that, but I certainly wouldn't disallow it - I tell everyone right off the bat that my games are only 'based on' the Realms, and I diverge quite a bit from canon.
I would never stop anyone from reading anything, but I can surreptitiously steer them in other (usually better) directions. ;)
I mean no disrespect here, but you sound like a control freak to me... I wouldn't want to play in a game with a DM like that, sorry
I find it very interesting and altogether disturbing the fascism rolling around on these boards of late. I should change my view on 4e Realms because you have determined that it's the best thing since sliced bread? Last I heard this was America! Just because our politicians want us dumbed down and may be "encouraging" businesses around the country to slip into the easy path, does not mean we are all blind enough to just go along with it... I feel that WotC is trying to curtail innovation to get people to accept the "easy", "simple" game they want to shove down our throats. I'll have none of it thank you very much!
If someone comes here to criticize or offer a dissenting view of 4e, they get blasted over and over by largely the same people on these boards. I see the underpinnings of a police state emerging in the mindset of the people of this country and it is displaying symptoms on these boards and in other areas of life.
If this is America, then we should be encouraging freedom of expression, and encouraging complex, engaging, and insightful content and fluffy details. I just don't see 4e or 4gotten Realms living up to those qualities. Yes, I expanded my critique to include the rest of the country, but I see them interconnected.
Sorry if it seems like a rant, it is, but I just feel very strongly about the long term intellectual integrity of America
Fair enough, but what about the people who proclaim their love of 4E and get blasted by the people who don't? It falls on both sides of the fence. To be honest, I've felt that the reception of 4E Forgotten Realms has been overwhelmingly negative on these boards. I just wanted to open a thread where we could all share what we feel about these changes without anything personal getting in the way. Of course, the best way to do this is to fire things up. So, I stated my opinions.
For the most part, I feel it's been a success thus far. There have been a couple of Negative Nancies, but nothing out of control. I'm glad this has been a civil debate.
Don't beat-up Petey
*nods* Yeah, you'll have to go through me first!
Okay, I can see your point.
You'll be one of the first. ;) Thank you.
I won't lend him my copies, because he is a careless clod and I'll never get them back...
Been there.
I would never stop anyone from reading anything, but I can surreptitiously steer them in other (usually better) directions. ;)
I find it very interesting and altogether disturbing the fascism rolling around on these boards of late. I should change my view on 4e Realms because you have determined that it's the best thing since sliced bread? Last I heard this was America! Just because our politicians want us dumbed down and may be "encouraging" businesses around the country to slip into the easy path, does not mean we are all blind enough to just go along with it... I feel that WotC is trying to curtail innovation to get people to accept the "easy", "simple" game they want to shove down our throats. I'll have none of it thank you very much!
I have to disagree with your usage of "fascism" in this case. I think that it is a far too powerful, or useless depending on who you are, term that doesn't really apply here. No one on these boards or at WotC has any control over how you ultimately decide to play your game. Like I said earlier, the WotC police are not going to beat down your door if you decide to go in a little different direction with something.
All the complaints on here may not affect WoTC, but I know that not purchasing the FRCG or the other sourcebook will.
Except you forgot the part that they don't plan on producing ANY more print-lore for FR anyway, so their mind is made-up regardless of how many copies of what they sell.
Either way, this is the end of the line, and I'm willing to buy one last book. NOT buying this book won't change their minds about anything; whats done is done, and all the crying in the world isn't going to bring FR back from the Abyss.
This is quite apart from the rather bizarre aspect of you buying a product that you dislike most of.
I've grown used to it... you should see my Spelljammer collection... and I hate every bit of it. :P
After the piles of crap TSR shoveled at us for years, I think I've grown indifferent to actually liking what I buy (as long as it pertains to a subject matter I find interesting - in this case FR). In that, I think I'm pretty average - I know LOTS of other gamers who are more 'collectors' like myself, who just buy the stuff because its D&D.
I still have the plastic shrink-wrap on my Planescape boxed sets. ;)
I mean no disrespect here, but you sound like a control freak to me... I wouldn't want to play in a game with a DM like that, sorry
LOL
In some RL regards, I suppose I am, but certainly not in my gaming - I allow just about anything if the players can come up with a plausible reason for it.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you, either - I said I don't disallow ANYTHING, not even reading - if a player wanted to buy a sourcebook and read it, I certainly wouldn't stop him (how could I? Even my son is old enough to make his own decisions... plus he's 6'5"!). I wouldn't lend out my own copy, because I used to do that and I never got a one back (and someday I may just hunt down my brother-in-law and kill him) - but that has nothing to do with them not letting them read it.
And as for not recommending FR books... well... lets just say that has nothing to do with 'inside information' either. ;)
I can give you a list 1000 EXCELLENT novels to read, and I can assure, there wouldn't be ANY FR novels on that list.
I don't read them for the stories, I read them for the lore, and I can't in good conscience recommend them to someone looking for pure reading pleasure.
Ebberon and the minis were meant to do this, and the success of the simplified system and setting made for good coin, nothing more.
To the people who say "But the Realms are to big to get into" or "I don't want to spend two months learning about one thing", I say I came into the Realms cold turkey at 10, and have spent 12 years studying and memorizing every nuance of the Realms. It facinates me, and the lore is what brought me in. Keep your bland worlds. Go play in Ebberon if you want something new, undeveloped, and unimaginitive.
If you really wanted to play in the Realms, you'd not want to change them. I can crap on a piece of paper, and write 'Forgotten Realms" on it, but it doesn't make it so. I think the same people backing this watered down Realms, will be the first to lose interest by the time the next world rolls out.
That said, anyone foolish enough to believe that they have dodged the lore bullet, are sadly mistaken. If I say I want to play in Waterdeep, you can't just pick up the FRCG and know everything, you'll now have to buy outdated material to do so. JUST LIKE BEFORE. Nothing has changed except the edition, and you're lieing to yourself if you say otherwise.
"Oh but if I don't care about the lore, I can now run a Campaign wherever I want". True, but you could do that in any edition. You only had to buy the 3.0 FRCS, other materials were not needed. The Realms have always been as simple, or as complex as you make them. That said, I can't see why anyone would try to start broad, and learn everything at once. Ofcourse it's impossible. You don't try to write the final exam, before you've studied the material.
I'll not go into the BS regarding to many NPC's. Run the numbers, if anything there are to few.
Next point of annoyance, is the remark regarding the "Veterens" giving to much info. How is that a bad thing. If you really want to know EVERYTHING, as most people do when asking, then you have to read EVERYTHING. That point of fact won't change in 4e, and people asking will still get all the sources listed for them.
If anything, the 4e Realms will make it WORSE for people coming in, as no, any ruins mentioned will NEED to be backtracked to older editions.
So I am sorry, but I don't agree with you on ANYTHING. You are more than welcome to your opinions, and I say well done in writing a well thought out, and uninformed post. I suggest in the future, before you try to stir the pot, you actually consider what you're saying, past the drone like comments of "Support 4th edition"
-RW
P.S. I have bought the 4e books, and will be buying the CG and PG. I will be playing both, however not for the "Ease" of entry. I'll also have the advantage of knowing the lore, and may very well abandon 4e after giving it the benifit of the doubt.
P.S. I have bought the 4e books, and will be buying the CG and PG. I will be playing both, however not for the "Ease" of entry. I'll also have the advantage of knowing the lore, and may very well abandon 4e after giving it the benifit of the doubt.
Good for you. :D
Another 'Hater' giving 4e a chance... gee, what will all the 4e-fanboys accuse us of now? :P
I think I'd have less problem appreciating the changes, if they weren't foced down my throat under the guise of a "NEEDED" revamp. They weren't NEEDED as anything more than a mad cash grab, and a shouldering in on the MMO market. IE: tweens, primarily male.
Ebberon and the minis were meant to do this, and the success of the simplified system and setting made for good coin, nothing more.
To the people who say "But the Realms are to big to get into" or "I don't want to spend two months learning about one thing", I say in the worst possible manner GO @#$% YOURSELF!...
I'm beginning to wonder who you are really yelling at with this post. Don't kid yourself; you are yelling. The starter of this thread does not like Eberron, very much appreciates the rich lore that the Forgotten Realms has to offer and is not in any way implying that the "updated" Forgotten Realms is better than the 3.5 Forgotten Realms. He is simply trying to show people like yourself (in particular), the bright side of 4e. Before you go around telling people they are uninformed, please do some of your own research.
Peace.
Nobody likes to see the fan community lose all enthusiasm, but that doesn't mean that you can tell them to "like 4E" and have them magically obey. For my part, I think that just about everybody on these forums are going to at LEAST read the PG and the CG, regardless of their preconceived stance, and afterwards take it or leave it; even the so-called haters and those who have a thousand man-hours invested in Realmslore. That said, I imagine that the majority of the people on here now are going to leave it (probably even me). And that's their right.
No need to poke the hornet's nest with a stick, OP. It's not changing anybody's mind at this point.
It was not my intent to say, "Like 4E! Now!" My intent was to try and steer conversations on this board away from, "Argh! Hate-spreading mojo, go!" Sounds like a special attack from a Power Rangers villain...
Perhaps I was giving myself too much credit in that regard.
Far be it from me to try and spark a friendly debate instead of random snide remarks throughout the boards...
It was not my intent to say, "Like 4E! Now!" My intent was to try and steer conversations on this board away from, "Argh! Hate-spreading mojo, go!"
Perhaps I was giving myself too much credit in that regard.
No, you were giving them too much credit. :D
Far be it from me to try and spark a friendly debate instead of random snide remarks throughout the boards...
It was not my intent to say, "Like 4E! Now!" My intent was to try and steer conversations on this board away from, "Argh! Hate-spreading mojo, go!"
Perhaps I was giving myself too much credit in that regard.
There's no debate left to have. Pretty much all that needs to be said has been said and people are just waiting to pick up the (unenthusiastically) awaited setting books. In the meantime, I suppose it's understandable to expect a few grumbles.
You're ultimately going to get what you want. After reading the books, people who are too insulted and put-off by the setting changes will pull up their stakes and move on, and the people who are left will like what's left.
Or, of course, WOTC could completely ignore the setting after these books come out and the entire fan base will dry up and blow away on the breeze.
(EDIT: Or be some sort of weird fringe group like the people still clinging tightly to Dark Sun. Yay Athas!)
1.Revamp the Realms so that they were able to do what they wanted. This choice will upset a great number of people.
2.Flush the Realms down the tubes because they didn't want to do the work required (which is where I thought they were heading with the release of the latest Undermountain adventure). This choice will upset a great number of people.
Going forward, you can have their "new and improved" Realms or no Realms at all (rather no NEW Realms information). Depending on how things go over the next year or so, you might even see the Realms relegated to the D&D setting closet of doom (it'll have lots of company I'm sure) if it doesn't gain any traction.
When the new book arrives, I will be making some Realms flavored lemonade out of my (possible) lemon.
There's no debate left to have. Pretty much all that needs to be said has been said and people are just waiting to pick up the (unenthusiastically) awaited setting books. In the meantime, I suppose it's understandable to expect a few grumbles.
You're ultimately going to get what you want. After reading the books, people who are too insulted and put-off by the setting changes will pull up their stakes and move on, and the people who are left will like what's left.
Or, of course, WOTC could completely ignore the setting after these books come out and the entire fan base will dry up and blow away on the breeze.
This is the heart of what I'm driving at. If the by-and-large opinions floating around are indeed what people are going to think of the soon-to-come Realms, then it's doomed. I don't want to see that happen.
I've been told that I'm not a "real Realms fan" because I started with the game Baldur's Gate. I've also been told that I'm foolish and a "noob" because I look forward to the changes. So many negative feelings are going to drive new players away. If old players are really so sullen about what is coming to the point that a simple debate cannot take place, then I'm sorry.
Or, of course, WOTC could completely ignore the setting after these books come out and the entire fan base will dry up and blow away on the breeze.
(EDIT: Or be some sort of weird fringe group like the people still clinging tightly to Dark Sun. Yay Athas!)
How will that happen? With all the Game related books and novels that exist The Realms can continue on and thrive. The changes made in the new setting books do not remove the validity of all that has come before. New campaigns can start using 3.5 or taking the fluff and using different systems if 3.5 is not your thing. For those that love the evolving lore of The Realms I feel your pain. However, you are not alone. Hopefully you can take some solace in the fact that fans of the 3rd Imperium (Traveller) have had to go through multiple major changes in the setting.
My post was generalized, and made in aggrivation. It wasn't yelling, it was talking in an annoyed manner. Capitals were to emphasize a point, nothing more.
My problem is no inherently with 4e, simply how the changes were presented.
We understand as veterens, we're only welcome if our money supports the change. it's the fact we are unwelcome that annoys us. It is the fact that people buy into the tripe regarding the changes that annoys me.
I am not saying I hate FR 4e, only that I hate the lies. It WAS NOT NEEDED. Simple. No argument on earth can prove it was. Simple.
You can call it narrow minded, but I'll continue tol play my narrow minded 4e Realms campaign knowing I'm right, and discuss my narrow minded likes for 4e with people close to WOTC ears who agree with both the good and bad remarks.
-RW
Far be it from me to try and spark a friendly debate instead of random snide remarks throughout the boards...
It was not my intent to say, "Like 4E! Now!" My intent was to try and steer conversations on this board away from, "Argh! Hate-spreading mojo, go!" Sounds like a special attack from a Power Rangers villain...
Perhaps I was giving myself too much credit in that regard.
Well, everyone's situation is different and so each of us can only reply with our own position. That said, I am sure my query came of as "negative nancy"ish and I shall apologise for that. I was actually just attempting to express bewilderment but I am sorry if I, among others, caused offence.
I will therefore present my own position in as neutral an emotional position as possible:
At this point in time, I am not a Realms player. I am a Realm reader. This automatically puts a bias on new material as I assess it from a narrative point of view. Hence my comments on sparseness. I actually know very little about the Realms (as evidenced in any discussion I try to join in here) and am learning more day by day by picking up new novels (sorry MarkusTay63, I can only guess how much you must abhor that).
What does 4£ have to do with that? The cessation of the 3E storylines, and from what I have read. Fairly abruptly too. I may be pleasantly (and extremely) surprised in the coming years to find new novels in the pre-4th era, but I doubt it. So in this particular case, the coming of the 4th Edition is stopping me from enjoying the Realms as I would like to enjoy them, as a continuous storyline.
I have made a mistake, however, I have been approaching the excerpts as the beginning of a new narrative. And they aren't. These are intended for the new DMs and PCs and not for novel readers. I have been judging them by the erroneous criteria of complete and cogent storytelling. These are not stories to be read but the bases for your own. As such, I shall cease to comment on the coming excerpts. One less negative voice.
I hope that was neutral and logical enough for you.
But hey, if you want to waste your money, I can't really do much about that. I could do with $280 though, if you want to throw some around!
The way I see it, there were two choices for WotC:
1.Revamp the Realms so that they were able to do what they wanted. This choice will upset a great number of people.
2.Flush the Realms down the tubes because they didn't want to do the work required (which is where I thought they were heading with the release of the latest Undermountain adventure). This choice will upset a great number of people.
Utter nonsense. WoTC could have taken care with the setting and made slight changes in order to do what they wanted with the Realms. Instead, they threw the baby out with the bathwater, swiftly followed by the bath, then bathroom.
-Your right Markus nothing to see here.
18DELTA :embarrass
Markus: I believe they've said that they might create more print products for the nu-Realms if it's popular and successful. You buying a copy will contribute to that.
But hey, if you want to waste your money, I can't really do much about that. I could do with $280 though, if you want to throw some around!
LOL - I'm on a fixed income right now, and barely making ends meet.
I depend on people giving me Birthday, Father's Day, and Christmas Gifts for my 'fun money', and invariably always get several Borders gift certificates on those days.
That's pretty much how I make all of my book purchases now, so I have to be far more conservative with my purchases then I did when I owned my own construction company a few years back.
So far I have only purchased the 4e PHB - its my son who bought the MM. I would have bought the FRCG regardless, but I'm still up-in-the-air about the FR Players Guide or the DMG. If I like how it is going, I will make future purchases, if not, I won't - simple as that.
And there won't be ANY more print FR products, mark my words - they are already hard at work hamering out next year's Eberron setting, and FR is already a thing of the past (in their offices). RB even stated that "he had 'hopes' that there would be 1-2 FR articles a month", but don't count on it. That means if you aren't part of the LFR, don't expect ANY more lore, period. And next year they'll probably dump LFR for Living Eberron...
You'll see.
FR will go the way of GH, and then they will see just how quickly the novel lines 'dry up', when all the 'old timers' finally move on.
I love the Realms, the lore and the people. They inspired me to DM, I loved them so much.
At the announcement of 4E, I was excited, 3.5 had been beginning to bog me down as far DMing was concerned. My players were approaching Epic levels and the proliferation of Prc's was annoying.
However, the announced changes to the Realms, the Spellplague, a time jump, deities acting like something out of a teen summer movie? That just wasn't right!
What about all the rich history and finely crafted cultures developed over two plus decades?
I ranted for awhile and railed against the changes, then began to realize two things, I really liked the 4E rules and WotC was not going to change their mind on the changes to the Realms.
Coupled with problems with my players and what editions we were going to play, it seemed that no matter what I was going to do, it was going to be a major change, 4E, 3.75 Pathfinder, Forgotten Realms, Golarion or homebrew everything?
I decided to step back and rethink everything.
My solution is to give the new Realms a try.
What you can’t do is expect every snippet and excerpt to wow or amaze you. If they did that it’s like watching a TV ad for a movie that looks really good only to find when you see the movie all the good stuff was in the ad.
We’ve seen some good, some meh, some terrible and until the actual book comes out I’m going to be cautiously optimistic.
There are several persons in this forum that have far more extensive knowledge of the Realms than me, there used to be more, but some of them could not adapt to the changes and have departed for other Realms. They will be missed and I hope that someday they might return.
Those that did stay are trying at least, to find some wheat in the chaff. I can understand, seeing all that potential, seemingly thrown away, its heart wrenching. But, that potential is still there, history does not go away. Use it, things that have existed for thousands of years are not wiped away in a hundred or so. Rediscover it, work it back into your campaigns a little at a time.
The next couple of months are going to be interesting for the Realms and feelings will be hitting both ends of the spectrum, hard.
Just remember to think before you post, treat everyone like you would like to be treated and that the Realms are for everyone, there’s room to spare.
Bel
I can give you a list 1000 EXCELLENT novels to read, and I can assure, there wouldn't be ANY FR novels on that list.
I don't read them for the stories, I read them for the lore, and I can't in good conscience recommend them to someone looking for pure reading pleasure.
IMHO, this is exactly what went wrong with the Realms, and why some degree of reboot (even though I sure don't like everything I've heard about it so far) became necessary. Although it remains to be seen whether that gets hosed up thereafter too.
I go back to running Realms games when the 1E FR boxed set was all there was. For a long while there I bought pretty much all of the FR product and read all of the novels.
At some point in the 2E era I eventually stopped reading the novels because, you know, most of them were just not very good, and I wanted to do something more enjoyable with my time than slog through a bad novel because it was chock full of Realms Canon(tm).
I remember buying the FRCS and reading it and realizing that, basically, there was a ton of plot-important information about what was going on in canonical FR that just never made it into any of the sourcebooks. Worse, because a lot of people who wanted to play in Realms campaigns were still devouring every novel, odds are good if you tried to DM a FR campaign without reading all the novels, you'd end up with half the players arguing with you about various bits of canon that you were getting wrong.
So you're ****** off because you're fighting with the players, and they're ****** off because they loooove the Realms and you're butchering it. Nobody's happy. It basically became like trying to run a Star Wars game set in any time period that'd been chronicled at all in movies/books/games/comics/etc.: inevitably someone in the group knows the setting canon a lot better than you do, and all kinds of adventure/plot/etc. ideas are choked off under the weight of all that canon.
For the first time I put FR aside and didn't try to run or play in a FR campaign again for about six years. It goes without saying that I also wasn't buying FR stuff during that period, as far as the vote with your dollar crowd goes. It took flipping through someone else's copy of Unapproachable East to get me excited about the idea of running a Realms game again, and even doing that I carefully handpicked players that I was positive knew little or nothing about the setting, just in case.
I think the idea of jumping ahead a hundred years, killing off most of the billion epic casters running around (and let's be honest, even when I was fired up about the Realms, they were almost always a difficulty in running a game, something you had to work around, not something about the setting that was helping you), and starting with a semi-clean slate is a good one.
The great thing is, if you were one of those people who knew every last detail about the Realms? That's still the history of the world. It (mostly) hasn't been retconned. All that history will be incredibly fertile ground for running adventures based in it.
But you don't have to worry that you're running a campaign based in Waterdeep, and by the way someone dropped a mountain seed on Waterdeep in the last FR novel. Or that you're running a drow-based campagin and, by the way, all the priestesses should now have no spells according to what's supposed to be going on in the world. Or whatever. (Yet.)
Stop making the novels the driving force behind the advancement in the metaplot of the Realms. Stop having a constant stream of novels that change massive amounts about the Realms, i.e. Stop it with the RSE's.
Novels that don't change much are an excellent source of information about the Realms, and can often be very enjoyable. For instance, Songs and Swords, Sembia and the Knights of Myth Drannor series. More novels like that, rather then novels that changed tons about the Realms, would have solved the novels problem. Didn't need a reboot.
I remember buying the FRCS and reading it and realizing that, basically, there was a ton of plot-important information about what was going on in canonical FR that just never made it into any of the sourcebooks. Worse, because a lot of people who wanted to play in Realms campaigns were still devouring every novel, odds are good if you tried to DM a FR campaign without reading all the novels, you'd end up with half the players arguing with you about various bits of canon that you were getting wrong.
So you're ****** off because you're fighting with the players, and they're ****** off because they loooove the Realms and you're butchering it. Nobody's happy. It basically became like trying to run a Star Wars game set in any time period that'd been chronicled at all in movies/books/games/comics/etc.: inevitably someone in the group knows the setting canon a lot better than you do, and all kinds of adventure/plot/etc. ideas are choked off under the weight of all that canon.
You have hit my problem with The Realms, or any other very detailed setting, squarely on the head. Having players that are aggressive “canonistas” is worse than having players that are hard core “rules lawyers” as far as I am concerned.
Playing with players new to the setting or those that can accept the DMs interpretation of the canon is the key to enjoying any detailed setting.
... Last I heard this was America! ...
You are wrong here. Just check where the posters on here are coming from. D&D nor the Realms is bound to America, even though WotC will probably make the most income on the American market.
You have hit my problem with The Realms, or any other very detailed setting, squarely on the head. Having players that are aggressive “canonistas” is worse than having players that are hard core “rules lawyers” as far as I am concerned.
Playing with players new to the setting or those that can accept the DMs interpretation of the canon is the key to enjoying any detailed setting.
So it's a player problem, rather then a campaign setting problem. Why exactly is it that the Realms gets blamed for problem players?
So it's a player problem, rather then a campaign setting problem. Why exactly is it that the Realms gets blamed for problem players?
Because the level and richness of detail in The Realms opens the doors for players to become aggressive canonistas. This type of problem player arises in any highly detailed setting, the issue is not exclusive to The realms, check out any Traveller forum for an example of this.
Not blaming The Realms directly, players that have a strong knowledge of the setting can be a great help to the DM, as long as they accept the DMs interpretation of canon.
Now, I certainly think it's more of a problem in a setting that's heavily detailed then one that's not detailed at all, but that's not the fault of the setting.
There is a vast difference between a setting that is richly detailed and one that not detailed at all. Most homebrews fall in the middle, as do published settings such as the world where Freeport is located. The more detailed and available to players the lore of a setting is the more likely arguments over said lore are going to occur. Thus my problem with highly detailed settings such as The Realms. While the richness of detail makes for a compelling place to play, it also allows for the problems I have described.
Novels that don't change much are an excellent source of information about the Realms, and can often be very enjoyable. For instance, Songs and Swords, Sembia and the Knights of Myth Drannor series. More novels like that, rather then novels that changed tons about the Realms, would have solved the novels problem. Didn't need a reboot.
Haven't you figured it out yet?
Only the most talented authors can afford to write 'little' stories about 'nobodys' - the rest of them depend on providing us with lore (unobtainable elsewhere) in the novels in order to sell those novels.
Its really a very efficient way to keep customers coming back and spending their money.
There is also one thing they all have common: they know everything about the Realms. Everything. All the way from the Creator Races down to The Year of the Haunting. I commend their thirst for knowledge and even have a small sense of envy.
No, we don't know everything about the Realms, far from it. You come off like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Hell, any question about Realms lore on these boards is met by answers (from guess who) featuring a multitude of books to read.
It makes me sad when I read those answers. Now, to create the campaign with the feel he wanted, he has to tell his players to hang back a couple of months so he can read 6 or 7 books?
Yes, how sad that said person had his questions answered.
He asked for sources, and he got them! Anyway, the person in question doesn't have to do anything. If he feels he does, he is inflicting that responsibility on himself.So, with these new Realms in 4E, WotC is making something that everyone can just jump into. Personally, when I read the excerpts, I get excited at all the prospects laid out in front of me. The PC's can go here, they can do this, and there's no one to stand in their way. No one. And it is that very reason that I believe the old-school Realms fans are dismayed by what they see. It doesn't seem as rich as it did before.
No, that's not necessarily the reason, although each person has different reasons.
Every time you turned around in the Forgotten Realms, there was some new character, old character, resurrected character that jumped in with some ground-shaking event. This undead army, that orc army, his united races army, their lesser deity... As someone who came into FR late in the game, I found it borderline frustrating that, in order to make it feel like a living world, they had to overload me with events.
Actually, this is the same complaint that a lot of older players have. Many players, myself included, have been complaining for years about the multitude of RSEs. This isn't only a problem that "new" people have.
But, these are things that the old players grew up with (or grew older with). They were there every step of the way. Now that it's being taken away and the Realms are not so "heavy," the word "dull" springs up more and more.
Don't make me laugh. See above. And I think you have a lot of nerve to try to psychoanalyze people like this, or to tell them what they think, or what they should think.
Let all the old lore and NPC's and deities wash away as if you're reading it for the first time again.
How about no? You do not tell me what to do. I can make decisions for myself, thanks.
I, for one, want to have others rejoicing with me.
I am really not concerned at all with what you want. I don't owe you anything, and I don't appreciate total strangers "analysing" me and then giving me advice about an aspect of my life they know nothing about.
Don't beat-up Petey - he's kinda right, in that many of us have driven the point of our dislike home already, a hundred times over. We are just beating a dead horse here, and that's why I've given up any hope that WotC is listening to us, and just creating whatever setting they think will appeal to the instant-gratification crowd.
What follows from this, though? It seems to me like people are basically being asked to either "put up or shut up", here. Petey wants people to rejoice with him over the previews and excerpts--if they won't, I guess they just shouldn't say anything?
It's not surprising that a post like that is going to make people upset.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Or in other words, since I can't get the kinda lore I want, I'm stuck with whatever they give us, and I'll just deal with it.
You might choose to do that, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to.
As every new excerpt will come out, no doubt we'll see more "negative nancy" posts than "positive paul" ones based solely on the fact that many of the posters here are in the anti-4e FR crowd. This doesn't reflect the ENTIRE community of FR fans though and those of us who want to enjoy the new setting and edition will just have to buck up and ride the tide until things settle. It's what they did for 3e.
Fair enough, but what about the people who proclaim their love of 4E and get blasted by the people who don't?
What does that have to do with the topic you started? I don't "blast" people who have different opinions than I do (in fact, I actually like the 4E ruleset), but that doesn't matter--you still have the gall to tell me I need to change my mindset.
If any of my comments aren't "positive" enough for you, that's too bad.
As every new excerpt will come out, no doubt we'll see more "negative nancy" posts than "positive paul" ones based solely on the fact that many of the posters here are in the anti-4e FR crowd.
I'm only "anti-4E FR" in the sense that I don't want to play it. That doesn't mean I care that other people want to play it, which is what the term "anti-FR" suggests.
We’re going to get some pretty harsh statements about the FR Campaign Guide and the Player’s Guide, but after that things will turn around.
I see a consensus building against ‘negativism for the sake of negativism’.
Which is to say I foresee the focus on these forums shifting away from people’s desire to express repetitive, negative opinions and towards a reasonable expectation that people start making a positive contribution to the community.
But even then, we have to be careful.
For example, I have observed that some of the harsh criticisms pointed at the recent FR Excerpts/Previews WotC has featured on its website actually contain useful ideas on how to “build up” the encounter locations featured in the previews and make them more believable.
WotC’s minimalist approach to the FR Campaign Guide content invites thoughtful Realms fans and Realms Dungeon Masters to do exactly that: Fill in the blanks.
We shouldn’t discourage people with a negative opinion of the FR Campaign Guide content from posting their ideas on how parts of it could be done better if those ideas do a good job of fleshing out that content.
That might be just the way to bring the generally negative people back into the fold.
It was not my intent to say, "Like 4E! Now!" My intent was to try and steer conversations on this board away from, "Argh! Hate-spreading mojo, go!" Sounds like a special attack from a Power Rangers villain...
That's the problem--you think people who disagree with you are out actively trying to "spread hate". I see no reason why I should take a person with that mentality too seriously.
You might choose to do that, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to.
I would certainly hope not - I've always marched to a different drummer, and if all of you started agreeing with me, I'd have to change my opinions again... and again... and again...
;)
No one is going to change anyone's mind at this point, and thats why I'm finding posting in these threads monotonous - I'm just too old for this s... crap.
Everyone like what you like, and play what you like, and DO what you like (unless it involves hurting others..), but please don't expect the rest of us to agree with you.
We're human - its NEVER going to happen.
It was not my intent to say, "Like 4E! Now!" My intent was to try and steer conversations on this board away from, "Argh! Hate-spreading mojo, go!" Sounds like a special attack from a Power Rangers villain...
I don't think you'll see that happen anytime soon. Many people are too invested in the Old Realms not to express a little angst against 4eFR. To each their own I say.
I'm only "anti-4E FR" in the sense that I don't want to play it. That doesn't mean I care that other people want to play it, which is what the term "anti-FR" suggests.
I'm under the assumption that anti-FR are people who don't like or will use the 4e Forgotten Realms setting in it's entirety. 4e rules aside, many still protest the Spellplague, Abier's phase with Toril, certian deities dying/leaving, and the time jump. Those who are against these changes or most of the changes to the setting are anti-4e FR IMO, not that there is anything wrong with that. Like what you will, but it's still anti-FR.
No one is going to change anyone's mind at this point, and thats why I'm finding posting in these threads monotonous - I'm just too old for this s... crap.
It's starting to wear at me too, actually.
I'm under the assumption that anti-FR are people who don't like or will use the 4e Forgotten Realms setting in it's entirety. 4e rules aside, many still protest the Spellplague, Abier's phase with Toril, certian deities dying/leaving, and the time jump.
The Spellplague I've grown to like - just not the 'aftermath'.
The century timejump makes that little nerve in my head twitch, and Abeir just leaves me shaking my head in wonder (did they REALLY think that was a great idea? :uh-huh
.But whatever... I've turned lemons into lemonade before (I'm quite the chef :D ), so I can deal with this as well.
I just consider it a bigger challenge, is all.
Those who are against these changes or most of the changes to the setting are anti-4e FR IMO, not that there is anything wrong with that. Like what you will, but it's still anti-FR.
Great, but I'll ask that those who MUST call people "Negative Nancies" and "Bitter Betties", please leave me out of it. Most of my posts here aren't "negative", I want to be friends with the people here, and just like Markus I'm getting sick and tired of this crap.
It is the same old nonsense over and over. It is not hate, it is the Net. People say things to get any sort of response and people love conflict even when they say otherwise. People also like feeling superior or "right" about things (just like in real life) but on the forums it gets magnified because you can say things and not have to look someone in the face.
So I have been trying to ignore the same old tired responses from the same people (unless they are mean and hurtful) because it just does not matter. In the last few weeks more vocal people that feel like I do have finally come out of the woodwork. I and others don't have to say " I like it" and feel alone when a deluge of negative responses come our way. It's about time. :D
Yup - how many ways can we keep saying the SAME thing?
The Spellplague I've grown to like - just not the 'aftermath'.
The century timejump makes that little nerve in my head twitch, and Abeir just leaves me shaking my head in wonder (did they REALLY think that was a great idea? :uh-huh
But whatever... I've turned lemons into lemonade before (I'm quite the chef :D ), so I can deal with this as well.
I just consider it a bigger challenge, is all.
I'v said this before, but I'll say it again--I'm too invested in my own ideas about where my Realms is and where it's going to go to accept the official 4E version of the setting.
But whatever... I've turned lemons into lemonade before (I'm quite the chef ), so I can deal with this as well.
And I wouldn't consider you in the anti-4e FR crowd because you've seen the changes (the lemons) and have decided to do something with them (make lemonade).
And I wouldn't consider you in the anti-4e FR crowd because you've seen the changes (the lemons) and have decided to do something with them (make lemonade).
You know, I've said in the past that I might cherry-pick some things and use them, if I like them. So, it might be wrong to say I'll dismiss the 4E Realms in its entirety.
I and others don't have to say " I like it" and feel alone when a deluge of negative responses come our way.
Says the guy with the nasty signature. Sounds to me like you're exaggerating things.
And you've certainly said your share of mean and hurtful comments.
Great, but I'll ask that those who MUST call people "Negative Nancies" and "Bitter Betties", please leave me out of it. Most of my posts here aren't "negative", I want to be friends with the people here, and just like Markus I'm getting sick and tired of this crap.
True, and this is what the OP was trying to get at I think. People are going to be negative about certain things but that doesn't mean that while being negative you can't add something constructive or positive about it as well. Taking the Excerpts for example, people have said how "meh, lame, boring, uninterested" some or most of them are without even lending ideas how to improve on them. How is that helpful to anyone in this community?? Usually when I have a complaint/problem with something in the FR setting I express that concern and attempt to add my 2 cents to make it better. Thats a way to change the mindset of people on the Forums. By using constructive criticism we can mold and shape these little blurbs WotC sends us to make them useful for everyone.
So I have been trying to ignore the same old tired responses from the same people (unless they are mean and hurtful) because it just does not matter. In the last few weeks more vocal people that feel like I do have finally come out of the woodwork. I and others don't have to say " I like it" and feel alone when a deluge of negative responses come our way. It's about time. :D
QFT, with the caveat that there have been 'mean and hurtful' comments from all sides, including from my keyboard.
I have come to the very recent realisation that while it would be nice if people could exercise some patience in order to make informed comment, this is an internet forum, with all the hyberbole and behaviour that entails. :P
Some of the more prominent (insert Negative Nelly/anti-4e/anti FR moniker here as appropriate) have cooled their negativity and expressed a willingness to either give the setting a go or at the very least hate it less. That is a positive result for the majority of people who sit in the middle of the philosophical divide and would rather not see every thread quickly devolve into a pitched battle between camps. Not that they are any more than 50% to blame, of course...
Hopefully, we can get on with business in a much more friendly fashion!
Joe
Some of the more prominent (insert Negative Nelly/anti-4e/anti FR moniker here as appropriate) have cooled their negativity and expressed a willingness to either give the setting a go or at the very least hate it less. That is a positive result for the majority of people who sit in the middle of the philosophical divide and would rather not see every thread quickly devolve into a pitched battle between camps. Not that they are any more than 50% to blame, of course...
Hopefully, we can get on with business in a much more friendly fashion!
Joe
I appreciate that sentiment, truly.
P.S. - And I have tried to improve on things, even when I disliked them (like the Dragonborn backstory), so making general, sweeping statements tends to ruflle people's feathers. ;)
QFT, with the caveat that there have been 'mean and hurtful' comments from all sides, including from my keyboard.
I surely hope you've given your keyboard a sound thrashing, then. :P
We understand as veterans, we're only welcome if our money supports the change. it's the fact we are unwelcome that annoys us. It is the fact that people buy into the tripe regarding the changes that annoys me.
Speak for yourself, fellow veteran.
I've been playing in the Realms for over twenty years.
The Realms feels entirely welcoming to me.
More so than ever before, because new Realmslore is on the horizon.
So much new Realmslore and we get to be in on it at the beginning.
We get to be the ones to build on it and maybe even influence its future by suggesting new article ideas for Dragon Magazine, or even contributing some of our own.
WotC has already opened the door for us. It's simply going to be awesome.
::::::::::::::::::
I know for some people it’s very hard to get over the changes and the reasoning behind them.
In my opinion there were a few too many wrong-headed decisions by Chris Perkins and Co. at WotC.
There is a lot not to like about what they have done to the Realms.
But the time is fast approaching where it no longer is a question of what to hate and revile, but how to do the best with what they've given us.
I choose to focus on the future and walk with my friends online and offline towards great adventures and gaming memories in the Realms.
These forums should play host to such community building and be a welcoming place to make good things happen, for all people who play all editions of the D&D game in the Realms.
Novels that don't change much are an excellent source of information about the Realms, and can often be very enjoyable. For instance, Songs and Swords, Sembia and the Knights of Myth Drannor series. More novels like that, rather then novels that changed tons about the Realms, would have solved the novels problem. Didn't need a reboot.
Except no, because at that point I (and everyone else who hasn't been drinking the Realms novel kool-aid) are still years behind and have no idea what's going on in the setting.
You could, essentially, stop that, then write a FRCS-like book that sums up everything that has gone before -- except that's still a reboot of a sort, and honestly WotC has never successfully produced one to date. (Or maybe just doesn't want to. Hard to say.)
I don't know, I'm pretty sure that approach wouldn't have drawn me back. The current approach at least has me curious.
I get that it's silly to resist change simply because it's different. But change is neither good or bad, it's change.
People like and play FR because of high-magic, large pantheons, and epic level adventures, nations, and events.
These changes take away all of those things; it's like taking the setting of, say, Fallout 3 and saying "Hey, no more apocolyptic wasteland, everything is now high-tech with stable, large population centers!"
It's not the Fallout Universe anymore.
And the way it was done...just yuck.
Ancient, lawful deities acting like something out ot a teen movie, the death of one god of magic causing an extraplanar catastrophe that makes no sense in light of the deaths of the previous two gods of magic, Ao taking a nap, ect.
Says the guy with the nasty signature. Sounds to me like you're exaggerating things.
And you've certainly said your share of mean and hurtful comments.
Yep, your right, usually after someone was a complete .... not so nice person about something. Like I said this is the Net.
Unlike others I look back at my stuff, calm down and sometimes even say sorry when I went overboard (which I admit I do). I goof up. I make mistakes and own up to them. Sometimes I find it difficult to have discussions because I feel people here can come off as "know it alls" and try and demean people and hide behind there clique of E-friends who usually back them up even when the stuff they are talking about is complete malarky (not sure how to spell that damn word).
I also try and post meaningful stuff from time to time but my snarky replies to other snarky replies seems to dry up anything useful and meaningful I may have to say.
Rino you have been pretty rude to some folks here and there and your reasoning is usually "I am in a bad mood". It happens to us all I guess.
Plus my sig isn't nasty, it is my opinion. It may change over time (Not the Crutch part of it) and it probably will change. Like I said before I rethink my positions on an issue all the time. Life changes and so can an opinion.
I may not agree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Or something like that... ;)
As I've said about 20 times in the last 24 hours, no one is going to change anyone's mind at this point, so all this 'discussion' is a total waste of time, when we can be talking about what really matters - the Realms.
And although I don't agree with the changes, I understand them 100%, and that is all I'm willing to say anymore on the subject.
Live and let live. For awhile there things were calming down here, but I guess these new excerpts have everyone's tempertures flaring again - and its only going to get MUCH worse when the FRCG comes out.
So lets all take a deep breath, and think about we are posting before we hit 'send', and maybe we can come up with a slightly less harsh way to say the same thing?
Or better yet, don't even say anything if its not constructive - Check my new (temporary) sig.
So lets all take a deep breath, and think about we are posting before we hit 'send', and maybe we can come up with a slightly less harsh way to say the same thing?
Well said to you, sir.
:D
Ah yes, the novels argument. Know what the solution to that is?
Stop making the novels the driving force behind the advancement in the metaplot of the Realms. Stop having a constant stream of novels that change massive amounts about the Realms, i.e. Stop it with the RSE's.
Novels that don't change much are an excellent source of information about the Realms, and can often be very enjoyable. For instance, Songs and Swords, Sembia and the Knights of Myth Drannor series. More novels like that, rather then novels that changed tons about the Realms, would have solved the novels problem. Didn't need a reboot.
-What a Novel idea.(Pun intended) ;)
-The Realms Shattering Novels MUST be stopped!!!:D
18DELTA ;)
I think my unnatural hatred for Dragonlance was caused by early exposure to an atrocious DM.
So it's a player problem, rather then a campaign setting problem. Why exactly is it that the Realms gets blamed for problem players?
-Thats why you give Problem Players the steel chair treatment! :D A steel chair upside the noodle always gets a Problem Player back in line. :P
18DELTA ;)
I agree that the novels of FR need to get back to the simple adventure books that they used to be. Big things can happen but not in a RSEsmanner. Man RSEs sounds like a virus. :D
RSE-Away? That is the stuff that I found on TV right after the HeadOn advertisements.
-:D
-Thats too funny.
18DELTA ;)
My problem with gaming in Dragonlance was that like Star Wars (Rebellion Era) I felt like all the cool and important stuff had already been done. It was fun to read but it was not a game setting I would want to paly in. I will play in Legacy or KOTAR though.
I feel exactly the same way about Dragonlance and to a slightly lesser extent, Dark Sun. Great stories wrapped in an interesting setting but operating outside the parameters of the core plot arc never seemed as fun.
I agree that the novels of FR need to get back to the simple adventure books that they used to be. Big things can happen but not in a RSEsmanner. Man RSEs sounds like a virus. :D
I'll preface this by saying that I was pretty young when the FR novels started being released, so I may be out by a year or two.
To be honest the first FR books I read were Shadowdale, Tantras and Waterdeep. It doesn't get any more RSE than those! The next book I read was Azure Bonds, in which a rampaging God is stopped from obliterating a large part of the heartlands... :D
They were all 'early' releases in the grand scheme of FR novel chronology, no?
Joe
no one is going to change anyone's mind at this point, so all this 'discussion' is a total waste of time, when we can be talking about what really matters - the Realms.
Couldn't agree more
So lets all take a deep breath, and think about we are posting before we hit 'send', and maybe we can come up with a slightly less harsh way to say the same thing?
Or better yet, don't even say anything if its not constructive - Check my new (temporary) sig.
Couldn't, and I haven't, said it better myself
Thankyou.And yes DireMongoose, it would need a proper new FRCS as well to bring all the lore together. Further, I'd argue that it'd be a good idea to have a 16 page PDF every year that brings together the new lore updates in the various novels. A 'Volo's Annual' kinda thing.
But hey, that'd be my dream setting.
@ Surge. TOT was the only one of those books I would call an RSE. I love Azure Bonds but the dragon and Moander caused problems but nothing (IMO) too RSE oriented. I consider the Avatar, Dragonrage, Return of the Archwizards, and perhaps the Elf book recently all RSE storylines(maybe the Dark Elf books too). They were planned "Events" just like they do in comics.
Why do them like comics? I guess they may sell well. Lot's of FR fans are just into the novels. The bad part comes to the gamers when these RSEs can muck around with the world they play in. LIke I told Uzzy above the DM and players are the true masters of the World they play in but the RSE situation is a tad bit annoying when they come out one after the other.
That's the problem--you think people who disagree with you are out actively trying to "spread hate". I see no reason why I should take a person with that mentality too seriously.
This is the last time I'm going to try and explain myself.
I thought my original post was quite complimentary towards the old-schoolers, as it was meant to be. If you took it offensively or as "psychoanalysis," then I apologize. Believe me, I couldn't psychoanalyze anyone if I tried.
Since you are taking everything I've said personally, and then, in turn, making personal remarks against me, then there has to be a part of you that sees my point. It is not disagreement that is hate-spreading. As I made clear rest of the post, which you cut off as you quoted, hate-spreading happens from personal attacks.
"What??? They just killed off that god and merged those two gods! That lore is lost. You must not know what you're talking about!" - not a direct quote, but a decent example of stuff I've seen.
Believe it or not, I've actually received a PM or two from boards-goers who were thanking me for making this thread because they were feeling too intimidated to voice their opinions; be they negative or positive. Those people who PM'ed me shall remain anonymous.
This is my last post on this thread. I will continue to read, so give me both barrels if you feel the need, all those who felt distressed from what I had to say. Again, I apologize if my original post came off as me telling you what to do. But, truly, I was merely requesting. What more can I do than that?
That's the problem--you think people who disagree with you are out actively trying to "spread hate".
Speaking of psychoanalyzing people...
I see no reason why I should take a person with that mentality too seriously.
You obviously are, considering what you've said and how much you've said.
This thread's train of thought seems to have derailed long ago...
These forums should play host to such community building and be a welcoming place to make good things happen, for all people who play all editions of the D&D game in the Realms.
That's a sentiment I can definitely get behind.
Plus my sig isn't nasty, it is my opinion. It may change over time (Not the Crutch part of it) and it probably will change. Like I said before I rethink my positions on an issue all the time. Life changes and so can an opinion.
I already explained to you that your opinion is inaccurate. LK doesn't "hate 4E". He likes some of it, and certainly doesn't care if other people play it.
You obviously are, considering what you've said and how much you've said.
That sounds pretty fallacious to me. I guess I struck a nerve. Too bad--I meant everything I said.
You are mostly right, except for one particular (important) point in my case - I DON'T want my players reading ANYTHING about the Realms!!!
I like it when they discover stuff, not in a sourcebook or novel, but when I present it too them.
Else, they loose their 'sense of wonder' with everything I throw at them.
Case in point - my nieces boyfriend told me he had an interest in the Realms, and wanted to play in one of my games (with my two older sons and their friends). I asked him if he had played the Baldur's Gate games (wondering what drew his interest, since he never played D&D), and he told me he had played the first one, but it was really the Drizzt novels that sparked his interest.
After that, I really didn't really want him in my games.
He was ruined, as far as I was cocerned. The novels are an over-the-top representation of what the PCs could become with much hard work, and the disillusionment they cause amongst new players is what killed the Realms...
NOT Grognardism.
Just an opinoin, mind you, but I like to be the ONLY guy in-the-know at MY table.
But you are correct, and I have been trying to curb my 'enthusiasm' as much as humanly possible of late.
--- Sorry :embarrass
So you want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign and would prefer your players not read the books and be in-the-know? You seriously need to get over needing to be that much in command of things. Repecting and enjoying content and expecting others to enjoy it only through your filter of is extremely hypocritical. Maybe it makes things smooth for you but, it's not really considerate of your players.
So you want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign and would prefer your players not read the books and be in-the-know? You seriously need to get over needing to be that much in command of things.
Accent Mine.
Do you even know how D&D works?
Its NOT a democracy! As DM, I am in command of things.
If not, I'd be another player, and we'd all be sitting around a table staring at an empty chair waiting for it to guide us.
I grew up before there were settings, which meant the players only knew what I (and every other DM) told them. Then Greyhawk came out, and I had fun with that setting for years (very few novels that no-one bothered to read). I had one player who was a fellow DM who also knew Greyhawk like the back of his hand, and guess what? He was the only disruptive force at my table, because he would contradict things I said and tell the other players how it "really is".
I couldn't make a change without him over-directing me, to the point where he would oftimes try to say what happened when someone did something (which is the DM's job). He was a good friend of mine, and I never pulled that crap in his games, and it was VERY frustrating because his presence usually meant a lot less adventuring happened and a lot more 'discussion'.
When I ran with homebrew, or Greyhawk with players who knew next-to-nothing, the game played out better for all of us. Years later I played in an FR group with my Brother-in-law's friends and all of them were FR-buffs. Needless to say, it was almost an exact duplicate of these boards, with 99% of the discussion turning into arguments over weather "Elminster would have really done that", or the "Purple Dragons don't behave that way". I think the most we ever got done in a single night was 4-5 turns - I'm not joking.
I enjoy the discussion on these boards, because there is a time and place for such things, but at my table, I am in charge, and if you decide to read up about an area before the group gets there, you are basically cheating. It amounts to exactly the same thing as memorizing the order of cards in your deck in MtG - you are taking unfair advantage of the knowledge you SHOULD NOT possess.
So I guess if you were one of my players, and I ran my homebrew setting, you would expect me to provide you with 'press releases' of every little thing that happens in the world, and perhaps even write a few novels in my spare time just for my players?
I don't think so.
Try playing in a homebrew game sometime, or on a world you know nothing about, and find out how much more fun advernturing can really be. Your desire to know every Iota about the world you play on stems from a meta-gaming/power-gaming mindset - get over it, and start enjoying youreself.
Well, I'm very informed about the setting, but I'm not disruptive when I play my bi-weekly FR game.
-Because you know the value of respect. Because you are not what the 4E DMG calls a Spotlight Hog. The 4E DMG is my favorite 4E Book.
-When I am playing in a game I dont try and get all rules lawyery on people, that the DM's responsibility. Now some guy's at the table try and get all rulsy when something is happening to them that is not all that great for them.
I got 2 that I game with that are like that. 1 isnt so bad, the other well, you guys/gals know what I mean. :embarrass -The game is not the problem, sometimes it's the players. Yes that does mean me.
18DELTA
For me knowing as a Player, and knowing as a character are two very different things. I have a story for my character, that generally includes everything down to mannerisms. This also means I play with the knowledge he would have, even if knowing something OOC would change the game in our favour.
Sadly not everyone has this view of things, and that's why DM's like Markus are good. That said, I'd hate to be shunned from a great story, just for knowing the same basic info as the DM.
I may come into a game as someone who knows the world, but I am there to carve out my own story, not mirror that of someone else. Nothing is concrete, though I do like seeing player actions tie back into canon, in a manner that makes it seem like they were more than a spectator in the event, without forcing something cheesy to make the canon work.
-RW
Well, I'm very informed about the setting, but I'm not disruptive when I play my bi-weekly FR game.
I wasn't saying everyone is, but once you are "in-the-know", it becomes a little too easy to question the DM.
Suppose you were in someone's game and you had to deliver a message to Elminster. Your PCs knock on his door but there is no answer - but the door swings slightly ajar when you knock.
Throwing caution to the wind (and fearing the worst), you burst into the place... only to find Elminster roasting a female halfling over his fireplace spit and enjoying some of her tastey flesh.
Now tell me you WOULDN'T say WTF?!
If you had NO IDEA who or what Elminster was, you'd just treat it as a normal encounter, but your meta-gaming knowledge of the man would make you automatically think it is an imposter, or the man has gone completely insane.
But how do you know that in my game, Elminster doesn't secretly relish the sweet, succulent flesh of young maidens?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. When I throw an encounter at a group, I don't want them to have any other thoughts then what their senses immediately provide them. If you've ever played in a Ravenloft game, you'd know you CAN'T run a good Horror game without a lot of secrecy.
Thats one of the reasons I started building my own world originally for the 4e rules, but then changed my mind. I don't have to worry about surprising my players - WotC has wiped the slate clean and now everything is a surprise all over again. On that, I applaud them.
How they went about it is another story...
Well, the problem arises with this new edition. The designers want it to be accessible to all, which means utilizing a lore that doesn't leave people reeling. If someone wants to run a campaign that really feels like it's a part of the Realms, a large amount of study is needed. That's liable to make most players turn-tail and run. Hell, any question about Realms lore on these boards is met by answers (from guess who) featuring a multitude of books to read.
It makes me sad when I read those answers. Now, to create the campaign with the feel he wanted, he has to tell his players to hang back a couple of months so he can read 6 or 7 books?
Speaking only for myself, I know that when I tell someone to go look it up in a book, that's mostly born out of a desire not to write an essay to respond. By referencing a book, its easier to let them take what they want from the answer in said book, rather than just giving them my version of events. We can't even put all that many meaningful excerpts into our responses, and even minimal ones are sometimes bad... like one time I had the stats for a scourge I provided for someone deleted for unwittingly violating IP stuff. You get a bit more cautious about things after stuff like that, so rather than have a good chunk of time deleted for being against the CoC, its often just easier to say go look it up here, its got what you're looking for. Call it laziness, or simply being overcautious, but I suspect a lot of us who do reference books are doing it to avoid WizO wrath and warnings, rather than some elitist sense of piling books on people's heads just for the hells of it.
At least that's my take on the matter.
Fair enough, but what about the people who proclaim their love of 4E and get blasted by the people who don't? It falls on both sides of the fence. To be honest, I've felt that the reception of 4E Forgotten Realms has been overwhelmingly negative on these boards. I just wanted to open a thread where we could all share what we feel about these changes without anything personal getting in the way. Of course, the best way to do this is to fire things up. So, I stated my opinions.
For the most part, I feel it's been a success thus far. There have been a couple of Negative Nancies, but nothing out of control. I'm glad this has been a civil debate.
It goes both ways, yes. IIRC, all my statements have just been to speak my peace and follow the discussion piping in once in a while to offer a new opinion. I try not to get into the personal bashing mode unless of course I perceive an attack on myself. I try to be respectful until the time comes to not be hehe.
If a player is making an effort -in character - to find stuff out, then by all means they should find certain stuff out (no stats though - just the descriptive text). Also, if one of my players asks me about something like "I want to be a fighter that also uses spells", I will point them in the direction of the PrCs I think that they would find most helpful in the splatbooks. I don't try to hide information from people, as long as they ask the right questions. If someone wants to just read the splatbooks from cover-to-cover, then they are just power-gamers looking for the best build, not Roleplayers looking for the best character concept.
And if you are ONLY a player, and NEVER DM, then you have NO BUSINESS what-so-ever sticking your nose in the DMG and most especially the MM!!!
In my day, players ONLY bought the PHB - if you bought the other two, you were cheating, plain and simple.
As for me; I have all five of the 3e MMs, but I have only read the info on the ones I used or thought about using. I would say that a good 60% or more of the information in them is untouched by me... just in case I run in someone else's game. If I am not using it, I, TOO, don't have any business reading about it, because I also enjoy playing on those rare occasions when I get a chance.
Surprises are fun - learn to enjoy them.
I have to disagree with your usage of "fascism" in this case. I think that it is a far too powerful, or useless depending on who you are, term that doesn't really apply here. No one on these boards or at WotC has any control over how you ultimately decide to play your game. Like I said earlier, the WotC police are not going to beat down your door if you decide to go in a little different direction with something.
The scope of the word may not be on par with historical use, but the mentality behind the changes to FR or 4e in general is very appropriate. The way some parts of the community jump all over each other is indicative of a problem. Sure there may never be "WotC Police" to come and confiscate your books and burn them. It goes both ways, both pro 4e and anti 4e do it to differing degrees.
A little off the topic but semi-appropriate to the discussion here; given the world's reaction the last time something like that happened (WW2) intellectual fascists have to operate much more subtly. It's like the frog in boiling water analogy, by the time you realize there is a problem, it's already too late. The thing is most people don't even realize they are being conditioned... I could go into great detail but this is not exactly the forum for that kind of discussion hehe.
-Because you know the value of respect. Because you are not what the 4E DMG calls a Spotlight Hog. The 4E DMG is my favorite 4E Book.
-When I am playing in a game I dont try and get all rules lawyery on people, that the DM's responsibility. Now some guy's at the table try and get all rulsy when something is happening to them that is not all that great for them.
-The game is not the problem, sometimes it's the players.
Exactly.
I believe that if you're not the DM, it's not your job to dictate the rules or the setting to anyone.As an adendum to everything I have said above - IF my players ask me about something directly, like "whats Silverymoon like", I print out that portion of Silver Marches - or would let them read it from the book if I wasn't preapared - because I assume they were IN CHARACTER, and at some point researched the place. I'm not going to roleplay a research session about them going to the library - if they let me know that they are going to try to find out a few things about a place, then they deserve whatever knowledge they find out (which could be outdated, which serves my evil plans even better, sometimes).
If a player is making an effort -in character - to find stuff out, then by all means they should find certain stuff out (no stats though - just the descriptive text). Also, if one of my players asks me about something like "I want to be a fighter that also uses spells", I will point them in the direction of the PrCs I think that they would find most helpful in the splatbooks. I don't try to hide information from people, as long as they ask the right questions. If someone wants to just read the splatbooks from cover-to-cover, then they are just power-gamers looking for the best build, not Roleplayers looking for the best character concept.
And if you are ONLY a player, and NEVER DM, then you have NO BUSINESS what-so-ever sticking your nose in the DMG and most especially the MM!!!
In my day, players ONLY bought the PHB - if you bought the other two, you were cheating, plain and simple.
As for me; I have all five of the 3e MMs, but I have only read the info on the ones I used or thought about using. I would say that a good 60% or more of the information in them is untouched by me... just in case I run in someone else's game. If I am not using it, I, TOO, don't have any business reading about it, because I also enjoy playing on those rare occasions when I get a chance.
Surprises are fun - learn to enjoy them.
Hmm, one reason I chose to use the drow city of Ched Nesad as my campaign starting point was because there wasn't much known about the place, even in the sourcebooks. I didn't want player knowledge to intercede on the game and dropping the campaign in the underdark accomplished that nicely. However, that isn't to say the campaign didn't move to the surface and all that player knowledge came to pose a threat. That was ok for me, as long as it remained player knowledge and not character knowledge until the character researched the matter for him/herself. I run a roleplay heavy campaign anyway to it isn't much of an issue for us. From time to time, I have to remind my players what they do and do not know but I really don't care what sources they read ahead of time.
If I was playing in a game and the DM learned that I knew more about the world then he did and tried to remove me from the game for it or even joked about it...I don't think I would play in his/her game anymore. I've always assumed that there would be differences in each DM's individual Realms and the knowledge I have, I wouldn't let it color my experiences in a different DM's game.
The motto I have for my games and my friends have adapted it as well,
"Go along and we will get along!"
I wasn't saying everyone is, but once you are "in-the-know", it becomes a little too easy to question the DM.
I can resist it though.
I, for one, want to have others rejoicing with me.
I understand where you're coming from, sometimes it can be a problem for new DMs (usually not players, since they have their DM to do things for them) to get into the Realms. I consider it a blessing that I have been following FR events since the Grey Box, it has given me a lot of insight in how things are and how things work in Faerûn and I have no problem spinning stories containing a lot of classic FR elements.
The problem I have with 4e FR is that all the history that makes the setting so rich seems to have been made null and void (you can agree or disagree, that's just how I see things). Why the FR? Why not just make a new setting that is accesible to both new and old players? It would certainly have kept the peace.
Another problem is that with the advent of 4e, FR and Eberron seem much more alike. I play in both worlds because of the differences between them. I really like Eberron (despite the forced feel I get from some of its sourcebooks), but I love the Forgotten Realms. I'm not gonna change my feelings just because some designers created very drastic changes in my favorite world (for what I consider to be only moneymaking purposes).
It's a tad sad that every article placed on the website gets such negative reviews, I agree, but since such strong feelings are involved I really do understand them.
Accent Mine.
Do you even know how D&D works?
Its NOT a democracy! As DM, I am in command of things.
If not, I'd be another player, and we'd all be sitting around a table staring at an empty chair waiting for it to guide us.
I grew up before there were settings, which meant the players only knew what I (and every other DM) told them. Then Greyhawk came out, and I had fun with that setting for years (very few novels that no-one bothered to read). I had one player who was a fellow DM who also knew Greyhawk like the back of his hand, and guess what? He was the only disruptive force at my table, because he would contradict things I said and tell the other players how it "really is".
I couldn't make a change without him over-directing me, to the point where he would oftimes try to say what happened when someone did something (which is the DM's job). He was a good friend of mine, and I never pulled that crap in his games, and it was VERY frustrating because his presence usually meant a lot less adventuring happened and a lot more 'discussion'.
When I ran with homebrew, or Greyhawk with players who knew next-to-nothing, the game played out better for all of us. Years later I played in an FR group with my Brother-in-law's friends and all of them were FR-buffs. Needless to say, it was almost an exact duplicate of these boards, with 99% of the discussion turning into arguments over weather "Elminster would have really done that", or the "Purple Dragons don't behave that way". I think the most we ever got done in a single night was 4-5 turns - I'm not joking.
I enjoy the discussion on these boards, because there is a time and place for such things, but at my table, I am in charge, and if you decide to read up about an area before the group gets there, you are basically cheating. It amounts to exactly the same thing as memorizing the order of cards in your deck in MtG - you are taking unfair advantage of the knowledge you SHOULD NOT possess.
So I guess if you were one of my players, and I ran my homebrew setting, you would expect me to provide you with 'press releases' of every little thing that happens in the world, and perhaps even write a few novels in my spare time just for my players?
I don't think so.
Try playing in a homebrew game sometime, or on a world you know nothing about, and find out how much more fun advernturing can really be. Your desire to know every Iota about the world you play on stems from a meta-gaming/power-gaming mindset - get over it, and start enjoying youreself.
You seem to make alot of assumptions about people without knowing them and start drawing conclusions based on that bad information assuming the worst. Fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of my gaming careeer has been homebrew or D&D settings taken far enough offline that you wouldn't really even worry about if things were as per the books.
I think it is indicative of the problem I posted on here. You don't seem to trust anyone but yourself to play in the interest of the group and the game as a whole thinking you are the only one who knows best when, your players may well be completely capable of seperating character and personal knowlege. They must be very lucky to have you protecting there simple little minds from some very good books and content.
I am all for DMs who are in command of the table and appreciate the many good ones who have shared their efforts with me but, if a DM in my gaming community took your apparent attitude toward directing players' reading habits and freedoms, they'd likely have alot of open seats. Have a little faith in your players and iron out what needs to. Don't just squash player interest and possible input with the giant DM privilege gauntlet.
The problem I have with 4e FR is that all the history that makes the setting so rich seems to have been made null and void (you can agree or disagree, that's just how I see things). Why the FR? Why not just make a new setting that is accesible to both new and old players? It would certainly have kept the peace.
While I share your feelings, I believe I have the answer. The FR setting is a big money-maker (although maybe not as much as WotC wants it to be)--popular enough that they have to convert it to 4E rules and bring it up to date. Apparently, WotC didn't think they could do that without making huge changes (and that's a whole different topic entirely).
It isn't cheating, and often knowing the rules serves to make the came flow easier for the DM, and properly. It leaves less to arbitray adhoc, and prevents complaints arising later.
I am also an Artist/ Animator, so I look at images for inspiration, or to complete a sketch of a session that stood out for me. Additonally I am a Writer, and sometime you need to know the capabilities of a creature in order to write a believable scene.
-RW
This forum has a boatload of bitterness and beefs. You've brought 'em out. Come back in six months; things should have cooled off by then and be more amenable to reasonable fan discussion.
For instance - Drizzt does NOT exist - he died young and never escaped Menzoberranzan. You could read all the novels about him you want, but they just didn't happen (in my reality). What my players don't know is that there is someone else who took Drizzt's place on my world, and did most of the same stuff Drizzt did - but no one knows about him accept the other NPCs that should know about him.
Player knowledge should never supercede what the DM is trying to do, and I don't control ANYONE (which a lot of you don't seem to be getting). If someone was to go out and buy their own sourcebooks or novels or whatever, I sure as hell couldn't - and wouldn't - stop them.
However, my players also know that the world is MINE, not WotC's - I bought it and paid for it and made it my own. That means the only splat-book stuff I allow is stuff I carefully considered for game-balance and flavor. If someone was to go out and buy Races of Stone they'd just be wasting their money (playing with me), because I use nothing from that book (but I still own it). Since they know that I only use selected content, they don't bother to go out and buy their own books - they ask me and I tell them (and gladly show them) what I use from my own books, and would gladly make a hardcopy of the neccesary pages for them, or E-mail them a digital copy (or both).
There are plenty of Feats and PrCs that I allow that they have no clue exists - because they haven't asked the right questions. When they do, like say "How can I wear armor while spellcasting?", then I will show them ALL the options.
In RL, there are no 'big lists' floating in the air in front of you - if you are curious about something you must go out and learn about it on your own. So many times in my life I looked into something I was curious about and learned a slew of information I had no idea existed. Thats how it works - you need to persue certain lines of thought to get the answers you seek.
I hide NOTHING - the truth is available for those who seek it. If a player wants to take a 'short cut' and read a few novels thats all fine and good (I'd even recommend one or two that aren't awful), but he or she must know up-front that NOTHING in the novel pertains to my version of FR - NOTHING.
They would be reading the novel for the pure pleasure of it, and so far, only one (my 19 year old) has expressed an interest to do so. I don't stop them - its their own laziness that is stopping them - but I don't mind that at all.
Life is more fun when it is still full of wonder. When you start quantifying every single thing, weather in D&D or RL, things start to become boring.
__________________________________________________________________
And as to Red Wizard - I adhoc quite a bit, and no one is (usually) ever the wiser. ;)
And if you play with me, don't bother learning the rules so much either - they are just a framework subject to my whims as well.
When you are Ao's boss, the laws of reality are at your fingertips. :P
__________________________________________________________________
One last thing - you guys got to remember that I run my games VERY RP-heavy, and could give a rat's butt about mechanics. For those of you who prefer a more mechanical game of number-crunching and power-builds and Monty-haul style dungeons, then my games are most certainly NOT for you - I am STINGY with Exp, magic, and Gold (which is rare), so player's have to rely on their wits, not their loot. Killing a Dragon doesn't matter nearly as much to me as someone cleverly out-smarting the local crimelord.
To each his own, and enjoy your games. I've never gotten a complaint, and have trained over 300 players in my life, at least two dozen of which went on to run their own games (some of which I've played in), so I think I may have gotten a little something right... at least I can hope I did.
This forum has a boatload of bitterness and beefs. You've brought 'em out.
Not true. All of these posts are just proving Petey's point. :evillaugh Everyone needs to start taking responsibility for their own opinions.
The scope of the word may not be on par with historical use, but the mentality behind the changes to FR or 4e in general is very appropriate.
I'm not sure I follow. If you would be so kind as to explain how you can accurately profess knowledge of the "mentality behind the changes to FR or 4e", unless you possess inside information?
The way some parts of the community jump all over each other is indicative of a problem.
But how you define that problem doesn't seem to be universal across these boards, does it?
A little off the topic but semi-appropriate to the discussion here; given the world's reaction the last time something like that happened (WW2) intellectual fascists have to operate much more subtly. It's like the frog in boiling water analogy, by the time you realize there is a problem, it's already too late. The thing is most people don't even realize they are being conditioned... I could go into great detail but this is not exactly the forum for that kind of discussion hehe.
Interesting postulation. I agree that it doesn't belong in this forum, though.
However, my players also know that the world is MINE, not WotC's - I bought it and paid for it and made it my own.
Odd. I thought you felt like you were breaking a taboo by changing things about the Realms, and that only with the advent of 4th Edition could you truly make the world your own.
Now I no longer have to be ashamed of it. ;)
I don't want to make another long-winded post, but basically whenever I made a change to canon I had to sit down for days and ponder what sort of repercussions that would have on the rest of the world. Whenever something major happened in a novel series I would still use it, so that meant I had to keep the timeline moving along the same even though I was making huge changes (which became harder and harder to do). For instance, Shade returned and existed in my version, but I just never used them for anything. If my players ever headed out into the desert I might of considered using something from that plot, but I didn't revolve my games around any of it.
I also REALLY hated that the Elves returned to Cormanthor (I LIKED the retreat), but because it was canon I was forced to use it (I know no-one held a gun to my head, but that's how I always felt about the canon lore), which totally screwed over the story-arc I had going centered around the Cormanthor Drow. I had to make some changes to the backstory of some of the things I was doing, and take the PCs in a different direction.
I really didn't HAVE TO do that, but I didn't want my Realms history to deviate all that much from canon, even if my maps and NPCs did. I still wanted to use the on-going storyline from all the meta-plots, and that meant keeping things as close as possible whilst still making it my own.
Now I don't worry about ANY of that - I DON'T like any of WotC's storylines, so I have no intentions of using them. I'll buy the 4e FRCG and thats IT - I won't need the DDi, because I could care less about whatever sort of idiocy they spring on us next.
The new Realms will go in the direction I take it, and I don't have to worry about any novels or sourcebooks screwing things up.
I guess it all boils down to this - the Old Realms I respected TOO much, whereas the new Realms are about to become my dirty little w____.
-See I get to jump around in the Time stream and enjoy the setting. :D
-I think people have bought the lie that the Realms are a slave to Canon. Its your Realms do what you want with it. Take it or leave it out. Heck I may even do a game set in the 800's DR using the 4E Rules. Spellplague my ***! :D
18DELTA
Funny thing though is before 3E when I wanted to run a game in FR but hated 2e I had a storyline where an Enclave from Nethril placed itself in stasis and in another dimension so it could survive to keep the Empire alive. I had it coming to the current (2E) time and trying to take over. It wasn't as "Mwahaha" evil as Shade but it had it badguys. THe idea was this ancient city had come to the future and now the current regions would feel the ramifications of it arrival. Odd how things work out.
Like wise with 3.5 fans. If you like it, continue to play it! Clear out those cobwebs in your head and start to use your imagination. Complaining won't get you anywere.
As far as the emotional distraught per both 3.5 and 4e fans...3 words...get over it. There are better things in life to worry about.
Personally, I'm a 3.5 fan. I don’t care for 4e, (I have a ton of reasons that I don't care to share). However I do like a few game concepts...(woot for house rules). 3.5 is the true AD&D version to me.
In closing...
Though I will not have any new novels or game material created for me to enjoy, there is a bright side to all of this. I now can do what ever I like with the realms and the game rules, and not have to feel guilty for ruining some story line. Also, I can create my own content with others and post it online and continue the saga from Fr DR1385 and 3.5 rules, (I'm sure more than a few people will do this).
Above all though, I will save a ton of money! Gas isn’t cheep these days.
To be king you must find the good in any situation. :D
Complaining won't get you anywere.
Complaining apparently (i.e. according to some designers) resulted in the reduction and reshuffling of the Realms' pantheon ... as players were "too overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of deities on offer". Aye right!
You see, it isn't just sour grapes for many pre-4E-FR fans. It's part of their life (albeit a small one) being stripped away with essentially no chance of getting it back. So one can actually understand - even from a neutral point of view - their complaints, annoyance, grief, and at times, disgust. This shall and should not taint either edition, but people are surely not to be told what to think or feel about it.
Regarding the mindset ... no more so than now, people should remind themselves that one does not exactly need to wait for the next FR adventure or campaign to play in the Realms. There is lore applenty out there and with a bit of tweaking, every decent D&D 1E, AD&D, or 3E adventure or campaign can be played with the 3RE rules. The same goes with 4E, of course, but lots of lore is still missing (especially the much loved crunch on monsters et al).
you want the fast way to learn about the realms during any age, pick an area, study it, and set your story there, when someone else DMs, they can set their story somewhere else.
all said and done, each region had specific religions worshiped there.
I can see where the number of deities can be a problem.
I do not agree with though how they fixed it.
the DM should always be learned on the region of where his dming.
the dm should always tell the players what deity has temples in that area, but by no means that the players have to worship one of those deities, as even in the rw, people move, and even in one world or another, a calling can still be heard.
failure to read up, or ask questions is the fault of the player, complaining about there being no temple to horus-ra in Thay, and no Temple to Bane in mulohand and no temple of Tyr in Athkatla, and no temple to Talos in waterdeep, or even why is there a temple to umberlee in Baldur's Gate and a temple to mask in westgate;isnt going to win points with your fellow gamers. wotc version of the realms, Greenwood's version of the Realms or homegrown version of the realms it doesnt matter.
be careful of the toes you step on today, for they may be connected to the foot that kicks you in the arse tommorrow.
[...] You see, it isn't just sour grapes for many pre-4E-FR fans. It's part of their life (albeit a small one) being stripped away with essentially no chance of getting it back. [...]
Then WotC finally got around and put up a game police that would come to your house, beat you up, and burn all your 3E books? Where in all Nine frigging Hells does the idea come from that one couldn't continue playing the 3E pre-Spellplague FR?
You don't need a company spoonfeeding you the metaplot of your campaign, do you? Then WotC finally got around and put up a game police that would come to your house, beat you up, and burn all your 3E books? Where in all Nine frigging Hells does the idea come from that one couldn't continue playing the 3E pre-Spellplague FR?
You should read my last paragraph too. ;)
The problem remains for FR fans nonetheless. Much like in real life, if the girl/boy friend is gone, s/he usually is gone for good. You can relive all the good times et al, but that nagging feeling that there is a definite end to much you know of is still in the back of your mind. Like the Ragnarök in Norse mythology. Odin is the greatest of the lot, ruler of all, but he'll bite the bullet, no matter what he does or can do.
As I said, it is not the end and one can easily play along with 3RE in 4E Realmspace (or vice versa). Just started my (AD&D) Night Below campaign in the 1200 D.R. Realms (Myrkul and Bhaal still about and all) using 3RE without a problem. I can fix whatever I like at home. But still, those paying close attention to what happens in the canon Realms, people like me, cannot simply ignore the changes or be happy/angry with them.
So to sum up the whole thread it would be nice if some peoples mindset changed but it does not really need to change. ;)
[...] Much like in real life, if the girl/boy friend is gone, s/he usually is gone for good. You can relive all the good times et al, but that nagging feeling that there is a definite end to much you know of is still in the back of your mind. [...]
Sorry, but I think that's a very bad analogy.
If your real life SO's gone, you can't go to the cinema with him/her any longer, you can't go for a walk under the moonlight with him/her any longer, you can't
his/her brains out any longer.However, even with the 3E FR going out of print, you can still run campaigns and oneshots in them. You can still advance their metaplot (which would inevitably deviate then from the 4E "canon"). You can still have fun with them.
It's not like that all your books turned to dust or something. And seriously, how many DMs have really exploited the FR in all their depth?
Personally, I don't mind the change in the setting, although I will miss having the readily available npc entry for each realm. People seemed to overreact to the fact every region seemed to have a set hero or villain. The vast majority aren't of very major impact, especially when you take into account how big each particular region is.
Sorry, but I think that's a very bad analogy.
If your real life SO's gone, you can't go to the cinema with him/her any longer, you can't go for a walk under the moonlight with him/her any longer, you can't
However, even with the 3E FR going out of print, you can still run campaigns and oneshots in them. You can still advance their metaplot (which would inevitably deviate then from the 4E "canon"). You can still have fun with them.
It's not like that all your books turned to dust or something. And seriously, how many DMs have really exploited the FR in all their depth?
You see, with all that you say you do not actually touch my argument. I am not saying the Realms or the playability goes out of the window. Thought I made that clear ...
[...] People seemed to overreact to the fact every region seemed to have a set hero or villain. The vast majority aren't of very major impact, especially when you take into account how big each particular region is.
One perhaps particularily bad example is Aglarond and The Simbul. What - besides getting healing potions for sick cows and killing rats in a cellar ( ;) ) - can low level characters do in a region where a Chosen Sorcerer20/Wizard10/Archmage2 rules, and even her apprentices are level 16 wizards?
You cannot possibly introduce any "realmsshattering" events, because an epic level character with his cadre of high level wizard apprentices is standing by to stomp every Red Wizard/Demon/undead menace into the ground the moment it rears its ugly head.
As a DM you have to go out of your way and devise a specific (more or less logical) reason why none of the present highlevel characters is able to take care of the Red Wizards/Demons/undead. You have to think about a reason why the PCs are allowed to be heroic, and that is what's probably the most problematic thing about highlevel "local heroes".
You see, with all that you say you do not actually touch my argument. I am not saying the Realms or the playability goes out of the window. Thought I made that clear ...
Then what is your argument? That people are getting worked up over practically nothing? That people wish WotC bankruptcy because they killed off some imaginary characters?
As a DM you have to go out of your way and devise a specific (more or less logical) reason why none of the present highlevel characters is able to take care of the Red Wizards/Demons/undead. You have to think about a reason why the PCs are allowed to be heroic, and that is what's probably the most problematic thing about highlevel "local heroes".
What interests me is whether they present more of a problem than they solve.
In that this is the Forgotten Realms, someone is always trying to invade sombody, goblinkin are almost always on the march and/or dragons/eveil spellcasters/beholders/illithid/drow etc are pulling a fast one somewhere.
Now do you cast "Minor Handwavium" and assume there is no trouble in places that you aren't, or "Major Handwavium" and say that even if your particular party isn't in the local area then somebody's party is? Or do you have a group of local resistance that is just strong enough to fend off anything that isn't currently drawing your party's attention? All of those feel like a bit of a cop out for me. And in the latter case you have either a person or an organisation (even if it is the local miltia) which is starting to fulfill the "local hero" role. So where do you draw the line?
This isn't me attacking, this is me asking whether people feel the "local heroes" concept (not just a single person) is more trouble than explaining why everywhere else in the world is currently capable of looking after itself.
Then what is your argument? That people are getting worked up over practically nothing? That people wish WotC bankruptcy because they killed off some imaginary characters?
Extreme hyperbole and mild offensiveness aside... From what I can tell, Zanan's argument isn't that the changes stop you from playing but make it difficult to enjoy it to the same degree. The nearest analogy I can think of is starting to read a book at the beginning after you have found out, through reading the last page, that everyone dies. Although the journey may well still be enjoyable, the fact that you know where it is going detracts somewhat. I may well be wrong but that is whay I think Zanan was going for.
Extreme hyperbole and mild offensiveness aside... From what I can tell, Zanan's argument isn't that the changes stop you from playing but make it difficult to enjoy it to the same degree. The nearest analogy I can think of is starting to read a book at the beginning after you have found out, through reading the last page, that everyone dies. Although the journey may well still be enjoyable, the fact that you know where it is going detracts somewhat. I may well be wrong but that is whay I think Zanan was going for.
Exactissimo! That's why I planted th Ragnarök comparrison in there.
What interests me is whether they present more of a problem than they solve.
Definitely presents more problems than they solve....
For any adventure, the players can say "Naa, sounds boring. Let someone else do it."
"But the cultists are going to destroy the world!"
"Yeah, and Elminster or Drizz't will show up and stop them before they do, lets go find some orcs to beat up!"
Heck! Why does anyone even become an adventurer when it seems you can throw a rock without hitting a mythal, an epic NPC, some minor diety of an obscure concept, or some other BS. If I were living in the realms, I would breed carrier pidgeons so I could send for help whenever we needed it. I wouldn't even need to send it to a specific person. If i send out 5 or 6 pidgeons im sure one of them will land on a harper, or eliminster, or someobody who can solve the problem after lunch.
Then there are the Harpers! An entire organization who is devoted to finding problems and then "tattletaling" it to someone who will take care of it. Founded by whom? Elminster...
"Hey guys, if you see any problems, let me know! I'll show up, cast a fireball or two, say something witty, and then when it apears I will be defeated I will cast a spell or use a magic item that proves I had a planned everything out from the begining!"
-I think people have bought the lie that the Realms are a slave to Canon.
Which people?
On the other hand, it is really, really annoying to have every discussion about the 4e stuff bogged down in complaints and whining.
I'd guess it's off-putting to new participants here: it'd be off-putting to me if I wasn't old and smelly in both D&D and Internet years and therefore somewhat thick skinned.
Exactissimo! That's why I planted th Ragnarök comparrison in there.
Then I am glad I could have been of service.
Definitely presents more problems than they solve.... etc
Ok, so you have eloquently stated the problem from your point of view. Now what is the best way to solve it?
Probably created a brand-new POL setting for 4e, and left FR by the wayside.
FR fans would have been offended, but not nearly as much as many of them are now. I use to feel bad for Greyhawk - now I envy it. better to die with dignity.
The ONLY reason why they didn't do that is because it would have hurt novel sales, so they decided to turn FR into the 4e core setting so they could cash in on both - novels and new game material.
Problem is, most people who liked the Old Realms have no interest in 4e novels, and the people who like the 'simpler' Realms will probably avoid reading the novels, so as not to cause the problems that arose in 3e (and earlier). You can't have novels as canon and want to 'thin down' the canon - it doesn't work that way.
They are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
A new 4e core world would have been a major success, probably moreso then this 'FrankenRealms' amalgam. I'm sure they considered that, but didn't want to give up on their even more lucrative product line (FR novels).
Personally, I hope 4e FR is a success as a game-world, but the novel line tanks - NOTHING would make me happier.
Complaining apparently (i.e. according to some designers) resulted in the reduction and reshuffling of the Realms' pantheon ... as players were "too overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of deities on offer". Aye right!
-I think that this all part of the WotC Propaganda Campaign against the Realms. Its started during Gencon Last year. Ever since then it has been one attack agaist the Realms after another. The Staff Blogs, the Podcasts. Now people are starting to belive the lies. The only reason why the Patheon is being reshuffled is because the designers dont want to learn it. They are using Fallicies to destory the Realms (The Chosen, The Patheon, The Lore is to hard to learn, The FR Players are feeling Entitled
). Now if Steven Schend and Company were still with WotC, would this be happening?18DELTA :D
- Now if Steven Schend and Company were still with WotC, would this be happening?
Yes.
Yes.
-Ok. Why?
18DELTA ;)
As the DM, you can have them somewhere else entirely, have them move away (if Shadowdale was my retirement home I would have moved years ago if I was Elminster), have them killed by the threat present (just to show that these villains mean business!), or any other multitudes of reasons which I will not bother to list. This argument is a cop out. Once you become DM, the world and creative license belongs to you. If I had a player arguing about when something happened or how a particular NPC would act I would soon have one less player.
Getting back to the topic. I do not think the mindset needs to change, people are entitled to their opinion. I for one do not like the changes made to the Realms but I do find them to be interesting. If we all felt the same way about everything the world would be a boring place, devoid of creativity.
I think that in order to remain profitable and to grow WOTC needed to revamp the system completely. Why buy 4th edition if it is a near exact replica of 3.5? How many more books could WOTC have published? I don't think area books can sustain a company bottom line indefinately. I know that I enjoyed most of the FR sourcebooks of 3.0/3.5 however, I felt like I was getting 40-60% recycled product from the 2E Realms.
The retailers I speak with say that 4E is selling even better than their expectations. However, if this endeavor fails and WOTC goes the way of TSR someone else will pick up the licences and perhaps do something that the older fans will enjoy more. I guess time will tell.
Personally, I have enough 2E and 3.0/3.5 material to run the Realms for about 10-20 more years so maybe I will look into 7th edition when that comes around ;)
BTW Markus if I had more free time I would love to play in one of your campaigns (I live in Northern NJ) sounds like you do an excellent job.
-Ok. Why?
Because Schend wouldn't be working in a vacuum. He'd be working with experienced designers with opinions that (probably) differed greatly from his own.
I remember when 3E was on the horizon and all the vitriol over it that was posted on the Realms Mailing lists. People would often post, "This wouldn't be happening if Steven was still around. Bring Schend back!"
...as though he ever had the final say.
It seems also that the majority of the nay sayers to the new FR also do not like 4e rules.
-Now if Steven Schend and Company were still with WotC, would this be happening?
The decisions are no longer being made by game designers, they are being made by corporate bean counters.
Some of them are just wearing the 'designer' label these days.
As a guy who spends a lot of time on both sides of the fence, and occionally sitting on it (which is rather uncomfortable, I might add), I see both sides, understand both sides, and strangely... agree with both sides.
Did they ruin the Old Realms? Of course they did - even pro-4e people can't deny that! Did they have good reasons for what they did? ... yes... unfortunately they did. Was there another way to handle the changes - perhaps a 'better' way? Yes, most certainly - it doesn't appear that they put a whole lot of effort of figuring how to go from point 'A' to point 'B' - they just wanted to 'hurry up and get to 'B'.
The Old Realms was designed from the ground-up by a bunch of guys who really loved gaming, plain and simple. You can see it in every senetence written by guys like Ed and Steven.
The new Realms are a vehicle to make money, nothing more. It is used to further their FR IP to sell more novels (which does make them decent money), and if they make some money off the game material, its just a bonus. The 4e rules are all that matters to Hasbro, not the individual settings, and they want to push it as the 'latest, greatest toy' on the market.
And kids and parents, and YES... even a lot of old-school gamers will suck it up and use it.
However, thats not all bad, as I've been trying to explain, because as one of those VERY OLD gamers, I remember when we didn't have settings, and we had to make everything up on the fly. With the new realms I'll be able to recapture that. They've given me the maps and some little bit of information, and its up to us to fill in the rest as we see fit.
For the non-FR gamers among us, this is terrible tragedy - the loss of intricate lore. To those of us who want to actually game with FR (and like to make changes to canon), its an 'open door'.
Anyone who doesn't want that can stay behind and play in 3e, and I suggest they do, because people should do whatever makes them happy. The only problem, now, is that those other people who didn't really play in it will no longer have all those story-lines to follow.
If you 'newcomers' (to both the game and to FR) can't understand that, think of it as a television series you like that you've been following diligently... and then it gets cancelled.
Thats it... no resolution, no closure... Nada. Thats the really tragic part of the Old Realms - it was more then a setting; it was a story, and now it has no ending. You can pretend it did all you want, but a couple of pages in the back of the GHotR is a horrible way to wrap-up twenty years of lore.
The only reason why I can enjoy the new realms is because I've finally seperated the two in my mind. Just like I can enjoy both versions of Battlestar Galactica for different reasons, knowing full-well the two have very litte in common besides the title.
So my 'story-setting' is gone, by my 'game-setting' lives on. Never forget the Realms as they were, in all their glory, but don't hold it against the new realms - thats like blaming the Monster for what Dr. Frankenstein did. ;)
BTW Markus if I had more free time I would love to play in one of your campaigns (I live in Northern NJ) sounds like you do an excellent job.
Thank You. :embarrass
For the non-FR gamers among us, this is terrible tragedy - the loss of intricate lore. To those of us who want to actually game with FR (and like make canon changes), its an 'open door'.
Anyone who doesn't want that can stay behind and play in 3e, and I suggest they do, because people should do whatever makes them happy. The only problem, now, is that those other people who didn't really play in it will no longer have all those story-lines to follow.
If you 'newcomers' (to both the game and to FR) can't understand that, think of it as a television series you like that you've been following diligently... and then it gets cancelled.
Thats it... no resolution, no closure... Nada. Thats the really tragic part of the Old Realms - it was more then a setting; it was a story, and now it has no ending. You can pretend it did all you want, but a couple of pages in the back of the GHotR is a horrible way to wrap-up twenty years of lore.
For someone who wishes the doom of the novel series you described that so well. As you say, the two side of the Realms had little to link them, not least that the strength of one seems to have been the bane of the other.
My earlier (off topic, sorry) question in this thread was an attempt to forge a middle path between these two. I have been thinking about it all evening and I still can't find a good way that balances both. I shan't clutter up this thread with it, though I might start a new one on the subject ;).
Thanks Markus!
The decisions are no longer being made by game designers, they are being made by corporate bean counters.
They always have been the last 15-20y. You cannot hold up a franchise that big without having heavy business considerations. Or do you think that Eberron was created just because they wanted to do something nice to the players? No. They wanted to earn additional money. Maybe the older settings sold not that good to a new generation of gamers, maybe because of other corporate reasons. And the same was for FR from the first beginning on. Or do you think the TSR created 30+ books for one single setting because Ed Greenwood had an urgent vision which he wanted to share with his fellow gamers? No. TSR wanted to earn money with the books, nothing more and gave Ed the money to write down his world idea. Believing that in the "good ol`days" anything was better and TSR was not a money grabbing company like WotC is naive.
Some of them are just wearing the 'designer' label these days.
The writers today are not more or less designers than those in the past. They just catering a changed market and also have access to experiences of a whole generation of previous writers and more often than not they dont repeat the mistakes of those. This improves the production quality and everything else in todays rpg books. If anybody thinks that the past was the golden day of FR roleplaying, well then he can stay there. No problem. There is maybe more material out there than he can ever play or memorize. For the others dont rant...go on.
Did they ruin the Old Realms? Of course they did - even pro-4e people can't deny that! Did they have good reasons for what they did? ... yes... unfortunately they did.
Ruin? What ruin? Cutting out 100y and killing this or that god out of 1000 is not a ruin. Shutting down the franchise would be the ruin. No, this move is making FR playable again for many people and not only for some dedicated superfans which think the realms are a real world, everything which was written down is sacred and its theirs. In truth the realms are just another tool to present a nice D&D enviroment to their customer, nothing more. (as you also mentioned in your post)
And its clear that the new FRCG will draw its own new fanbase composed of new 4e guys which again learn everything written in the manual in the new 4e novels and in DDI and consider it as sacred. And they will rant if WotC adapt the setting again to the rules and necessities of 5th in several years from now.
The new Realms are a vehicle to make money, nothing more. It is used to further their FR IP to sell more novels (which does make them decent money), and if they make some money off the game material, its just a bonus. The 4e rules are all that matters to Hasbro, not the individual settings, and they want to push it as the 'latest, greatest toy' on the market.
And kids and parents, and YES... even a lot of old-school gamers will suck it up and use it.
This is true. And its good this way. It ensures that WotC will live on and dont go the way of the dodo (or TSR)
I'll bite,
Because Schend wouldn't be working in a vacuum. He'd be working with experienced designers with opinions that (probably) differed greatly from his own.
I remember when 3E was on the horizon and all the vitriol over it that was posted on the Realms Mailing lists. People would often post, "This wouldn't be happening if Steven was still around. Bring Schend back!"
...as though he ever had the final say.
-Ok. ;)
-I still don't think this would be happening. Hey I am 'Entitled' to my opinion. :P We will probably never know the truth anyways. Thanks.
18DELTA
As I understand it a VP at WotC had to sign off on all the changes before the FR Design Team could go forward with what they wanted to do. The lead up to that point must have been interesting.
;)
I've often wondered what those 'battles' entailed, and who was on which side?
I almost think that the Realms DID in fact come close to being 'retired', and this 'Realms 4.0' is the best compromise they could get past the suits.
Ruin? What ruin? Cutting out 100y and killing this or that god out of 1000 is not a ruin.
If you think the new setting is the same as the old, then I can't even begin to explain this to you.
Yes... RUIN.
But that doesn't mean something halfway decent can't rise from the ashes. ;)
I think this is WotC's way of writing Ed out. :embarrass -I could be wrong.
18DELTA ;)
Which, of course, he CANNOT answer, even if he knows the answer.
What that boils down to is this - he is only allowed to answer pre-spellplague questions, so there is no point in asking him anything else.
-Just to think. Alot of the Ask Ed questions over at candlekeep will be pre-spellplague questions.
Ed's just as involved with the post-Spellplague Realms as he was with the Realms before the events of 1385 DR. Once the FRCG is released, I'm sure Ed will be just as eager to answer questions [when not prevented by the dreaded NDAs] about the Realms aspects of 1479 DR and before the Year of the Ageless One.
-I dont mind paying for lore as long as its good lore. :D
18DELTA :D
Ed's just as involved with the post-Spellplague Realms as he was with the Realms before the events of 1385 DR. Once the FRCG is released, I'm sure Ed will be just as eager to answer questions [when not prevented by the dreaded NDAs] about the Realms aspects of 1479 DR and before the Year of the Ageless One.
-Well then I stand corrected. Thanks Sage! :D
-NDA's!
18DELTA
I never see it coming to that though - they'll probably just tell him not to give out 4e info for free, and he will comply. Its not the settings he knows by heart, anyway.
This new world is someone else's baby.
I have a feeling the 4e NDAs will be much broader, and prevent Ed from detailing 4e FR 'too much' (since the new battle cry is "less is more").
Perhaps.
At most, I think Ed would be willing to discuss/elaborate on the parts of the post-Spellplague Realms that he's directly responsible for.
Ed's just as involved with the post-Spellplague Realms as he was with the Realms before the events of 1385 DR. Once the FRCG is released, I'm sure Ed will be just as eager to answer questions [when not prevented by the dreaded NDAs] about the Realms aspects of 1479 DR and before the Year of the Ageless One.
I have a feeling the 4e NDAs will be much broader, and prevent Ed from detailing 4e FR 'too much' (since the new battle cry is "less is more"). His old contract was with TSR, and I'm not even sure it would hold-up if they challenged him.
I never see it coming to that though - they'll probably just tell him not to give out 4e info for free, and he will comply. Its not the settings he knows by heart, anyway.
This new world is someone else's baby.
The Lady Hooded One had this to say:-
"Hmmm, Markustay and Sage, I'm not sure. I doubt his agreement has changed, but I can see NDAs under the new regime being thick, tall, shiny, and many-layered, so to speak. I wouldn't be surprised if Ed has a quiet chat in some corner at GenCon with certain Wizards senior staff, just to clarify matters.
Just from talking to him over the last month or so, I'd say one rule should still apply: on't heave 4e RULES questions in Ed's direction (as opposed to Realms lore queries). I can also say that Ed will probably be evasive when it comes to questions aimed at "filling in the century gap" between 3.5e and 4e Realms versions, because of current WotC policy.
Yet as always, Ed will answer this properly, when he can.
love,
THO"
That was one helluva fast reply, BTW - I watched an episode and a half of Southpark (the super-cool WoW episode!), and I come back and already have a reply. :D
Across TWO forums, no less. :P
Perhaps.
At most, I think Ed would be willing to discuss/elaborate on the parts of the post-Spellplague Realms that he's directly responsible for.
-What part of the Post-Spellplague Realms is Ed responsible for?
18DELTA
As much as I was looking forward to Ed's vision of Anchorome, I think whatever Ed does for Mazatica 2.0 will be just as cool, and probably closer to what he himself originally imagined for the region.
At least I know there's one section of the book I'll enjoy - unless the editors have boiled out all of the flavor.
Then I got an email from Amazon.co.uk. Which recommended to me.. 'Reclamation, by Elaine Cunningham'
Yep. The 4th Edition Realms can die, if for no reason other then denying us that novel.
Seriously? What I would have done in their shoes?
Probably created a brand-new POL setting for 4e, and left FR by the wayside.
FR fans would have been offended, but not nearly as much as many of them are now. I use to feel bad for Greyhawk - now I envy it. better to die with dignity.
I agree
QFT, with the caveat that there have been 'mean and hurtful' comments from all sides, including from my keyboard.
I have come to the very recent realisation that while it would be nice if people could exercise some patience in order to make informed comment, this is an internet forum, with all the hyberbole and behaviour that entails. :P
Some of the more prominent (insert Negative Nelly/anti-4e/anti FR moniker here as appropriate) have cooled their negativity and expressed a willingness to either give the setting a go or at the very least hate it less. That is a positive result for the majority of people who sit in the middle of the philosophical divide and would rather not see every thread quickly devolve into a pitched battle between camps. Not that they are any more than 50% to blame, of course...
Hopefully, we can get on with business in a much more friendly fashion!
Joe
I hate the $ed FR more than before, and each new excerpt makes me hate it more.
We shall see, but odds are I'll make a Vancian magic system for 4e, and retrofit the 3.5e (or the pathfinder chronicles) mages and clerics to fit in one way or another into the 4e system. Then I'll remove most of the unlimited use powers, add real multiclassing back in, and run games in Pre Spellplague FR. To clarify, the addition of Vancian magic won't be because I hate the new magic system, but because pre spellplague that was the system of magic in FR.
I'll also try to translate my houserules that I consider an upgrade from 4e. I think the game should go AWAY from character definition neatly defined by class (as opposed to close to, with the advent of the new character roles, like controller, etc.). So my houserules work around that philosophy, and characters are much more individualized. (small example - HD type (or hp/level) is based on your CON score, and your class just provides a little bonus depending on what class it is.
Basically I'll mostly accomodate 4e for when I run an FR campaign, just so the players can use 4e if they want to.
If I'm not playing in a defined setting where I consider canon important (homebrew) then I can use the 4e system wholesale without accounting for timeline, and retrofitting things from old editions.
Do other people have to retrofit? no.
Would I want to play a game in the past without retrofitting? No.
Do I want to play in modern FR? Depends on how compelling it is. Considering that I'm not sure I like the points of light mentality (I run city campaigns most of the time: IE Waterdeep, Menzoberranzan) I'm not so sure.
-------------------------------------
If I don't like the current events in 14XX DR,I'll play in the past. I'll likely still get the lorebooks, but I'll play in the past. and Houserule any mechanics that make me feel the need to do so to accomodate the timeline.
When I run a game set before tToT, I follow the ideas of Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves. Before the time of troubles, spells don't have a maximum damage value. they keep scaling with caster level. And I'll use an old list of deities, and use adjusted maps to reflect historical map changes (while preserving the fact that distances shrunk in 3e.
So when I play 4e FR, I'll retrofit all mechanics necessary to play FR in a time where the world suits the game I want to play.
Just like if I run a game during the crown wars, people will be running around with high magic all willy nilly.
and if it's post Descent, and Pre-1361, then drow equipment dies in sunlight. And Drow powers die in sunlight. Thats why there is a subrace "lesser drow". They're descended from drow who lost their abilities, or they lost them themselves.
---------------------------------------------
4e FR makes me feel motivated to hunt down all those old FR source books that I don't own via ebay and amazon.com.
With all that said, Do I like Post Spell Plague FR?
We'll see, but signs point to no.
Do I like that Ed Greenwood is writing novels set pre spellplague?
Yes, more information for me.
What would make me get a bit less annoyed at the FR designers?
1. Important realmslore being in the sourcebooks, not just the damned novels. I dont like having to search my novels for information that I know isn't in the sourcebooks, and I like even less when It's in a novel I haven't read (And I haven't read nearly enough FR novels to know where all the information is). And by important realmslore I mean the types of things I mention above, that change the world based on the date.
2. Backwards compatibility. That is, old supplements, updated to the new edition (just the mechanics would be fine, updating to the current date is unnecessary to me, but if they did that it would be even better.), while heeding #1. I dont even care if theyre actually printed. If they were done as online articles, I'd be motivated to actually sign up for the service.
~Darkholme out.
If you 'newcomers' (to both the game and to FR) can't understand that, think of it as a television series you like that you've been following diligently... and then it gets cancelled.
Thats it... no resolution, no closure... Nada. Thats the really tragic part of the Old Realms - it was more then a setting; it was a story, and now it has no ending. You can pretend it did all you want, but a couple of pages in the back of the GHotR is a horrible way to wrap-up twenty years of lore.
The only reason why I can enjoy the new realms is because I've finally seperated the two in my mind. Just like I can enjoy both versions of Battlestar Galactica for different reasons, knowing full-well the two have very litte in common besides the title.
So my 'story-setting' is gone, by my 'game-setting' lives on. Never forget the Realms as they were, in all their glory, but don't hold it against the new realms - thats like blaming the Monster for what Dr. Frankenstein did. ;)
Thank You. :embarrass
Your whole post was remarkable, but the quoted part especially. This sums up the whole argument for me. There are people who loved the story and were following it closely. I had minimal exposure to FR, but I can relate.
It's a lot like being a fan of _Firefly_ and finding that your show has been canceled, but that a new show is going to debut using the _Firefly_ universe, set a century after the events of _Serenity_. Fans like I would agree with Joss Wheden that the movie would have made a better storyline as a full season of the series, rather than crammed into one movie, and fans might be sad not to have Mal and Zoe and the rest of the crew of _Serenity_. But the setting is cool enough to support another show. I think the Realms will prove to be as well.
Of course, just because I think I'll like 3.5 more doesn't mean I will organize a book-burning of 4E. I may even play it. Yet, that doesn't mean 4E will be better.
Actually, I am hoping there will be a chapter on retrofitting the 4E mechanics to the pre-spellplague story. As far as I'm concerned, the entire spellplague thing was beyond absurd.
"Yeah, and Elminster or Drizz't will show up and stop them before they do, lets go find some orcs to beat up!"
Elminster is busy (perhaps on another world), and Drizzt is really just a local hero--not nearly as famous in the Realms as he is in the real world.
They won't show up, your PCs have to do it.
PS: Did you know both Elminster and Drizzt are in the new, 4E Realms?
=
A new 4e core world would have been a major success, probably moreso then this 'FrankenRealms' amalgam. I'm sure they considered that, but didn't want to give up on their even more lucrative product line (FR novels).
I can say I'd love to see a brand new, 4E setting from WotC.
A few hundred loud and vocal 3.x FR ranting fanboys are nothing compared to the thousands and tenthousands of gamers which will buy 4e FRCG next month. As one of these "silent majority" D&D players I see the new FR not as dumbed down or even destroyed. I see it as just one of those settings, WotC offers me to place the official WotC adventures in. Nothing more. And for this task the 2 4eFR books are more than enough to read.
It seems also that the majority of the nay sayers to the new FR also do not like 4e rules.
You could be a member of "the silent majority", but you also might not be (btw, if you were "silent", you wouldn't be posting). I doubt you have any accurate data about such a thing.
Certainly, but I don't think your analogue is appropriate. As you said, the show would be in the same universe - which means both general setting and the feel. I think 4E FR might have changed a bit too much of both... but we'll see.
Of course, just because I think I'll like 3.5 more doesn't mean I will organize a book-burning of 4E. I may even play it. Yet, that doesn't mean 4E will be better.
Actually, I am hoping there will be a chapter on retrofitting the 4E mechanics to the pre-spellplague story. As far as I'm concerned, the entire spellplague thing was beyond absurd.
retrofitting the 4e mechanics to pre-spellplague? you mean without the new magic system right? :P
The new magic system is ok, but totally doesn't work in the realms. Hence spellplague. What we need is to reimplement vancian magic in 4e just for that purpose. Am I crazy? maybe. will I make this houserule? yes.
No, this move is making FR playable again for many people and not only for some dedicated superfans which think the realms are a real world, everything which was written down is sacred and its theirs.
I'm sure you can discuss the issue without using strawmen like this.
The new magic system is ok, but totally doesn't work in the realms. Hence spellplague. What we need is to reimplement vancian magic in 4e just for that purpose. Am I crazy? maybe. will I make this houserule? yes.
I've discussed this before, and many people have touched on it in their own "revisions" to continue playing 3e Realms.
The Spellplague isn't actually a 'thing', or even a real 'plague' - its a period of time... and it DID NOT last a century.
I'm not sure if WotC even plans on getting into how long the 'aftershocks' lasted when Mystra died, but either way, all of that 'badness' that occurred could have taken as long as you want. I'm assuming a year (most things happening on Day 1, but then aftershocks for several weaks, leading to tiny ripples for a few months, and then thats it).
However, you could just as easily say ALL of it occurred in ONE day - Mystra dies; magic goes haywire and Halruaa blows up, waves of Cerulean energy wash over Faerûn, transplanting parts of Toril with Abeir, and many magical effects 'go down', leading to all sorts of imprisoned creatures and areas held in statsis to be released. Basically, a world gone MAD.
Day 2 - No magic (at least no Arcane Magic as we know it). However, certain things (necromancy?) still partially work, and Mages begin to study the various energies behind the surviving magics, and start to build a brand-new set of magical lore.
If you start your campaign one year after the Day Mystra Died, you can use ALL of the 4e rules, ALL of the 4e changes, and still be grounded in the 3e time-period and use all the 3e NPCs and perhaps even many of the locales as you see fit.
In fact, since magic is still so new, your party's Mage will probably be one of the 'front-runners' of the new magcal developments, and be way ahead of the curve.
Come to think of it, THAT works out MUCH better for a campaign restart then a century later, because a century later can still give you a massive number of powerful NPCs, which I thought WotC was trying to avoid. In a hundred Years, everyone on the planet could be level 30!
So why didn't WotC just do that, when it would've accomplished their goal of building a 'level playing field' much more efficiently?
Oh yeah... the novels...
Then I got an email from Amazon.co.uk. Which recommended to me.. 'Reclamation, by Elaine Cunningham'
Yep. The 4th Edition Realms can die, if for no reason other then denying us that novel.
Are you aware that said novel would have been published if Elaine Cunningham had a manuscript for it?
I've discussed this before, and many people have touched on it in their own "revisions" to continue playing 3e Realms.
The Spellplague isn't actually a 'thing', or even a real 'plague' - its a period of time... and it DID NOT last a century.
I'm not sure if WotC even plans on getting into how long the 'aftershocks' lasted when Mystra died, but either way, all of that 'badness' that occurred could have taken as long as you want. I'm assuming a year (most things happening on Day 1, but then aftershocks for several weeks, leading to tiny ripples for a few months, and then thats it).
However, you could just as easily say ALL of it occurred in ONE day - Mystra dies; magic goes haywire and Halruaa blows up, waves of Cerulean energy wash over Faerûn, transplanting parts of Toril with Abeir, and many magical effects 'go down', leading to all sorts of imprisoned creatures and areas held in statsis to be released. Basically, a world gone MAD.
Day 2 - No magic (at least no Arcane Magic as we know it). However, certain things (necromancy?) still partially work, and Mages begin to study the various energies behind the surviving magics, and start to build a brand-new set of magical lore.
If you start your campaign one year after the Day Mystra Died, you can use ALL of the 4e rules, ALL of the 4e changes, and still be grounded in the 3e time-period and use all the 3e NPCs and perhaps even many of the locales as you see fit.
In fact, since magic is still so new, your party's Mage will probably be one of the 'front-runners' of the new magcal developments, and be way ahead of the curve.
Come to think of it, THAT works out MUCH better for a campaign restart then a century later, because a century later can still give you a massive number of powerful NPCs, which I thought WotC was trying to avoid. In a hundred Years, everyone on the planet could be level 30!
So why didn't WotC just do that, when it would've accomplished their goal of building a 'level playing field' much more efficiently?
Oh yeah... the novels...
I know your idea would work to use the 3e realms. Another reason for the 100 year jump would be the major reshuffling of the landscape, the destruction and addition of a number of races etc.
I'll play in whatever time seems most interesting though. While your idea could be neat, and would make for an interesting mage-centric plot, I'm not a big fan of 4e magic to begin with.If they had kept spell levels, and worked those into an encounter/daily system that would be cool, but I don't like playing blaster mages very much: not the way theyre designed in 4e. I like having an army of demons, or undead, or summoning celestials. I like polymorph (though the core mechanics for polymorph are absurd, particularly regarding the potential effects of a permanency spell
Permanency is fine, but the mechanics need reworking. The way I use polymorph, they need to make up their forms in advance, or its too time consuming. They BECOME the creature, getting all of it's racial properties, abilities, statistical mods, etc, they lose a number of caster levels equal to the LA+, etc. As if they STARTED as that monster). I like compulsion effects, and all sorts of non- "make stuff go boom" magic.Presently the campaign I'm running is starting in 3e, and will go back to pre-1e. Mechanics will actually change to match the timeperiod hen they go back. Spells won't cap, the drow character will lose his special abilities if he stays in daylight too long (but all of the players will have the option to adopt races that will fit in with the populous if they so choose - and the drow will gain the xp to make up for most of his LA if he does change into a moon/sun elf), tech that doesnt exist will disappear, deities will be reshuffled, etc.
If I run a campaign with timetravel, mechanics will change mid game. If I run a regular game, then in 1385 all hell will break loose when mystra dies.
I don't think I'll run a 4e game in post mystra with mystra era magic, I dont make that kind of adjustments, but most of my games will not be set that far in the future if I don't like it. (Presently I don't like the changes to core race options and the new magic system, we'll see if I like new FR enough to play there)
As I said, I'm wanting to get more and more of the really old books. I have most of them as PDFs, but I want paper copies.
I will stick with the 3e Realms as a FAN, and buy any novels that take place pre-Spellplague (and perhaps slighlty into it, like that Thay novel).
I will play in the 4e Realms - thats my gaming world, and I consider as much a seperate thing as if I was playing in some 3rd party setting or homebrew.
In my mind, the two have nothing to do with each other, and while I still love the one (and follow whatever little bit still trickles out for it), I will play in the other, and just use it as a 'cardboard backdrop' for my game sessions.
However, since seeing the Elfharrow map released today, I'm having SERIOUS reservations once again. If thats what the maps in the FRCG are going to look like, I might have to seek a setting elsewhere.
If I'm going to use a setting as a 'cardboard backdrop', I want it to at least be a pretty backdrop. I'm starting to think Realms: 1479 is one UGLY place to play in.
And by make up a setting, I dont just make a 'point of light' I make a rough overview of the atmosphere, then design the continents, then put the majority cities on the continents, as well as enough detail to know what race controls them. Then I detail any individual city the PCs happen to go to. I'll likely end up making up new classes and races to fit the new setting, in the process, or I may import them from a variety of places. But they are never just 'the races in the phb' or 'the classes in the phb'... Think 100 page document.
Starting a new campaign without using an already well fleshed out setting is a process that takes me about a month before anyone can play.
So Forgotten Realms is (or at least was) obviously my favorite fleshed out setting. I have an unnatural hatred for Eberron (which stems for my loathing of robot players (warforged are close enough), I have a hard time running ravenloft (can't get the creepy atmosphere right) and Warcraft just got boring after one session. Greyhawk is too empty, and I never really got to try dragonlance.
If I want a campaign setting I want more than a cardboard backdrop. If all it is is a cardboard backdrop (IE: very little applicable detail - see points of light concept) then I'll say F it and make up a campaign setting.
Well, the "PoL/Core setting" is meant to be only a bare backbone of ideas people can use to build their own world from the bottom up.
I don't want to 'wing it' whenever there is something going on. That drives me nuts, and the players are always asking me for maps, and political details that I dont like making up on the spot and having to stick to even if they turn out to be a bad idea (because I haven't had time to think it through) etc.
"bare backbone of ideas people can use to build their own world from the bottom up" means a huge amount of work for me, becaquse I want things well defined. So while I WILL do that, if I use a campaign setting, I'm going to want the setting to significantly cut down on my DM prep time before the campaign starts. Like from a month + of prep time to a week+ or so.
I dunno. PoL is like the generic modules in 3e. they're fine, but they don't make for a decent campaign by themselves. it works if you need to buy time to make a real campaign and want something the PCs can do while you prepare. Now if they actually fit into a campaign in a plot you've figured out, that's a different story. Right now I'm running my PCs through Sunless Citadel in FR. It's very different though. The encounters are all different, the plot of the module is unrelated, and has to do wih the cult of the dragon, etc. All I used from sunless citadel is hte maps/layout for traps. They're higher level than they should be for sunless citadel too, so customization was necessary. the bugbear guard? dragonkin. The troll? red dragon. the white dragon? a room full of cultists. (etc).
I'f I'm looking at a Campaign Setting, I'm looking for more than I would get from a misc module. I want a detailed world with character, and I want it to be well defined. Hence why FR/PoL doesn't mesh with me.
Last I heard this was America!
Psst ... this is the INTERNET and not just the USA. ;)
On the topic of chnging the mindset of fans I really have to disagree with the OP. Being able to express dislike with the way things are handled is good and any "you should agree with WotC because its their game" opinions are just nonsense. The new edition DRASTICALLY changed the game by ripping out loved traditions and things which were there since the game began. This trend of changing drastically continues with the Forgotten Realms campaign.
IMO it is was bad idea to still call 4th edition D&D and not change the name to something else. If they had done that (and continued some support for previous editions) and designed a new world for this new game there wouldnt have been as many "4e haters" around. Personally I think 4e is like a movie sequel which just "lives" from its "easy to consume" way. D&D and Forgotten Realms are just kept because they are brand names, but the content is totally different now from what it was. Not all changes are good.
I like it when they discover stuff, not in a sourcebook or novel, but when I present it too them.
You wouldn't DM for pretty little me?=(
I don't mind too much; though it is preferable that the DM DOES know more than the players.
[...] I don't mind too much; though it is preferable that the DM DOES know more than the players.
Or in case anything is off the players just bite their tongues and don't insist on correcting the DM on some detail. ;)
Or in case anything is off the players just bite their tongues and don't insist on correcting the DM on some detail. ;)
Very true. Hanging with classy players is always nice.
"bare backbone of ideas people can use to build their own world from the bottom up" means a huge amount of work for me, becaquse I want things well defined.
Understood. Everyone wants different things, though. I think WotC wants to put out something for everyone (whether or not they succeed, we'll see).
Understood. Everyone wants different things, though. I think WotC wants to put out something for everyone (whether or not they succeed, we'll see).
If that's what they intend to do then they have already failed because they haven't made something for people like me.
You wouldn't DM for pretty little me?
Of course I would - I said I thought twice about my niece's boyfriend playing because EVERYTHING he knew about FR came from Drizzt novels, but I certainly wouldn't say no - he would just have to understand that he should forget everything he thinks he knows, because my version is very different.
I don't mind too much; though it is preferable that the DM DOES know more than the players.
Or in case anything is off the players just bite their tongues and don't insist on correcting the DM on some detail. ;)
Very true. Hanging with classy players is always nice.
I put all three together because they are best viewed in order, and all 100% true.
How I've run games throughout my life depended entirely on the group I was running them for. The maturity level of the group (which I've learned has next to nothing to do with age) determines how I approach everything, and I've met plenty of people in my life - like some of the people here - that I could care less how much they know because they would be able to 'curb their enthusiasm' enough for me to 'do my thang'. :D
Knowledge of FR is a wonderful thing, and should never be discouraged, but players need to know that things in my game are the way I say, and I've met quite a few who didn't 'get that' (at the LGS and what-not, not at MY table).
Rules (and certainly novels) should NEVER get in the way of the game, only enhance it.
If that's what they intend to do then they have already failed because they haven't made something for people like me.
Okay maybe not everyone.:P
I don't mean that in a mean way.
Me and a friend were talking about the old days of D&D (boxes) and I realized that some of the idea for the tiers was taken from those boxed editions (basic, expert, companion, master and immortal). Always easy to overlook that version of the game and to remember it had players right up til 3e came along. Seems reasonable that the designers had those rules in mind while working on 4e. Just putting it out there.
I actually think the whole Tier system is quite nice, and would have been even if it didn't already have a history in D&D.
The lowest common demoninator is always the waste product, and that's what we wound up with.
Even if A) Mystra was alive
B) They didn't ruin a whole bunch of lands and areas that fans liked
C) Eilistraee was still alive
D) The King of Cormyr wasn't a drooling sycophant eager to placate the Shade empire at every turn
E) The Shades weren't still alive (I have no idea what sane group of PC's would allow things to progress to the point that they did in the novels, in my game it's 1374-5 and already the PC's are working hard to remove these Shade princes from existence the old fashioned way, with sword and spell)
F) The local color wasn't destroyed by a DC comics style upheaval of "Let's have another crisis, clearly this has to be better than the last two crises."
G) The racially diverse deities and pantheons that made the world appeal so much to long time players have been turned into a batch of cheap tofu gods with no personality and/or relationships. Thanks, guys.
H) Politics between nations? What's that? The Amnians lost everything in Maztica, so now they want to take the Moonshaes? WHAT? Like the Ffolk would stand for this. There would be so much Amnian blood spilled in the first five years that they would have to leave.
I) The Sothelissan Empire became a formal nation? So now we have an Orc Kingdom and an Ogre Mage nation. Show some decency, people. Put monsters back where they belong. In the wilderness. And you guys demolished the Wealdath for it. You're telling me that Evermeet and Evereska wouldn't react militarily to an attack on the OLDEST ELVEN FOREST IN TORIL? I'm sorry, the design team was smoking crack. This makes no sense.
J) Destroying Halruaa and making Chult an island? To what end?
K) Baldur's Gate, city of impossibility. Eltan is not a compassionate lawful good sovereign. He would have turned these refugees away at the door unless they had useful military skills. This is ridiculous and poorly thought out.
Then, you have destroyed the THEME of the Forgotten Realms. That's the problem. This bears NO resemblence to what went before, it's like a bunch of new garbage was tacked on and now we have to live with it.
I wish I had a return policy for 20 years of gaming so that I didn't lose the things I loved to naked self interest, callous cash payment, and so-called creativity on the part of people who should know better and understand the genre.
I loved this world and the characters that were in it. Now all I have is old friends, some dice, and a company that pretty much told me it doesn't want my business anymore.
However, from many of the people I talk to, that's not what the effect is. What I get from other people, is that 4e alienates alot of the established customer base, in an attempt to draw in others. Something which it isn't doing so much. Most of the videogame people who would likely enjoy the changes made to 4e, likely won't even KNOW that D&D has changed. They will continue to play Videogames. Odds are they would have to be drawn into 4e FROM a 4e videogame. Whether i will succeed, we shall see.
Personally, 4e makes me feel fairly alienated. I got pumped over the mentality from 3e that an overwhelming number of choices is the best ay to go (overwhelming in that you'll never get the chance to try everything personally, there are so many options) The change from exponential choices to linear is a big downer for me. Monsters non-combat abilities are dropped, so non-combat oriented (or partial combat oriented) monster encounters are much less possible, because the things the monster could do besides direct combat are no longer there. Most of the monsters no longer have any sort of playable stats (an absolutely massive step back as far as I'm concerned) 2 human fighters with different builds, are too similar; And while I like the Idea of daily, encounter, or unlimited powers (but would prefer if encounter was actually just a set time limit : 5 min, even IN combat, as opposed to 5 out of, and any amount (less or more) in), I'm not a fan of how mages have access to so few spells, or that most of those are evocation. or how ALL clerics are primarily healers, regardless of the god they worship.
I realize there were reasons behind these changes, but the end result is, that although I will pick up the FRPG, I don't think I'll be buying the 4e players, dmg, or mm for quite a while.
If/When I DO go to 4e, I will literally end up rewriting about half the base classes, replacing half the races, 'fixing' each monster entry, and redoing a handful of mechanics before I run a single session.
I have played it, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air. 4e is an ok game for an evening; IF you don't want to get in depth, or run an actual campaign.
As something I could invest 1 evening in, in 6 months, It's great (though not worth buying the books).
For something I would do every weekend, presently I'm sticking to 3.5, and I may move on to Pathfinder instead of 4e. I may run all my FR games in the Pathfinder system. We shall see.
[...] If/When I DO go to 4e, I will literally end up rewriting about half the base classes, replacing half the races, 'fixing' each monster entry, and redoing a handful of mechanics before I run a single session. [...]
Just out of curiousity... then why bother at all?
[...] 4e is an ok game for an evening; IF you don't want to get in depth, or run an actual campaign. [...]
Says you... :P Always remember: "Roleplaying is what you make of it."
My deal with FR and gameing is this. I love my wife and kids, I like FR and gameing. I have been a fan of the Realms since 1987. At first I was a novel guy but always wanted to game. My first FR game was in 2001 or 2002. I run one game and play in one game and we alternate every other week. I do put alot of thought into my campaign and spend alot of time with the books and my campaign and encounter books putting it all together but I still only like the whole RPG thing. It is my hobby and something that I can do with just my brain if the books changed in such a way that I hated the campaigns whole premise.
I like the changes. Many are things that I was thinking about soing for while. I like Chuthulu like beings and plots and am happy for what they did there. I like the idea of a new Nethril Empire because I was going to do something like that at one point. I like toning down the NPCs but since I could do it in my own campaing I didn't really need it in the game. I understand that they did it because of the perception that many gamers have of the uber-NPCS.
(I like Khelben so he will be alive in my Realms.)
If all of this happened around five years ago or earlier I would have been just as upset as many of the folks on the net (which does not really represent any realistic number of the consumer market IMO) and I would have raged and raged. I was also a different person five years ago and have changed greatly since then.
Anyway these are my thoughts and feelings about the new FR, 4E and gaming and life in general.:D
It may be easier to slowly amalgamate the Good things from 4e into my 3.5/pathfinder game than to try to fix the things that 4e is deficient in. I don't do houserules by memory, they're all printed out from professional looking MS word documents, so it may not be a bad Idea to just grab 4e elements and add them to 3.5. Either one will eventually result in me redesigning most of the classes though. That's unfortunately unavoidable. 3e the classes need to be designed to have the same kind of power progression, and 4e they need diversity(including non-nerfed magic) and the removal of party roles.
Oh roleplaying is what you make of it, true enough, but 4e has all sorts of limits that are the reason we started playing 3e instead of sticking to 2e. Theoretically you could have good roleplaying with no mechanics at all. but I always find the mechanics control (at least to some degree) the amount and style of the roleplaying involved. When I use grids, instead of just maps with no squares (for the playes to see, mine still have squares), the players don't think 'outside the box'. Elaborate combat maneuvers like "I run, drop to the floor, and slide between the ogre's legs, and shoot him in the groin with my Xbow as I'm just starting to pass him" become. "I move
Me and a friend were talking about the old days of D&D (boxes) and I realized that some of the idea for the tiers was taken from those boxed editions (basic, expert, companion, master and immortal). Always easy to overlook that version of the game and to remember it had players right up til 3e came along. Seems reasonable that the designers had those rules in mind while working on 4e. Just putting it out there.
I've been saying something like this for months.
The one thing I think the designers did right was try to bring the game back to its roots. In OD&D, Gygax an Arneson gave us a set of rules for encounters, and nothing else - we, the DM's of the world, had to bring it to life.
You don't need rules to roleplay - you need rules for combat (and perhaps a few other skill-realted things). Thats what OD&D was, and 1e mostly was. They brought in some world-stuff later, but the dungeons came FIRST - thats where POL really comes from - from those original games run by guys like me, where the party basically started in a nameless town down the street from the dungeon, or in many cases, right outside the dungeon door.
I think the new rules can recapture that; I hate what they did to FR - I feel like it was a sacrificial lamb, but I understand why they did what they did and what they hope to bring back to the game.
Not endless arguments over what color underwear Elminster wears on Tuesdays, but good, old-fashioned , monster-slaying.
Thats what I'm talking about. :D
As for the rest - you don't need rules for that. You and your friends can roleplay for hours - even days - without ever cracking open a book.
So even though I hate what FR has become, and dislike the 'plain vanilla' feel of the 4e rules, I'm stiil going to use them, because its about having FUN, dammit, and I'm going to have that no matter what I play with.
You see, I'm a gamer first, and a fan second. ;)
I) The Sothelissan Empire became a formal nation? So now we have an Orc Kingdom and an Ogre Mage nation. Show some decency, people. Put monsters back where they belong. In the wilderness.
Or in the zoo!
for now I'm NOT bothering at all.
Yes, I got that. ;)
However, due to how my group turnsover about 2 people every couple years, people will want to play some form of 4e.
Do they want to play 4E, or do they want to play some thing that remotely resembles 4E but has dozens of 3E things tacked and stuffed onto all over the place? ;) If you came over for a game of Starcraft, would you stay if the only thing I offered was some sort of beta version total conversion mod for C+C Generals with wackily balanced units? :P
The elaborate rewriting of the rules, if/when it happens, will be a sortof compromise. [...] and get totally different answers every time.
Um... yes? I'm sorry but I don't get your point. You like the class balance and yet need "rewriting about half the base classes"?
[...] 3e the classes need to be designed to have the same kind of power progression,
Which is one thing PRPG did not fix. In another thread I stated my honest opinion about then Alpha 3, and it didn't impress me at all. All the old problems were still there, just with a fresh paint job. And that only to ride the "we're still compatible and don't force you to throw away your books" wave.
and 4e they need diversity
You mean mechanics-wise? I bet that we're going to see that in the Power supplements. I'm definitively picking up Martial Power when it comes out, and I guess we'll see new powers, new build options, alternate class features, new paragon paths, new epic destinies, and so on. I wouldn't be too quick to judge 4E on lacking diversity. After all, in 3E fighters basically boiled down to either some spiked-chain tripper or a two-handed weapon wielding charge/power attack build.
(including non-nerfed magic)
Which would greak the system already again. Casters already do have a huge amount of flexibility - rituals. While not being available as insta-spam powers, rituals are still magical and grant some important abilities.
and the removal of party roles.
Uhh... why?
Oh roleplaying is what you make of it, true enough,
Yes, better listen to me, yeah! :P
but 4e has all sorts of limits that are the reason we started playing 3e instead of sticking to 2e.
Like? Can you give some examples?
Theoretically you could have good roleplaying with no mechanics at all.
Yes, I've seen players doing some WH 40k table top battles "roleplay" as the respective force's commanders, issueing their orders "ingame". That was awesome!
"Marines, concentrate fire on the carnifex! We must bring it down before it reaches the support vehicles! You mustn't allow this abomination to desecrate the Emperor's property!"
:D
but I always find the mechanics control (at least to some degree) the amount and style of the roleplaying involved. When I use grids, instead of just maps with no squares (for the playes to see, mine still have squares), the players don't think 'outside the box'.
You mean, like in my early Shadowrun days, where neither DM nor the players had any real idea whether that orc was still in point blank range or already in the next range category? Whether the hovertank could move that close to the monorail train on his turn? Whether the grenade blast still reached far enough to damage the truck?
Yes, that was awesome because you had to wildguess and ad-hoc everything!
Elaborate combat maneuvers like "I run, drop to the floor, and slide between the ogre's legs, and shoot him in the groin with my Xbow as I'm just starting to pass him" become. "I move5 feet1 square to the left and fire at the ogre."
Watched too much Transformers, huh? ;)
But, what's stopping your players? Lack of imagination?
And by the way, you can do stuff like that in 4E:
1 - Acrobatics skill (PH pg 180)
2 - "Page 42" (DMG pg 42)
;)
From what I have seen when playing 4e, most people do something similar with the new rules, and with the more restricted classes.
If you mistake "focused" for restricted... However, in that case 3E was even more restrictive (paladin, monk, ranger, marshall, HEALER, etc).
All Wizards are basically the same. Yes their personalities may differ, but in a combat situation theyre almost identical. extend that to the other classes.
Which will (at last) change when we get Arcane Power.
Anyway, in 3E wizards were also mostly identical in actual play. Some spells were just too good to not use.
If you just said 'screw healing' and went balls-to-the-wall Spellcaster in full plate, you became an unstoppable juggernaught.
Anyhow, by giving everyone some healing, you can 'tone down' the Clerics power level, and still allow him to be fun to play. Like I said, I understand WHy many of these decisions are amde 9even if I don't like them).
As for the Druid in PF - its the only classed that got nerfed, rather then power-boosted. I still don't like the 3e version either way - he's supposed to be a be a nature priest, not some sort of feral shape-shifter.
Another thing we have to thank WoW for.
:heehee 18DELTA :P
-
18DELTA :P
Lmao!!!
Clerics and Druids were not just healers though in 3E. They were broken, killing machine classes that got more powerful with each new sourcebook that had new spells in it.Some/many people were choosing them at the end of 3E because with the right build they could dominate the game.
That argument never stuck with me, for the simple reason that a) every cleric followed a certain dogma and b ) I never ever used a "min/max" build to take the most effective stuff out of a a cleric. Rather on the contrary, their spellcasting aside, clerics - rule-wise - are as boring a class as the fighters are. No skill points, no class skills, no extras ... and no, the odd domain feature (which heavily depends on the deity - which I again do not chose for coolness and best powers) does not really help.
In any case, as with other spellcasters, any half-decent opponent who is every bit as clever and prepared as the PCs will spend a dispel magic or two on them and they loose much of their power in no-time.
To "curb" their power, DMs could use the Archivist class (Heroes of Horror, see WotC excerpts site, as it is up there) and give these "clerics" spells much like they do with the wizards, controlling their "apparent" power-level.
When dealing with these powerful classes, it all comes down to the player to be responsible.
[...] As for the Druid in PF - its the only classed that got nerfed, rather then power-boosted. [...]
Really? I must have then dreamt my Alpha 3 PDF in which druids could gain a rhinoceros as animal companion at level 7, or that they could gain the fighter's level 19 class feature (DR 5/-) at level 12 by simply wild shapeing into a huge elemental. :P
In any case, as with other spellcasters, any half-decent opponent who is every bit as clever and prepared as the PCs will spend a dispel magic or two on them and they loose much of their power in no-time.
Assuming we're talking about a cleric built to be intentionally tough, no:
1) The cleric will have cast his buff spells with stuff to boost his caster level, such as the +1 caster level ioun stone and bead of karma. If Complete Divine is in play, probably the most key spells will be cast with divine spell power. If more books are in play, it gets worse from there.
2) Ring of Counterspells with dispel magic or greater dispel magic in it.
That's just off the top of my head and while trying to stay pretty close to core. The best-played (from a gameplay, not roleplay) clerics I've seen had many, many more tricks than this and absolutely did not fear dispel magic at all -- if anything they hoped their opponents would waste rounds that way.
You can't level the playing field by giving the opponents all of that stuff all the time either, or you're going to give the PCs way too much treasure fast.
As I said, I see more than just spellcasting in a class and bar that, the cleric is nigh hopeless. All in the eye of the beholder though, of course.
I can see how certain classes can be broken, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why they have to be broken, just because of a few (or however common it is, no idea beyond personal experience, which is nothing but anecdotal (and hence of dubious authority at best) on my part) abusive jerks the DM should be putting the breaks onto in the first place... Guess I'd probably be considered a prick of a DM by those sorts when I tell them to perhaps ;) consider playing nicely with others or getting the hell out of my game.
-Indeed. There's the anecdote "Just because something is problematic in theory doesn't mean that it is problematic in actuality". Just because a theoretical build is too powerful doesn't mean that every character of that level of that class is too powerful.
-But, at the same time, the converse is also true. And, that builds can be created certainly shows that loopholes in the rules exist that should be filled, not for gaming purposes, per se, but for rule integrity purposes. If that makes sense.
What are you talking about, WoW came out in 2004, the druid was a shapeshifter to some degree in AD&D and for sure in 2000 when 3E launched.
You're right, it was Diablo (out in 1997) - that was the Blizzard game WotC stole its ideas from - my bad. ;)
Really? I must have then dreamt my Alpha 3 PDF in which druids could gain a rhinoceros as animal companion at level 7, or that they could gain the fighter's level 19 class feature (DR 5/-) at level 12 by simply wild shapeing into a huge elemental. :P
That was the Alpha - it's still being tweaked. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of the newest iteration against the 3.5 druid, but others have, and they are all saying it was nerfed (somewhat - but still not enough). I'm just quoting the consensus at Paizo.
You must keep in mind that all the other classes got a power-boost, so even keeping the Druid the same as 3.5 would be nerfing him, in a way. 3.5 classes would get slaughtered by their PF counterparts.
So WotC isn't the only company catering to the Munchkins. :D
You're right, it was Diablo (out in 1997) - that was the Blizzard game WotC stole its ideas from - my bad. ;)
-I'm pretty sure that Diablo was out much before 1997, and that it didn't have Druids, either.
WotC was working jointly with Blizzard at the time, and even produced the D&D version of Diablo (in 2000), so now I'm thinking this was a collaborative effort.
Well, whoever thought of it first, it sucks.
Thats not a Druid, thats some sort of primal, savage shape-shifter. I think those powers may have been approproate for certain Shaman types (ones that use Totem spirits), but for a Druid? No-where in folklore does it say Druids were Lycanthropes!
The only time I ever played a Druid was back in 1e, when it was DONE RIGHT.
Of course... I couldn't do much... outside of a forest... and I was near-useless in a Dungeon... but at least my fluff was right... :embarrass
I think it was in one of the sequels to Diablo II where a druid showed up (I think).
EDIT: I see Markus posted this just before I did.
You're right, it was Diablo (out in 1997) - that was the Blizzard game WotC stole its ideas from - my bad. ;)
Wrong. You mean the Diablo 2 Addon "Lord of Destruction" which was released 2001 that had the druid class. See also [url=
here[/url]. And coincidentally, the LoD druid can cast elemental spells, summon animals, and change shape into wolf or bear form. :P
That was the Alpha - it's still being tweaked. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison of the newest iteration against the 3.5 druid, but others have, and they are all saying it was nerfed (somewhat - but still not enough). I'm just quoting the consensus at Paizo.
As it stands currently, the class imbalance inherited from 3E is still alive and kicking. The classes needed a massive overhaul, much more than anything that was shown in Alpha. Beta will show if they finally got around to butcher some holy cows. Until then, my position is set. ;)
You must keep in mind that all the other classes got a power-boost, so even keeping the Druid the same as 3.5 would be nerfing him, in a way. 3.5 classes would get slaughtered by their PF counterparts.
Considering what the other classes got, it's almost irrelevant because the bonuses to the other classes are not equally powerful. The class features the fighter gets are significantly weaker than the domain and school abilities a cleric respectively a wizard gets, or the bloodline features the sorcerer gets.
Again, Beta will show how much Paizo is really dedicated to "bring balance to 3E DnD". :P
So WotC isn't the only company catering to the Munchkins. :D
Agreed. Considering some certain 3PP stuff from the early beginnings of the d20 OGL time, WotC was pretty tame. ;)
[...] (they could use the abilities of other classes, just not that well). [...]
That is not quite correct.
Each class had a unique skill, and some combat related benefits:
- The warrior could repair armor or weapon, but they would loose points off their maximum durability. He also was better with melee weaponry compared to the other classes.
- The sorcerer could recharge staffs, but they would loose points off their maximum charges. He also was better with spellcasting compared to the other classes.
- The rogue could disable traps. She was also better with ranged weaponry compared to the other classes.
Each class could also learn spells. Spells inflicted more damage or provided better protection the higher their level was. Each time you learned a spell, the minimum Magic attribute you had to have before being able to learn the next level of the same spell increased. This meant that the sorcerer (who got the highest Magic attribute) was the only one who could learn the most powerful spells multiple times. The rogue was in between, and the warrior could often only learn the first level of the more powerful spells.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_(video_game)
No, it came out in 97 (I checked)...
-Really...I always thought it was released much earlier than that. Like early-to-mid '90s early.
Ra-Tiel: I was talking about the really basic stuff, like swinging a sword, casting a spell or shooting an arrow. I haven't played Diablo in years and don't remember all the nitty-gritty details.
Even then it's not true. Any character could use any weapon, staff, or bow for as long as (s)he met the minimum required Strength, Magic, or Dexterity score. Any character could learn any spell, for as long as (s)he met the minimum required Magic score.
The distribution of points by the player, the starting and maximum values of attributes based on class, and the prerequisites based on item class were the things that decided which character was able to do what schtick the best. ;)
[...] Unlike other games that strictly differentiate between classes, a character's abilities are not unique; a warrior can use the same spells as a sorcerer, while a sorcerer can use weapons such as axes. All three classes require the same amount of experience to level up, and there are no class-based requirements for equipping items or using spells. However, different classes have different starting attributes.
In terms of game mechanics, the different characters also each have different maximum possible levels for their attributes, and gain different amounts of life and mana per level. As a result, some classes may have difficulty attaining the attribute levels required to equip or use high level items/spells. Also, the characters have hidden differences in their in-game performance, including chance to hit and block, different rates of fire and slower or swifter cast rate. [...]
;)
And of course, once I learned the duping glitch, I was able to get all the attribute-boosting tomes I wanted from the witch, making me nigh-onto a god. :evillaugh
I had forgotten about that - in the Diablo I, all you needed to do was give the right attribute a boost and you could be anything you wanted - the classes were near-meaningless!
Not really. The warrior got more HP per point invested into Vitality than the other classes while the sorcerer got more MP per point invested into Magic than the rest. The warrior got a higher attack speed with melee weapons, the rogue got a higher attack speed with ranged weapons, and the sorcerer got a higher cast speed. The warrior could never use the best ranged weapons or staves, the rogue could never use the best melee weapons or staves, and the sorcerer could never use the best melee or ranged weapons.
And finally... the sorcerer had just enough health to die to an exploding barrel on the first floor.
Yes, I got that. ;)
Do they want to play 4E, or do they want to play some thing that remotely resembles 4E but has dozens of 3E things tacked and stuffed onto all over the place? ;) If you came over for a game of Starcraft, would you stay if the only thing I offered was some sort of beta version total conversion mod for C+C Generals with wackily balanced units? :P
Touché. But this way they don't have to learn a whole NEW system, it's the system they would know, 'with the following changes'. Usually when I houserule things in, the players may be iffy on it at first, but then they end up liking it more than the base after they see it (my houserules are pretty well thought out). Obviously the houserules see some mechanic tweaking after playtesting, but it always works out well, and I make sure all the changes to houserules happens between sessions, then I tell them before we start. Like right now, we use white wolf style initiative for how turns progress in combat. It doesn't significantly slow down the game, but the players had to get used to declaring their combat actions in reverse initiative order, so the 'faster' people get to react to what the slower people are going to do. Some of them are big and sweeping, but It helps that I'm starting with a system they already know; it helps alot. and if you were running starcraft I wouldnt show, cause I hate starcraft. if you ran wc3, I'd be all for playing custom maps, and only *occasionally* mixing it up with a regular melee.
Um... yes? I'm sorry but I don't get your point. You like the class balance and yet need "rewriting about half the base classes"?
It's what you were referring to below.
Which is one thing PRPG did not fix. In another thread I stated my honest opinion about then Alpha 3, and it didn't impress me at all. All the old problems were still there, just with a fresh paint job. And that only to ride the "we're still compatible and don't force you to throw away your books" wave.
I agree. it didn't pull off the class redesign as well as I would have liked, but some of the general mechanics changes I like alot.
You mean mechanics-wise? I bet that we're going to see that in the Power supplements. I'm definitively picking up Martial Power when it comes out, and I guess we'll see new powers, new build options, alternate class features, new paragon paths, new epic destinies, and so on. I wouldn't be too quick to judge 4E on lacking diversity. After all, in 3E fighters basically boiled down to either some spiked-chain tripper or a two-handed weapon wielding charge/power attack build.
I'm sure we will, but from just the core books, I would say each class has like 1/4 the options they NEED. I would argue that any class should have dozens of viable builds, or that you should be able to make almost any general concept and have mechanics to do it, and presently you don't, that's what I meant by limited.
Which would greak the system already again. Casters already do have a huge amount of flexibility - rituals. While not being available as insta-spam powers, rituals are still magical and grant some important abilities.
rituals are fine. some of the things wizards should be able to do could be implemented as rituals. there used to be spells with like a 1 minute cast time. that's 10 rounds. seems like a ritual to me. mages have mostly blasty spells now, and you don't get nearly enough of them. like, you get one 'daily spell' per day. I get they're following a scheme here, but it just seems like you dont have enough access to the spells you DO know, and you don't have nearly enough spells that you CAN learn.
Uhh... why?
Cause you arent always going to want to fill that role. for instance.
Maybe I want to make a rogue like character. but I don't want to be sneaky, I want to be acrobatic and arrogant.
or maybe I'm a cleric, but I worship some god or slaughter, or a god of fire, or something other than 'a good good', and really, healing everything all the time doesn't make much sense.
or maybe I want to make a mage, but fill more of a striker role. I don't want to cast spells that damage large groups of people, I want spells that blast individuals. Like rays, or petrification, or some sort of negative energy spell, or whatever.
Or maybe I want a non-damage dealing mage. while I may have a *couple* damage spells, I want to CONTROL people. mind control, geases, telekinesis, teleportation, compulsion, confusion, fear. and then I control people with spells that restrict their movement as well.
Yes, better listen to me, yeah! :P
lol.
Like? Can you give some examples?
I did, you commented on them below :P
Yes, I've seen players doing some WH 40k table top battles "roleplay" as the respective force's commanders, issueing their orders "ingame". That was awesome!
"Marines, concentrate fire on the carnifex! We must bring it down before it reaches the support vehicles! You mustn't allow this abomination to desecrate the Emperor's property!"
:D
And that's fine.
You mean, like in my early Shadowrun days, where neither DM nor the players had any real idea whether that orc was still in point blank range or already in the next range category? Whether the hovertank could move that close to the monorail train on his turn? Whether the grenade blast still reached far enough to damage the truck?
Yes, that was awesome because you had to wildguess and ad-hoc everything!
If your map shows scale you can manage without the grid. and yes, youre showing an advantage of a grid. The grid makes knowing these things more easy. Maybe I'll move to grid sized maps, without the squares, and have the PCs use a measuring tape like in warhammer to deal with what you just discussed :P (it would be interesting, but I dont know if I would go to that much work over it)
Plus you only need those things in my experience during combat.
Watched too much Transformers, huh? ;)
But, what's stopping your players? Lack of imagination?
And by the way, you can do stuff like that in 4E:
1 - Acrobatics skill (PH pg 180)
2 - "Page 42" (DMG pg 42)
;)
Oh right, that did happen in transformers. No I was just making an example up from the top of my head. I haven't seen that movie in months, and ive only watched it thrice. once in theatre. once when the dvd came out, and once when it was playing at a party.
If you mistake "focused" for restricted... However, in that case 3E was even more restrictive (paladin, monk, ranger, marshall, HEALER, etc).
healer wasnt a real 3e class. :P I never saw anyone use the marshall, ranger wasnt really restrictive. There weren't that many builds for a monk, very true, not unless you multiclassed. A monk/ninja was always a pretty good combination, even better once CS came out. but yeah, for a monk you had to multiclass. Ninja could have been an alternate monk build though really. it wasn't the same, but it followed the same general concepts, just with more gear. As for paladins, the only time I ever saw someone play a paladin was to become a blackguard. and then they realized they could make a better paladin by multiclassing fighter/cleric. that class was a joke. :P
Which will (at last) change when we get Arcane Power.
We shall see. You may be right. Alot of my criticisms are about what they included and didn't include in the 4e core books. Splats may make things less annoying.
Anyway, in 3E wizards were also mostly identical in actual play. Some spells were just too good to not use.
Yes and no. in 3e, there were a few spells almost everyone took, true, but with the school specialization set up, that made them have alot of differences they just don't in 4e. and in 3e wizards arent just battlefield controllers (though they certainly can be)
That's what I'm talking about.
Is 3e exactly what myself and my friends are looking for in mechanics? no. Thats why its got so many houserules.
Is 4e what we're lookign for exactly? no.
which is 'closer'? 3e
Or in another sense, white wolf. but white wolf is good in a modern setting, and isnt nearly as good in a fantasy setting 3.5e is infinitely better in the fantasy setting and most of the time we dont want to play in a modern setting. but when we do, we don't ever play d20 modern, we use white wolf mechanics, even if we're all playing as humans.
Touché. But this way they don't have to learn a whole NEW system, it's the system they would know, 'with the following changes'. [...]
You have a point. However, if you're not comfortable with 4E, or it just doesn't suit your style of play, nobody forces you to switch over and you're perfectly correct telling your players "sorry guys, I'll DM 3E only".
[...] Like right now, we use white wolf style initiative for how turns progress in combat. [...]
This is one thing I never got around to swallow. While the idea is true, it somehow fails to work when you can't see the other characters. When the character cannot perceive the slower characters start their action, this system grants precognitive abilities ("I run out of the room." - "Why?" - "I have the gut feeling that the four guys outside I cannot see are going to throw grenades through the window in a few seconds.").
[...] and if you were running starcraft I wouldnt show, cause I hate starcraft. [...]
"This is not Warcraft in space. It is much more sophisticated!" :D
[...] I agree. it didn't pull off the class redesign as well as I would have liked, but some of the general mechanics changes I like alot. [...]
Some things in PRPG are very good - for example the Combat Maneuver Bonus to sort out that grapple/disarm/trip mess. Other things were good as a concept but failed in their respective implementation - for example the school and domain abilities (giving Wish or Miracle or Gate once per day as a SLA?
). And some things were just stupid - for example the Fly skill ( 
).I'm sure we will, but from just the core books, I would say each class has like 1/4 the options they NEED. I would argue that any class should have dozens of viable builds, or that you should be able to make almost any general concept and have mechanics to do it, and presently you don't, that's what I meant by limited. [...]
Which was a problem of page count. In 4E, each class gets 15 to 17 pages of powers and abilities - which is massive. In 3E you could handle some classes on a single page (fighter, rogue, barbarian, etc). I'm quite sure we will see some more unconventional builds and options once the splats start to hit the shelves.
[...] mages have mostly blasty spells now, and you don't get nearly enough of them.
I don't know if you've seen it, but there's been a Dragon article about illusion spells for wizards.
like, you get one 'daily spell' per day.
Not quite true. ;) For example a level 10 wizard has 2 at-will powers (both level 1), 3 encounter powers (one level 1, one level 3, one level 7), 3 daily powers (one level 1, one level 5, one level 9), and 3 utility powers (one level 2, one level 6, one level 10).
Yes, you can use each daily spell only once per day, but with increasing level gain access to more daily spells which allows you to cast multiple daily spells on a single day - but just not the same over and over again. That's what encounter spells are for. ;)
I get they're following a scheme here, but it just seems like you dont have enough access to the spells you DO know, and you don't have nearly enough spells that you CAN learn.
Wizards already have more flexibility than the other classes. Wizards are no longer the ultimate swiss army knife of DnD, they now fill a focused role like all other characters.
Cause you arent always going to want to fill that role. for instance.
But the character role only determines your combat style, not your character's behavior or personality. You can be a "defender" without actually defending a rat's ass.
Maybe I want to make a rogue like character. but I don't want to be sneaky, I want to be acrobatic and arrogant.
Just select Acrobatics, Bluff, and Insight as your trained skills, perhaps take Skill Training (Diplomacy), and give a darn thing about being stealthy or taking powers that make you better at sneaking.
or maybe I'm a cleric, but I worship some god or slaughter, or a god of fire, or something other than 'a good good', and really, healing everything all the time doesn't make much sense.
Non-healing powers (not counting utilities): Lance of Faith, Priest's Shield, Righteous Brand, Cause Fear, Divine Glow, Wrathful Thunder, Avenging Flame, Cascade of Light, Guardian of Faith, Blazing Beacon, Command, Daunting Light, Split the Sky, Consecrated Ground, Rune of Peace, Spiritual Weapon, Weapon of the Gods, Awe Strike, Break the Spirit, Searing Light, Astral Defenders, Blade Barrier, Divine Power, Flame Strike, Knights of Unyielding Valor, Shielding Word, Arc of the Righteous, Plague of Doom, Holy Spark, Purifying Fire, Seal of Warding, Blinding Light, Enthrall, Sentinel Strike, Thunderous Word, Fire Storm, Knight of Glory, Astral Blades of Death, Divine Censure, Haunting Strike, Nimbus of Doom, Sacred Word, Seal of Binding, Seal of Protection, Punishing Strike, Scourge of the Unworthy, Astral Storm, Godstrike.
Imho that's a pretty big list to select from for a non-healing/non-support cleric.or maybe I want to make a mage, but fill more of a striker role. I don't want to cast spells that damage large groups of people, I want spells that blast individuals. Like rays, or petrification, or some sort of negative energy spell, or whatever.
Ray or single target powers (not counting utilities): Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Chill Strike, Force Orb, Ray of Enfeeblement, Acid Arrow, Flaming Sphere, Icy Rays, Bigby's Icy Grasp, Lightning Bolt, Spectral Ram, Lightning Serpent, Mordenkainen's Sword, Mesmeric Hold, Bigby's Grasping Hands, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Force Volley, Ice Tomb, Disintegrate, Chain Lightning, Thunderclap, Maze, Confusion, Forcecage.
Again, where's the problem?Or maybe I want a non-damage dealing mage. while I may have a *couple* damage spells, I want to CONTROL people. mind control, geases, telekinesis, teleportation, compulsion, confusion, fear. and then I control people with spells that restrict their movement as well. [...]
Mind control, long range teleportation, and mental status effects that forced a certain type of behaviour were bad things, imho. They were pretty when used by the PCs, but very ugly if used against them.
[...] Maybe I'll move to grid sized maps, without the squares, and have the PCs use a measuring tape like in warhammer to deal with what you just discussed :P (it would be interesting, but I dont know if I would go to that much work over it)
You mean like in computer game The Temple of Elemental Evil? May be an interesting idea, perhaps I'll also give it a try one day. I count on your report! :P
Plus you only need those things in my experience during combat.
Definitively. When just exploring ruins or something, I draw the map it in the open for the PCs on normal graph paper (we don't have a big enough table for most dungeons or city wards ;) ). However, the moment I reach for the plastic film and my dry-erase markers they know it's going to get ugly.
It gives a bit away, but I can always spring the description of what happens to them before drawing out the encounter area on the grid map, and the time I need to set up the battlefield gives everyone the opportunity to see the toilet before combat starts.Oh right, that did happen in transformers. No I was just making an example up from the top of my head. I haven't seen that movie in months, and ive only watched it thrice. once in theatre. once when the dvd came out, and once when it was playing at a party.
Hehe. ;) But honestly, I think that was a ridiculously dumb idea.
He only survived because of the Rule of Cool. :Phealer wasnt a real 3e class. :P [...]
It was! It got Gate at (iirc) 17th level! The problem was surviving for that long.
[...] and then they realized they could make a better paladin by multiclassing fighter/cleric. that class was a joke. :P [...]
Or the DM could allow the Prestige Paladin from Unearthed Arcana. ;)
We shall see. You may be right. Alot of my criticisms are about what they included and didn't include in the 4e core books. Splats may make things less annoying.
Again, I'm quite confident that this will be the case. After all, 3E did the same. There weren't really that many options for e.g. bards, fighters, monks, and paladins in the core books back then.
Yes and no. in 3e, there were a few spells almost everyone took, true, but with the school specialization set up, that made them have alot of differences they just don't in 4e.
But school specialization was messed up. It either made the character too strong or crippled him. Almost no wizard with his Int would specialize in Evocation (mechanically speaking). The strongest specialists were diviners, conjurers, and transmuters.
and in 3e wizards arent just battlefield controllers (though they certainly can be) [...]
Hm? Some of the most powerful options a 3E wizard had were battlefield control spells. Web, Black Tentacles, Forcecage, and their ilk.
[...] which is 'closer'? 3e [...]
Like I said at the beginning of my post... only DM what you're comfortable with. It doesn't serve any good if you let your players talk you into DMing something you don't like. It'll just be a pain for you (trust me, I know what I'm talking about
).[...] but when we do, we don't ever play d20 modern, we use white wolf mechanics, even if we're all playing as humans.
Heresy! :P
The latter is the very point the Wizards missed when looking for balance, and that many critics of the 3e spellcasting classes miss, too. It's not the number of spell slots of a class that's problematic, it's the spells. Many of them were too powerful (Polymorph, Divine Power, etc.). A sensible approach would be nerfing the overpowered spells, and not the classes itself.
Well, except for the druid. But we already have a modification that works very well.
First, I like to keep talks about the realms and 4.0 seperate. The two are different things. For this post I am going to keep it strictly to the new Realms. I fall into the "disfranchised" Realms players catagory (pun intended). There are numerous things that I dislike about it, but what can I say that hasn't been said before? However the thing that annoys me the most are two of the most common things used to suport Realms 4.0. And that is, "everything is already developed, there is no room for us to add anything", and that "there were too many high lvl NPC's, our characters were pointless". To both those, I say that the problem wasn't with the setting. It was with the DM being lazy and coping out.
I started in the realms just before 3.5 came out. I play in a group that has players that have played since the grey box came out. They have over two decades worth of knowledge and experience in Realms lore, while I had maybe a few months of knowledge before I started DMing a Realms campaign. Guess what? Lore has never been an issue! All it takes is the FRCS, a google search, maybe a post on these boards, and you have all the information you need. I chose to Dm in the realms. As such I took it upon myself to do the research on the area where my games take place. It really isn't hard at all. So when I saw a dev post that "the realms were too detailed, and that it was "impossible" to add anything to it, or to learn all the lore", I can't tell you how angry I was. I was evedentely doing the "impossible" every week, while this developer, who is paid to create content, couldn't be bothered to do some very basic research.
I am not going into a huge rant, so I am going to end with this. This alleged fix? This liberation of the realms from the burden of its own lore? It's just a bandaid. New novels are continualy being printed. More source books will be sold, and new lore will always be published. In a few years there will be a new legion of uber l33t and powerful NPCs, and much of the realms will have been detailed. This supposed "problem" isn't solved by a long shot. And thats part of what sucks the most. If the old Realms had died for a good cause, it would have been a little bit easier to accept.
I started out in Dragonlance, and left when the setting was ruined so that it could go in a "great new direction". Unfortunately I feel the same way now about the realms. Once my current FR campaign is over, I will be DMing a home brew setting from now on. I am going to give 4.0 rules a fair chance, but more than likely I will stick with the 3.5 open source rules and build from it. That way it's MY lore, and I don't have to worry about have 100's of dollars worth of books becoming obsolete.
You have a point. However, if you're not comfortable with 4E, or it just doesn't suit your style of play, nobody forces you to switch over and you're perfectly correct telling your players "sorry guys, I'll DM 3E only".
Hmm. Maybe.
This is one thing I never got around to swallow. While the idea is true, it somehow fails to work when you can't see the other characters. When the character cannot perceive the slower characters start their action, this system grants precognitive abilities ("I run out of the room." - "Why?" - "I have the gut feeling that the four guys outside I cannot see are going to throw grenades through the window in a few seconds.").
This is not a problem if you penalize metagaming. After they get stung a few times, they acknowledge the difference between what their character knows and what they know. I suppose not many people dm this way, but if a player is metagaming I tell them to justify their actions before they do them. if they can't do so adequately they face a penalty (from just being told that they can't do it, to being wracked with pain from the inside of their body and taking damage, to missing their turn) I've also instituted a timer on how long you have to decide what youre going to do on your turn (a player was taking 10 minutes to decide what spell to cast) - this is less of a problem with the white wolf initiative system. And now that the players know the penalties are there (penalties for CHEATING, as I like to point out :P), the players dont cheat. :P
"This is not Warcraft in space. It is much more sophisticated!" :D
Starcraft is more than wc2 (marginally). Warcraft II is more than starcraft. they have to at least try to keep one-upping themselves right? :P
Some things in PRPG are very good - for example the Combat Maneuver Bonus to sort out that grapple/disarm/trip mess. Other things were good as a concept but failed in their respective implementation - for example the school and domain abilities (giving Wish or Miracle or Gate once per day as a SLA?
Right, so the things that ARE good I'll adapt to my game, and the things that arent I wont. Likewise with 4e. But at the same time I add new things that are good. (I changed how a number of character things were generated, making stats more important, so players don't minmax as much. It wasn't hard either. HD is determined by Con score, and character class supplies the bonus, dex is used to hit, and weapon finesse lets you use dex for damage. str is only used to hit if you take a feat for brute force weapons. BAB is based on Str and Dex (presently with no class mod, though I'm thinking maybe there should be. Will uses Cha instead of Wis. skillpoints are int+wis+1/2 of old class mod. the players werent too sure about it at first, and one of them got mad when he minmaxed his stats and I told him his barbarian was going to have a d4 HD because of his con score. that was funny. (I give everyone more points to work with because the stats are more important)
Which was a problem of page count. In 4E, each class gets 15 to 17 pages of powers and abilities - which is massive. In 3E you could handle some classes on a single page (fighter, rogue, barbarian, etc). I'm quite sure we will see some more unconventional builds and options once the splats start to hit the shelves.
I don't know if you've seen it, but there's been a Dragon article about illusion spells for wizards.
I'll check it out now. I dont have DDI though.
Not quite true. ;) For example a level 10 wizard has 2 at-will powers (both level 1), 3 encounter powers (one level 1, one level 3, one level 7), 3 daily powers (one level 1, one level 5, one level 9), and 3 utility powers (one level 2, one level 6, one level 10).
Yes, you can use each daily spell only once per day, but with increasing level gain access to more daily spells which allows you to cast multiple daily spells on a single day - but just not the same over and over again. That's what encounter spells are for. ;)
enh.. .. . I suppose. I would think that isn't enough, but I'm used to combat that takes 10 rounds+.
Wizards already have more flexibility than the other classes. Wizards are no longer the ultimate swiss army knife of DnD, they now fill a focused role like all other characters.
specialization is fine, but I think the specialization should come from which abilities you choose, not which class you choose.
But the character role only determines your combat style, not your character's behavior or personality. You can be a "defender" without actually defending a rat's ass.
I suppose. but where youre set up to only fill that role you will be pretty useless if you play yourself differently.
Just select Acrobatics, Bluff, and Insight as your trained skills, perhaps take Skill Training (Diplomacy), and give a darn thing about being stealthy or taking powers that make you better at sneaking.
Non-healing powers (not counting utilities): Lance of Faith, Priest's Shield, Righteous Brand, Cause Fear, Divine Glow, Wrathful Thunder, Avenging Flame, Cascade of Light, Guardian of Faith, Blazing Beacon, Command, Daunting Light, Split the Sky, Consecrated Ground, Rune of Peace, Spiritual Weapon, Weapon of the Gods, Awe Strike, Break the Spirit, Searing Light, Astral Defenders, Blade Barrier, Divine Power, Flame Strike, Knights of Unyielding Valor, Shielding Word, Arc of the Righteous, Plague of Doom, Holy Spark, Purifying Fire, Seal of Warding, Blinding Light, Enthrall, Sentinel Strike, Thunderous Word, Fire Storm, Knight of Glory, Astral Blades of Death, Divine Censure, Haunting Strike, Nimbus of Doom, Sacred Word, Seal of Binding, Seal of Protection, Punishing Strike, Scourge of the Unworthy, Astral Storm, Godstrike.
ok. but 1: remove any powers that do healing as a secondary effect from that list, and 2: is it possible to make a number of cleric builds with NO healing? or is it just possible to make a cleric who is LESS healing.
Ray or single target powers (not counting utilities): Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, Chill Strike, Force Orb, Ray of Enfeeblement, Acid Arrow, Flaming Sphere, Icy Rays, Bigby's Icy Grasp, Lightning Bolt, Spectral Ram, Lightning Serpent, Mordenkainen's Sword, Mesmeric Hold, Bigby's Grasping Hands, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Force Volley, Ice Tomb, Disintegrate, Chain Lightning, Thunderclap, Maze, Confusion, Forcecage.
Bad example, I dont own the 4e books, I've just played it and looked through other peoples books.
Mind control, long range teleportation, and mental status effects that forced a certain type of behaviour were bad things, imho. They were pretty when used by the PCs, but very ugly if used against them.
I think theyre some of the more fun abilities. compel a player to defend the evil cleric from the other players. charm a player so the bad guy gets away etc. they can use those spells, you can use them, it's all fair.
You mean like in computer game The Temple of Elemental Evil? May be an interesting idea, perhaps I'll also give it a try one day. I count on your report! :P
Kay :P
It was! It got Gate at (iirc) 17th level! The problem was surviving for that long.
Next youre going to tell me about the exploits of your Expert character. rofl.
Or the DM could allow the Prestige Paladin from Unearthed Arcana. ;)
I did something similar to that, yeah. It was basically an inverted blackguard. Take blackguard, remove evil abilities. replace w/ equivalent paladin abilities (which is really easy to do). alter spell list & change prereqs. TADA!
Again, I'm quite confident that this will be the case. After all, 3E did the same. There weren't really that many options for e.g. bards, fighters, monks, and paladins in the core books back then.
and I think 4e multiclassing is terrible (though admittedly 3e multiclassing wasn't great either, cause level 1 of fighter is worth more than level 1 of wizard, and level 18 wizard is worth more than level 1 fighter (or even level 18 fighter). The 3e level system only works if each level of each class is equal in ability. Otherwise you need to weight the class levels. and thats quite complicated. that's like. 'ok im a level 6 wizard, I just gained a level. because of how much I'll lose by taking a melee class, being a level 7 character will entitle me to my 6 in wizard and 2 in fighter'; etc. it could be done in a way to be good, but it would be very complicated to figure it out.
But school specialization was messed up. It either made the character too strong or crippled him. Almost no wizard with his Int would specialize in Evocation (mechanically speaking). The strongest specialists were diviners, conjurers, and transmuters.
I would say that means the system needs revision, not destruction :P
Hm? Some of the most powerful options a 3E wizard had were battlefield control spells. Web, Black Tentacles, Forcecage, and their ilk.
true, but you could still be a viable character without any of those.
Like I said at the beginning of my post... only DM what you're comfortable with. It doesn't serve any good if you let your players talk you into DMing something you don't like. It'll just be a pain for you (trust me, I know what I'm talking about
Maybe youre right. I think a hybrid of D&D systems would be an improvement in all ways though. more work, but eventually it would be better. 3e, I can run with just the houserules I have, and it was set up in such a way that I felt comfortable running it as is (even though there were deficiencies). whereas with 4e I can't bring myself to run it as is. It's like NWN2. It feels like a half-finished game.
Hmm. Maybe.
After all, DnD is a cooperative game and everyone, including the DM, should be having a good time.
This is not a problem if you penalize metagaming. [...]
Ok. So you roll initiative, your NPC minions roll poorly, and you'll have to announce their actions first, and yet the players are not allowed to act upon that knowledge? See my problem with that system? ;)
[...] I'll check it out now. I dont have DDI though.
You can log in with your forums login.
enh.. .. . I suppose. I would think that isn't enough, but I'm used to combat that takes 10 rounds+.
It's a change in game philosophy at well.
In 3E there was rarely a reason for characters to concentrate fire on a single enemy. After all, the charge/power attack specialized barbarian dealt more damage with a single hit than the fighter and the rogue in two full attacks, and the wizard and cleric had their SoDs.
In 4E the party is required to coordinate their efforts and use their powers smart. The introduction of (effective!) minions also added the dilemma of whether to ignore the minions and suffer their constant fire, or to waste powers on them that are not fired on the big bad guy.
specialization is fine, but I think the specialization should come from which abilities you choose, not which class you choose.
I agree with you to a certain degree. But in 4E the wizard can already do that. There are powers that work on single (or relatively few) targets, and then there are powers that affect a large area. And in the end, the wizard is meant to be the AoE specialist.
I suppose. but where youre set up to only fill that role you will be pretty useless if you play yourself differently. [...]
Not necessarily. In my campaign we have an elf ranger (role:striker) who (often) doubles as a frontliner (role:defender) because he has the highest AC and the second highest hit points of the party. If he wasn't specialized on bows, he'd be even better in this role. So far it works quite well, the only "problem" is that he lacks the "sticky-ness" of a dedicated defender and can't really prevent enemies from reaching the more squishy party members.
Also, with the simplification of certain rules (like removal of arcane spell failure) you can achieve certain results much easier. You can easily build an arcane warrior now by either starting as fighter and selecting the wizard multiclass feat (focusing on the martial aspect of the character and supplementing him with spells), or starting as wizard and take the fighter multiclass feat (focusing on the arcane aspect of the character and supplementing him with melee powers). You only have to take some feats for armor proficiency and you can have your spellcasting warrior in fullplate easily, without having to take half a dozen prestige classes. ;)
[...] ok. but 1: remove any powers that do healing as a secondary effect from that list, and 2: is it possible to make a number of cleric builds with NO healing? or is it just possible to make a cleric who is LESS healing.
@1: I basically did that. If I didn't overlook something, none of the mentioned powers should have any healing effects.
@2: As said, the only "mandatory" healing ability clerics get is Healing Word, one of their class features. You're not required to take any powers with healing effects, thus - if you really want - you can make a cleric with only very rudimentary healing abilities but who is very strong in offense or defense.
It's no more or less "no healing" like a cleric in 3E. Every cleric can cast the various cure spells but he doesn't have to.
Bad example, I dont own the 4e books, I've just played it and looked through other peoples books.
Ahh, didn't know that. The powers I mentioned are those that don't have an AoE (stuff like "burst 2 within 10" or something like that). They target between 1 and 3 (at most) creatures or objects only.
I think theyre some of the more fun abilities. compel a player to defend the evil cleric from the other players. charm a player so the bad guy gets away etc. they can use those spells, you can use them, it's all fair.
The problem is the dreaded binary system of d20. Either the effect is 100% effective on the PC, or it has zero effect. If the vampire gets his dominating gaze through on the wizard and orders him to attack the party with his most powerful spells, you basically have a guaranteed TPK with little the rest of the players can do to prevent that.
And every effect has at least a 5% chance to get through (natural 1 on saving throw). Which is the same reason SoDs were so unimaginably bad.
Kay :P
I think I failed an Insight check here... :PNext youre going to tell me about the exploits of your Expert character. rofl. [...]
Never underestimate the powers of an expert with high Charisma and maxed Use Magic Device...
[...] and I think 4e multiclassing is terrible [...]
I respectfully disagree.
3E multiclassing was very modular, open, and flexible... and inherently flawed in that it was either horribly broken or terribly weak. A rogue1/wizard1 was more powerful than a wizard1/rogue1, which shouldn't be. Another problem was "save stacking" - characters with many different classes had some saves that were much too high for their level while other saves were far too low. Also, one could easily lose focus of the character if you tried to meet the prerequisites for a certain prestige class.4E multiclassing is different, sure. But it allows you to gain abilities from another class that are suitable for your current total level. If you took a level of rogue at level 19, that 1d6 sneak attack wasn't doing anything for you. Also, 4E multiclassing lets you keep focus on your character by not allowing you to gain the central abilities of other classes - you are a fighter who dabbles in wizardry and not a fighter who turns into a wizard.
[...] I would say that means the system needs revision, not destruction :P
They could have done that. But I ask, why keep things like magic schools around if you don't need them? Consider how many powers there are for wizards, how many spells would fall into each school? Not many. ;)
Also, as has been suspected, magic has been seperated. Wizards are no longer to do anything under the sun, but are effectively focused on evocation and transmutation with a bit abjuration (and recently added a bit illusion). Necromancy will likely be given to a Shadow (as in the power source) class, and Psionics is getting enchantment and divination. Each aspect is the focus of a different power source, making certain elements more special. In 3E every wizard who didn't have necromancy as a banned school could cast finger of death - in 4E only the Shadow class will (supposedly) be able to do that, giving it its own schtick.
true, but you could still be a viable character without any of those. [...]
Of course you could. I never said otherwise. ;)
[...] It's like NWN2. It feels like a half-finished game.
NWN2 had one of the most fun and entertaining tutorials I've ever played. And the game definitively didn't feel "half finished" until Act 3. But until that, I had some very entertaining 50something hours of gaming. :D
My wizard has taken Initiate of the Faith and I will swap out some wiz powers for cleric ones here and there for roleplaying and just to be a little more diversified (Plus I will be able to pick up the Divine Oracle Path). Plus I have Insight so I just use it to make sure people are always telling us the truth.;)
The fighter in our group is dragonborn (and rolls better than me
) so he uses his breath to help me mop up minions. Our bugbear ranger has so many Hps he can soak up some decent damage (his ac blows though). Our pally can do a fair job healing also, especially if he takes up the cleric multiclass alongside me :P .We have no cleric but they can do quite alot of damage if done right. That is also on top of aiding and healing when they do attack something.
Anyway so far nobody in my group feels bored or as if they are being pigeonholed into one specific role.
Anyway so far nobody in my group feels bored or as if they are being pigeonholed into one specific role.
Sounds good=)
Well, I always played clerics kind of classically. It's important to STFU and heal your fellow party members in combat. People who grandstand with the cleric aren't doing their jobs, no matter what the edition is.
-That's silly.
Additionally, have a damn story. Don't just pick some generic cleric, build a history. Write down some scenarios, and the clerics response to them. Perhaps he flits about the field of battle, fighting and healing as he goes. Perhaps he heals only those he feels are worthy. Perhaps he forces you to convert to his faith in order to heal you.
There are enough concepts out there, that the cleric need never have been pigeon-holed.
-RW
Additionally, have a damn story. Don't just pick some generic cleric, build a history.
-This goes for every class. ;)
Even then it's not true. Any character could use any weapon, staff, or bow for as long as (s)he met the minimum required Strength, Magic, or Dexterity score. Any character could learn any spell, for as long as (s)he met the minimum required Magic score.
Where did I state that they couldn't? I think you misunderstood me. Anyway I'd prefer not to continue this discussion. I don't feel like arguing about a game I haven't played in years just for the sake of arguing.
-This goes for every class. ;)
I agree. Or at least, I think that's the ideal.
I agree. Or at least, I think that's the ideal.
-It's for a player's own benefit, really. In my own campaign, I have two players, and four characters. I had both of them fill out an 'extended character sheet' for their characters, with things like history, likes, dislikes, goals, and so on. Basically, like an abbreviated history sheet, like I do with my characters, only not 2-5 pages. When I do DM things (Heh), I consult these sheets. One player, my sister, she wrote a lot. So, I have a lot to work with. The other player, my step-father, did not. So, I don't have much to work with. So, when he complains that too many of the plotlines involve one of my sister's two characters, it's his own fault. For example, she listed her character as an orphan, so, currently, I had them discover the ghost of her father, who was murdered, who her mother is, and she did some detective work to find the killer, who they are going to confront next week, actually.
One player, my sister, she wrote a lot. So, I have a lot to work with. The other player, my step-father, did not. So, I don't have much to work with. So, when he complains that too many of the plotlines involve one of my sister's two characters, it's his own fault.
That's funny.
And yes, that's a good reason to have at least some sort of background.
People who complain that one class is to powerful, or another overshadowed, don't know how to build and play a character for RP.
My last character was 25 or 27, and I had history written out for every year of his life. Which might be a tad extensive, but it passed commute times in the mornings and evenings.
But the problem for others who don't write that much, becomes as you said, less of the story involves them. This becomes amplified for each death, as bringing in a new character means starting from fresh with plotlines for them.
-RW
But the problem for others who don't write that much, becomes as you said, less of the story involves them. This becomes amplified for each death, as bringing in a new character means starting from fresh with plotlines for them.
-RW
-The reason why characters don't randomly die while I'm in charge.
-RW
-The reason why characters don't randomly die while I'm in charge.
And how do you handle this in combat? I take it you roll behind the DM screen then?
And how do you handle this in combat? I take it you roll behind the DM screen then?
As all DM's should learn to do, regarless of their disposition. ;)
-RW
People who complain that one class is to powerful, or another overshadowed, don't know how to build and play a character for RP.
The ability or inability to RP a character has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with how balanced a class is.
As all DM's should learn to do, regarless of their disposition. ;)
I'm rolling in the open, always have, always will. It's the only way the players can be sure they are getting a fair treatment and I don't play favorites either way.
If you roll behind the screen and don't let characters die no matter what rediculously stupid thing they did, how long do you think it will take for the players to notice this? Having one (or more) characters being unkillable for plot reasons is just as bad as having an important character die due to bad dice luck.
Also, rolling in the open prevents any hard feelings from coming up if one character gets it pretty hard in combat (e.g. being critted multiple times in a row, or being affected by multiple debuff effects in short time) because the players can see that you're not picking on their characters.
Of course, it's perfectly fine for each DM to roll whereever (s)he pleases, but imho rolling in the open is more "fair". After all, if the players should trust the DM enough to let him roll in secrecy, the DM should trust the players enough to let them roll in secrecy. And so far, I've yet to meet the DM who's ok with having the players roll their attacks and saves behind a screen. :P
And yes, you should roll behind a screen.
You should also roll in front of the screen once in awhiile.
And sometimes you should roll and let the die 'accidently' roll out from behind the screen, and then make a concerned face if anyone notices.
In fact, you should be rolling dice all the time (keep them shaking in your hand as people enter new areas, or when you are describing something).
Yes... evil is an artform, but building suspense is a masterpiece.
The ability or inability to RP a character has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with how balanced a class is.
Actually it does. You can't unintentionally break a character. You have to go out of your way to pick combinations to make something "overpowered".
People who have a head for RP, will build a character for their story, and thus further reduce the risk of powergaming. Additionally, with this route, people who are underpowered don't feel the pinch as much.
The base classes by themselves are not inherently broken. It's the choices made by th eplayer that makes them as such.
-RW
The base classes by themselves are not inherently broken.
Suffice to say that there's strong disagreement on that statement. IMO, the base classes are inherently broken, but that's a discussion that's been bandied about on these boards for months, now.
I'm rolling in the open, always have, always will. It's the only way the players can be sure they are getting a fair treatment and I don't play favorites either way.
If you roll behind the screen and don't let characters die no matter what rediculously stupid thing they did, how long do you think it will take for the players to notice this? Having one (or more) characters being unkillable for plot reasons is just as bad as having an important character die due to bad dice luck.
Also, rolling in the open prevents any hard feelings from coming up if one character gets it pretty hard in combat (e.g. being critted multiple times in a row, or being affected by multiple debuff effects in short time) because the players can see that you're not picking on their characters.
Of course, it's perfectly fine for each DM to roll whereever (s)he pleases, but imho rolling in the open is more "fair". After all, if the players should trust the DM enough to let him roll in secrecy, the DM should trust the players enough to let them roll in secrecy. And so far, I've yet to meet the DM who's ok with having the players roll their attacks and saves behind a screen. :P
I prefer rolling behind the screen, for a number of reasons. I don't think th eplayers should know whether they succeed or fail on checks to hear opponents, or see secret doors. Rolling in the open often encourages metagaming, however unintentional it may be.
As for death, it is up to the DM to find the balance. If your players are acting foolish, then their deaths on on their own heads. I just think that players who work hard, and plan as best as possible, shouldn't be penalized for a difficult situation.
As for players rolling in secret, that's like saying we should be able to bet against the universe and win. DM is the almighty, be all and end all. The players only know and see what he shows them. If he is fair, they won't mind the hidden rolls.
-RW
Suffice to say that there's strong disagreement on that statement. IMO, the base classes are inherently broken, but that's a discussion that's been bandied about on these boards for months, now.
I agree it is. But when I hear it, the examples I see are all powergamed ones. They never show how a class is more powerful than another based on average stats and spells alone.
-RW
Actually it does. You can't unintentionally break a character. You have to go out of your way to pick combinations to make something "overpowered". [...]
Newbie player. Druid. Natural Spell.
And yes, you should roll behind a screen.
You should also roll in front of the screen once in awhiile.
And sometimes you should roll and let the die 'accidently' roll out from behind the screen, and then make a concerned face if anyone notices.
In fact, you should be rolling dice all the time (keep them shaking in your hand as people enter new areas, or when you are describing something).
Yes... evil is an artform, but building suspense is a masterpiece.
Rolling in advance, or in times of peace keeps them on edge, and sets up the results for later so you don't need to ask them for skill checks before the actual incident is about to transpire.
all of the above though are tried and true tricks :D
-RW
[...] I don't think th eplayers should know whether they succeed or fail on checks to hear opponents, or see secret doors. [...]
That's why you keep a list with the Passive Perception/Insight scores of all PCs handy and take 10 for your NPCs. Even if you rolled openly, the players wouldn't know what's up until you informed them of who noticed what.
Also, your first sentence is a bit off. Sometime you must tell the players whether their characters heard something or not. ;)
[...] I just think that players who work hard, and plan as best as possible, shouldn't be penalized for a difficult situation. [...]
Sometimes thing just go wrong. You know Murphy? That pessemistic guy? "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." :P
And by the way, my players are asking me to play it rough.
Newbie player. Druid. Natural Spell.
Assuming the new player looks at that feat, and even sees it's use, it still isn't that benificial. A druid can still only cast one spell a round, and has limited spells to draw from. The wild shape doesn't get good until high levels, and a heavily armored fighter in front of you, will still turn out more damage than you can take the time to heal.
Granted the druid has more class options than say the sorcerer, but to counter that we can than move on to suppliments and the multitude of PrC's that favour a Sorc.
And we won't mention the modified polymorph rules.
I am not trying to say there is nothing broken in the game, merely that you have to go out of your way to build an almighty Cheater of Mystra or unkillable frenzied berserker.
-RW
That's why you keep a list with the Passive Perception/Insight scores of all PCs handy and take 10 for your NPCs. Even if you rolled openly, the players wouldn't know what's up until you informed them who noticed what.
Also, your first sentence is a bit off. Sometime you must tell the players whether their characters heard something or not. ;)
Well, technically, they won't know if they failed to hear something. Something just might attack by surprise. Doesn't mean they could have been heard. ;)
Sometimes thing just go wrong. You know Murphy? That pessemistic guy? "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." :P
Actually, my players are asking me to play it rough.
The best laid plans, of mice and men.. ;)
I am not saying the system is infalable, and I certainly understand when players want no fudged rolls. Personal preference in that area, but for the ones with long character histories, they tend to not want to die. ;)
-RW
Assuming the new player looks at that feat, and even sees it's use, it still isn't that benificial. A druid can still only cast one spell a round, and has limited spells to draw from. The wild shape doesn't get good until high levels, and a heavily armored fighter in front of you, will still turn out more damage than you can take the time to heal.
Granted the druid has more class options than say the sorcerer, but to counter that we can than move on to suppliments and the multitude of PrC's that favour a Sorc.
And we won't mention the modified polymorph rules.
I am not trying to say there is nothing broken in the game, merely that you have to go out of your way to build an almighty Cheater of Mystra or unkillable frenzied berserker.
-RW
Straight druid 20 is more powerful than anything a sorceer can do even with PRCs. If you break out PRCs then I go to Planar Shepard and make the dueling sorcerer (and DM) cry. :D
Frenzied Beserker is good but I think an emotion spell, or a crowd control spell or grapple can really make the beserker seem lame and weak.
The druid can heal itself, trow out CCs, summon little buddies to help it (which is a form of added DPR) plus combat and buff spells. Plus he/she can heal folks up front without worrying about taking a ton of damage. My one PC had a Fleshripper dino at higher levels and made me cry that's for sure. His magebred tiger (oh yeah forgot to add pets to a druids list of uber goodies, and skills too) tanked alot of adds that got in the way.
Assuming the new player looks at that feat, and even sees it's use, it still isn't that benificial.
Natural Spell is highly usefull and insanely overpowered. It's the equivalent of a free Silent Spell and Still Spell, for which all other casters have to pay the cost of a two level increase.
A druid can still only cast one spell a round, and has limited spells to draw from.
That's not the point. With Natural Spell he can cast his spells even when he would normally not be allowed to do so. This is not a huge increase in flexibility (Don't want to drop your dire bear form to heal your rogue buddy?), it also grants a massive boost to the druid's power (allowing him to cast animal buffs like magic fang or animal growth on himself - at least before they errata'ed Wild Shape :D).
The wild shape doesn't get good until high levels,
Often it's not the big forms that were too powerful. It was the small innocent forms that wrecked havoc. Want to infiltrate the smuggler's HQ in the sewers? Wild Shape (rat). Want to keep some town guardsman under surveillance? Wild Shape (pigeon). Want to scout the bandit's lair in the woods? Wild Shape (sparrow).
And while that wasn't too broken by itself, it quickly went through the roof the moment the sparrow started throwing lightning bolts or somesuch at the bandits. :P
and a heavily armored fighter in front of you, will still turn out more damage than you can take the time to heal. [...]
Hmm? Who was talking about outhealing the fighter?
A level 8 druid can wild shape into a brown bear, have a brown bear as an animal companion, and use summon nature's ally to summon a brown bear at least twice per day. How does a level 8 fighter match that? ;)Hmm? Who was talking about outhealing the fighter?
:heehee It's bearrific!
Straight druid 20 is more powerful than anything a sorceer can do even with PRCs. If you break out PRCs then I go to Planar Shepard and make the dueling sorcerer (and DM) cry. :D
Frenzied Beserker is good but I think an emotion spell, or a crowd control spell or grapple can really make the beserker seem lame and weak.
The druid can heal itself, trow out CCs, summon little buddies to help it (which is a form of added DPR) plus combat and buff spells. Plus he/she can heal folks up front without worrying about taking a ton of damage. My one PC had a Fleshripper dino at higher levels and made me cry that's for sure. His magebred tiger (oh yeah forgot to add pets to a druids list of uber goodies, and skills too) tanked alot of adds that got in the way.
I point to the Cheater of Mystra, and it stops mattering ;).
What, casting inside an antimagicfield? Nothing wrong with that :P
Overall though I am not trying to spark another argument on the matter. Personal experience has taught me otherwise, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day.
-RW
The druid or clerics aren't all powerful because of their ability to one hit someone with a spell. They are powerful because they can take the roles of other classes and do them well AND cast spells, and heal. Pretty versatile, and pretty damn better than any other class. I love when people used to say BOT9S was broken. :D
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.
Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field.
Wild Shape (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field
The druid could have 10,000 summoned animals, and be transformed himself, and the fully buffed cleric of Mystra would simply wade through the throng untouched, walk up to the druid supressing his spells and abilities (Reverting him to natural form in the process), and then for overkill flavour Supernatural wish him into a mindless puddle of mud, and all without breaking a sweat (Or wasting XP). ;)
I don't think there is anything more broken, save perhaps PunPun.
-RW
[...] I don't think there is anything more broken, save perhaps PunPun.
You have seen the Planar Shephard? ;)
Also, not to mention that any instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) effect will happily fly through your antimagic field and burn your cleric's face off. :P
You have seen the Planar Shephard? ;)
Also, not to mention that any instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) effect will happily fly through your antimagic field and burn your cleric's face off. :P
Yes, but how many high level instantaneous conjurations do you know, that can do enough damage to kill a buffed cleric? :P
Given all he would need were a spell mantle of some kind, I think he won't worry about those instantaneous conjurations. ;) :P
-RW
And how do you handle this in combat? I take it you roll behind the DM screen then?
-Yes. There is no reason to be "fair" about anything. If I make a roll, and I don't like it, I change it.
-Yes. There is no reason to be "fair" about anything. If I make a roll, and I don't like it, I change it.
Then why bother with rolling at all?
Then why bother with rolling at all?
Because 99% of the time we go with what the die says.
Yes, but how many high level instantaneous conjurations do you know, that can do enough damage to kill a buffed cleric? :P
I don't have the SpC, but at least the Orbs of X are applicable classics.
Given all he would need were a spell mantle of some kind, I think he won't worry about those instantaneous conjurations. ;) :P
Not wanting to delve into a Planar Shephard vs Cheater of Mystra e-peen contest, but [thread=709233]this thread[/thread] should give you a pretty good idea what this PrC can do. Depending on the choices you made for your alignment and planar attunement, you could eventually end up with getting one the following as additional abilities:
- 17th level sorcerer spellcasting at 20th level
- 17th level cleric spellcasting at 14th (!) level
- 20th level cleric spellcasting at 18th level, although this requires a feat from Dragon magazine
- 3+ wishes per day without XP cost for your party members at 14th level
(Although the first 3 points are highly arguable, I'll give you that.)
Also, a druid wild shaped into a titan or huge elemental still has a higher reach than your antimagic field's radius and thus can just attack you normally with all his buffs on. Alternatively, he could use one of the exploits above or assume a form granting antimagic field as a SLA and walk up to you. Your own buffs and spells would still cease to work in another's antimagic field (iirc, not sure about the correct wording :thinks
, while the druid and his nonmagical animal companion (not that a T-Rex with 20 hit dice was pretty for an unbuffed cleric or anything ;) ).I guess we can agree that cleric and druid are equally powerful, and equally broken once we start applying ridiculously powerful PrCs to them. :P
Additionally, it's the feat that allows the cleric to cast in anti-magic, so s/he would still be casting even in the planar shepards.
But we do agree that things CAN get crazy, though as I said when planned. ;)
-RW
Anything where your cleric can take the planning domain as a Divine Disciple, cast Time Stop and never be surprised is pretty obnoxious. Oh, and your cleric gets evasion in Full Plate on top of it.
Because 99% of the time we go with what the die says.
-Right.
I don't have the SpC, but at least the Orbs of X are applicable classics.
Not wanting to delve into a Planar Shephard vs Cheater of Mystra e-peen contest, but [thread=709233]this thread[/thread] should give you a pretty good idea what this PrC can do. Depending on the choices you made for your alignment and planar attunement, you could eventually end up with getting one the following as additional abilities:
- 17th level sorcerer spellcasting at 20th level
- 17th level cleric spellcasting at 14th (!) level
- 20th level cleric spellcasting at 18th level, although this requires a feat from Dragon magazine
- 3+ wishes per day without XP cost for your party members at 14th level
(Although the first 3 points are highly arguable, I'll give you that.)
Also, a druid wild shaped into a titan or huge elemental still has a higher reach than your antimagic field's radius and thus can just attack you normally with all his buffs on. Alternatively, he could use one of the exploits above or assume a form granting antimagic field as a SLA and walk up to you. Your own buffs and spells would still cease to work in another's antimagic field (iirc, not sure about the correct wording :thinks
I guess we can agree that cleric and druid are equally powerful, and equally broken once we start applying ridiculously powerful PrCs to them. :P
This is why we have DMs. To referee the game, otherwise the power gamers and min/maxers have a field day. With the right magic items and builds, any class or prc is broken (and this has already started in 4e - see the various threads on Wizard of the Spiral Tower and Vorpal Swords). If that is why you are playing the game, why not just play a computer game with cheats and not make everyone else suffer for your lust for power?
-Well, remember that 99.9% of these builds aren't intended to actually be played with in a game. They're just theoretical, to demonstrate loopholes in the rules, and stuff.
Uhmm... the Planar Shephard is not a PrC where you need to cherry pick like 8 feats and 3 other PrCs in order to break the game. This PrC makes the line between theoretical optimization and practical optimization non-existant, because the class features are so stupidly powerful you'd have to go out of your way not to break it over thousandfold.
In that regard it's completely different from the HIVE, the Word, the Twice Betrayer, or the Cheater, who all depend on a careful selection of feats, spells, class abilities, and/or equipment, and where one bad choice can screw your character over.
- NG Druid 5
- Planar Shephard 9
- Syrania as chosen plane
- Wild shape into planetar
- Cast as a 17th level cleric
That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. You don't need anything fancy to pull it off, no questionable feats, no wonky spell combos, nothing. It's almost as trivial as the candle of invocation infinite wish loop. :P
The only "RAW" way of preventing a level 14 character from running around with the castnig abilities of a level 17 cleric is to argue that the planetar's spellcasting is neither an extraordinary, nor a spell-like, nor a supernatural ability - aka natural ability. And even that interpretation is completely unsupported at best and pure DM fiat at worst..
It's called "Make Real".
Its basically a one-spell way to make a permanent magic item with absolutely no cost or time investment, materials, or experience (or Con in older editions). ANY enchantment/enhancment temporarily placed upon ANY non-living thing or non-mobil plant can be made permanent, FOREVER, with the casting of this spell.
Cast light on a rock and then this spell, and you got a glowing rock that will last until the end of time (that was one of the examples).
Lots of ways to break this game if you really try - I had a rules-legal Dwarven Wizard in 2e, and I had a first level character with something like 37 HP another time.
Because 99% of the time we go with what the die says.
I just pulled a TPK on a bunch of adventurers. They hadn't prepared themselves well enough, and when I kindly explained they had several unidentified CMW, CLW and Silversheen potions plus a periapt of health in their backpacks when they died to the werewolf attack, they understood that they really had the odds on their side if they'd bothered with identifying loot. Loads of rolls there I could have modified; I very rarely modify rolls.
So the choice is simple: Either play with a new setting(4E), or play one of the older settings(FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, etc).
I just pulled a TPK on a bunch of adventurers. They hadn't prepared themselves well enough, and when I kindly explained they had several unidentified CMW, CLW and Silversheen potions plus a periapt of health in their backpacks when they died to the werewolf attack, they understood that they really had the odds on their side if they'd bothered with identifying loot. Loads of rolls there I could have modified; I very rarely modify rolls.
-Ugh, my players do that all the time. They always forget about the unidentified items that they have, which makes both my life and their lives more difficult.
The only thing that's bad with 4E and needs to change is the name: It's not Forgotten Realms. It's Spellplaguelands or something. Just like Eberron or any other setting. It's a NEW setting, with markettable ideas from other settings. That just it. Forgotten Realms has ended in 3.5E.
So the choice is simple: Either play with a new setting(4E), or play one of the older settings(FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, etc).
The only thing that has ended is support for earlier editions, the lore is still there, and all the books are as applicable as they ever have been. Nothing is stopping you from just going from where WotC left off. Just ignore or adapt any new lore into your world as you desire. Ed has done this in his home campaign, he never even had the Time of Troubles in his realms, so, unless you really need more and more source material to build adventures, just use what they have. And unless they are well off financially, most people do not own every FR book out there, so there is years of old stuff to work through without ever buying a new book. The realms you play in are yours, no one will come and force you to play in 4e, or even 3.x.
-Ex: The party Fighter finds a magic greatsword. The fighter swings it around and looks it over and then he makes a knowlegde war check (Homebrewed skill for a fighter same as knowlegde history pretty much) and their you go its a +4 keen speed holy evil outsider bane greatsword.
-Ex: The spellcasters make Arcana/religion/spellcraft check when appropriate for their type of items. Identify doesn't exist in my campaign. Now an artifact, has to go to a loremaster to 'identify' it.
18DELTA :D
-Thats why I let them figure out what the item is/does.
-They don't even do that. Worried about "Belts of Gender-Bending" and cursed items, and such. Not that I've ever given out items like that. You know, I ought to give out a cursed item. Doesn't happen enough.
-They don't even do that. Worried about "Belts of Gender-Bending" and cursed items, and such. Not that I've ever given out items like that. You know, I ought to give out a cursed item. Doesn't happen enough.
That's why you get the low intelligence types to test questionable objects...
That's why you get the low intelligence types to test questionable objects...
-3/4 of the party are those "low intelligence" types. Why the Bard doesn't use them in more...radical ways, I don't know.
-3/4 of the party are those "low intelligence" types. Why the Bard doesn't use them in more...radical ways, I don't know.
Well, like you said in another thread, you don't get into inter-party conflict. That is where this stuff gets fun. You have to be willing to abuse your fellow adventurers.
You have to be willing to abuse your fellow adventurers.
-I'll try to plant the seed, see what happens...
-Ugh, my players do that all the time. They always forget about the unidentified items that they have, which makes both my life and their lives more difficult.
I ran through a 4e module last night with my players. Had to pull punches in one part (They were 4 1st level, and the module was for 5 2nd levels), but it went fine. However, at the end they were put in a position that separated them, and while it wasn't entirely their fault, it ended up almost being a TPK. I was running a character who escaped, and managed to pull a heal check out of his arse on the cleric, so the two retreated.
My point of telling everyone this however, was that my players do not like making Perception checks (Old Spot, listen, search), even after having warned them twice, and nearly killing them once before because of it.
I don't like to shoot for killing PC's, so long as they play smart. But sometimes, you can only ignore their oversight so long. :P
-RW
I ran through a 4e module last night with my players. Had to pull punches in one part (They were 4 1st level, and the module was for 5 2nd levels), but it went fine. However, at the end they were put in a position that separated them, and while it wasn't entirely their fault, it ended up almost being a TPK. I was running a character who escaped, and managed to pull a heal check out of his arse on the cleric, so the two retreated.
My point of telling everyone this however, was that my players do not like making Perception checks (Old Spot, listen, search), even after having warned them twice, and nearly killing them once before because of it.
I don't like to shoot for killing PC's, so long as they play smart. But sometimes, you can only ignore their oversight so long. :P
-RW
Changing dice rolls should only be done to keep random bad luck from totally devastating a party, never to compensate for their own foolishness. If a character wants to do something stupid, let them, they are only going to do it a few times before discovering no divine force will keep them from dying.
Oh and LK, my favorite method of party conflict is the player to DM note, it ensures that the other's aren't sure who is doing what. My favorite to give to the DM is "look at this note, roll a dice, and nod your head" after seeing this, whatever happens next, the other players will start to believe you are part of the event.
Changing dice rolls should only be done to keep random bad luck from totally devastating a party, never to compensate for their own foolishness. If a character wants to do something stupid, let them, they are only going to do it a few times before discovering no divine force will keep them from dying.
I don't change rolls if it's their own fault. But when something comes up that they couldn't be asked to deal with, I'm inclined to change things around abit in their favour.
In my example, I never fudged the dice, just played down the opponent, having him toy with the PC's, much like a cat (Young black dragon), rather than go gung ho and shred them. ;)
And LK, I agree that humiliation often works far better for most PC's, especially those inclined to look at their characters as numbers, rather than 'people' who wouldn't want to take the hit from the sword.
-RW
My point of telling everyone this however, was that my players do not like making Perception checks (Old Spot, listen, search), even after having warned them twice, and nearly killing them once before because of it.
-RW
That's why Passive Insight and Perception scores are so prominent on the 4e character sheet. The players don't NEED to be actively using those skills, and if the equivalent of taking 10 is too low a result, then is punishing them really the next step?
There's a reason why experts no longer recommend rubbing a puppy's nose in poo if they do it on the carpet - it doesn't work and they just end up resenting you. Like puppies, your players will love you if you treat them with respect and forgive their occasional indiscretions.
Joe
If you are in a dungeon, where traps are rampant, and you choose to barge senslessly into rooms, then you deserve what happens.
Passive checks make sense so long as they are at least being hesitent, but if you just want to ignore safety, and go for the gold, you will probably get burned or diced in the process. ;)
Besides, by DC's of the thunderpeak module, only rolling would have done it. Making the same mistake twice is asking to get killed. Caution is a virtue every adventurer should practise.
-RW
Also, if you always fudge the rolls to save a party, sooner or later they start to realize that they aren't really in mortal danger and their actions get even more dangerous.
Remember game = have fun =/= TPK
I know its a game, and luck plays a big part, but D&D is more about having fun then 'winning', and no one has fun when a player has to roll-up a new character.
Case in point - as a DM once, I watched as two of the PCs rlled 1's right after the other, and I rolled three natural 20's in a row for the monsters. They should have died, but I fudged things so they were only knocked out and managed to survive. Instead of a bad night game, they instead had a 'close call' (and they were none the wiser).
On the other hand, I quickly killed one moron who refused to come up for air, no matter how many times I told him he was getting woozy and his lungs were aching. He didn't think characters had to breath.. I swear to god.
You get all kinds in this game.
But player enjoyment is always rule #1 - if what you're doing is causing the players to have a bad time, then your not a good DM, no matter how well you know the rules. Hell, some of the best DMs I've ever had the pleasure of running under didn't know the rules for crap.
I don't see it as impossible to do just about everything you could do before, but the story goes slow because writers have to write and that process is the strain. I don't see the new FR being nearly as good, but if creative minds can get on the true flavor of Faerun and ease the transition without trying to appease all the people all the time, it can be done.
But how can one approximate Fiendform or Dhulark's Glasstrike, or differentiate the Red Wizard from the Archmage using it? How does one imbue a gem with a spell or cast rune magic? It better be good.
And how's my homey Kossuth doin'? Don't forget me, bro.
But how can one approximate Fiendform or Dhulark's Glasstrike, or differentiate the Red Wizard from the Archmage using it? How does one imbue a gem with a spell or cast rune magic? It better be good.
And how's my homey Kossuth doin'? Don't forget me, bro.
-That's what happens when you have a setting that stays relatively the same (for the most part), but progresses through four rule editions.
You wanted to duel-wield scimitars?
case in point - Thank You. ;)
Seriously though, I want my players to grow and make their own mistakes, not play-out the novels they love. Don't get me wrong, I pretty much made my kids read LotR and Harry Potter (only the first of each - after that they were hooked), so I encourage reading (even splat-books), but I prefer that the FR lore stay 'hidden' until I reveal it.
Just my style, is all - I have nothing against DMs who like their players to know everything about a setting - It leads to some evening-filled arguments where very little adventuring gets done, but to each his own.
Personally, i've wanted to duel-weild things since i started playing, and scimitars are sexy. since i was a kid i've loved them. it took me a long time to get around to reading the drizzt books. of course, i've gotten to the point where i'd rather use a shamshir, but two scimitars is still awesome.
also, i personally havn't had much problems with arguements when the whole group knows a lot about the setting. DM/GM is the final word. period. if the DM wants to change something about the setting for his campaign, then for the purposes of the campaign what he has changed is the truth.
-Having a scimitar at home (Hadhafang), I'll say that it's particularly difficult to swing one with one hand. With authority and proficiency, anyway.
Though Hadhafang is a replica (i'm guessing) and all the weight is in the blade because i'm sure it's not full tang. With full tang swords, the weight is much more distributed through the handle and of course the counter-weight of the pommel to give it more balance and ease of swinging. If they actually made the LotR replicas carbon steel and full tang i'd pick one up in a second but I dont' see the point in paying $100+ for a non-functional weapon (unless you got a deal then it's all good :D).
Then again, I'd probably rather not know...
;) :P
My brother-in-law owned a 'head-shop' wherein he had a section that sold swords and knives, and he had some really awsome looking ones, but I doubt any of them were functional.
Maybe the morningstar...
Why would you want it functional, pray tell?
Then again, I'd probably rather not know...
;) :P
My brother-in-law owned a 'head-shop' wherein he had a section that sold swords and knives, and he had some really awsome looking ones, but I doubt any of them were functional.
Maybe the morningstar...
Unless of course he is hunting down posters who don't agree with him.
Though Hadhafang is a replica (i'm guessing) and all the weight is in the blade because i'm sure it's not full tang. With full tang swords, the weight is much more distributed through the handle and of course the counter-weight of the pommel to give it more balance and ease of swinging. If they actually made the LotR replicas carbon steel and full tang i'd pick one up in a second but I dont' see the point in paying $100+ for a non-functional weapon (unless you got a deal then it's all good :D).
-Did not know that.
Why would you want it functional, pray tell?
Then again, I'd probably rather not know...
For when the zombies come.........duh!
:P! But seriously, only because if I'm going to be spending lots of money on a weapon, (espically nice looking ones) I'd rather have a functional one that looks beautiful than a non-functional one that looks beautiful. My brother-in-law owned a 'head-shop' wherein he had a section that sold swords and knives, and he had some really awsome looking ones, but I doubt any of them were functional.
Maybe the morningstar...
Maces, flails, and morningstars need not be made with the best of quality because the design is so simple as to be effective reguardless of it's construction. Blades, on the other hand have to be crafted better to stand up to the punishment of conecting against harder/solid objects. I once bought a Battle-axe for like 15.00 at a flea market. It looked really cool, the blade was sharp and had some designs where it connected to the handle. After 3 chops at the tree in my front yard (something my parents weren't too thrilled about) the fourth swing sent the axe-blade spinning off the handle and into the street (thankfully no one was around).
-Did not know that.
Well now you know, and knowing is half the battle...........Go JOE!
For some additional LotR movie facts, Viggo was given two different swords to use on set. One was a full-tang, carbon steel version for fighting scenes while the other was a replica and much lighter for visual purposes only. Apparently he never used the lighter replica because the weight and feel of the real sword put him more into character. Also, he told the costume designers that he needed a whetstone pouch on his belt because that was something Aragorn would have on him.
Well now you know, and knowing is half the battle...........Go JOE!
-Yes, yes it is.
Looking back at this thread makes me want to dig out my butterfly knife...
-Having a scimitar at home (Hadhafang), I'll say that it's particularly difficult to swing one with one hand. With authority and proficiency, anyway.
Arwen's blade from LotR? A regular shamshir was made to be wielded one handed.
Arwen's blade from LotR? A regular shamshir was made to be wielded one handed.
-The weapon in the picture is not the weapon that I have at home. THIS is what I have.
Never could bring myself to buy a sword... too afraid of what my wife will give herself a concussion when walking past it. Beshaba really likes her at times it seems...
-I didn't buy it. My stepfather did, and when he got divorced from my mom, and moved out, he didn't take it, so it's mine now.
Ohhh weapons talk, I do medieval re-enactment (War of the Roses) and have a longbow and a shortsword.
-Cool.
Ohhh weapons talk, I do medieval re-enactment (War of the Roses) and have a longbow and a shortsword.
Ever go to Pennsic?
I used to be an archer in the Kingdom of the East along with my father in law, and my brother-in-law was a knight (I would have been a knight, but my wife wouldn't let me buy a suit of armor).
I haven't been to an SCA meeting in years, though.
EDIT: Ack - I just realized your across the pond. :embarrass
So... about that mindset that needs changing...
Ever go to Pennsic?
I used to be an archer in the Kingdom of the East along with my father in law, and my brother-in-law was a knight (I would have been a knight, but my wife wouldn't let me buy a suit of armor).
I haven't been to an SCA meeting in years, though.
EDIT: Ack - I just realized your across the pond. :embarrass
I've got some friends who've gone to Pennsic. Im in Kaid(sp?), and inactive right now. I started playing with the Horsemen, and a few guys from the Fray, but like i said, im inactive right now.
Yay SCA
-The weapon in the picture is not the weapon that I have at home. THIS is what I have.
Hello Arwen! Always knew it! :D
Can we go back on topic then?
Note by the way how the ad says the sword comes with a full-length tang construction.
And now to find out what the topic of this topic was in the first place.
And Arwen got too much of a role in the films. Was looking forward to seeing Glorfindel!
Personally I think their was and still is a segment of the gaming community that was and is still in denial about the changes happening to both 4E and FRCS. We were told ahead of time things were going to be different. Well guess what when a game desigber says a product is going to be different it's going to be different. Sometimes change is just that change. You may not like the change but imo for FRCS it's needed.
I used to be part of the old guard so to speak but I also realize that some things need to change. Some on this board says they have nothing against change. Yet somehow they dislike change. Makes me ashamed to be an older gamer as it seems the older gamers are the ones the most resistant to change. In the end their just a drop in a very very large ocean. They can trash talk all the changes, the fans who like the chages it won't matter a single bit. D&D has too many fans. It's one of the few games where they can pull this type of stuff and still survive. Second would be White Wolf.
I will take a look in 4E when it comes out, as so far we have only had bits and pieces, but what I have seen does not make me particularly optimistic.
LK = Arwen?
-LK =/= Arwen
I'm just ignoring all the anti-4E/FRCS on the boards. I like what they have done with 4E. I knew that they would be changing a bunch of stuff. I found the realms becoming bloated and stale. Not to mention I did not want to buy a new FRCS book that had the same information again a third time.
Personally I think their was and still is a segment of the gaming community that was and is still in denial about the changes happening to both 4E and FRCS. We were told ahead of time things were going to be different. Well guess what when a game desigber says a product is going to be different it's going to be different. Sometimes change is just that change. You may not like the change but imo for FRCS it's needed.
I used to be part of the old guard so to speak but I also realize that some things need to change. Some on this board says they have nothing against change. Yet somehow they dislike change. Makes me ashamed to be an older gamer as it seems the older gamers are the ones the most resistant to change. In the end their just a drop in a very very large ocean. They can trash talk all the changes, the fans who like the chages it won't matter a single bit. D&D has too many fans. It's one of the few games where they can pull this type of stuff and still survive. Second would be White Wolf.
-And, I, for the most part, disagree with every statement you've made there (in that baiting, adversarial tone, might I add).
-And, I, for the most part, disagree with every statement you've made there (in that baiting, adversarial tone, might I add).
Right because hearing posters on the board repeating over and over again that "realms are dead" in the same baiting, adversarial tone should just be ignored huh.
I can understand and respect even sympathize if they had just sprung all the changes out of nowhere. We were given plenty of warning that it would be different. And from what I have read from the other threads people don't like change period. I respect that but I don't agree with it. You can bet that posters would have been reacting the same way if they had changed nothing. Who wants to spend 40$ on yet another FRCS reprint a third time. I hate to see what goings to happen when the 4E Eberoon book will be released.
-And, I, for the most part, disagree with every statement you've made there (in that baiting, adversarial tone, might I add).
He's not that far off from the truth, IMO.
In terms of baiting, your accusation of same against memorax73 fits the definition far more than anything he wrote does.
“Adversarial tone?” That’s laughable.
I'd only disagree with memorax73 that it's the older gamers stirring things up. Those who discovered FR late in the life of 2E or during 3E are contributing their fair share, too.
Some people just have differing personal opinions about the setting.
Remember, personal opinions are not the same things as facts.
He's not that far off from the truth, IMO.
It's not so much truth as being told that something will be different than acting like one was never told that bothers me more than anything.
In terms of baiting, your accusation of same against memorax73 fits the definition far more than anything he wrote does.
I'm guessing it's because I actually like the new FRCS as opposed to hating it. How dare I.
“Adversarial tone?” That’s laughable.
Considering that some are acting that the new FRCS is one of the biblical signs of the apocalypse and are much more rude and offensive I had a good laugh too. I could have phrased my post in a much more offensive manner. I chose not to as by doing that it shows a lack of class imo.
I'd only disagree with memorax73 that it's the older gamers stirring things up. Those who discovered FR late in the life of 2E or during 3E are contributing their fair share, too.
Your are right. I admit i was kind of generalizing on that point.
Some people just have differing personal opinions about the setting.
Remember, personal opinions are not the same things as facts.
From what I have been reading anyone who likes the new FRCS seems to be made out as either a 4E fanboy or some sort of traitor to the realms. I like the new FRCS I understand and respect that some do not.
Basically I am an older fan that is going to go along with the changes. It works for me and my group. For others it will not work. Like you said just ignore the people who might get your gander up.
LK = Arwen?
perhaps?
When I play in the Realms, or Greyhawk, or wherever, I want know enough about the world to be able make a character who could believably have come straight from the pens of the designers of the setting, one who fits right into the history of the setting.
The idea that ONLY the DM should know any details about the world is as ludicrous as the idea that the people of a village that is regularly raided by goblins don't know anything about goblins because their Knowledge: Whatever is too low.
Screw "discovery." Discovering "new and exciting lands" is about the LAST thing I am playing D&D for. In D&D you have kinds of players: those who want to immerse themselves in a shared universe and make characters appropriate and fitting for that setting, and those who just want to kill monsters and take their stuff and who don't give a DAMN about the name of the local village.
And do you know what WotC has done to all those players who loved immersing themselves in the Realms, and loved learning about all the history they could use to make their characters lives richer and their play experience more rewarding?
And all those players who just want to kill things and take their stuff? They wouldn't give a damn WHERE they were playing,or even what the name of the setting was.
So congratulations, WotC; you've managed to **** off the half of the player base who actually cares about the Realms, and at the same time waste a whole lot of effort on the other half who don't care about the setting they're playing in in the first place.
The idea that ONLY the DM should know any details about the world is as ludicrous as the idea that the people of a village that is regularly raided by goblins don't know anything about goblins because their Knowledge: Whatever is too low.
Did you know this was "how it was" during the days of D&D and AD&D?
But people read the books and the novels anyway, while (mostly) keeping player vs. character knowledge separate at the gaming table.
And do you know what WotC has done to all those players who loved immersing themselves in the Realms, and loved learning about all the history they could use to make their characters lives richer and their play experience more rewarding? They got the...
LOL...the Player's Guide to the Realms is coming out in a month. Things aren't as bad as you think.
:P
It's like Titanic; I can call it a sucky, overblown, half-assed attempt of a movie until I'm red in the face, but no amount of complaining and whining is going to change the fact that my opinion is not worth the pixels it's being displayed on.
Absurd? Stupid? Words fail me.
Anyone who could put up with that should have no problems with anything in the new edition.
Be that as it may, there are no absolute truths, only popular ones. If and when the 4E Realms becomes the mainstream variant of the franchise, all naysayers simply are wrong by default.
It's like Titanic; I can call it a sucky, overblown, half-assed attempt of a movie until I'm red in the face, but no amount of complaining and whining is going to change the fact that my opinion is not worth the pixels it's being displayed on.
Mainstream, real... Please, please, let us stop thinking in that kind of way. There is no 'real' fans. No absolute truth, as you said.
(and FR, since being D&D, well... long, long road from being 'mainstream'.)
So congratulations, WotC; you've managed to **** off the half of the player base who actually cares about the Realms, and at the same time waste a whole lot of effort on the other half who don't care about the setting they're playing in in the first place.
You will notice that the other half is composed of peoples that like the Realms also, or that gave a chance to it, found too much bad points or downers, etc... and went for another setting - and returned now.
There always was 'dissenters' in D&D - they have a voice now.
Personally I don't get the animosity. I prefer the leap forward in time to the travesty of the Time of Troubles, which turned me off of the Realms. Having some uber-god walk in and tell everyone 'Out of the pool' was just...
Absurd? Stupid? Words fail me.
Anyone who could put up with that should have no problems with anything in the new edition.
Both are stupid, but the 4ed über RSE is the worst of both, at least the ToT didn't destroyed everything and created something new with the same names.
You will notice that the other half is composed of peoples that like the Realms also, or that gave a chance to it, found too much bad points or downers, etc... and went for another setting - and returned now.
To trully appreaciate the realms you have to inmerse yourself on it, even if it's just an inch under the surface, and understand the hows and whys of the setting. Most of the seccond group don't do it. And they have a lot of other settings for them, thanks to WotC now WE don't have any setting at all that is like the realms, while the haters now have another one.
(and FR, since being D&D, well... long, long road from being 'mainstream'.)
Mainstream as regards D&D players (more precisely, FR players), of course, not population as a whole; similar to how 3E Realms became the primary variant during the 3E era.
From what I have been reading anyone who likes the new FRCS seems to be made out as either a 4E fanboy or some sort of traitor to the realms. I like the new FRCS I understand and respect that some do not.
I was accused of being one of the 4E Realms designers.
Which is categorically untrue...I smell way too pretty
To trully appreaciate the realms you have to inmerse yourself on it, even if it's just an inch under the surface, and understand the hows and whys of the setting. Most of the seccond group don't do it. And they have a lot of other settings for them, thanks to WotC now WE don't have any setting at all that is like the realms, while the haters now have another one.
Right, where in the Dungeons & Dragons mythos are we ever going to find another world populated by Elves, Dragons, detailed cities, NPC's, well-meaning but crotchety Archmages, ruthless criminal organizations, evil empires, and musical vigilantes?
To trully appreciate the realms you have to immerse yourself on it,
That's one way to do it, and it's a good one. But it sure as heck isn't the only way to do it.
I remember when I was in Junior High (that'd be the late 80'). I read all the FR Novels I could get my hands on and played D&D in the Realms once or twice a week.
Thing of it was, when I read the novels I was immersed in one world, whereas when I gamed in the Realms I was in another world.
Both were of the Realms, but the later was the sum of us four players and our DM. We played in Bloodstone, we played in Cormyr and it was all about what we were doing.
Those are some of the best gaming memories I have and they're a big part of why I love gaming in the Realms.
So I think it's important for people to know that immersive, setting-specific roleplaying is fun, but by no means whatsoever is it the best way to enjoy D&D in the Forgotten Realms or to truly appreciate the setting.
The absolute biggest art of playing in a shared world is being able to participate in the shared aspect of the world.
When I play in the Realms, or Greyhawk, or wherever, I want know enough about the world to be able make a character who could believably have come straight from the pens of the designers of the setting, one who fits right into the history of the setting.
The idea that ONLY the DM should know any details about the world is as ludicrous as the idea that the people of a village that is regularly raided by goblins don't know anything about goblins because their Knowledge: Whatever is too low.
Screw "discovery." Discovering "new and exciting lands" is about the LAST thing I am playing D&D for. In D&D you have kinds of players: those who want to immerse themselves in a shared universe and make characters appropriate and fitting for that setting, and those who just want to kill monsters and take their stuff and who don't give a DAMN about the name of the local village.
And do you know what WotC has done to all those players who loved immersing themselves in the Realms, and loved learning about all the history they could use to make their characters lives richer and their play experience more rewarding?
And all those players who just want to kill things and take their stuff? They wouldn't give a damn WHERE they were playing,or even what the name of the setting was.
So congratulations, WotC; you've managed to **** off the half of the player base who actually cares about the Realms, and at the same time waste a whole lot of effort on the other half who don't care about the setting they're playing in in the first place.
Settle down.
Sit. Have a smoke and a ginger ale...the bad men can't hurt you anymore.
to be honest, that is petty much everything 3E forgotten realms was about. They didn't really create anything new, they just rehashed 2E & after that they found the things players thought were coolest about 2E FR & multiplied it by 10.
4E is a fresh look without all the pervious editions holding it down & i for one am loving it. Thats the reason old FR gamers dont like it. They have spent years accumulating knowledge & its now much less relevent. Its still well fleshed out, but it gives GMs new to the hobby some wiggle room without having the "old guard" jumping up and down yelling "You can't do that, in this novel X happened"
Both are stupid, but the 4ed über RSE is the worst of both, at least the ToT didn't destroyed everything and created something new with the same names.
ToT was almost as bad as the Spellplague, IMO.
to be honest, that is petty much everything 3E forgotten realms was about. They didn't really create anything new, they just rehashed 2E & after that they found the things players thought were coolest about 2E FR & multiplied it by 10.
-Of course, the 3e era spanned three years (1372 DR-1375 DR), and created/altered a lot, in terms of Realmslore.
I'm just ignoring all the anti-4E/FRCS on the boards. I like what they have done with 4E. I knew that they would be changing a bunch of stuff. I found the realms becoming bloated and stale. Not to mention I did not want to buy a new FRCS book that had the same information again a third time.
Personally I think their was and still is a segment of the gaming community that was and is still in denial about the changes happening to both 4E and FRCS. We were told ahead of time things were going to be different. Well guess what when a game desigber says a product is going to be different it's going to be different. Sometimes change is just that change. You may not like the change but imo for FRCS it's needed.
I used to be part of the old guard so to speak but I also realize that some things need to change. Some on this board says they have nothing against change. Yet somehow they dislike change. Makes me ashamed to be an older gamer as it seems the older gamers are the ones the most resistant to change. In the end their just a drop in a very very large ocean. They can trash talk all the changes, the fans who like the chages it won't matter a single bit. D&D has too many fans. It's one of the few games where they can pull this type of stuff and still survive. Second would be White Wolf.
You throw that change slogan around like a certain politician currently running for president. Change for the sake of change is many steps backward. But it sounds so cool to say, right? It stirs the passion just to think, wow what if we changed this or that!? You say some things need to change, perhaps you are correct, but I counter with some things must not change! In the context of this discussion, things that must not change are what made the setting popular in the first place. A well defined world rich with culture, magic, people, gods, and diverse places. 4e FR does not provide any of that at all. What the 4e FR does have are gaping holes in everything. All details are minimalist at best or downright non-existent at worst. It tells you what is, not why, which is the most important aspect of any history lesson.
Or maybe I should throw away a $100,000 sports car because it has a couple of scratches in it. I mean, why bother putting a new coat of paint on it, when a wrecking ball is so much more efficient?
Maybe I should punch my wife in the face a few hundred times, until she looks different.
Change is good, but only if the changes themselves are positive. Changing something drastically that thousands upon thousands of people love, in hopes that maybe someone who hates it will give it a second chance is just ludicrous.
We call that 'new Coke'.
You throw that change slogan around like a certain politician currently running for president.
Right and your not doing the same with wanting nothing to change. Or change but just the way you like it. Look up the definaton of the word change in the dictionary than get back to me.
Change for the sake of change is many steps backward. But it sounds so cool to say, right?
Never said that. So stop putting word in my mouth. When a game designer tells me that their will be major changes to a game background i expect them to change th background. Maybe or maybe not in a way I like but it will be different.
It stirs the passion just to think, wow what if we changed this or that!? You say some things need to change, perhaps you are correct, but I counter with some things must not change!
So I suppose all those times the game designers said that thing would change you just thought they were joking or trying to pull a fast one on you. Game worlds change even one like FR. The last thing I wanted in a new edition is rerehash of the same background and characters again. I bet if they had changed nothing you would have complined that they changed nothing.
In the context of this discussion, things that must not change are what made the setting popular in the first place. A well defined world rich with culture, magic, people, gods, and diverse places. 4e FR does not provide any of that at all. What the 4e FR does have are gaping holes in everything. All details are minimalist at best or downright non-existent at worst. It tells you what is, not why, which is the most important aspect of any history lesson.
For better or worse one of the things that bothered many D&D fans about FR was the metaplot. The overreliance on super powerful npcs and the constant backlog of events that just became stale. I liked the old FR realms. I did find it stale and boring. And no i was in no mood to change it. I buy a campaign setting to use it as much as possible as is. Not buy it and change it. Why bother wasting money on that when I can build my own. I could have done in the past but quite frankly i have better uses of my time. At least with 4E we have a mostly blank canvas to do with as we will. I for one am happy about that.
What if your parents found you boring after awhile, and decided it was time for 'a change'. Would putting you up for adoption and having another kid be okay with you?
Or maybe I should throw away a $100,000 sports car because it has a couple of scratches in it. I mean, why bother putting a new coat of paint on it, when a wrecking ball is so much more efficient?
Maybe I should punch my wife in the face a few hundred times, until she looks different.
Are your serious about the above? I mean I have to ask. Your comparing the changes to a game background with the above. Are you insane? It's a completely different context. Not to mention a gross oversimplification. You need some serious mental help. Anyone willing to post something like that about his wife to defend no changes to a game background is nuts as far as I'm concerened.
Change is good, but only if the changes themselves are positive. Changing something drastically that thousands upon thousands of people love, in hopes that maybe someone who hates it will give it a second chance is just ludicrous.
We call that 'new Coke'.
Well if I remember correctly New Coke was kept under wraps no one new anything about it. Wotc told us FR would be different. I will ask this again since no one responded the first time what the hell did you expect? Change is change. It can be for the better or worse. It's not going to follow your demands or your carefully constructed maps and flowcharts. Or your demands. I don't like everything they did with the 4E FRCS. Neither am I going to act all suprised and acting like it came out of nowhere.
I liked the old FR realms. I did find it stale and boring.
Say what?
Personaly, it's a road to things like boredom, stagnation and déjà vu.
If changes can be bad, so do no change.
For those who thought the previous realms were stagnant and could not DM it: IMO it's always easier to remove, adapt, or ignore lore than it is to create. If you did not like something you could choose not to use it. If you were tired of seeing the Chosen or Drizzt save the day, why not have your party do it instead or create your own NPC? In the 4E guide, there are so many questions created you have to spend hours researching to know what they are even talking about
I'd rather have the full background story and then decide what I am going to do.The 4E is not terrible, but for only having 2 books and an adventure it needed to be longer and more complete.
'Throwing the baby out with the water'. That's an example. Taking things so personal, taking this artificial creation as some grand, holy thing, not to be defiled.
That is a big, serious problem. The 'greyhawkification' of the Realms. Remember; it is game stuff, at the base. I'm at times falling in the trap, too. But... still remains a fact.
Say what?
To clarify I liked the old realms. I did find some elements stale and boring.
To clarify I liked the old realms. I did find some elements stale and boring.
As this guy shown, there is fans that disagreed at least with some points of the setting - that didn't made them 'haters'.
I think the issue is that while change can be good, you do not throw the baby out with the bath water. The amount of retcons involved in the setting speaks volumes in terms of issues with continuity and the lack of research put into the guide. Heck, there are continuity issues between the FRCG and the Grand History of the Realms too.
Some posters keep acting surprised at the level of change. They told us their would be many things different. I could understand if they keep the whole project secret and we got what we got as the final product. Instead they we very open about what they were doing. I can respect and understand those who dislike the changes. As it is a big change. That being said crying foul after you were warned repeatedly is kind of silly imo.
For those who thought the previous realms were stagnant and could not DM it: IMO it's always easier to remove, adapt, or ignore lore than it is to create. If you did not like something you could choose not to use it. If you were tired of seeing the Chosen or Drizzt save the day, why not have your party do it instead or create your own NPC? In the 4E guide, there are so many questions created you have to spend hours researching to know what they are even talking about
See this type of attitiude bothers me. I buy a campaign setting to use as is. Not waste my money to alter it. I have changed something in the old FR settings. It's not something I wanted to do. Some posters just don't want to understand or accept that not all of us want to rewrite the background. i respect those that do. That being said it's almost as if you are looked down upon for not wanting to alter let alone like everything about FRCS. It's not the right attitude to have if we want more people interested in the hobby.
The 4E is not terrible, but for only having 2 books and an adventure it needed to be longer and more complete.
It does feel a little incomplete. You definately need the players guide to get the most out of it imo. I'm still enjoying it though.
You know what? The issue is also rempant 'otakudom', to be frank and direct.
'Throwing the baby out with the water'. That's an example. Taking things so personal, taking this artificial creation as some grand, holy thing, not to be defiled.
That is a big, serious problem. The 'greyhawkification' of the Realms. Remember; it is game stuff, at the base. I'm at times falling in the trap, too. But... still remains a fact.
I can sympathise with some of the anti-FRCS not too much but I understand where they are coming from. that being said you can't have a product that never ever changes either. It just gets repetitive and boring. Also you can beat their would be a whole bunch of threads about people complaining that the 4E FRCS would have been just another rehash of previous editions.
See this type of attitiude bothers me. I buy a campaign setting to use as is. Not waste my money to alter it. I have changed something in the old FR settings. It's not something I wanted to do. Some posters just don't want to understand or accept that not all of us want to rewrite the background. i respect those that do. That being said it's almost as if you are looked down upon for not wanting to alter let alone like everything about FRCS. It's not the right attitude to have if we want more people interested in the hobby.
So instead of buying a product with complete lore that you can choose to disregard as suits you, you prefer a product with only snippets of lore that force you to either a) look back at previous books to fill in the blanks, or b) fill in the blanks yourself with your own creations. The former isn't necessarily a bad, but it stands to reason that if you don't care to rewrite something (see bolded text from your statement), you're not going to care to write background up from scratch either.
So instead of buying a product with complete lore that you can choose to disregard as suits you, you prefer a product with only snippets of lore that force you to either a) look back at previous books to fill in the blanks, or b) fill in the blanks yourself with your own creations. The former isn't necessarily a bad, but it stands to reason that if you don't care to rewrite something (see bolded text from your statement), you're not going to care to write background up from scratch either.
Not really Leon_Stryfe. When I put the 3E FRCS I was dissapointed with all the high level npcs but kept them in. As I could not really be bothered to rewrite the background. It was not some much the high level npcs or the rerehased background. It's the implication that if you dislike the high level npcs you are either not doing a good job running the background or you should change it. Which is the wrong type of attitiude to take imo. Would you be interested in joining the FR gaming community if you were basically told the above. If I was getting into FR I knew I would not. And for the record I never waste money on a campign setting if I have to rewrite it to suit my needs. What would be the point and imo it's counter productive to say the least. I can do it on my own.
I can sympathise with some of the anti-FRCS not too much but I understand where they are coming from. that being said you can't have a product that never ever changes either. It just gets repetitive and boring. Also you can beat their would be a whole bunch of threads about people complaining that the 4E FRCS would have been just another rehash of previous editions.
This is not even the problem. The problem is much deeper and older than this.
but it stands to reason that if you don't care to rewrite something (see bolded text from your statement), you're not going to care to write background up from scratch either.
A is not necesarly linked to B. Because of why one may rewrite, by example - maybe he dislike those things, and the fact that some peoples just like to build around bare bones too.
You can have A without the B. You can care for one and not the other.
1) @memorax73
I can definitely understand and respect your opinion that you want a product as-is with no rewrites needed. My point was that you do not have to waste any time rewriting any NPCs or lore if you do not like it. Just do not use it. No fuss no muss. On the flip side of what you said earlier, does it not waste just as much time having to look up lore that the guide does not fully explain? I mean what happens if your players ask you questions that the lore does not cover because it's too incomplete? Again, I am not saying 4E was bad, what I am saying is that if Wizards is only publishing 2 books and an adventure it might be better to be more complete.
2) @The Ubbergeek
Throwing the baby out with the bath water is a simple expression that has been around for years. It certainly does not mean that I am taking this extremely personal or have made 3E into a holy artifact lol. What it means is that instead of just making changes to the setting, the writers went in and made many fundamental retcons. As I also said, I do not hate 4E. I just find it hypocritical to remove a deity and Chosen and other good NPCs on the basis that they were being used too much and then turn around and keep most of the same evil NPCs from before and give another deity the same overexposure that was the supposed problem in the first place. I would also disagree with you that this setting is not a grand thing. It is the collective effort of decades of books, articles, guides, comics, etc. After all, Wizards of the Coast titled their timeline "The Grand History of the Realms". One last thing, if a person disagrees with the current setting and voices their opinion in a respectful manner, it should never be considered "a serious problem".
Not really Leon_Stryfe. When I put the 3E FRCS I was dissapointed with all the high level npcs but kept them in. As I could not really be bothered to rewrite the background. It was not some much the high level npcs or the rerehased background. It's the implication that if you dislike the high level npcs you are either not doing a good job running the background or you should change it. Which is the wrong type of attitiude to take imo.
I think I understand better now. You're problem lies more with the attitude that you must either rewrite or ignore them to be a good DM than the fact that they exist in the first place. Is that more or less the jist of it?
Would you be interested in joining the FR gaming community if you were basically told the above.
Not really, however it sounds like you had a worse introduction to FR than I did. I was informed that there existed a large, motley assortment of NPC's, ranging in levels from far above my PC's to far below them. The fact that they existed would save me the trouble of needing to flesh out my own lands (a great boon to a child of 8, I assure you). As I grew older, I found that I could either use or ignore any of the NPC's as I saw fit. For example, if NPC _X_ wasn't exactly suitable for my campaign as leader of enemy organization _Y_, all I had to do was create a new leader, NPC _Z_, who toppled _X_ and is now causing my PC's trouble (as opposed to having to create both the orgainization and their leader).
I also found it helped to have players who knew the lore, and when I would sprinkle in some of the more prominant NPC's (such as Mirt), they enjoyed the games just a bit more. The fact that they all (or most) knew of Mirt's rich history in Waterdeep (for example) made my players feel that they were a part of something larger than simply a Saturday D&D game.
A is not necesarly linked to B. Because of why one may rewrite, by example - maybe he dislike those things, and the fact that some peoples just like to build around bare bones too. You can have A without the B. You can care for one and not the other.
Touche, however I still hold that they require approximately the same amount of work.
Just a couple thoughts:
1) @memorax73
I can definitely understand and respect your opinion that you want a product as-is with no rewrites needed. My point was that you do not have to waste any time rewriting any NPCs or lore if you do not like it. Just do not use it. No fuss no muss. On the flip side of what you said earlier, does it not waste just as much time having to look up lore that the guide does not fully explain? I mean what happens if your players ask you questions that the lore does not cover because it's too incomplete? Again, I am not saying 4E was bad, what I am saying is that if Wizards is only publishing 2 books and an adventure it might be better to be more complete.
I know I don't have to use it. I see your point. That being said being told not to use it kind of defeats the purpose of getting any version of the FRCS in the first place. If I were new to the background I'm just been told to either rewrite what I don't like or don't use it. I would question why get invloved with D&D in the first place let alone the FR. As I said I understand your point. You would also be demoralising a new person at the same time.
I mean, seriously. Even those who wanted a cut down setting are disgusted with the utter lack of information in the new FR book. It's quite funny.
2) @The Ubbergeek
Still, the point remains. So much Serious Business. *That* is the problem.
Clearly it would appear that the FR Fan Mindset needs to change from the 'We like good products' to the 'We'll buy any rubbish they put out!'
I mean, seriously. Even those who wanted a cut down setting are disgusted with the utter lack of information in the new FR book. It's quite funny.
That kinda prove my point.
I think I understand better now. You're problem lies more with the attitude that you must either rewrite or ignore them to be a good DM than the fact that they exist in the first place. Is that more or less the jist of it?
I would say a bit of both. It just the feeling I get on these boards that if you can't handle FR as is your either a lazy or poor DM. I'm not getting this from yourself or anyone else in this thread just a general feelng. Which kind of removes any feeling to want to improve or change anything in the background
Not really, however it sounds like you had a worse introduction to FR than I did. I was informed that there existed a large, motley assortment of NPC's, ranging in levels from far above my PC's to far below them. The fact that they existed would save me the trouble of needing to flesh out my own lands (a great boon to a child of 8, I assure you). As I grew older, I found that I could either use or ignore any of the NPC's as I saw fit. For example, if NPC _X_ wasn't exactly suitable for my campaign as leader of enemy organization _Y_, all I had to do was create a new leader, NPC _Z_, who toppled _X_ and is now causing my PC's trouble (as opposed to having to create both the orgainization and their leader).
It's not so much a bad introduction so much as having high level NPC both good and bad that did nothing at all in the background except when a novel was written. The 3E FRCS did much to change that just not enough imo. It just got to me after awhile reading how powerful the good NPC were and they did nothing. I'm not saying they should have overshadowed everything and everyone just to do something major and when they did do something it was at a snail pace. The same problem with the evil npcs. Not having them around kind of makes it much more exciting imo and it also places less stress on the players without having to feel intimidated by some many high level NPC. Let's be honest the FR was starting to get crowded with some many powerful people
I also found it helped to have players who knew the lore, and when I would sprinkle in some of the more prominant NPC's (such as Mirt), they enjoyed the games just a bit more. The fact that they all (or most) knew of Mirt's rich history in Waterdeep (for example) made my players feel that they were a part of something larger than simply a Saturday D&D game.
Having the players know about the background is a good or bad thing. On the postive side you don't have to waste time telling them the background who the major players and nations are. On the negative side depending on the players in the group you start to get the problem of metagaming. I had to tell one group that while most of the players knew Mansoon was a vampire their characters did not. It's a Catch-22 for lack of a better word.
Clearly it would appear that the FR Fan Mindset needs to change from the 'We like good products' to the 'We'll buy any rubbish they put out!'
No one is saying that. Stop putting words into the mouths of those who like the 4E FRCS background. Their some stuff I like some i don't. What I like I buy what I don't I don't. It's not like 3.5 FRCS was perfect either.
I mean, seriously. Even those who wanted a cut down setting are disgusted with the utter lack of information in the new FR book. It's quite funny.
Some like the lack of information some don't. I both like and dislike the lack of information. Please don't generalize all of us into one group. I think they tried to do a bit of both and failed. It happens get over it.
Having the players know about the background is a good or bad thing. On the postive side you don't have to waste time telling them the background who the major players and nations are. On the negative side depending on the players in the group you start to get the problem of metagaming. I had to tell one group that while most of the players knew Mansoon was a vampire their characters did not. It's a Catch-22 for lack of a better word.
I agree. Thankfully, my PC's almost never use metagame knowledge when it comes to FR. If only I could get them to show that same restraint when it comes to monster encounters...
What is the alternative of changes? No changes. Which is a can of worm in it's own.
Personaly, it's a road to things like boredom, stagnation and déjà vu.
If changes can be bad, so do no change.
Why does it seem that all I read around here is "either change for the sake of change or no change at all"?
There are FR fans who seem to despise the mere principle of change (Alediran comes to mind), I'll give you that. To them any change would be a travesty of the sacredness that is the Realms as it was. But the way I see it, the majority of those who don't like the New Realms isn't like that at all. Personally, so far I wasn't able to find for the life of me anything in the New Realms I like or I feel I couldn't have done "better". Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but to me it's just an unoriginal, unimaginative distillate of something that wasn't terribly original or imaginative to begin with, but that at least has grown over twenty years, that offered an amount of lore no English-language setting can hope to rival. So the only thing that set the Realms apart from the majority of the competition is gone now. Why exactly did this change "need to happen"?
Let's imagine George Lucas - you know, the guy whose original SW trilogy is far more popular than his recent one - had done things differently for his second trilogy because he doesn't like the first one anymore and wants his franchise to go a completely different way. So in the first couple of minutes of the first movie of the second trilogy we get a recap of the original episodes, only to watch Obi-Wan wake up and realize it was all just a dream. Episodes IV-VI never happened, clean slate, anything is possible now. Okay, George just took away most of which was responsible for the popularity of the franchise, but that's change, too, isn't it? And change is good, because the only alternative would be no change at all, right?
Now you could say, "Hey, wait, the history's still there, so that's not a valid comparison" - but that's not what I'm driving at with this example. Taking away episodes IV-VI so George can do whatever he wants with the second trilogy without being hindered by having to adhere to the future that's already been shown = taking away the lore in the new edition of the Realms (because lore is bad and confuses people) = taking away that which existing fans like the most. All in order to put everyone "on equal footing", as Rich Baker once put it. So if you like the "new trilogy" on its own terms, good for you. But it's the diet version of something far, far bigger it replaces, something that doesn't get support anymore. Naturally that irks fans of the original.
So as far as I'm concerned, "change is good, the only alternative is no change at all" isn't even an argument, it's just a platitude that cannot be applied to anything in a useful way *shrug*
DB
Just a couple thoughts:
1) @memorax73
Again, I am not saying 4E was bad, what I am saying is that if Wizards is only publishing 2 books and an adventure it might be better to be more complete.
Ok..please tell me that there is some mistake here, or that Im reading it wrong or something...by putting this together with other posts, I am to assume that they are publishing only 2 book, an adventure and now I have to get all of my lore fix from the da** NOVELS!?!? Someone PLEASE tell me that I'm not right....
Wulfe
DB
Ok..please tell me that there is some mistake here, or that Im reading it wrong or something...by putting this together with other posts, I am to assume that they are publishing only 2 book, an adventure and now I have to get all of my lore fix from the da** NOVELS!?!? Someone PLEASE tell me that I'm not right....
Wulfe
Yep, you got it. Even better, they deliberately didn't put things you'd expect in the FRCG as so not to spoil forthcoming novels. Isn't that great!
No one is saying that. Stop putting words into the mouths of those who like the 4E FRCS background. Their some stuff I like some i don't. What I like I buy what I don't I don't. It's not like 3.5 FRCS was perfect either.
I'm saying it as something funny. If I were putting words in peoples mouths, then it would be much more obvious. And no, the 3rd Edition FRCS wasn't perfect, but it was much better then the current 'book'. It had nice things like, oh, I don't know, NPC's. And Timelines. And interesting adventures that didn't take up 30 pages.
Yep, you got it. Even better, they deliberately didn't put things you'd expect in the FRCG as so not to spoil forthcoming novels. Isn't that great!
IMO, yes it is.
By way of comparison, a couple of years ago the DC Comics Encyclopedia came out. Very nice book, and I eventually bought a copy. Unfortunately, it laid out the final fate of a character in the big Batman crossover of the year (the character's codename, amusingly enough, was Spoiler, and she died). People read that and splattered it all over the forums, which sent people who were reading that Wargames crossover into an uproar. It's one thing to spoil a book or story ending after it's been released, but to go around spoiling it one or two months before it's even out?
So yeah, thank God that Mask's fate wasn't explained in the book, as it'd be common knowledge for everyone over the course of the next four months between now and the books release, and would ruin it for those who're keeping up with the novels.
However, some of us buy a Campaign Setting to use it as a place to game in. In which case, some information about what happened to key players might be appreciated. As this is not the case, it's been made quite clear what WoTC consider to be the main focus of the Realms, and that's novels.
Well of course, if you're more interested in the Novels then the FR setting as a place to game, it's a good thing.
I'm far more interested in the campaign than the novels, as I rarely if ever read them, and I still consider that a good thing.
However, some of us buy a Campaign Setting to use it as a place to game in. In which case, some information about what happened to key players might be appreciated. As this is not the case, it's been made quite clear what WoTC consider to be the main focus of the Realms, and that's novels.
Leaving out information about one character doesn't mean that their priorities are wholly novels first and campaign second. They did Paul Kemp and those who're keeping up to date with his novels a courtesy. What's so wrong with that? It's not as if the campaign becomes unplayable without knowing what the deal with Mask is. And given the way things are described, whatever Mask's fate is, at the start date of the 4E campaign setting, it's something that's still a mystery to the people of 15th century Faerun.
Besides, are you even planning to use the 4E Realms? If not, then it doesn't really affect you.
It is no longer a gamers setting first and foremost. It's a setting for WoTC to churn out novels. Which is understandable, given that novels sell much more then the gaming books.
I hope the WotC will go into ruin for it.
And the idiots that destroyed years of great fantasy stories, written by untold numbers of writers whom not the least of em is Ed Greenwood and the greatest high fantasy setting of our time... I hope they cease polluting the market with their crap. Go and write TV manuals, maybe your skill isn't exceeded by that at least. Search for a hole and stick with it.
So much contend destroyed, crippled and corrupted... but alas to destroy is always easier to create and much easier for the so called designers.
For me there's no sequel after Realms 3.5 and the last years in the "Grand History of the Realms" (Nice joke though ^^) are ereased.
WotC you will get no money from me for your 4e crap. Start working, cut the crap... and tell everyone that 4e was a bad mistake and it will just be ereased from the plan and we will do as if there was no 4e ever. Then I could change my mind.
It is no longer a gamers setting first and foremost. It's a setting for WoTC to churn out novels. Which is understandable, given that novels sell much more then the gaming books.
Uhm... that's not exactly a change, is it? The metaplot has been driven forward exclusively by novels for ages, not by supplements. In fact, that was one of the biggest criticisms - that you had to buy their dime novels in order to find out when and how event X came about, and that a vast amount of lore was scattered over dozens and dozens of novels instead of bundled and organized in a sourcebook. Personally, I think that this contributed to the "too much lore" fallacy. Of course, since novels are cheap to produce and sell well, this point was not adressed...
DB
Every story you read to this day is completely unimportant for this version of the realms. Because of the simple fact the most characters that were in it, are dead or their country simply doesn't exist anymore, and and and...
Talk as you want, 4e FR suck the hell bad.
They had the opportunity to fix it, in this shake up. Instead, they made it much worse.
Sweet Athena screaming, where is the wisdom or logic in that?
Now on the other hand, if they promised to release a "lorebook" every, say, six months covering everything that had been released so far, I might be able to live with that compromise....after all, not all of us have consistent internet access to get every DDI article or infinate bookcase space to hold all the novels that you would have to have. But then WotC is famous for pulling things like this...anyone ever heard the phrase "Magic: The Cash-Cow"?
The idea of leaving things so that individual DMs can make their world as they please is fine...however it seems to me that the idea has been taken too far this time. After all, it is much easire to omit things from your game then to come up with, for all intents and purposes, a new setting....if I wanted to have to write an entire new world all by myself, I would.
And moving on to another consideration...how do the writers of the novels feel about this? After all, since EVERYTHING they write is now canon, that leads one to assume that they are being told the plots of their novels now. "Ok...you are going to write a novel about Selune....here is what needs to happen and this is how it needs to end....now fill in the details."
*rolls his eyes yet again and pads away shaking his head* "Hope that Tymora is home...I'm going to need to raid Her wine cellar again."
4e FR setting. One has to be badly brainwashed to buy more of this crap if he has seen the latest release.That might entirely be....... BUT in case of magic, there is a good base. And the base for releasing additional stuff isn't given in the slightest with this fu**ing 4e FR setting. One has to be badly brainwashed to buy more of this crap if he has seen the latest release.
Another example of my point.
But then I am mentaly ill, so I am surely easy to manipulate, eh?
It has always been that everything written in the novels is canon. There is no great and new change there.
Just as good Realms Dungeon Masters have oft-borrowed from the novels for Realmslore, since the setting first saw print.
Again, nothing new there.
Your complaint amounts to nothing more than, "What? There will be more of the same?!? How dare they!"
Let us not forget there are loads of 3E and older sourcebooks that are still perfectly usable in the 4E Realms.
I too would like to see more 4E Realms sourcebooks (and I think WotC' will reverse itself and print them, eventually), but in the interim there is no great shortage of lore from which to build adventures.
Dungeon Masters, not Dungeon Lackeys, hey?
Of course, the 4th Edition Realms won't have sourcebooks. Or a timeline.
Let us not forget there are loads of 3E and older sourcebooks that are still perfectly usable in the 4E Realms.
4th edition is the first D&D product I have purchased since Ruins of the Under Mountain way back when and while I do see the frustration in having to deal with almost an entirely new system I do not understand the complaints about the setting. I do not understand how DM's with 30 years of playing experiience and 20 yrs of Forgotten Realms gamemastering do not have the slightest idea with what to do with the product out now.
I am gathering that 4th edition was made to attarct new gamers to the world(s) and for that to happen the slate had to be wiped somewhat Call me old fashioned or out of the loop but i just don't understand the current mindset where people need to be detailed down to the exact detail or else the book is useless. Do we all run campaigns where running into major npc's is a common occurance or we need to know what the heck happened to MASK to run a campaign with him it it? He is MASK for crying out loud, he spent how long hiding as a sword?
Stick to 3.5 if you don't like 4th thats fine but sooner or later you are STILL going to have to develope your OWN material from scratch and just like 4th edition you have 20 years of the Forgotten Realms to build it off of. So in the end it comes down to this are you upset because of the apparrent lack of info (remember players guilde should have more info about places) or are you upset because you will have to work a little harder to figure out your NPC's?
Yep. The biggest issue in the 3rd Edition Realms, that there are too many sources of lore has just been exacerbated in the 4th Edition one. Sure, the 3rd Edition Realms had novels that changed things, but the sourcebooks did a pretty good job of keeping things up to date. Power of Faerún, the Players Guide to Faerún and even the Grand History.
Of course, the 4th Edition Realms won't have sourcebooks. Or a timeline.
That was my point exactly....I didnt HAVE to run right out and get all teh novels, because I knew that anyhting relevant was going to be in a sourcebook at some point....now however I have to buy numerous bookcases and try desperately to remember what I read and where to keep track of things..unless I want to make notes as I read.
Stick to 3.5 if you don't like 4th thats fine but sooner or later you are STILL going to have to develope your OWN material from scratch and just like 4th edition you have 20 years of the Forgotten Realms to build it off of. So in the end it comes down to this are you upset because of the apparrent lack of info (remember players guilde should have more info about places) or are you upset because you will have to work a little harder to figure out your NPC's?
I am upset because every stinking novel that will be coming up, will play in 4e. This totally ends every chance of a sequel to a story that played in 3/3.5e. Don't bring up long livetimes of elves - there are (mostly) none of them anymore, they are now called eladrins - the most characters in the novels are human and such, they don't last that long.
Gods even when I write the word "eladrin" I wish I could grab a baseball bat and proove my hitchances to the WotC guys ^^.
And it just ends the lives of heroes with sentences such as "Alustriel has been deceased." (Might not be the exact writing, but it comes to that +1 sentence or so...)
Thats just one
example of so many. Lets take another one: Evermeet! Ok, the whole isle is gone, including every character we knew who lived here, with all secrets that slept there, with every last bit of story we've read about it. And poorly it is described, the going of the greatest elven kingdom and illogical too. The dragon riders, the fleet stationed in front of it - gone, killed (of course, its 4e ^^). Don't know, maybe Corellon had a bad night and in his headache he forgot to move his loyal followers too?!Come on, thats crap.
Stick to 3.5 if you don't like 4th that’s fine but sooner or later you are STILL going to have to developed your OWN material from scratch and just like 4th edition you have 20 years of the Forgotten Realms to build it off of. So in the end it comes down to this are you upset because of the apparent lack of info (remember players guild should have more info about places) or are you upset because you will have to work a little harder to figure out your NPC's?
Amen, brother. Well said, too.
There is no great “lack of lore” here. I can appreciate that some feel WotC didn’t give us enough in the FRCG, but we will have the FR Player’s Guide in a month. Just as well we have each other to work with for ideas and help.
Thus, a reminder to all that we need to band together for aid and support. Here’s to a quick end to the bickering so that we can get on with the business of playing Dungeons and Dragons in the Forgotten Realms, no matter what era and what edition of the D&D rules we use.
Thus, a reminder to all that we need to band together for aid and support.
We need to band together to kick that WotC guys arse man. They keep decreasing the quality of their products and our task to quit giving them money for every crap they bring out. Only this way we can tell them that they produce crap.
And the "oohooo don't anger wotc, they could ban you from their forums!"-mentality is just what gives them reason to believe they can do what they want without having to live with the consequences.
So keep it clean. There are children watching. ;)
But ok, you made your point clear. Will see to it.
-You can express that you don't like the new books without resorting to physical violence.
Ok..so just getting this straight... (...)
How is that different from the way WotC handled 3e?
Now on the other hand, if they promised to release a "lorebook" every, say, six months covering everything that had been released so far, I might be able to live with that compromise....
Which we've been begging for since the advent of 3e. But if they released sourcebooks in which they cover everything that's happened in the novels, we wouldn't have to buy the novels, so...
And moving on to another consideration...how do the writers of the novels feel about this? After all, since EVERYTHING they write is now canon, that leads one to assume that they are being told the plots of their novels now. "Ok...you are going to write a novel about Selune....here is what needs to happen and this is how it needs to end....now fill in the details."
That's exactly what went down with TSR at the helm.
*rolls his eyes yet again and pads away shaking his head* "Hope that Tymora is home...I'm going to need to raid Her wine cellar again."
No, she's probably still upset about the whole Tyr and Helm thing :D
DB
Because it's not just Mask, is it? How Luskan gets destroyed is left for a novel. What Elminster is truly like is going to be left to a novel. Heck, there is no Timeline because they didn't want to limit future novel writers, some of whom are going to be writing in the years between 1385 and 4th Edition FR.
It is no longer a gamers setting first and foremost. It's a setting for WoTC to churn out novels. Which is understandable, given that novels sell much more then the gaming books.
Bingo.
What we do have makes a good starting point for a campaign, and the whole thing feels much like a fresh start to me. As a couple of posters before me have pointed out, the lore is still there to be researched if someone wants more background.
It's much like taking a tour of another country in real life - the brochure and the tour guide will give you basic information, but if you want more depth of background and history, you will generally have to research it yourself using other sources.
For myself, I'm looking forward to starting my adventure in the new era.
Bingo.
Who pushed it, though? Who saw the Realms as more than a game world? Who wanted that?
What we do have makes a good starting point for a campaign, and the whole thing feels much like a fresh start to me. As a couple of posters before me have pointed out, the lore is still there to be researched if someone wants more background.
No, the history is still there, but information about the setting's present is scarce - and there's no way of looking it up, you have to come up with everything beyond the few paragraphs in the CS yourself. Of course, there's always DDI, the venture that should have gone online quite a while ago - but as you can see when you look at the numerous replies made by Mr. Baker ("Oh, that's something we might elaborate upon in DDI" / "Hm, I'd like to detail that in DDI one day" / "Maybe someone will write a DDI article about that") there are many ifs and not a single definitive announcement. Given that they want us to subscribe to an online service the content of which is still by and large a mystery, we'd pay our monthly fees and wait for the FR article of the month, hoping this month's article finally deals with something we've been curious about. I don't like this business model at all. When I plan to set a campaign in Thay, I want to be able to go to a store and buy a sourcebook that deals with everything I want to know - I don't want to be told to wait for an online article that might never come. But hey, that's just me *shrug*
DB
I hate the 4e FR and everything around the new setting.
I hope the WotC will go into ruin for it.
And the idiots that destroyed years of great fantasy stories, written by untold numbers of writers whom not the least of em is Ed Greenwood and the greatest high fantasy setting of our time... I hope they cease polluting the market with their crap. Go and write TV manuals, maybe your skill isn't exceeded by that at least. Search for a hole and stick with it.
So much contend destroyed, crippled and corrupted... but alas to destroy is always easier to create and much easier for the so called designers.
For me there's no sequel after Realms 3.5 and the last years in the "Grand History of the Realms" (Nice joke though ^^) are ereased.
WotC you will get no money from me for your 4e crap. Start working, cut the crap... and tell everyone that 4e was a bad mistake and it will just be ereased from the plan and we will do as if there was no 4e ever. Then I could change my mind.
Thank you for making your point perfectly clear in a completely logical and polite manner without resorting to insulting, swearing, or ranting.
Anyway, am I the only one noticing the slight irony of a user named "Ascaron" complaining about quality? I mean, it's not like Ascaron Entertainment didn't develop the hack-n-slay game "Sacred" some years ago, a game showing 3D figures on a more or less flat pseudo 3D background that's so sloppily coded that it won't run smoothly in 1024x768 on a modern Q6600/8GB Ram/GF8800 machine which can run Prey or Supreme Commander in 1920x1200 with all details on max.
I'm not saying that he wasn't allowed to voice his criticism, but if you look at the company's past regarding product quality the irony really becomes striking. :P
No, the history is still there, but information about the setting's present is scarce - and there's no way of looking it up, you have to come up with everything beyond the few paragraphs in the CS yourself. Of course, there's always DDI, the venture that should have gone online quite a while ago - but as you can see when you look at the numerous replies made by Mr. Baker ("Oh, that's something we might elaborate upon in DDI" / "Hm, I'd like to detail that in DDI one day" / "Maybe someone will write a DDI article about that") there are many ifs and not a single definitive announcement. Given that they want us to subscribe to an online service the content of which is still by and large a mystery, we'd pay our monthly fees and wait for the FR article of the month, hoping this month's article finally deals with something we've been curious about. I don't like this business model at all. When I plan to set a campaign in Thay, I want to be able to go to a store and buy a sourcebook that deals with everything I want to know - I don't want to be told to wait for an online article that might never come. But hey, that's just me *shrug*
DB
-Yeah that is one of the many things I dislike about DDI. I personally think WotC got in over there heads on that Fiasco.
18DELTA ;)
-Yeah that is one of the many things I dislike about DDI. I personally think WotC got in over there heads on that Fiasco.
-Wasn't the DDI supposed to be free for a month as a trial for people, in June?
-Wasn't the DDI supposed to be free for a month as a trial for people, in June?
-I guess. The Online Game Table and other fixings were not ready in June. So we get Dungeon and Dragon Magazine online FREE for awhile. Pretty soon It will cost $4.95 a month for a year subscription. They could go 3 months with out producing any Realms related Dungeon or Dragon Material. I think we will get something Realms related every month for awhile. Then it will be Eberron's turn in the spotlight. ;)
18DELTA
No, the history is still there, but information about the setting's present is scarce - and there's no way of looking it up,
Emphasis mine.
With a Volo's Guide, you can look up quite a bit for use in a 4E game. 100 years matters little when using those books.
Also, much of a DM's work involves adventure building. Grand History of the Realms, Power of Faerûn, Lost Empires of Faerûn...all still relevant and useful, as are the non-mechanical aspects of virtually every FR book ever printed.
...you have to come up with everything beyond the few paragraphs in the CS yourself.
That's what Dungeon Masters have always done.
There's no great burden cast upon Realms Dungeon Masters because of the presumed lack of content in the FRCS. With the core rulebooks and the CS, it's awfully easy to get started.
If I want to work in more history then there are sources still available, many of which are sourcebooks and novels released over the past 10ish years or so when I didn't keep up with any of the lore at all.
I admit that I don't have a lot of ties to all the Realms lore. I started playing in the Realms originally when I got tired of the heavily railroading style which concentrated on political machinations that my then DM ran in Greyhawk and which only he understood. I briefly considered using Greyhawk when I attempted running my own games, but since I didn't run things his way, I wasn't playing the right way. It was just easier to use a new setting entirely, and I chose the Realms (which he didn't like either, which probably surprises no one). Unfortunately, I only had a brief time before I had to stop playing entirely.
So now, I'm basically a new DM trying to get a handle on a new system in a new era of the Realms and looking forward to the opportunities presented which I hope I don't muck up too badly.
I expect much of my point of view comes from being away from the Realms for so long. I had to make up so many details when I used the grey box (my recollection of the amount of 'present day' information presented at the time of that release seems pretty comparable to the amount presented for 4th edition now) so it doesn't really bother me to make up details now.
If I want to work in more history then there are sources still available, many of which are sourcebooks and novels released over the past 10ish years or so when I didn't keep up with any of the lore at all.
I admit that I don't have a lot of ties to all the Realms lore. I started playing in the Realms originally when I got tired of the heavily railroading style which concentrated on political machinations that my then DM ran in Greyhawk and which only he understood. I briefly considered using Greyhawk when I attempted running my own games, but since I didn't run things his way, I wasn't playing the right way. It was just easier to use a new setting entirely, and I chose the Realms (which he didn't like either, which probably surprises no one). Unfortunately, I only had a brief time before I had to stop playing entirely.
So now, I'm basically a new DM trying to get a handle on a new system in a new era of the Realms and looking forward to the opportunities presented which I hope I don't muck up too badly.
Dealt with a similar situation. 4e is probably good for you then--cause no way will ever be the right way. And it will give you time to dig into 3e lore if you want.
You'll be fine.
Another example of my point.
But then I am mentaly ill, so I am surely easy to manipulate, eh?
I like 4E so I also must be insane. kind if sad how far some will go with the hate.
Because it's not just Mask, is it? How Luskan gets destroyed is left for a novel. What Elminster is truly like is going to be left to a novel. Heck, there is no Timeline because they didn't want to limit future novel writers, some of whom are going to be writing in the years between 1385 and 4th Edition FR.
It is no longer a gamers setting first and foremost. It's a setting for WoTC to churn out novels. Which is understandable, given that novels sell much more then the gaming books.
A couple of items here and there doesn't mean it's primarily a novel setting. Is it a fact, for instance, that that was the intent with Luskan? Would Luskan really have gotten more info on it if there weren't novels on it on the way? Maybe they decided they wouldn't go into detail with Luskan, and some novel author came along and said "You know what? That's a thread I'd like to pick up and run with"?
Take Bane's return in the 3E Realms. That was never really expanded on. Nor were there ever any novels about that, so that's a plot thread that they just left hanging there in the FRCS which was never really explained in any depth. Same goes for Elminster. Do you really think that, if Ed didn't decide to write a novel about it, given what they wanted out of the updated Realms, that they would've devoted a couple pages to Elminster's current frame of mind? Odds are, we would've gotten precisely what we got, now. Likewise with Luskan. Why waste pages on a place that doesn't actually exist and doesn't really impact the setting? I doubt we would've seen any more on it then we have now even if there were no plans whatsoever to ever make a novel out of it.
Most importantly, though, if it's a setting for the writers, then which writers really benefitted from those changes? We know Greenwood certainly is no fan of the changes. Doubt Cunningham is happy with them. Can't imagine Salvatore is thrilled with pretty much his entire supporting cast getting wiped out. Kemp probably got a monkey wrench thrown into his plans. If it was primarily about novels, then one would think that they'd set about pleasing their top sellers, first.
Though odds are, I expect any changes that're made in novels to be updated in DDI articles and such. So if you really want to keep up, then you'll probably have a way to do so. Doesn't really affect me, though. Aside from LFR, I doubt I'll be playing in the 4E Realms. Next time I run it I'll be doing my own version of the Realms set around 1400 DR or so. I'll take some of the things about the 4E Realms that I like and include them, as well as throw in some other things that I like (For instance, I'll be pulling Bhaal and Myrkul off of the bench and putting them back into the game).
With a Volo's Guide, you can look up quite a bit for use in a 4E game. 100 years matters little when using those books.
We're in danger of descending into nit-picking territory, but Volo's Guides are the supplements that get hit the hardest by the time jump. They may paint a pretty good picture of what life is like in region X, but the bulk of them deals with taverns etc. (which aren't likely to be around anymore) and people who are by now pretty much dead.
I see your point: Yes, they can give you an idea. But then again, when information is this scarce, anything can give you an idea. And if you're a fresh 4e Realms player looking for details (granted, the New Realms don't seem to be aimed at those), and you can't find any official sources, go back to Volo's Guides and love the lore surrounding the common people, you might find that you're better off with the Old Realms anyway ;)
Also, much of a DM's work involves adventure building. Grand History of the Realms, Power of Faerûn, Lost Empires of Faerûn...all still relevant and useful, as are the non-mechanical aspects of virtually every FR book ever printed.
They are, but not in the sense I'm talking about. (GHotR and LEoF are "history books" anyway.) They won't help you flesh out the present-day Heartlands, for example.
That's what Dungeon Masters have always done. There's no great burden cast upon Realms Dungeon Masters because of the presumed lack of content in the FRCS. With the core rulebooks and the CS, it's awfully easy to get started.
Well, phrased like that, that's simply not true. Some people like having free rein, some people like having as much material as possible to work with. For the latter it's not awfully easy to get started, because they're not WotC's target audience anymore, plain and simple.
There are countless settings out there with only a worldbook and nothing more, but (at least on WotC's side of the pond) there's nothing like the Old Realms. It's awfully easy to get started even with a brochure and enough imagination - but that's not the point. The most detailed American setting gets replaced by just another setting without lore support.
I expect much of my point of view comes from being away from the Realms for so long. I had to make up so many details when I used the grey box (my recollection of the amount of 'present day' information presented at the time of that release seems pretty comparable to the amount presented for 4th edition now) so it doesn't really bother me to make up details now.
Same here. I started in 1988 with the Realms IIRC. I don't like much of the official lore at all, I strongly dislike the dime novels they've been trying to shove down our throats for decades, and my Realms differ considerably from the official version. Still I'm well aware that the vast lore is what sets this setting apart from the competition, and that that's what many current players like about it. So when such a product line gets discontinued because of WotC's dubious "one setting per year" business model (which seems to go hand in hand with the low attention span prevalent these days), that's a bad bargain if you ask me.
DB
Take Bane's return in the 3E Realms.
One of the very few examples of a plot that didn't get the novel treatment, wouldn't you say? ;)
Most importantly, though, if it's a setting for the writers, then which writers really benefitted from those changes? We know Greenwood certainly is no fan of the changes. Doubt Cunningham is happy with them. Can't imagine Salvatore is thrilled with pretty much his entire supporting cast getting wiped out. Kemp probably got a monkey wrench thrown into his plans. If it was primarily about novels, then one would think that they'd set about pleasing their top sellers, first.
No one claimed it was a Greenwood / Cunningham / Salvatore / Kemp setting. I'm sure they're not happy about the changes. But Greenwood will go on writing since it used to be his baby, Cunningham seems to be out, Salvatore will keep writing because Drizzt is conveniently still around and the money's still good, and Kemp, I don't know. Still, there are other writers who will have a much, much easier time writing a novel because instead of having to do research, they can just come up with whatever they like without running the risk of contradicting some snippet of lore. So yes, the writers do benefit from the changes. Greatly.
DB
I'm a bit curious, though. A lot of the people complaining about this are the same people who don't even like the 4E Realms. So why the complaining if you're not actually planning to use it? If you're not going to use it, then what does it matter if there won't be any further sourcebooks? If you're not planning to use it, then why do you need a timeline?
Because I mourn the loss of what was an interest, vibrant and well loved setting. I quite liked collecting FR books, working on ways to integrate them into my campaigns, or just reading them.
Still, I suppose it allows me to save money, which I'm using to buy another good setting. It's not the Realms, but Golarion is pretty good.
A couple of items here and there doesn't mean it's primarily a novel setting. Is it a fact, for instance, that that was the intent with Luskan? Would Luskan really have gotten more info on it if there weren't novels on it on the way? Maybe they decided they wouldn't go into detail with Luskan, and some novel author came along and said "You know what? That's a thread I'd like to pick up and run with"?
It would have gotten a little bit of information. Though, given 4E's mantra of 'Less is Less work for us designers', not much information. The fact it's lacking at all is because of Salvatore's forthcoming novel.
Most importantly, though, if it's a setting for the writers, then which writers really benefitted from those changes? We know Greenwood certainly is no fan of the changes. Doubt Cunningham is happy with them. Can't imagine Salvatore is thrilled with pretty much his entire supporting cast getting wiped out. Kemp probably got a monkey wrench thrown into his plans. If it was primarily about novels, then one would think that they'd set about pleasing their top sellers, first.
Individual writers, other then Salvatore, don't matter. They write what they are commissioned to write. Kemp's got free reign with his trilogy. Elminster's still around, so that cash cow can keep getting milked.
With each excerpt (or what-have-you) we're given, I'm seeing the same reviews from the same people over and over. Words like "meh," "boring," and "uninspired" abound. These people, who I really don't have to name, are pretty much the bread and butter of the Forgotten Realms Boards. The new threads are started by them, the community views are swayed by them, and (most importantly) the FR efforts and events that are organized outside of WotC are all created or pushed along by them.
There is also one thing they all have common: they know everything about the Realms. Everything. All the way from the Creator Races down to The Year of the Haunting. I commend their thirst for knowledge and even have a small sense of envy.
Well, the problem arises with this new edition. The designers want it to be accessible to all, which means utilizing a lore that doesn't leave people reeling. If someone wants to run a campaign that really feels like it's a part of the Realms, a large amount of study is needed. That's liable to make most players turn-tail and run. Hell, any question about Realms lore on these boards is met by answers (from guess who) featuring a multitude of books to read.
It makes me sad when I read those answers. Now, to create the campaign with the feel he wanted, he has to tell his players to hang back a couple of months so he can read 6 or 7 books?
So, with these new Realms in 4E, WotC is making something that everyone can just jump into. Personally, when I read the excerpts, I get excited at all the prospects laid out in front of me. The PC's can go here, they can do this, and there's no one to stand in their way. No one. And it is that very reason that I believe the old-school Realms fans are dismayed by what they see. It doesn't seem as rich as it did before.
Every time you turned around in the Forgotten Realms, there was some new character, old character, resurrected character that jumped in with some ground-shaking event. This undead army, that orc army, his united races army, their lesser deity... As someone who came into FR late in the game, I found it borderline frustrating that, in order to make it feel like a living world, they had to overload me with events. I couldn't even get a good feel for when I wanted to play in the timeline. It pretty much just ended up being that I used FR locations and nothing else.
But, these are things that the old players grew up with (or grew older with). They were there every step of the way. Now that it's being taken away and the Realms are not so "heavy," the word "dull" springs up more and more. I say, the mindset has to change. If a new generation is to take the reigns, as they always do, then they have to find the Realms accessible. If they don't, then the reigns will never pass, and the Realms will die. I implore the old players to leave their minds open as they visit the new Realms. Let all the old lore and NPC's and deities wash away as if you're reading it for the first time again.
I, for one, want to have others rejoicing with me.
The creative staff took a major gamble with a heavily established property. Saying that we should all "just learn to like it" is fair in approach to only one group of people, those that support the change and what the 4e Realms has become. You've stated that "The designers want it to be accessible to all..", but at what cost ? That cost and gamble being the long time fans of the setting that have supported what it was, and what it continued to be pre 4th edition. The gamble was theirs to make, and just as with any gamble, the price of the risk ...can be a heavy one to pay. To say that the risk wasn't a high one, ( considering it largely includes all, many or most of the folks that made the Forgotten Realms the MOST popular D&d setting to date ) is folly.
Why the shock, awe or surprise with fan base response to what has been done with FR? If anything even remotely close to this was done to the Star Wars Universe by Lucas & Company, there would be a mushroom cloud of anger and objections starting at the official site and rapidly spreading outward. Considering that rarely is a deeply established property gambled with in such a fashion, its a very natural and reasonable response.
[...] Why the shock, awe or surprise with fan base response to what has been done with FR? [...]
Why the shock, awe or surprise with the changes to the FR? It's not like WotC has wrapped itself up in utter silence and then one day surprisingly released the FRCG without warning. The fans've been told that there would be drastic changes. What did they expect, that in 4E Elminster would be wearing pink socks instead of green ones?
It's not that I couldn't understand how the "FR classic" fans feel (after that horrible Shadowrun FPS :nonono
, it's just that I will neither accept nor support the vitriol and derogatory treatment those that enjoy 4E FR are given. Certain FR board regulars have publicly stated that they won't play 4E FR and just stay around to be a pain in the ass for those who do. Sorry, what? That's really not necessary, don't you think?Also, while there may be frustration with the changes, it's not like there's a shortage of material or plothooks for FR games. If the setting was indeed as deep and detailed as always claimed, it shouldn't be a problem for a versed FR DM to run countless "1 to 20+" campaigns with the 3E (and pre 3E) material already available.
Also, while there may be frustration with the changes, it's not like there's a shortage of material or plothooks for FR games. If the setting was indeed as deep and detailed as always claimed, it shouldn't be a problem for a versed FR DM to run countless "1 to 20+" campaigns with the 3E (and pre 3E) material already available.
This is what I don't understand. Its like Players and Dm's of 30yrs are upset because they are not having anything spoon fed to them to the point of being irrational.
I hope things get better over here soon and, personally, I'm done with letting people hijack threads or spam the same crap over and over.
The best thing we can do is report it, link where(again and again) they do this, and hope it gets cut and/or they get bans to (hopefully) get them to act their age and cut the crap.
It's bad for the game and bad for the boards.
And unless it breaks the CoC, we are allowed to say it all we want.
I have to rescind and apologize for my statement that was here, it was trolling and I have no desire to read PMs from Wiz-o's.
next poster made a much better argument.
And unless it breaks the CoC, we are allowed to say it all we want.
Not so, spamming is against the coc... and something far to many people get away with on this part of the boards.
Worry not, I've made it my purpose for being here more.
Every time I see the same thing rehashed by the same people, I shall spend the next x amount of time finding where they've done this and report it. Rest assured, they'll have at least a 3 page report from me showing every instance. Let's hope this helps clean this place up, yes?
Not so, spamming is against the coc... and something far to many people get away with on this part of the boards.
Worry not, I've made it my purpose for being here more.
Every time I see the same thing rehashed by the same people, I shall spend the next x amount of time finding where they've done this and report it. Rest assured, they'll have at least a 3 page report from me showing every instance. Let's hope this helps clean this place up, yes?
-How many times, in how many other places, have you said this? Plenty. Stop spamming.
(Yes, that is a joke, but no, I am being serious)
Why the shock, awe or surprise with the changes to the FR? It's not like WotC has wrapped itself up in utter silence and then one day surprisingly released the FRCG without warning. The fans've been told that there would be drastic changes. What did they expect, that in 4E Elminster would be wearing pink socks instead of green ones?
And most of us here have been decrying those changes that were announced every time they were. However, even I'm surprised by just how bad the finished product has turned out to be. Which makes me sad. The Realms deserved far better then the 4th Edition FRCG.
Also, while there may be frustration with the changes, it's not like there's a shortage of material or plothooks for FR games. If the setting was indeed as deep and detailed as always claimed, it shouldn't be a problem for a versed FR DM to run countless "1 to 20+" campaigns with the 3E (and pre 3E) material already available.
Indeed. But like I said, I quite liked new material to read and play around with. Now that's never going to come. I for one would have liked to see a Cormyr sourcebook detailing the Realm in the time of the Steel Regents reign. After all, Cormyr was the one nation that really changed between 2nd and 3rd Edition. Shame that's never going to appear now.
There was plenty of stuff that could have been written for the Realms.
I'm trying to do the right thing, also trying to show I'm willing to be civil and take the proper actions to help the forums. I'd like to be a Forum Guide and it's best to let your actions speak for themselves, right?
And, for the record, I've never said this in the FR forums before. I mentioned spamming being against the coc, but not that I'm willing to take action to get this nonsense to stop.
Well, it needs to stop and no one else is stepping up to the plate. If people see what they're doing is wrong and won't go unchecked, then (hopefully) they will stop the childishness and let this be a friendly place for everyone again.
I'm trying to do the right thing, also trying to show I'm willing to be civil and take the proper actions to help the forums. I'd like to be a Forum Guide and it's best to let your actions speak for themselves, right?
And, for the record, I've never said this in the FR forums before. I mentioned spamming being against the coc, but not that I'm willing to take action to get this nonsense to stop.
Perhaps you should examine your own behavior, your tone, and the like. Calling the "other side" names and being snooty, even in an offhanded way, is never going to help and it's a far cry from "doing the right thing" imnsho.
And most of us here have been decrying those changes that were announced every time they were. However, even I'm surprised by just how bad the finished product has turned out to be. Which makes me sad. The Realms deserved far better then the 4th Edition FRCG.
This paragraph is your personal opinion presented in a way that makes it look like a matter of fact, which it isn't. You find the FRCG bad, others don't. Neither side is right or wrong in this case.
Indeed. But like I said, I quite liked new material to read and play around with. Now that's never going to come. I for one would have liked to see a Cormyr sourcebook detailing the Realm in the time of the Steel Regents reign. After all, Cormyr was the one nation that really changed between 2nd and 3rd Edition. Shame that's never going to appear now.
There was plenty of stuff that could have been written for the Realms.
Which can be said about basically every setting of every roleplaying game or other franchise that got changed/discontinued/whatever. 3E FR, oWoD, Shadowrun 2060s, 23rd century Blue Planet, etc.
Indeed. But like I said, I quite liked new material to read and play around with. Now that's never going to come. I for one would have liked to see a Cormyr sourcebook detailing the Realm in the time of the Steel Regents reign. After all, Cormyr was the one nation that really changed between 2nd and 3rd Edition. Shame that's never going to appear now.
There was plenty of stuff that could have been written for the Realms.
There is plenty of new material to work with, it just doesn't appeal to you.
The changes to Cormyr under Alusair could have been summed up in an article in Dragon, and many of us would have no desire to spend $20-30 on another book with no new information in it, like City of Splendors:Waterdeep. There was almost no good info in that book that hadn't been in at least two other books.
There will be a lot more info to discover in these new Realms, and I for one look forward to exploring them for years to come.
Well, it needs to stop and no one else is stepping up to the plate. If people see what they're doing is wrong and won't go unchecked, then (hopefully) they will stop the childishness and let this be a friendly place for everyone again.
I'm trying to do the right thing, also trying to show I'm willing to be civil and take the proper actions to help the forums. I'd like to be a Forum Guide and it's best to let your actions speak for themselves, right?
And, for the record, I've never said this in the FR forums before. I mentioned spamming being against the coc, but not that I'm willing to take action to get this nonsense to stop.
-I report upwards of 25 posts or so a day, I am averaging. That WizOs are not editing posts means they do not meet the official criteria of 'baiting', 'trolling', 'flaming', and so on. Your criteria, my criteria, his criteria, her criteria =/= their criteria.
-That said, if you want 'nonsense to stop', step up to the plate, and practice what you preach. You, him, her, everyone.
There is plenty of new material to work with, it just doesn't appeal to you.
There will be One book and one book only of new material to work with. And its very sparse in giving out material.
The changes to Cormyr under Alusair could have been summed up in an article in Dragon, and many of us would have no desire to spend $20-30 on another book with no new information in it, like City of Splendors:Waterdeep. There was almost no good info in that book that hadn't been in at least two other books.
Could have. But wasn't ever given. Hey, I'd have been happy with an update to Cormyr in Dragon Magazine. And actually I quite liked City of Splendours: Waterdeep. Mainly because I didn't have the 2nd Edition supplements for the city, which are rather hard to find.
There will be a lot more info to discover in these new Realms, and I for one look forward to exploring them for years to come.
Seriously. One book for DM's. One. Which is already out. Sure, there'll be some DDI articles, but no more printed supplements.
Seriously. One book for DM's. One. Which is already out. Sure, there'll be some DDI articles, but no more printed supplements.
No more planned supplements. Again and again the point has been made in these forums that if there is enough demand, or enough articles on a subject in the DDi, then we will see new sourcebooks printed. Keep in mind they also said there would be no 4e, just weeks before they announced it's release.
No more planned supplements. Again and again the point has been made in these forums that if there is enough demand, or enough articles on a subject in the DDi, then we will see new sourcebooks printed.
May see them. Of course, we may also see new supplements for the 3rd Edition Realms. Or we may see them decide its not worth it and focus on the next campaign setting, which is the current plan. And the one that makes the most sense, to be honest. The Campaign Settings have always sold the most copies, so focus on getting those out for as many different campaigns as possible.
The Campaign Settings have always sold the most copies, so focus on getting those out for as many different campaigns as possible.
Yeah, those Eberron fans need to get theirs- uh, I mean, get a chance to share in the love and warmth that is the amazing boon of a 4th Edition version of their beloved setting.
Perhaps you should examine your own behavior, your tone, and the like. Calling the "other side" names and being snooty, even in an offhanded way, is never going to help and it's a far cry from "doing the right thing" imnsho.
I'm not trying to call any 'side' names. We are all fans, we are not all acting childish. I might come off as gruff, but I'm a soldier with little PR experience under my belt. I call it like it is and I'm not trying to get people to laugh and giggle.
All I want to do is make this place feel friendly to all fans again.
@LK; I am, I will and I'm glad you're trying. Perhaps, with twice as many reports coming their way, they might work on cleaning it up more.
I might come off as gruff, but I'm a soldier with little PR experience under my belt.
What, you weren't a 46Q? (i.e., the MOS for "Public Affairs Specialist")
You could always reclass. :D
@LK; I am, I will and I'm glad you're trying. Perhaps, with twice as many reports coming their way, they might work on cleaning it up more.
-Like I said, your criteria, my criteria, his criteria, her criteria =/= their criteria. If a post simply doesn't meet the WizO criteria for a CoC infraction, they aren't going to do anything about it (save perhaps posting to 'behave', and 'be respectful') no matter how many reports they receive.
I'm not trying to call any 'side' names. We are all fans, we are not all acting childish. I might come off as gruff, but I'm a soldier with little PR experience under my belt. I call it like it is and I'm not trying to get people to laugh and giggle.
All I want to do is make this place feel friendly to all fans again.
@LK; I am, I will and I'm glad you're trying. Perhaps, with twice as many reports coming their way, they might work on cleaning it up more.
I also tend to report CoC violations, including excessive board vigilantism, when I see them.
Thing is, if you feel like you're on a crusade - for any "side" - you're probably more a part of the problem than part of the cure. Just my opinion, mind you. Uppity attitude is always met with more uppity attitude, regardless of the intent.
Bear in mind also, I believe that Wiz-Os moderate solely for violations of the CoC. It's my understanding that they no longer edit content, just CoC violations. Editorial decisions of content, as I understand the current state of affairs, are not in their perview. And opinions, positive or negative, rich or shallow, are "content" so long as they do not violate the CoC. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the case now.
What, you weren't a 46Q? (i.e., the MOS for "Public Affairs Specialist")
You could always reclass. :D
Ehh, I'd stick with combat MOS's... suites my tastes more. But I'm broken now and not able to do so. I don't do well with people, anyways, 46Q.... no-sir!
Ehh, I'd stick with combat MOS's... suites my tastes more. But I'm broken now and not able to do so. I don't do well with people, anyways, 46Q.... no-sir!
These days, even if you're not Combat Arms, you're likely to be off running convoys at some point or another, even in MOS's that used to be pure REMF-dom. Depending on how bad you're broken though, you might be able to qualify for a number of jobs that will still let you get your boots dirty. Anyway, enough off-topic banter. :P
I also tend to report CoC violations, including excessive board vigilantism, when I see them.
heh
Thing is, if you feel like you're on a crusade - for any "side" - you're probably more a part of the problem than part of the cure. Just my opinion, mind you. Uppity attitude is always met with more uppity attitude, regardless of the intent.
Seeing as how I'm not on a crusade, nor am I uppity, I have little worry that I'm part of the problem, yes?
Bear in mind also, I believe that Wiz-Os moderate solely for violations of the CoC. It's my understanding that they no longer edit content, just CoC violations. Editorial decisions of content, as I understand the current state of affairs, are not in their perview. And opinions, positive or negative, rich or shallow, are "content" so long as they do not violate the CoC. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the case now.
It's a good thing, for us all, then, that what I said I'd be reporting is against the coc. I'll show you.
Here;
Use hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information)
Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
and here
Spam through repeated posts, or off-topic content by word or intent to forums or comments (scrolling, flooding, polling, or by "bumping" a post more than once in 48 hours)
Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities)
Advertise trades or sales outside of the designated areas
Do not advertise. This includes:
Advertising matches that card gamble/play for ante
Advertising player-run tournaments
Advertising trades or sales outside of the designated areas
Advertise or promote a business or commercial website outside of the designated areas
Sending unsolicited commercial or purportedly informational messages to any members
I have, repeatedly, seen this on the FR part of the boards. I think, with us all reporting them and linking to where it is for every case, we will see an increase in Mod activity and this will be a friendly area for all FR fans.
A good cause, yes?
I have, repeatedly, seen this on the FR part of the boards. I think, with us all reporting them and linking to where it is for every case, we will see an increase in Mod activity and this will be a friendly area for all FR fans.
A good cause, yes?
Generally speaking, yes. However, don't be surprised if the Wiz_Os don't agree with every interpretation you make.
Did someone say something? I could've sworn I heard...
Ya beat me to it...
:P
...edit; this was in response to LK...
Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
Along with this part.
Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities)
Consider yourself reported, dear.
You should know, Krownhunter07, that by threatening a crusade of reporting against people, you're violating this part of the CoC
Since I'm not on a crusade, I have little to worry about, yes? And the only people who should be upset that someone is doing the right thing....
Along with this part.
Consider yourself reported, dear.
Seeing as this topic is about the FR mindset and ways to fix it.... I'm on topic here kiddo. But you should always feel free to report what you feel might be against the coc, I know I will.
DB
And the only people who should be upset that someone is doing the right thing
The right thing in your opinion, by no means the "right thing" for everyone or the community. Lastly, trying to force what is in your opinion the "right thing" on others couldn't make it further from being the right anything.
On topic, the crowd that stands unsupportive of the 4e changes to the Realms doesn't need to change its mind set any more than the crowd that supports its 4th edition incarnation. Live and let live. If you want tolerance for your stance....practice some with others positions as-well; If you want something from others, be prepared to give the same of yourself......otherwise, don't ask for it.
EDiT: I don't have a problem at all with those that enjoy FR 4e, I do have a problem with those that enjoy it and suggest that I'm wrong by not, or saying that I don't. I have no interest in eating up the boards with 4e hate chanting, but I will insert my opinion into threads that make the stating of my opinion on the matter relevant.
The right thing in your opinion, by no means the "right thing" for everyone or the community. Lastly, trying to force what is in your opinion the "right thing" on others couldn't make it further from being the right anything.
The 'right thing' is to report posts that are against the coc... it isn't subjective.
On topic, the crowd that stands unsupportive of the 4e changes to the Realms doesn't need to change its mind set any more than the crowd that supports its 4th edition incarnation. Live and let live. If you want tolerance for your stance....practice some with others positions as-well; If you want something from other, be prepared to give the same of yourself......otherwise, don't ask for it.
Yeah, I don't care how people feel. I'm not trying to force my views down anyone's throat, nor am I spamming thread after thread about how FR is ruined or saved. I also don't attack Devs that come on here doing a service for us by answering questions. I don't go out of my way to insult people who do or do not like the changes and I tend to dislike seeing this crap around here.
So... the best thing we can do is report it, add links to proof and explain how and why it is against the coc. It isn't solely my opinion here, it's been said a great deal on a few sections of the boards.
Hopefully people will see this and change their ways. I respect a lot of the people here and would dislike seeing any fans banned for lack of manners or an inability to control their tempers.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
EDiT: I don't have a problem at all with those that enjoy FR 4e, I do have a problem with those that enjoy it and suggest that I'm wrong by not, or saying that I don't. I have no interest in eating up the boards with 4e hate chanting, but I will insert my opinion into threads that make the stating of my opinion on the matter relevant.
The 4e haters don't need to change their attitudes, they do need to moderate where they choose to post. Having a valid disagreement with a given piece of lore or an idea is ok. Saying something negative, just to prove how bad 4e is, is disruptive and just creates more arguments. I have said in the past, if the pro 4e people started posting in 3.5 threads that 3.5 sucks (with no supporting arguments and not in context of the threads topic), they would be reported. Yet we see that on 4e threads all to often, and by the same people again and again.
DB
Well, are any of them active in this thread?
DB
Ehh, it's best not to call people out. Better to just report their posts and hope they stop breaking the coc.
Since I'm not on a crusade, I have little to worry about, yes? And the only people who should be upset that someone is doing the right thing....
Given that you are deciding who is doing the right thing, I think everyone should be worried.
Seeing as this topic is about the FR mindset and ways to fix it.... I'm on topic here kiddo. But you should always feel free to report what you feel might be against the coc, I know I will.
Changing the FR Fan Mindset has nothing to do with going on a self appointed crusade to report everyone who disagrees with you, kiddo.
Given that you are deciding who is doing the right thing, I think everyone should be worried.
Changing the FR Fan Mindset has nothing to do with going on a self appointed crusade to report everyone who disagrees with you, kiddo.
lol, I don't report people who disagree with me. I report people who break the coc. I think you missed that the first few times I said so...
Oh, and I didn't decide who is right or wrong, WotC did that.
lol, I don't report people who disagree with me. I report people who break the coc. I think you missed that the first few times I said so...
Oh, and I didn't decide who is right or wrong, WotC did that.
Oh sure. You're doing it to clean up the board, not at all because you dislike certain people and feel the need to report them. Right.
Very likely, kiddo.
It has nothing to do with individual posters. I really don't think there is anyone on this part of the boards I dislike, truthfully, I respect and enjoy many people posts here.
You can think what you like, however. I don't care and it's a freedom everyone should have.
Ehh, it's best not to call people out. Better to just report their posts and hope they stop breaking the coc.
So let me rephrase: Does any breaking of the CoC go on in this thread? (Because if that isn't the case, I really don't know what we're talking about here.)
By the way, I strongly dislike the "I'm gonna report you" mentality. Featured as prominently as it is here, it makes discussions, well, difficult. Report away all you like - but please stop saying "I'm gonna report you-know-who-you-are" in every single post. It tends to distract from the actual topic.
DB
DB
Truthfully, if you disagree with a thread and just let it go, chances are the thread will end soon enough anyway as new topics come up. Everyone has their snippy days as well and small hicups are bound to occur.
I think what people need to focus on is adding something substantial to the threads as opposed to detracting from the spirit in which the threads are posted. Many times, I see people post just to say "this stinks" or "I completely disagree". The same goes for "this is wonderful". In threads that follow the dogma of adding to the discussion, I have seen a high level of respect even if people disagree. Where problems occur is when people come into a thread to post that they disagree without respectfully stating why (just because they can), or going so far as to challenge the right of the thread to be there in the first place.
Truthfully, if you disagree with a thread and just let it go, chances are the thread will end soon enough anyway as new topics come up. Everyone has their snippy days as well and small hicups are bound to occur.
While I see your point, you have to remember that many people on these boards know each other well and converse on and of the individual posts. Sentiments and humor are understood among them, so fully explaining themselves on certain things isn't quite needed.
It's like having a long standing joke with your buddies. You don't have to repeat the joke every time just to get to the punchline and have everyone understand. In addition, pretense you would normally have with other things gets dropped, simply due to familiarity with the way things run.
While I see your point, you have to remember that many people on these boards know each other well and converse on and of the individual posts. Sentiments and humor are understood among them, so fully explaining themselves on certain things isn't quite needed.
It's like having a long standing joke with your buddies. You don't have to repeat the joke every time just to get to the punchline and have everyone understand. In addition, pretense you would normally have with other things gets dropped, simply due to familiarity with the way things run.
Which is fine, and a little off topic or irreverent humor is acceptable, but the statements that are of concern are the ones that are made just to state dislike of the entirety of 4e and not a part of the topic, for example the Why Are The Gods Important thread got disrupted and went way off topic because an anti 4e type decided it was the place to write their general concerns about the setting, not about the topic at hand. That is where some of us are coming from about the attitude.
Which is fine, and a little off topic or irreverent humor is acceptable, but the statements that are of concern are the ones that are made just to state dislike of the entirety of 4e and not a part of the topic, for example the Why Are The Gods Important thread got disrupted and went way off topic because an anti 4e type decided it was the place to write their general concerns about the setting, not about the topic at hand. That is where some of us are coming from about the attitude.
Which is why I said that I saw his point. Unfortunately, that type of feedback is not going to disappear--especially at this point in time. A lot of people are on these boards at this moment, simply because 4e compelled them. Now they are looking to vent.
It'll be here for a few months until after the PG is revealed, then the real FR lovers will be left remaining. In the meantime, we deal.
It shouldn't have to be that way...
The world isn't perfect and people are flawed and disrespectful. And I won't sit here and say that I'm not part of the former.
I dealt with the same thing when I first jumped on board here--but, in my case, it was walls of text detailing every little feeling and thought a person had on a subject. Repeatedly.
I would much rather have a person jump in and say "I hate it" or "It sux," than to have 1000 words of babble that mean nothing to anyone but to the poster on why they disagree with something. What is substance to some, is simply drivel to others.
As Bejebuz said, "Let your Yes be yes and your No be no."
Or something like that.
lol, would be nice... but it would be better if it stopped altogether.
Or at least was on threads set up for it.
lol, would be nice... but it would be better if it stopped altogether.
It won't though. So it is what it is. As you stick around, you begin to see who says what and how it is said. You simply see the snapshot and ignore it. Scroll through it.
I was gone for a couple months for personal reasons. Since I've come back in the last couple of weeks, I've had three posts removed and two warnings in my inbox--and I was doing nothing more than joking with people I've known around here for a while.
Perhaps you are the reason, Mr. CoC? ;)
Either way, people here are going to do what they do. You simply have to pick and choose your battles. And I have dealt with far worse idiots than those that state "this is dumb."
That is the only reason I'm still talking about it...
I've had quite a few post removed... most were due to quoting something (and responding) that was cut. A few were because I did something wrong. I've never been banned or warned, however, and I've come to realize it's up to us to do our part to clean this place up.
That is the only reason I'm still talking about it...
Just so long as in doing so, you don't become what you hope to stop. Remember, set the example, and make them look bad.
Just so long as in doing so, you don't become what you hope to stop. Remember, set the example, and make them look bad.
Which is pretty much my prob. Granted, I had other issues occurring at the time, but I flipped out when I shouldn't have.
There's a troll around here that I lit up and blasted on pretty damn hard. I reported the post (and myself in the process) to get the post removed and they have probably been watching my posts since my return.
More or less, I got blacklisted.
What is happening is not too different from the occasional appearance of someone who disliked the old Realms appearing on the forums and making negative claims about the many spotlight-stealing NPCs, the numerous petty and bickering gods, the ratio of magic/wizards/ex-adventurer barkeepers to regular people in the Realms. No matter what anyone says, the Realms to those people will always be irrevocably broken, unplayable or ridiculous.
That is the same now, just the groups are reversed. Actually it's worst because it is magnified by the old fans once having support and now not anymore. Before, those who hated the Realms never got attached to it in the same ways the old fans were. You don't miss something as much unless you've possessed it before. It also doesn't help that a small few gloat over the changes enacted on the old Realms, dredging up all that bad stuff all over again. This situation probably will not disappear for a long, long time.
Just so long as in doing so, you don't become what you hope to stop. Remember, set the example, and make them look bad.
That doesn't seem at all helpful, imo.
Perhaps it's more important to remember that "they" are, in fact, fans of the setting. Angry fans, and maybe not fans of all that is 4E, but fans nonetheless. Instead of taking an adversarial stand against fellow fans (who, granted, are miffed), take the higher ground and:
- don't start, encourage, or fuel the fire of edition wars
- try to find a common ground
- support what you like
- build bridges rather than carry torches
- report violations of the CoC
- and move on, playing what you love to play
It is apparent that the Old Realms, at least for the time being, is dead. Rather then rolling about the ashes pulling each other hair lets see if we can't make something grow.... what do you say?
18DELTA
It's the lack of descriptive depth for the changes they have committed. From gray box onward, when you bought a FR suppliment, you got your money's worth in material. You added it to your campaign, how you liked, when you liked, and if it wasn't to your liking, then you could disregard it... but, you still had it should you or your players want it.
We are information hounds, we have our likes and dislikes, but the Realms was a very richly detailed place, and that's why we liked it. We are historians after a fashion, and we wanted information.
They didn't need to add a lot of back history in the 4e edition of the FRCG, because we, the fans, we all knew the back stories. However, that 100 year jump, and the resulting areas outlined in the 4e FRCG don't have that detailed lore we have come to associate with Forgotten Realms.
Truly, they could have left out the adventure in the FRCG, and added a more detailed timeline from 1385 onward (the years not covered in A Grand History of the Realms). They could have made a lengthier book, given more richness to the new Realms.
Instead, it feels like they just didn't try. Either they didn't care, or didn't like the assignment they were on, whatever the reason, it truly feels like what a school report that was due tomorrow and it was on something you didn't like would feel like.
I don't mind the changes, the Realms has changed in the past before. I mind not knowing the details for the changes, the histories for the advanced timeline, the what happened to whom/where and why.
I am going to guess that is why a lot of us fans of the Realms dislike the new 4e book. I know it is why I do.
Some of the why we will discover in time, some never. Rather than tilt at windmills, why not try the new stuff, and if it doesn't work, set it aside and play the game you like. Those of us trying to explore/enjoy or understand the changes are not the enemy, nor are those of us who are upset with the changes to the game and setting we have spent years using.
As another player from 1st edition on I sympathize with you, I really do. But it has gone to far to go back, and while it is nice to be able to express dissent, none of us has the right to decide for another what they should or should not like. There are things in every edition that make me say WTF! But as I am not a designer, I don't get to know the why. The designers had reasons for what they did, not ones we like or agree with in every case. They may have had there hands tied as well, corporate mentality may have made them do it this way to increase the subscriptions of the DDi.
Some of the why we will discover in time, some never. Rather than tilt at windmills, why not try the new stuff, and if it doesn't work, set it aside and play the game you like. Those of us trying to explore/enjoy or understand the changes are not the enemy, nor are those of us who are upset with the changes to the game and setting we have spent years using.
The changes, they did not bother me. I rarely used a lot of the lands that were destroyed, changed, etc. However... I knew about them. I knew their histories, their ins and outs as much as had been put out about them, I knew them and had them accessable for myself, or my players should the need or want arise.
These new changes, they did not go into detail like they have with previous editions. They threw out what happened, with no full explaination for anything, and settled upon that for their new FRCG. As I said before,
we Realms fans are much akin to historians. We loved the richness and detail of the world we play in, and the new edition lacks that.
They have left so much out of the new book (in my opinion), it seems like it should cost a lot less than it did. Compare the 3e FRCG with the 4e FRCG, and you'll find a lot less in the way content, both overall and in detail. The only FRCG edition that compares to the 4e is 2e, as it was a light book as well, but it was well detailed, just small.
I for one, due to the constraints of daily life, could not devote enough time to fully flesh out everything like was done for me in the previous books. They were rich, very detailed, and even as the cost for the books increased over the years, I still always felt I got my money's worth with them. Not with 4e FRCG though.
If this is the new standard WotC is going to in game suppliments and resource books, then the 4e FRCG is the last game book I am purchasing from WotC. Kind of sad to have it come down to this, after 20 years of gaming in the FR.
RL.... I won't even get into that here...
At least take a look at the player's guide before you cross that bridge.
I'll look, if I can, but there isn't really a game shop near me, nor a book store except for used books. I got the 4e FRCG online for a great price, but once I got it I was left disappointed.
I'll leave the ball in WotC's court with this one. Hopefully they won't completely drive me away.