| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 27 Apr 2008 : 03:43:14
Just curious if anyone is planning on taking the party the DM and jumping them into the future somehow. How? Why? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 18 Aug 2008 : 16:08:53
quote:
Originally posted by Ferns
Greetings all
I have been playing in the Realms for 18 years now, I started out when I was 14 years old and got "stuck" in 2nd ed and have been that ever since. When 3rd ed came out, my players and me decided to continue in 2nd ed, because we have soooo many books (I have over a hundred books myself) and we didn't care much to look at the new rules at all. Why bother when there is so much gametime in what we have?
A friend of mine did try to convince us to play with the new rules, just to try it, but it never came to that. The reason was that he left the city and so we continued to play what we knew. We have great fun in this old setting, and have much to explore yet.
We used to play on a weekly basis, but now it has come down to once a month. All because of family, career etc. Sometimes we play a whole weekend and sometimes we just play for an evening.
I have been DM'ing our current adventure for 2 years now, the players are app. at 8th level and have not seen much of the world. Actually they have only seen Suzail, Westgate and the Giantrun mountains. They are now stuck in the mountains and have many hours of real time play until they are out of there.
I don't follow all cannon, but use what I see as fun and necessary for the game to continue and work. We play a "homebrewed" storyline so to speak.
So to conclude upon whether we will try out 4th ed or not, well the answer is obvious for us, we play 2nd ed and continue this until we have run out of material and imagination. Which is hopefully never :)
I think people should play what they feel is right for them and go with that, it doesn't depend on the edition after all. It all comes down to what works for you and your group. That's my opinion on this subject.
I am sure you are not the only one to feel that way.
By the way, whats the party made of? I love that stuff. In fact there is a thread on that subject. Please post |
| Ferns |
Posted - 18 Aug 2008 : 11:52:51
Greetings all
I have been playing in the Realms for 18 years now, I started out when I was 14 years old and got "stuck" in 2nd ed and have been that ever since. When 3rd ed came out, my players and me decided to continue in 2nd ed, because we have soooo many books (I have over a hundred books myself) and we didn't care much to look at the new rules at all. Why bother when there is so much gametime in what we have?
A friend of mine did try to convince us to play with the new rules, just to try it, but it never came to that. The reason was that he left the city and so we continued to play what we knew. We have great fun in this old setting, and have much to explore yet.
We used to play on a weekly basis, but now it has come down to once a month. All because of family, career etc. Sometimes we play a whole weekend and sometimes we just play for an evening.
I have been DM'ing our current adventure for 2 years now, the players are app. at 8th level and have not seen much of the world. Actually they have only seen Suzail, Westgate and the Giantrun mountains. They are now stuck in the mountains and have many hours of real time play until they are out of there.
I don't follow all cannon, but use what I see as fun and necessary for the game to continue and work. We play a "homebrewed" storyline so to speak.
So to conclude upon whether we will try out 4th ed or not, well the answer is obvious for us, we play 2nd ed and continue this until we have run out of material and imagination. Which is hopefully never :)
I think people should play what they feel is right for them and go with that, it doesn't depend on the edition after all. It all comes down to what works for you and your group. That's my opinion on this subject. |
| Asche |
Posted - 16 Aug 2008 : 01:20:37
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Asche
However, I am probably a bit more lore-driven than most, simply because the setting sounded well-built and developed to me when I started it, and it really keeps on giving you nice stories.
I'm "lore-driven", too, I just believe it's not a bad thing to be selective about what changes one is going to introduce into their campaign. I can't say how many times crestfallen DMs have mentioned how a new change to the setting totally messes up the history/story they already have in place...and on top of that, they often say they feel they have to implement the change anyway!
My point is that the canon lore is there to be used and enjoyed, but not followed slavishly.
Ah ok, I see what you mean.
Well, I do approach my campaigns differently. I never stay at the cutting edge of story development. I pick a year, try to learn anything important about it, the next, say, 2 official years, and any events that directly lead up to it. I then construct, roughly, a story arc touching these events.....
.... and then my players come along and decide to do something entirely different, at which point I am sort of floating and trying to reel them in, or go with a different avenue slowly leading back towards the main course.
Either way, that way I have never run into problems of official lore contradicting me on surprise.
Of course, at times I kind of changed a few things, or rewrote a particular place so it fit.
Either way, for 4E while waiting for the FRCS, I have decided to start, very conservatively I suppose, at the Cormyrean Border towards the Dalelands. I ll try to play rather low magic, so the more... down to earth style of Cormyr seems to fit that well, plus its a traditional spot and way to start a campaign :) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 22:45:26
quote:
Originally posted by Asche
However, I am probably a bit more lore-driven than most, simply because the setting sounded well-built and developed to me when I started it, and it really keeps on giving you nice stories.
I'm "lore-driven", too, I just believe it's not a bad thing to be selective about what changes one is going to introduce into their campaign. I can't say how many times crestfallen DMs have mentioned how a new change to the setting totally messes up the history/story they already have in place...and on top of that, they often say they feel they have to implement the change anyway!
My point is that the canon lore is there to be used and enjoyed, but not followed slavishly. |
| Tyranthraxus |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 18:36:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
Anyway, we all saw the destruction of Halruaa coming  . I really liked it, was a great place for exotic adventures and my next campaign will be in the shining south.
Not I. In fact, I don't think I saw a single one of these changes coming, at least not initially.
When I read the last entry in GHotR my spider senses went of like crazy. What other nation besides Halruaa would be so devistated after the death of Mystra? And with 4e Realms my nightmare became reality. Maybe my next campaign will take place just during the fall of Halruaa as an intro the 4e Realms... But I'm not sure about that. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 16:23:47
quote:
Originally posted by Asche
.
With Halruaa, I kinda see what they did there, getting rid of one of the more steampunky, or Eberron-style nations that didnt really fit the classic fantasy theme, and were never much of a focus anyway, but that to me seems like killing the farmer to prevent bad apples getting to the stores.
[The following is not against you, Asche, but against certain WotC designers who uttered this argument, too, IIRC.]
Sorry, but this argument is complete, utter nonsense. If anything is Realmsian at all, then it is Halruaa. Here we have a direct successor state to Netheril, in direct line descended from the old Empire of Magic (the other three survivor states got destroyed long ago). Halruua is even more Netheril than the new Empire of Netheril of 4e which is Shade, another survivor from Netheril of old, but a changed one (by turning into Shades). And if anything can claim to be genuin realmsian, than it is Netheril. So Halruaa is something most genuine FR, not somenthing strange or incoherent, not belonging into the campaing setting like (as some may argue) real world derived Maztica, Kara Tur or Unther.
Bry bringing the argument above as defense for nuking Halruua the designers of 4e show that they are incomptent since they know nothing about the realms and don't understand it all. They shouldn't have been allowed to lay their hands on the setting.
Sorry for the rant, but the petty excuses for nuking Halruaa make me very angry as they show how utterly WotC failed in developing the FR. |
| Asche |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 16:02:42
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Asche
In that regard, I can accept and understand the "tabula rasa" done here to an extent, as it is an almost insurmountable task to play "canon" nowadays in the old Realms.
Perhaps, although if you don't mind, I'd like to suggest that "sticking to canon" might not be desirable in a home campaign.
quote:
With Halruaa, I kinda see what they did there, getting rid of one of the more steampunky, or Eberron-style nations that didnt really fit the classic fantasy theme, and were never much of a focus anyway...
Well, one of the "key design principles" of 4E is to put the fantasy back in D&D, with floating towers and such. So, I don't agree that Halruaa didn't fit the "fantasy theme" that 4E is supposed support, and I certainly don't see how Halruaa was a "steampunk" nation.
Well, I previously tried to wriggle a bit within the lore, but still encompass all major events (we started with the War in Cormyr back then, and I pretty much at least dropped in a line or two about any major events at taverns, bars etc., so the players had a general feeling what was going on where, which often led them to travel to areas where major events were going on... for example Unther, the Rage of Dragons and the Anauroch.
However, I am probably a bit more lore-driven than most, simply because the setting sounded well-built and developed to me when I started it, and it really keeps on giving you nice stories. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 15:57:25
And that "everything must change, so go with it or you are an idiot" argumentation I see all over the place is really grating on my nerves. Still, its been like that for years. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 15:48:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Not I. In fact, I don't think I saw a single one of these changes coming, at least not initially.
That's the thing. Compared to say the Time of Troubles, by and large these changes are...nonsensical.
On a related note, reason #43786565656 why I stay away from rpg.net: the consensus over there seems to be that anyone who objects to the new 4e FR is suffering from "nerdrage" and is "afraid of change". |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 15:40:31
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
Anyway, we all saw the destruction of Halruaa coming . I really liked it, was a great place for exotic adventures and my next campaign will be in the shining south.
Not I. In fact, I don't think I saw a single one of these changes coming, at least not initially. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 14:44:57
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
[But what's the deal with Abeir? Wasn't the planet named Abeir Toril? I know in 3e they just called it Toril but I didn't know Abeir was a different planet or something.
I still don't get it, but I keep hearing that Abeir was some kind of "alternate version" of the planet. Dare I say it, a "shadow" version (though it isn't literally "shadowy", it has more of a draconic theme).
It doesn't make any sense to me. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 14:43:00
quote:
Originally posted by Asche
In that regard, I can accept and understand the "tabula rasa" done here to an extent, as it is an almost insurmountable task to play "canon" nowadays in the old Realms.
Perhaps, although if you don't mind, I'd like to suggest that "sticking to canon" might not be desirable in a home campaign.
quote:
With Halruaa, I kinda see what they did there, getting rid of one of the more steampunky, or Eberron-style nations that didnt really fit the classic fantasy theme, and were never much of a focus anyway...
Well, one of the "key design principles" of 4E is to put the fantasy back in D&D, with floating towers and such. So, I don't agree that Halruaa didn't fit the "fantasy theme" that 4E is supposed support, and I certainly don't see how Halruaa was a "steampunk" nation. |
| Tyranthraxus |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 14:24:55
quote:
Originally posted by Asche
Hello there,
Having just bought and read through the available 4E Material, plus the FRCS previews, I too am quite concerned about the amount of "cross-contamination" in the new rules, from MMOs (esp. World of Warcraft seems to encroach different genres of entertainment now, even down to the slang), TCGs and a dash of miniatures. Its more of a hybrid, it seems, between a pen+paper RPG and others.
But time will tell.
I plan on starting a 4E Campaign tomorrow, or saturday at latest, in the "new" realms, but since the FRCS isnt available yet, will stick to a safe area from one of the previews until I know enough to broaden the view.
I havent been a FR Player for that long, having started in 1999, and I often had tremendous problems getting my hands on important lore and info from wayyyy back. In that regard, I can accept and understand the "tabula rasa" done here to an extent, as it is an almost insurmountable task to play "canon" nowadays in the old Realms.
Not even talking about the bad availability of older novels, a lot of descriptions and events written in the supplements were vague at best, and needed the novel to back them up.
What I truly and utterly dislike about the new Realms is the "explosion" of Halruaa, and the whole Abeir thing. Matter of fact, I dont even really know what Abeir is.... some sort of second planet in the solar system of Toril? The info available is conflicting at best.
With Halruaa, I kinda see what they did there, getting rid of one of the more steampunky, or Eberron-style nations that didnt really fit the classic fantasy theme, and were never much of a focus anyway, but that to me seems like killing the farmer to prevent bad apples getting to the stores.
So bottomline, I ll give it a try, and am already converting/rewriting some of my unplayed old modules/adventures (Sons of Gruumsh, Red Hand of Doom) into the new setting. Both of them are pretty timeless and adaptable, yet I find them to be remarkably fun to read, and hopefully play.
I ll only be using 2 house rules, a stricter timeframe on the Raise Dead spell (7 days, instead of 30), and I utterly despise the MMO-style "rez debuff" and while replace it with a hefty xp loss, and a random ability score loss that isnt your primary one (IE no INT-loss for a Wizard etc.)
Good luck with the 4e campaign, let us know how it goes  .
Anyway, we all saw the destruction of Halruaa coming . I really liked it, was a great place for exotic adventures and my next campaign will be in the shining south.
But what's the deal with Abeir? Wasn't the planet named Abeir Toril? I know in 3e they just called it Toril but I didn't know Abeir was a different planet or something. |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 02:59:02
Welcome to the Keep Asche...i see this is your first post. Best of luck with your 4E FR campaign. Red hand of Doom is a really nice module. Deadly but nice. I read Sons is also quite deadly :)
Pat |
| Asche |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 02:21:25
Hello there,
Having just bought and read through the available 4E Material, plus the FRCS previews, I too am quite concerned about the amount of "cross-contamination" in the new rules, from MMOs (esp. World of Warcraft seems to encroach different genres of entertainment now, even down to the slang), TCGs and a dash of miniatures. Its more of a hybrid, it seems, between a pen+paper RPG and others.
But time will tell.
I plan on starting a 4E Campaign tomorrow, or saturday at latest, in the "new" realms, but since the FRCS isnt available yet, will stick to a safe area from one of the previews until I know enough to broaden the view.
I havent been a FR Player for that long, having started in 1999, and I often had tremendous problems getting my hands on important lore and info from wayyyy back. In that regard, I can accept and understand the "tabula rasa" done here to an extent, as it is an almost insurmountable task to play "canon" nowadays in the old Realms.
Not even talking about the bad availability of older novels, a lot of descriptions and events written in the supplements were vague at best, and needed the novel to back them up.
What I truly and utterly dislike about the new Realms is the "explosion" of Halruaa, and the whole Abeir thing. Matter of fact, I dont even really know what Abeir is.... some sort of second planet in the solar system of Toril? The info available is conflicting at best.
With Halruaa, I kinda see what they did there, getting rid of one of the more steampunky, or Eberron-style nations that didnt really fit the classic fantasy theme, and were never much of a focus anyway, but that to me seems like killing the farmer to prevent bad apples getting to the stores.
So bottomline, I ll give it a try, and am already converting/rewriting some of my unplayed old modules/adventures (Sons of Gruumsh, Red Hand of Doom) into the new setting. Both of them are pretty timeless and adaptable, yet I find them to be remarkably fun to read, and hopefully play.
I ll only be using 2 house rules, a stricter timeframe on the Raise Dead spell (7 days, instead of 30), and I utterly despise the MMO-style "rez debuff" and while replace it with a hefty xp loss, and a random ability score loss that isnt your primary one (IE no INT-loss for a Wizard etc.) |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 20:33:27
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBestwick
I am not keen on the changes wrought by the spellplague nor on the changes made to D&D with the advent of 4E. Therefore my answer is no. In fact my Great Dale campaign kicks off in 3 weeks time and is set in the time before the rotting man was vanquished in the novel Lady of Poison. I will be playing in a new Waterdeep campaign that is kicking off shortly which is set in the 1370's so my group is firmly in the stay with classic realms and 3.5.
Paul
make sure you let us know about the party and how the campaign goes |
| PaulBestwick |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 13:32:29
I am not keen on the changes wrought by the spellplague nor on the changes made to D&D with the advent of 4E. Therefore my answer is no. In fact my Great Dale campaign kicks off in 3 weeks time and is set in the time before the rotting man was vanquished in the novel Lady of Poison. I will be playing in a new Waterdeep campaign that is kicking off shortly which is set in the 1370's so my group is firmly in the stay with classic realms and 3.5.
Paul |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 08:18:42
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
But we are not a place that can be used as a rally point for any type of boycott action directed at WotC. Such conduct will not be tolerated.
Thank you Sage. VERY much appreciated. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 06:56:59
 |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 06:06:47
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
I am not requesting a Candlekeep sanctioned boycott.
I know. I was just making it clear, the position of Candlekeep on the issue, before things started getting out of hand.
quote:
I do think if a scribe feels they don't like the new direction then it 'em where it hurts and not get the 4E Realms Campaign Book
And that's fair enough. It's an individual choice, and not something we, as in Candlekeep, can encourage nor discourage, as the case may be.
...
Now, let us return to the actual subject of this scroll. |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 04:47:43
Oh i am not, in any way, asking Candlekeep to support my boycott. I used my own site for that...and it's very clearly asking for it there. But i felt i could say it here that i support it, not ask for it. Maybe i shouldn't have use the words ... call for ... but ... support it.
AS for the comment on asking for a boycott is like asking for the death of the realms...well, let's say that i think the realms are already dead, as far as what WotC is creating. It's not dead in my world, i plan on playing in it for a long time yet, and writing about and making maps of it. I'm still making my Atlas version of it and spending quite some time thinking about it. I'm still hoping Ed will write about the timeframe before the spellplague and answer our questions about it.
This is in no way a critic of the designers that write stuff for the undead realms (Meaning it's dead but yet lives). I really respect the talent of those guyz and i'm proud of those that came from Candlekeep. I just wish they'd write about the real thing and not the farce that it became.
Pat
|
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 04:26:22
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Rest assured Sanishiver, I've been watching the progress of this scroll very closely over the last few days.
I thought Rinonalyrna's explanation of the matter -- about the perspectives re: anything even resembling a "boycott" here at Candlekeep -- to be enough for the most part.
Having said that, I will now make it clear that Candlekeep itself is NOT advocating any type of sanctioned boycott against WotC. Individual choices made by scribes with respect to their own wishes about purchasing [or not] 4e FR material are completely their own, and should remain as such. Expressing a personal desire to boycott is, however, not really something we can completely act against because it is an individual choice made by the scribe making such a claim. Simply, we cannot tell the scribe what she should or should not think with respect to her own personal opinion on the subject of a boycott.
What we can act against, in this instance, is the establishment of a Candlekeep-wide pact to boycott WotC. This type of action could potentially create problems for Candlekeep later, and should not be a notion entertained by ANY scribe.
Now, just to be clear, Candlekeep is open to any and all friendly chatter about the desires and wishes of scribes regarding the Realms. But we are not a place that can be used as a rally point for any type of boycott action directed at WotC. Such conduct will not be tolerated.
That is all.
I am not requesting a Candlekeep sanctioned boycott. I do think if a scribe feels they don't like the new direction then it 'em where it hurts and not get the 4E Realms Campaign Book |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 03:46:07
Rest assured Sanishiver, I've been watching the progress of this scroll very closely over the last few days.
I thought Rinonalyrna's explanation of the matter -- about the perspectives re: anything even resembling a "boycott" here at Candlekeep -- to be enough for the most part.
Having said that, I will now make it clear that Candlekeep itself is NOT advocating any type of sanctioned boycott against WotC. Individual choices made by scribes with respect to their own wishes about purchasing [or not] 4e FR material are completely their own, and should remain as such. Expressing a personal desire to boycott is, however, not really something we can completely act against because it is an individual choice made by the scribe making such a claim. Simply, we cannot tell the scribe what she should or should not think with respect to her own personal opinion on the subject of a boycott.
What we can act against, in this instance, is the establishment of a Candlekeep-wide pact to boycott WotC. This type of action could potentially create problems for Candlekeep later, and should not be a notion entertained by ANY scribe.
Now, just to be clear, Candlekeep is open to any and all friendly chatter about the desires and wishes of scribes regarding the Realms. But we are not a place that can be used as a rally point for any type of boycott action directed at WotC. Such conduct will not be tolerated.
That is all.
|
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 03:34:34
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Moderators? Hello?
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
It's disrespectful, uncivilised and mean.
I'd say any call for a boycott of WotC disrespectful, uncivilized and mean. Add irrational, too.
huh? How is that disrepectful at all. Its called an opinion. How this one: I hope the 4-Gotten Realms is an utter disaster. I am allowed to hold and express that opinion
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Again: Candlekeep should not be host to this kind of thing. It's wrong and it goes against the nature of this forum.
Its not wrong. People are entitled to their opinions. And this forum is about free speech. There has been absolutely no violation of the code of conduct in any respect whatsoever
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
The people who are calling for it should be asked to leave for a short time and come back only after they can parse the Realms for what it is: A fictional setting for fantasy novels and roleplaying games.
huh? So now you or the moderators at Candlekeep are going to tell me or anyone else how we are supposed to feel about the new Realms
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
This isn’t life and death, people.
Very true. So why can't we call for a boycott? |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 03:03:30
Moderators? Hello?
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
It's disrespectful, uncivilised and mean.
I'd say any call for a boycott of WotC disrespectful, uncivilized and mean. Add irrational, too.
Calling for a boycott is the same as calling for the death of the Realms.
Again: Candlekeep should not be host to this kind of thing. It's wrong and it goes against the nature of this forum.
The people who are calling for it should be asked to leave for a short time and come back only after they can parse the Realms for what it is: A fictional setting for fantasy novels and roleplaying games.
This isn’t life and death, people. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 02:37:33
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I also call for a boycott. I want WotC to fail miserably with 4E and sell the franchise with people who care about the setting and it's roots. You want a new world? Create one god darnit .... dont destroy an existing one where thousands of people developped a really strong bond with. It's disrespectful, uncivilised and mean.
So no, i won't bring my PCs in the 100 years jump, i won't consider the 100 year jump, and i pray that it brings the WotC dominance over the Realms to an end.
Pat
I would be OK with WoTC reversing themselves and retconning back to the 1380s |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 18:09:33
I also call for a boycott. I want WotC to fail miserably with 4E and sell the franchise with people who care about the setting and it's roots. You want a new world? Create one god darnit .... dont destroy an existing one where thousands of people developped a really strong bond with. It's disrespectful, uncivilised and mean.
So no, i won't bring my PCs in the 100 years jump, i won't consider the 100 year jump, and i pray that it brings the WotC dominance over the Realms to an end.
Pat |
| Tyranthraxus |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 09:39:33
I'm not going to convert to 4e yet, but who knows in a few years. It would be silly bringen the PCs a 100 years into the future, because some of the characters die of old age and maybe one or two would have died or gone mad because of the spellplague or the loss of their god.
Besides that, If my group decided to play 4e we would start at 1st level because converting high level multiclass characters would be impossible. |
| kysus |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 09:00:51
My gaming group and I will not be dealing with any of the new 4e realms stuff. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 04:00:55
I call for a boycott. |
|
|
