| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Razz |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 14:59:21
As I try not to delve into any 4E material, unless it's really important because some of the lore has pre-4E Realms stuff (like the article on Vaasa a long while back), I saw the maps for Dungeon 196 for the Moonshae Isles.
To the map experts, are they similiar to the pre-4E maps? Anything added that wasn't there before that I should completely ignore? Or is the entire 4E map retconned and not usuable for pre-4E Realms?
Thanks. |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| smerwin29 |
Posted - 31 Dec 2011 : 01:51:11
Oh, and I would be much remiss if I did not give Brian James lots and lots of credit for the quality of the map. His suggestion to insist on Mike Schley as cartographer and his willingness to work on the map itself makes it the best part of the article in my opinion. Any maps at all spur my imagination and make the game fun for me, but these maps are just beautiful. |
| smerwin29 |
Posted - 30 Dec 2011 : 23:09:34
I can try to answer the original question, but I do not know if I can answer it to anyone's satisfaction, because I honestly don't know if it is answerable. The question seems to be asking this: "Are the new maps like all the old maps? If they aren't, then I don't want to use them."
The new map is based on two main things: research that I did based on previous source material (which included everything from the original novel trilogy and sourcebook through to the latest 4e information), and elements that I added to the map to fit with the content that I included in the Backdrop article. So if you are looking for a map that simply shows elements from the past Moonshae Isles setting and nothing else at all, then you are not going to want to bother with the map. There are certainly things on the map that existed before the 4e material was added, but there is more as well.
In terms of what was added, the best thing I can do is say that my mandate when writing the article was to bring the Moonshae Isles forward in time the 100+ years and imagine what they would be like today, and then make those assumptions into a setting and background that DMs might be able to use to run fun games. I hope that's what I did!
Thanks!
Shawn |
| Therise |
Posted - 28 Dec 2011 : 01:25:42
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I would have to agree completely with Brian (and others) here - why would having more information on a map EVER be a bad thing? 
Oh FFS, it's not about having "more information" or less.
The question was about what had changed, and when. That's an academic question that tons of scribes have asked here at Candlekeep, just about a zillion times, about maps, areas, all sorts of lore.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Dec 2011 : 00:51:02
I would have to agree completely with Brian (and others) here - why would having more information on a map EVER be a bad thing?
Before the fire, I was in the process of adding post-4e locales back unto my 3e maps, IF they would have existed there pre-4e, or if they were there, but had no canonical name associated with them previously. For instance, The Tower of the Talon on my Hordelands map, or the Gritstone Moorland on the Cormyr Map (my version was never completed).
The 4e Dragon DDI maps are wonderful, and the artist is amazing - I use them myself. |
| Bakra |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 15:04:56
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
In 2e it was a place in the Outlands, personally I don't care about the edition when the map is that good
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 14:38:20
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
In 2e it was a place in the Outlands, personally I don't care about the edition when the map is that good
 |
| Quale |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 14:03:50
In 2e it was a place in the Outlands, personally I don't care about the edition when the map is that good |
| Matt James |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 11:17:54
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
It was canonized in Brian's Realmslore article in Dragon #376. Prior, it appeared in other, older, D&D products. It gets it's history from an old Irish folklore. I apologize if I misread your intent, it read poorly as I followed the progression of the thread.
What prior material was it mentioned in? I don't recall ever seeing that name before...
I would have to ask Brian. The name is familiar but I don't know if I'm recalling it incorrectly. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 11:16:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
It was canonized in Brian's Realmslore article in Dragon #376. Prior, it appeared in other, older, D&D products. It gets it's history from an old Irish folklore. I apologize if I misread your intent, it read poorly as I followed the progression of the thread.
What prior material was it mentioned in? I don't recall ever seeing that name before...
I'm going from memory, but I think it might have been Monster Mythology. Or, perhaps, On Hallowed Ground. It was alluded to as part of the ancient Irish myth concerning "The Land Beneath the Waves." |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 10:51:30
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
It was canonized in Brian's Realmslore article in Dragon #376. Prior, it appeared in other, older, D&D products. It gets it's history from an old Irish folklore. I apologize if I misread your intent, it read poorly as I followed the progression of the thread.
What prior material was it mentioned in? I don't recall ever seeing that name before... |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 07:35:07
From an outside 3rd party perspective (and I purposefully haven't consulted the article in question--I'm just discussing this from an unbiased theoretical standpoint), I'm not sure I understand the question. A new product, regardless of edition, is always going to add stuff that CAN be used regardless of edition--it's just up to the DM to determine whether it fits.
Are you asking about whether things exist on the map that just sprang into being in 1385? Because you don't want to use those things?
90% of things that exist in 4e FR grow directly out of 3.5 lore. 10% are things that were added to the realms, which either don't have a basis in previously established lore or have only a very tenuous basis. It is up to you as a DM to pick what you're going to use in your game.
Cheers |
| Matt James |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 05:28:02
It was canonized in Brian's Realmslore article in Dragon #376. Prior, it appeared in other, older, D&D products. It gets it's history from an old Irish folklore. I apologize if I misread your intent, it read poorly as I followed the progression of the thread. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 05:21:14
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
When did Tir faoi Thoinn come into being? Was it spawn by the Spellplague or has it been there for millennia lurking below the waves? I know the canonical answer, but once again this should have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on your campaign.
Is this canonical answer in print somewhere?
Point missed, Wooly 
Point not missed, it was a legit question. I'm curious about that point. I have nothing positive to contribute to the main discussion, so I was seizing on the one point of interest to myself. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 05:01:26
I don't like to think I haphazardly jam anything into the content I write and design for the Forgotten Realms. The only thing stopping you from using the map is you, not the edition. If you look at the Moonshae article's map, you wouldn't find any transpositions. The choice to ignore is up to you. As designers, we're not going to make assumptions for the reader.
You saw the map, yes? Did you notice something different that prompted you to make this thread? |
| Razz |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 01:58:52
It's true, it does matter to me. While I agree some sites could be areas that have been there pre-Spellplague and just never published before, but if they are connected to the core 4E setting in any way, I'd rather ignore it than make up something new. There're plenty of already established places for me to play with anyway.
If for example, a site was there for millenia and referred to "a portal to the Elemental Chaos" or "this is the home of a primordial being" or "eladrin from the Feywild once lived here", I am going to ignore it. For good reason, because all those elements is 4E core material retconned into the legends of pre-Spellplague past.
The Vaasa article, for example, described some of the new sites and geographical terrain there. There was probably three towns described, and maybe one site I think, that I completely wrote off. But the rest of the Vaasa article (and the map, for sure) was very useful. I'm just stating that, for the vast majority that clearly have not received the new Realms well at all, it's nice to see articles written detailing something post or pre-Spellplague era, or whether it's an old site dedicated to something found only in the 4E core campaign setting. It's win-win, at least to me.
I'm a firm believer of there being "A Realms that should've been if 4E's campaign concept wasn't jammed in" setting and "A Realms that currently is because 4E's campaign concept was haphazardly jammed in" setting. Not just throwing hyperboles, either, because some designers literally have stated, in more eloquent terms, that 4E's core setting was jammed in after much debate not to mess with it at all to begin with. In smashing two worlds together to create one in-game, the designers have got their Monkey's Paw effect to which the fans have now created "two Forgotten Realms" settings.
This is no Edition War fight, and I'm really not trying to turn this into one. Just like many of us have to deal with 4E Realms and its changes and glaring angrily at the bookstands everytime one walks by it at the mall and longing for the "old days when...", the 4E Realms fans need to learn that we're still playing in the Realms just like them, we just still don't want any part of 4E Realms and only inquire things like this in order to avoid that. To each their own, I say. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 27 Dec 2011 : 01:42:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
When did Tir faoi Thoinn come into being? Was it spawn by the Spellplague or has it been there for millennia lurking below the waves? I know the canonical answer, but once again this should have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on your campaign.
Is this canonical answer in print somewhere?
Point missed, Wooly |
| Therise |
Posted - 26 Dec 2011 : 17:38:58
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
...I could go one by one pointing out every new feature on this map, or the Cormyr map, or the Vaasa map, etc… but honestly it’s irrelevant. Enjoy the maps for what they are and use them in your home campaign regardless of the time period.
It may seem irrelevant to you. For Razz and others, I'm not sure that's your call. It likely depends on each and every individual's campaign structure.
Why the hesitance in answering? Just because he doesn't want to use 4E?
Even for people not even playing D&D at the moment, "what's new on this map, compared to old ones, and what's changed" is exactly the kind of question that sages and scribes here have been curious about and discuss at length.
I don't think we should be so afraid of possible future snarkiness that we avoid questions like this altogether. Candlekeep as a site was built on people analyzing older vs newer maps, changes in lore, etc. Furthermore, that very debate is what gave you the ability to research and analyze the Realms yourself.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Dec 2011 : 14:18:33
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
When did Tir faoi Thoinn come into being? Was it spawn by the Spellplague or has it been there for millennia lurking below the waves? I know the canonical answer, but once again this should have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on your campaign.
Is this canonical answer in print somewhere? |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 26 Dec 2011 : 07:57:55
Examine the map of Sarifal that Brimstone linked to.
There are numerous sites and geographical features on this map that have never before appeared on any map of Moonshae Isles.
Let’s pick one at random. Do you see the underwater region located between Gwynneth and Snowdown? It’s labeled Tir faoi Thoinn. Don’t bother looking for it on any prior map of the Moonshaes. It’s new.
Now, I as the designer of this map I know what I had in mind when I placed it there, but that should have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on your campaign. I see it as an underwater paradise for aquatic fey, but in your campaign “Tir faoi Thoinn” could be a sea troll speak for “merfolk are delicious”.
Well this must be a 4E site because it’s a 4E map and it’s a new location, right? Not necessarily.
When did Tir faoi Thoinn come into being? Was it spawn by the Spellplague or has it been there for millennia lurking below the waves? I know the canonical answer, but once again this should have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on your campaign.
I could go one by one pointing out every new feature on this map, or the Cormyr map, or the Vaasa map, etc… but honestly it’s irrelevant. Enjoy the maps for what they are and use them in your home campaign regardless of the time period. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 26 Dec 2011 : 04:04:46
Map of Sarifal
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 26 Dec 2011 : 03:27:19
It seems like if you want old maps then you'll have to find old maps, there's just no way around it.
What I was trying to state above is that if you have absolutely no pre-4E references for the region then I don't see why it should be so important to oppose the changes imposed in the 4E setting. (And if you do have pre-4E references then you already have maps relevant to your edition; they were included in all of the game and novel products which feature the Moonshaes.) The "breathtaking" new 4E maps can always be compared against the older ones; there might be no significant difference for your campaign purposes. Wizbro owns exclusive legal rights for publishing Realms/Moonshae content, and they clearly do not intend to develop any new maps (or publish obsolete ones) that are incompatible with their 4E setting. |
| Therise |
Posted - 26 Dec 2011 : 01:42:02
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
The Realms maps that we're getting now are breathtaking and far more detailed than they have ever been in any edition.
Why would you need an expert to point out the differences for you? Either it's useful for your campaign or it's not.
As beautiful and nicely detailed as, for example, the recent 4E map for Cormyr was (in the magazine), I have to back Razz on this one. He's asking a valid question, which I'm taking as "is there a lot of 4E-ness imbedded in the new map"?
Big splotches of spellplague, floaty earthmotes, radically changed geography, all of those things on a map would make it totally useless for me in my campaign. So it's a completely valid question.
I'd answer him myself, but I don't have DDI.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 25 Dec 2011 : 22:31:44
There are innumerable maps for the Realms and the Moonshaes available online. I agree with Brian - whether they're 4E-or-pre-4E or canon or fanbrew doesn't much matter. They're either accurate maps or they're not.
I also agree that the production standards for 4E maps, artwork, and books is consistently higher than in any previous edition. Like it or not, the 4E maps are the best around. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 25 Dec 2011 : 22:14:42
The Realms maps that we're getting now are breathtaking and far more detailed than they have ever been in any edition.
Why would you need an expert to point out the differences for you? Either it's useful for your campaign or it's not. |
|
|
