| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 17:41:24
When it comes to speculation about the Forgotten Realms under the D&D Next/5E banner, I hope WotC chooses to do more than freeze the timeline and attempt to minimize the footprint of the Spellplague.
Instead, I hope they are willing to advance the timeline through the novels and that they focus on the Spellplague, because I think there’s more to the Spellplague story to tell.
For example, in the most recent Elminster trilogy, Elminster mentions the “Blue Fire that is not of Mystra.”
If this is true, what is the Blue Fire, exactly? What is its source? Where does it come from?
Is it the mindless, leftover stuff of creation? The sort of thing only a being like Ao could control? The sort of thing Cyric would hope to unleash in order to murder the world?
Or is it a result of friction between worlds and the planes? And why does it so ravenously consume and ride magic?
Another example is the presence of Akanul, Tymanther, Returned Abeir, etc. in the Realms.
Who’s to say these places might not one day slingshot back to their home world? Or that the denizens of these lands might seek to force their return home (especially the dragons of Returned Abeir)?
That Mystra’s resurgence in the Realms might offset the effects of the Spellplague is quite possible, in my opinion. If that happens, who’s to say the Toril might not right itself and be rid of (to some degree) those parts of it that aren’t native to it?
I view the Spellplague information in the FRCS as an overview; not as definitive or absolute.
There’s more story to tell.
Yes, minimize the Spellplague. But let the story play out to its conclusion too.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| arry |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 12:10:38
IMO the Spellplague can't be 'fixed'. WotC wanted a 'new' FR and that's what they got. If they have now decided that this wasn't such a good idea; well, I'm afraid that's tough. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 05:42:09
I wish WotC would further explore the fall of Azuth. I want to know more about what Asmodeus is doing with the power he took from Azuth.
I also wish WotC would start writing novels set in the 100 year time gap. I’d sure like to get my hands on a novel trilogy covering Sembia and Cormyr at war with each other.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 05:34:58
Thank you Wooly. I really do appreciate your stepping in.
For what it's worth: I sat in at the GenCon where the Spellplague concept was introduced during the Realms seminar. A lot of the people who created the concept, developed it and tried hard to get it right were all there--Ed Greenwood included.
I didn't see them giving each other the finger. Nor those of us in the audience. They were calm, collected and mature.
Ed himself started things off. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think he knew some people weren't going to like what was coming, but he stood by the Realms, told everyone in attendance "the Realms must change" and when he'd finished his talk, turned things over to Rich Baker.
Rich answered a ton of questions and took people seriously. There was no ill intent.
At the end of the seminar, nobody left shocked, worried or pissed off, as far as I could tell. People were happy to see all the game designers in the flesh, some of the Candlekeep scribes who'd met up at GenCon were taking pictures and a lot of people lingered for about as long as they could. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 04:53:25
Let's have a bit more constructive commentary in this thread, please. The original topic was not "Oh, how I hate the Spellplague, let's all complain about it some more!" The topic was "Hey, let's work with it and make it more palatable."
If you don't feel that's feasible, fine. Say so. Just don't make this yet another anti-Spellplague thread, please. I'm as against the Spellplague as anyone else, and even I'm tired of the constant complaining about it.  |
| Laeknir |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 04:29:46
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
It is absolutely 100% appropriate to blame the designers in this case. People who buy a house, then proceed to totally gut it and put in what they like, they essentially are giving the finger to the prior interior designers.
Designers that totally gut a setting, then thematically warp it into something it was not, are arrogantly giving the finger to prior designers AND consumers at the time.
Who else does one blame, other than the design team? They're responsible for what they destroyed. Problem is, this wasn't entirely their house alone. They "forgot" the reasons why people flocked to the Realms and decided to wipe the slate and go with their personal, specific preferences.
Sure, sure, I've heard the whole argument that "you can't possibly blame one or two designers, because it was a group effort," but the bottom line - really - is that they ARE responsible for what they did. If this current group of designers doesn't undo what the 4E designers did, then they are JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for all the changes that were made.
But if the designers aren't being allowed to undo the changes that were handed down as an executive order from somebody at Hasbro, (...)
Hasbro didn't order the Realms 4E changes, and Hasbro is not preventing any removal of those changes. Those decisions were (and are) all internal to WotC.
|
| Jakk |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 03:15:47
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
It is absolutely 100% appropriate to blame the designers in this case. People who buy a house, then proceed to totally gut it and put in what they like, they essentially are giving the finger to the prior interior designers.
Designers that totally gut a setting, then thematically warp it into something it was not, are arrogantly giving the finger to prior designers AND consumers at the time.
Who else does one blame, other than the design team? They're responsible for what they destroyed. Problem is, this wasn't entirely their house alone. They "forgot" the reasons why people flocked to the Realms and decided to wipe the slate and go with their personal, specific preferences.
Sure, sure, I've heard the whole argument that "you can't possibly blame one or two designers, because it was a group effort," but the bottom line - really - is that they ARE responsible for what they did. If this current group of designers doesn't undo what the 4E designers did, then they are JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for all the changes that were made.
But if the designers aren't being allowed to undo the changes that were handed down as an executive order from somebody at Hasbro, then making the designers responsible is as ridiculous as Hasbro allowing them to call themselves "designers" in the first place... personally, I think that if Hasbro is going to insist on doing design work, 5e should officially become a Hasbro product, and should consist of a 10x10 square game board, numbered starting in the upper-left corner, with dungeon "hallways" in some squares that allow speedy travel "down" and snaky linnorm/Oriental dragons in other squares that force the player to return back "up" to an earlier square. The winner, of course, is the first player to make it to the bottom of the dungeon. Oh... wait a minute... that game already exists, albeit upside-down... 
Edit: Oh, and consider this a week-early April Fools announcement; I wasn't going to wait a week and take a chance on forgetting something this good. Really, I'll be horrified if we see anything resembling this for the new edition.  |
| Jakk |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 02:57:30
This has been an interesting scroll to read... and while I fully agree with the OP that there are more Spellplague stories to tell (PLEASE make it make sense... somebody...), I think Markustay has it figured out best... imho, of course:
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But without the timejump, there was enough of the Realms we all know (and have grown to love) left for us to get over it. A LOT of people hated the ToT, and choose to ignore it, but it didn't cause an 'edition war'.
Like it or hate it, every piece of lore up until the timejump was still considered canon by everyone - our personal preferences did not matter. 4e FR was a complete disconnect, because it was a double-wipe: whatever the spellplague left unchanged, the century washed away.
Its a 'new setting' - just check the old podcasts; the designers themselves refer to it as such. If the guys working on it consider it a new setting, then it is. A setting is more then just a map - it has a life all its own, giving to it by the people and storylines we have grown to care about.
What makes it FR? A similar map and iconic D&D characters and monsters? Going by the very broad definition, Golarion could be called FR as well. I could easilly import Artemis, Drizzt, Elminster, Storm, Mirt, etc... into that setting, and call it FR - what, precisely, would be the difference between THAT, and what we have now?
You want an explanation? The Spellplague changed the world in more ways then folks realized. There you go - you now have the perfect canon excuse to call ANY RPG world The Realms. Go for it.
The only difference is we would loose Wotc and lose the logo.
I'll miss the logo.
I'll miss the logo too, but I'm still going to suspend my final call until I've seen the new product (both core and Realms). And for the last time, to WotC, just call it 5e already!  |
| Laeknir |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 02:56:13
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
The egocentric and arrogant designers...
Excuse me, but that's taking things too far.
It's clear you don't like the post-Spellplague Realms...you've said as much several times already, in more than one post, in this scroll.
But taking the extra step of including real people in that dislike (i.e. making it personal) isn't OK.
It is absolutely 100% appropriate to blame the designers in this case. People who buy a house, then proceed to totally gut it and put in what they like, they essentially are giving the finger to the prior interior designers.
Designers that totally gut a setting, then thematically warp it into something it was not, are arrogantly giving the finger to prior designers AND consumers at the time.
Who else does one blame, other than the design team? They're responsible for what they destroyed. Problem is, this wasn't entirely their house alone. They "forgot" the reasons why people flocked to the Realms and decided to wipe the slate and go with their personal, specific preferences.
Sure, sure, I've heard the whole argument that "you can't possibly blame one or two designers, because it was a group effort," but the bottom line - really - is that they ARE responsible for what they did. If this current group of designers doesn't undo what the 4E designers did, then they are JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for all the changes that were made.
|
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 21:59:32
While it would certainly be great to see a 5E retcon of those elements from 3E to 4E that a lot of us don't like, it is a lot to ask for in a game seeking to grow it's market share (not JUST recapture old segments of it).
So, turning Ed loose to modify the 4E world to something more like 1E, 2E and 3E, offering products that detail people, places, and things across the various common eras of Realmstime (instead of just the 5E timeframe) and lastly (and, to a purist, most importantly) allowing Ed to release an 'alternate timeline' product (which carries the risk that it will sell well enough that you would be compelled to support it by offering even more such products and thus create a 'two canon timelines' Realms) seems like a pretty reasonable set of solutions to the edition wars problem (as least as far as the Realms setting is concerned, I still worry about the actual rules set, since that was a full 50% of my beef with 4E).
I know that might seem like half a loaf to some, but after basically starving for almost 5 years I'd say any progress is good news. The very fact that Hasbro/Wizards has finally acknowledged the problem and is seeking to correct it is also good news, as it means they grasp the basic equation of 'upset customers = loss of profit = decline of market share = bad for us'. I'm hopeful that if people really like one or more of the changes they undertake and vote their satisfaction with their wallets (and their public support in the gaming/internet/convention community) that they will be savvy enough to take the Realms in that direction. That's enough of a genuinely hopeful situation for me. If I win the lottery, I'll see if I can't pry the Realms IP (or perhaps the entire D&D IP) loose from Hasbro and bring back the good old days in an orgy of fanboy inspired author hiring and retcons, but until and unless that happens, I'm satisfied for now. Lol. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 20:08:10
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
You've mentioned a lot of the elements of the Spellplague that I too dislike. However, I don't see them as random at all because they simply weren't.
Within the frame of the Realms the changes may seem random. But from the point of view of setting and game design, those changes were anything but random.
What I like about the post-Spellplague Realms is that we have the opportunity for a second wave of stories. The majority of the Realms hasn't been radically changed, it's just gotten about 100 years older.
Time, not the Spellplague event, put much of the rich tapestry of NPCs in the Realms to rest. It would have done that anyway, Spellplague or no.
But it's important to remember that this tapestry was just a snapshot: one slice of time in a very large loaf, so to speak (thank you Brian Greene for the ananlogy).
To me it's not enough to know, for example, that two dwarves named Jaelroon and Ilmairen lived and worked in Waterdeep. I want to know: what was the rest of their story? Did they stay in Waterdeep forever? Or did they move on?
To me there is a rich opportunity in telling those stories. Being a gamer, I'm not going to simply sit back and assume these NPCs all died boring deaths (though some of them probably did) just because the people at WotC haven't written down their fates.
To me that smacks too much of giving up my sense of wonder for the sake of not having been told by the folks at WotC what to think.
The opportunity to utilize, evolve and grow these NPCs (through the lense of a D&D game) is what was given to us when these many NPCs were published. That's literally why they were written up!
By implementing a 100 year time jump, WotC preserved that opportunity.
If you're looking at just the setting by itself, it may seem these NPCs were left out in the cold.
But if you see it from the point of view of playing the game, those NPCs are right where they're needed: undeveloped beyond blurbs in any number of sourcebooks, ready for DMs to use.
Anyway, proper Realms NPCs aren't static: they live, they grow, they change, they have children and they influence others, they grow old (if they're lucky) and they die.
In this way good Realms NPCs are like good Realmslore.
There's no good reason for me to believe I can't get more awesomeness out of the Realms just because time goes by in the setting. I want to read about and tell the stories of the old NPCs, as well I want to read about and tell the stories of new NPCs.
When I talked about 'randomness', I was talking from the setting point of view because that is the right one to consider if I have to decide whether I'm going to buy books about the Realms or not. And if we consider the development of some late 3e events and of the Spellplague, I can't do anything but think that they were, as I and even You said, random in regards of the storyline, aimed to deprive the setting of some of its flavor and depth, so not palatable to me.
What you said about NPCs is just natural. It's obvious that in my game I'll keep developing them, and keep the ones I like alive. But this is something I can do without buying any book from WotC.
The major plots that were brutally and, IMO, pointlessly either resolved (the 'drowpocalypse' for example, which deprived the drow of any depth as race), or interrupted by the timejump and the 'big' characters and deities removed for no reason, on the other hand, have much deeper consequences on the setting which would be hard for me to deal with in a way I like if I had to stay close to new canon. At the point that I'd not be interested in canon anymore, because I won't buy a book I'll have to scavenge from in order to find a use of it.
That's one of the reasons because of I said that bringing back some of the pre-plague characters, deities and plots wouldn't be 'cheap' and would smooth the situation, at least for me (it would bring in the books infos that I'd actually use almost as they are). But from what I've seen, it looks like that even doing so won't be enough for many others to get the feeling of the Realms back. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 19:50:21
Oh well, at least this scroll managed two pages before the inexorable flames of edition hatred began to smolder under the words.
I agree (and I think many agree) that more lore and tales about the Realms during the timejump would be welcome. Although I think having a detailed biography/eulogy/address for every single minor NPC and location ever mentioned is needless overkill.
But what is this scroll really about? Spellplague or timejump? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 19:33:36
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
The egocentric and arrogant designers...
Excuse me, but that's taking things too far.
It's clear you don't like the post-Spellplague Realms...you've said as much several times already, in more than one post, in this scroll.
But taking the extra step of including real people in that dislike (i.e. making it personal) isn't OK.
******
You've mentioned a lot of the elements of the Spellplague that I too dislike. However, I don't see them as random at all because they simply weren't.
Within the frame of the Realms the changes may seem random. But from the point of view of setting and game design, those changes were anything but random.
What I like about the post-Spellplague Realms is that we have the opportunity for a second wave of stories. The majority of the Realms hasn't been radically changed, it's just gotten about 100 years older.
Time, not the Spellplague event, put much of the rich tapestry of NPCs in the Realms to rest. It would have done that anyway, Spellplague or no.
But it's important to remember that this tapestry was just a snapshot: one slice of time in a very large loaf, so to speak (thank you Brian Greene for the ananlogy).
To me it's not enough to know, for example, that two dwarves named Jaelroon and Ilmairen lived and worked in Waterdeep. I want to know: what was the rest of their story? Did they stay in Waterdeep forever? Or did they move on?
To me there is a rich opportunity in telling those stories. Being a gamer, I'm not going to simply sit back and assume these NPCs all died boring deaths (though some of them probably did) just because the people at WotC haven't written down their fates.
To me that smacks too much of giving up my sense of wonder for the sake of not having been told by the folks at WotC what to think.
The opportunity to utilize, evolve and grow these NPCs (through the lense of a D&D game) is what was given to us when these many NPCs were published. That's literally why they were written up!
By implementing a 100 year time jump, WotC preserved that opportunity.
If you're looking at just the setting by itself, it may seem these NPCs were left out in the cold.
But if you see it from the point of view of playing the game, those NPCs are right where they're needed: undeveloped beyond blurbs in any number of sourcebooks, ready for DMs to use.
Anyway, proper Realms NPCs aren't static: they live, they grow, they change, they have children and they influence others, they grow old (if they're lucky) and they die.
In this way good Realms NPCs are like good Realmslore.
There's no good reason for me to believe I can't get more awesomeness out of the Realms just because time goes by in the setting. I want to read about and tell the stories of the old NPCs, as well I want to read about and tell the stories of new NPCs. |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 19:20:53
I agree with you Laeknir that the spell plague was not the sole cause of the rift between pre 4e and 4e. The thing that I find most frustrating about the entire discussion is that the people who like 4e make the argument that the changes between 4e and 3e are relatively minor. It would apparently just take a DM a few minutes to revert the changes and continue with the modern timeline. The settings tone change completely, from being a world with many levels of depth, to an almost points of light setting. I think it is a bit harsh to say that in no circumstance can the 4e setting be continued. However, the idea that every change made in 4e is sarced and must not be undone is what I find annoying. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 19:18:54
But without the timejump, there was enough of the Realms we all know (and have grown to love) left for us to get over it. A LOT of people hated the ToT, and choose to ignore it, but it didn't cause an 'edition war'.
Like it or hate it, every piece of lore up until the timejump was still considered canon by everyone - our personal preferences did not matter. 4e FR was a complete disconnect, because it was a double-wipe: whatever the spellplague left unchanged, the century washed away.
Its a 'new setting' - just check the old podcasts; the designers themselves refer to it as such. If the guys working on it consider it a new setting, then it is. A setting is more then just a map - it has a life all its own, giving to it by the people and storylines we have grown to care about.
What makes it FR? A similar map and iconic D&D characters and monsters? Going by the very broad definition, Golarion could be called FR as well. I could easilly import Artemis, Drizzt, Elminster, Storm, Mirt, etc... into that setting, and call it FR - what, precisely, would be the difference between THAT, and what we have now?
You want an explanation? The Spellplague changed the world in more ways then folks realized. There you go - you now have the perfect canon excuse to call ANY RPG world The Realms. Go for it.
The only difference is we would loose Wotc and lose the logo.
I'll miss the logo. |
| Laeknir |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 17:43:00
It certainly wasn't just the spellplague that killed the Realms in my eyes. It was the totality of 4E changes made to the setting, which include the time jump, the random nation-murdering, the random god killing, the little godly soap opera of Helm-Tyr-Torm, the re-defining of core myths (like the creation myth) and the sudden random insertion of Abeir. The murder of Mystra and the resulting spellplague are only two of the problems in a host of many really poor design ideas.
They took a sledgehammer to many parts of the Realms, blew up others with C-4, and then the dozens of low-level NPCs that gave the Realms its flavor were wiped away in a 100-year death orgasm. Except that it wasn't really 100 years, it was all done in one fell swoop and that era was left blank and blind to DMs. They basically destroyed what made the Realms the Realms, then put a changeling in its place. After everything that was done, to accept this changeling as the real thing is - in my opinion - an insult to the decades of designers and authors who came before, who understood the Realms and made it great.
I will NEVER accept a Realms that includes the 4E changes, which include the spellplague but really involve much more than just that. The egocentric and arrogant designers who pushed for these radical and damaging changes will win if I just give in and buy the next iteration that keeps all that garbage as part of Realms "history" and lore. Take a stand, people, demand its excision and vote with your wallet.
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 16:42:39
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
IMHO...
It just compounds the error, it doesn't fix anything. The problem was the century timejump, NOT the Spellplague itself.
I agree that the problem wasn't the Spellplague itself. It rather was the 'randomness' (can't find another word at the moment) that, *at least I*, felt from some of the events at the end of the 1300s, the Spellplague itself and the undeveloped aftermaths of all of this (century of nothing, as you said). They weren't a natural development of the storylines. In my eyes they felt forced, just meant to remove (even some very interesting) aspects of the setting in order to lighten the lore, and not to add depth. And they did it in a shockingly brutal and, for some events, awful way (again, at least to me). Bringing back some of the pointlessly removed characters and continue their pre-plague stories can (IMO) smooth the things out. I would be happy with it, but I was new to the Realms when this happened, so I can't say whether it would work for old date fans or not. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 16:08:30
IMHO...
It just compounds the error, it doesn't fix anything. The problem was the century timejump, NOT the Spellplague itself. So long as the 'current' era remains in a future not many people like, FR can never be the success it once was.
I don't even need to argue this point - they will do what they want, and in 3-4 years time I will look up this thread and quote myself (or admit I was completely wrong, in which case its still a win for me). Hopefully there will still be a Candlekeep to post to then.
And to keep this more topical - I have nothing against the Spellplague itself. The name is a bit confusing (many fans thought it was an actual plague), but other then that, I find it very useful. To me, the Spellplague is nothing more then ToT 2.0.
The ONLY thing I still have a problem with (not even the rules at this point) is the timejump - there was no logical reason for it. All it did was eradicate most of the previous FR sources (in terms of usefulness). The Spellplague didn't do that - the 'century of nothing' did. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 14:56:21
Still, if an hero sacrifices him/herself to accomplish basically nothing and in a way that doesn't fit his/her character, just because someone wanted to get rid of him/her for no apparent reason, then he/she's not an hero anyway. So, some of them who unjustly died should return.
Just my thoughts ofc. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 14:46:27
It makes heroes LESS heroic. Without the threat of dying, it makes all their actions more about their own egos, and less about personal sacrifice. To me, a hero who can't die is just a grand-standing show-off. It is for this reason that Batman is infinitely more interesting then Superman.
Villains are supposed to 'cheat'. We hate them even more when they come back from the dead for that reason. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 13:06:25
quote:
Originally posted by Lirdolin
What I think to be kind of funny is, that many people seem to complain about the 'wonderous return from the dead' of heroes but doesn't seem to mind if arch-villans return from the grave.
See Bane, Myrkul and Bhaal. Bane made it back to the top, Myrkul preserved himself in an artifact and Bhaal, well, didn't made it sofar but who knows what Baldur's Gate 3 has in store? Liches of evil emperors like Shoon VII span centuries and let's not even think of Manshoon or Fzoul who should have kicked the bucket and burn in some private hell a long time ago.
But why is it so difficult to accept, that heroes can return in the same way? Villians return and plunge realms into darkness. Well to quote the FRGC backcover: "Realms of Dark Peril await." So the villians are already there and we in this case need some 3e (npc)heroes to return to help the 4e pc-heroes pull the realms back into light.
To me it is not difficult to asume that Mystra had contingency plans like the Dark Three. Or that Eilistraee's and Qilue's spirits were preserved in the Cresent blade contrary to the saying of some angels. Or that some heroes were magically imprisoned by their enemies and thus preserved for the current age.
Maybe even the 4e FRCG isn't right on all parts? Bruenor passed away, true, but not in Mithral Hall but fighting in Gauntlgrym. Alustriel died? Maybe she was captured by the orcs of Many Arrows and she became the slave of the Obould-kings (whose later numbers might have silver hair?), a fact that is either unknown or covered up?
The Realms are a magical world in which not only villans should be clever or lucky enough to make a comeback from the dead book.
I fully agree, especially for the ones who were removed pointlessly, just for the sake of it, without having them to achieve something actually remarkable or complete that fits them (one above all, at least for me, is Eilistraee with her 'sacrifice', whose result isn't worth of it at all). Or the ones who just 'disappeared' in the Spellplague. I could even accept something that feels cheap (like their elimination felt) to have them back.
Evil always wins (or will likely be back if defeated) gets tiresome if not balanced.
|
| Lirdolin |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 11:31:09
What I think to be kind of funny is, that many people seem to complain about the 'wonderous return from the dead' of heroes but doesn't seem to mind if arch-villans return from the grave.
See Bane, Myrkul and Bhaal. Bane made it back to the top, Myrkul preserved himself in an artifact and Bhaal, well, didn't made it sofar but who knows what Baldur's Gate 3 has in store? Liches of evil emperors like Shoon VII span centuries and let's not even think of Manshoon or Fzoul who should have kicked the bucket and burn in some private hell a long time ago.
But why is it so difficult to accept, that heroes can return in the same way? Villians return and plunge realms into darkness. Well to quote the FRGC backcover: "Realms of Dark Peril await." So the villians are already there and we in this case need some 3e (npc)heroes to return to help the 4e pc-heroes pull the realms back into light.
To me it is not difficult to asume that Mystra had contingency plans like the Dark Three. Or that Eilistraee's and Qilue's spirits were preserved in the Cresent blade contrary to the saying of some angels. Or that some heroes were magically imprisoned by their enemies and thus preserved for the current age.
Maybe even the 4e FRCG isn't right on all parts? Bruenor passed away, true, but not in Mithral Hall but fighting in Gauntlgrym. Alustriel died? Maybe she was captured by the orcs of Many Arrows and she became the slave of the Obould-kings (whose later numbers might have silver hair?), a fact that is either unknown or covered up?
The Realms are a magical world in which not only villans should be clever or lucky enough to make a comeback from the dead book. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 07:55:34
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
As irritating as the two people mentioned in this threads survival to 100 years in the future are the ones that were needlessly and uselessly killed off by the Spellplague. Two of Bob's characters in particular got no send off or hurrah. Just needlessly passed because of the "Spellplague" after 20 or so novels. The whole thing left me with such a bad taste in my mouth. I've stopped buying the Drizzt novels after Gauntlgrym. I just don't care anymore.
This. I thought that perhaps I had outgrown them, but you nailed it. |
| Laeknir |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 07:09:05
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
To me, that's precisely how you move forward. I hope somebody at WotC decides to tell those stories.
It's often necessary to stop and take a stand. I hope somebody at WotC gets a clue and really understands the damage done to the IP by 4E.
Sometimes to save a life, cancer must be surgically removed.
|
| Laeknir |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 07:01:29
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
This has already been argued numerous times before. I happen to be one of the crowd who reviles and rejects the Spellplague myself ... but it's already been indicated from the "official" sources that future canon is not going to retcon the retcon, so the best course of action is to just accept the annoying speedbump and keep moving forward to see where the D&D road will take us. Nothing more can be accomplished by standing at the side of the road shaking your fists in defiance while the D&D game accelerates into the dwindling distance.
Actually, I'm not "shaking my fists" in some kind of hollow defiance. I'm taking a stand against poor product. If, as you say, WotC is simply moving ahead and letting 4E remain, then WotC has permanently lost a customer and I'll never buy anything from them again.
I see no evidence that D&D is "accelerating" or even making an attempt to return to its former quality. If they do not get rid of the spellplague and associated 4E changes, then they're only compounding their mistakes and the company deserves every single customer they've lost.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 06:57:51
I'm perfectly aware that there are some people for whom the Spellplague was the Realms' death knell. No scroll is ever going to be all inclusive, because we all have different opinions. Just pick and choose the scrolls that interest you and ignore the rest.
For me, I simply care because the Realms are the Realms, good parts and bad.
And while I think my ideas would help smooth things over in terms of the Spellplague, I think the fact that there's more to the story of the Spellplague left to tell is important all by itself.
To me, that's precisely how you move forward. I hope somebody at WotC decides to tell those stories. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 04:12:58
This has already been argued numerous times before. I happen to be one of the crowd who reviles and rejects the Spellplague myself ... but it's already been indicated from the "official" sources that future canon is not going to retcon the retcon, so the best course of action is to just accept the annoying speedbump and keep moving forward to see where the D&D road will take us. Nothing more can be accomplished by standing at the side of the road shaking your fists in defiance while the D&D game accelerates into the dwindling distance. |
| Laeknir |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 03:44:13
The main problem with threads like this, they totally ignore people who feel that the Spellplague crossed the line. For some of us, the Spellplague is not "fixable" and no amount of tinkering or fiddling with the Spellplague will actually make it better.
I believe that the Spellplague (and associated 4E changes / retcons / setting revisions) completely ruined the Realms beyond any tweakable "fixing" and as such the only "fix" is to utterly get rid of it. I don't even bother to participate in threads like "One Realms, one (...)" because to me the world revision of 4E utterly jumped the shark.
Sorry, but that's exactly how I feel. I actually get irritated by threads that suggest things can be patched and glued, as if only minor changes were made in 4E. I utterly detest what was done, and refuse to buy anything from the 4E era, I think it's that awful. Apologies if you're a designer in 4E, but it is absolutely NOT what I want, nothing about it can be fixed. I appreciate that you put time and effort into making things better, but to me 4E is just a cancer and you can't just whistle a happy tune and pretend like it didn't destroy the Realms.
If you have a different opinion, great and good for you. You may love the 4E Realms. I don't. I want the whole thing totally excised from Realmslore and never built upon again.
|
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 02:38:16
Ah, Highlander. Indeed there can be only one (film). I must confess that film was so central to my teenage sci-fi fantasy worldview (sharing such status with classics like the movie 'Aliens', the first six 'Dragonlance' novels, and the 'OGB Realms' of course), that I've long used it's central plot conceit as the sole method by which most of the Earthers I've imported into the Realms in my cross-over games can meet with final death, at the hands of other Earthers.
Connor MacLeod: "I've been alive for four and a half centuries, and I cannot die."
Brenda: "Well, everyone has got their problems." |
| Icelander |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 21:28:12
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I love Highlander, just the movie, there can be only one movie, not any other movies nor the contrived little TV series of the same name. Of course the question of immortality was central in Highlander, not incidental like it is in the Realms.
Just so. In any discussion of Highlander continuity, remember this lesson: "There can be only one."
Suggestions that more than one movie existed can only come from the Father of Lies himself and be designed to poison the dreams of decent people. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 21:24:14
I love Highlander, just the movie, there can be only one movie, not any other movies nor the contrived little TV series of the same name. Of course the question of immortality was central in Highlander, not incidental like it is in the Realms. |
|
|
