| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| mastermustard |
Posted - 01 Jan 2017 : 08:42:15
The Realms, and D&D in general, is in a slump right now. Do you think things will pick up again, or that things will ever be like they were in the 'good old days'? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Feb 2017 : 07:19:12
Well, its not really what drew me to GoT, either (in fact, I've never seen any of the 1st season, where most of that took place).
My point is, thats how you would 'sell' the Realms to someone like HBO. Hawt (slutty) nobles (and mages), hungry dragons, lots of 'inhuman' creatures (they'd have a field-day with Mindflayers), and all sorts of non-mundane (trying to find the most 'PC' way of putting that) sexual couplings. Hell, they could even just do a show called 'The Steel Regent' focused on Cormyr and Alusair and it would sell.
Not sure if Szass Tam or Manshoon would work better as the BBG - lich wizard baddie is over-done, but Manshoon might come off as a Bane (Batman) wanna-be with magic. Definitely NOT Sememmon - too 'Snape' - or Fzoul (people would keep expecting him to tie some poor girl to the railroad tracks... while twirling his mustache). Maybe start off season one with the Gondegal storyline, and see where it goes from there (it doesn't have to follow FR canon religiously). Shouldn't really begin with the 'baddest of the bad' because then things would escalate (jump the shark) too quickly. Also maybe the storyline with those guys who were trying to control weapon-sales in 1e/2e (Iron Throne?) Simple villains at first, maybe just bring Manshoon in for the season finale. Tam could come later (have Red Wizards make random appearances every so often, to establish their presence ahead of time).
Damn, I could fill ten seasons of scripts with just Cormyr's plots alone.  |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 09 Feb 2017 : 04:22:17
While I personally don't want to watch sex scene after sex scene (one of several reasons I have yet to watch GoT), I would be all for more LGBT inclusivity, which would include the relationship as a whole, not just what goes on between the sheets.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Feb 2017 : 04:05:33
Given the very 'free' nature of sexuality in The Forgotten Realms, I'm amazed that no-one has espoused these 'virtues' to HBO or some other network for a series. The 'climate' in this country could not be riper for a fantasy setting where there is almost no bigotry against LGBT behavior, or 'girls that behave as men' (or vice-versa).
Screw Drizzt (literally? lol!) Screw Elminster, Mirt, and Khelben, and all the rest, Screw all the stories we know - they could market this thing on its sexuality alone, and make a fortune. Series like GoT and Rome were built around the torid sex scenes - a series with that kind of 'showiness', but with more 'tenderness' is really a no-brainer in the current entertainment marketplace.
And Screw Tyrion Lanaster - we got more 'little people' than that series could ever hope to. And judging by the current popularity of 'midget' TV shows, thats also a big-seller.
And the Night's Watch? Just throw some grunge on the Harpers and we got that beat too (just PLEASE, dear lord, don't ever say 'Moonstars').
And as for Dragons and undead (and hawt princesses)... begone GoT, you can't hold a candle. How has no-one noticed this? How is this NOT already a cable series? |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 09 Feb 2017 : 03:14:14
If they are going to make an HBO Realms series, then they better renew the novel line lol |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Feb 2017 : 03:04:32
So I should be ready to 'whip-out' my great, big...
Brain?  |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 09 Feb 2017 : 02:40:09
Maybe Ed is busy at the gym now flexing biceps and abs in preparation of the several George R.R. Martin-styled upcoming interviews with talk show hosts after the movie is released (and maybe to announced a huge HBO Realms series...)
Honestly if the above happens the Realms will explode again. And all you sages will be flocked upon with gazillion young wenches in thirst of your... knowledge.... :)
FESTHALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 06 Feb 2017 : 18:58:52
Chiming in late again. My wish is that we could go back to the days when there were several books published a year (by more than just 3 authors), and the sourcebooks were rich in detail. Realistically? I don't know. |
| farinal |
Posted - 06 Feb 2017 : 04:02:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by farinal
quote:
Originally posted by mastermustard
The Realms, and D&D in general, is in a slump right now. Do you think things will pick up again, or that things will ever be like they were in the 'good old days'?
I think D&D is much more popular and successful right now than say 10 years ago.
If you speak solely of D&D, then I'd say that WotC's publishing schedule says otherwise.
If you speak of tabletop RPGs in general, I'd agree.
Well to be honest I prefer 5E's gameplay to Pathfinder so 5E is for ME, the better system. I see stuff about D&D on the mainstream media a LOT these days. From tv shows to newspapers and many gaming websites. For example on Roll20.com the most popular game is by far 5E since it's launch.
Of course when you look at the old book counts the current line of 5E and the Realms is very sad but I think it is also important to realize two things here. First we need to have the numbers of how many copies of PHB sold in this edition compared to earlier editions and also compared to Pathfinder RPG. Second we should take it into account that nowadays the books are a thing of beauty. They are majestic. I mean I have a lot of really juicy 2E lorebooks at home but when you look at some of these 5E books or other modern RPG books they would make you fall in love in an instant. They are the most gorgeous things for a "nerd" to look at. So they are also costy.
I think we also need to take the PDFs into account and how easy it is to pirate books now. For me the best combination is the old lorebooks such as Volo guides with the new 5E gameplay books such as the PHB and MM etc.
But I think the most important thing here is the audience. I don't think even 10% of the current 5E players are using old 15+ years old lorebooks to create their campaigns as I do. I think like with everything in life nowadays RPGs are also "infected" with the modern zeitgeist of being in a hurry and wanting everything ready to consume like a frozen food in a microwave instead of old style cooking a special dinner with a good old bottle of wine.
Add the Pathfinder's success with Adventure Paths to this mix and we get the mega adventure books we have in 5E instead of source or region books. I didn't get any of the adventure books for example because they didn't quite intrigued me. I love the region of North but I don't really care for giants for example. So I passed. But I have almost unlimited lore on North in my library so I don't really need a premade adventure. But overwhelming majority of people nowadays don't want to spend time and create their own campaigns. They want a more accessible and easier and less time consuming premade adventures.
So as a result I think D&D is quite successful right now compared to the other titles in the industry and how it delivers to its current audience. But of course in terms of lorebooks and novels and stuff, and the things we want here at Candlekeep, it looks like it is failing compared to 2E or 3E times. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Feb 2017 : 20:36:12
Salvatore and Greenwood novels sometimes floated onto the generic Best Seller lists for a little while. Not sure if number of copies sold was hugely increased from this placement or if this placement already indicates a huge number of copies sold - but either way a huge number of copies were sold and I'm sure that many of those books reached reading audiences who rarely dip in the genre and would not otherwise read anything published by those (to them unknown) authors.
I can't pretend to know the data but I think it's obvious that somebody makes a lot of money when a lot of books are sold. The question is who? From the frequent laments of (former) FR writers and even WotC itself, it seems that they're locked into some sort of antiquated byzantine publishing cartel where (after all the other big players and middlemen take their cuts) total revenues per copy amount to "pennies". Being managed by Hasbro can't help: if Hasbro wants profits and products channeled into unprofitable paths then so be it, the fate of a particular brand or novel or author or fans is of less consequence than the bottom line. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 05 Feb 2017 : 19:24:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There's a difference between not being positive, and assuming the worst. You can take a "wait and see" approach without assuming there will never again be another novel.
I'm assuming what Ed suggested, i.e. that it is not likely that there will be another novel. If other novels will be written, then I'll be more than happy, but there is no reason to stay hopeful, when we take a look at what the authors have said.
quote:
Except novels were profitable. The issue with WotC and novels has always been that they wanted to be a game company and not a novel company.
That's why I said not profitable enough to WotC/Hasbro. Someone posted Amazon data in an ENWorld thread, and that was sadly underwhelming, except for maybe the Drizzt novels. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Feb 2017 : 18:20:16
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
You have to admit that when even Ed is no longer psitive about it, and thinks that the novels won't start again unless the movie and an eventual novelization do really well, then it's hard to be positive. Also, it's not like WotC themselves are working on the movie.
There's a difference between not being positive, and assuming the worst. You can take a "wait and see" approach without assuming there will never again be another novel.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
And the novels not being profitable enough to WotC/Hasbro is a very valid reason to stop their production.
Except novels were profitable. The issue with WotC and novels has always been that they wanted to be a game company and not a novel company. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 05 Feb 2017 : 16:29:20
You have to admit that when even Ed is no longer psitive about it, and thinks that the novels won't start again unless the movie and an eventual novelization do really well, then it's hard to be positive. Also, it's not like WotC themselves are working on the movie.
And the novels not being profitable enough to WotC/Hasbro is a very valid reason to stop their production. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Feb 2017 : 16:23:55
quote:
Originally posted by Spectralballoons
Does anybody think that the reason they're not publishing Forgotten Realms novels that they are working on the Forgotten Realms movie?
Why should people assume there's a valid reason when it's easier to fly off the handle and assume the worst?  |
| Spectralballoons |
Posted - 05 Feb 2017 : 11:48:50
Does anybody think that the reason they're not publishing Forgotten Realms novels that they are working on the Forgotten Realms movie? |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 05 Feb 2017 : 01:21:54
quote:
Originally posted by VikingLegion
Just today I was in a bookstore and pondering this very question.
20 years ago there was an abundance of TSR books from a variety of settings - Darksun, Ravenloft, and a huge amount of Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms products.
10 years ago the smaller, niche settings were gone, there was a small handful of leftover Dragonlance books, and still a decent quantity of FR stuff.
Today, DL has gone the way of the rest, and now there are about 10 FR titles spread amongst a sea of other properties - basically there was one Evans book, one Greenwood, and about 8 Salvatores.
-Not sure it really matters, but can confirm. I'll be frank, I've been absent from this scene for what, like almost a decade? Stuff in my life has been going on such that I've been reminiscing about the past a lot (hence me posting here and there over the last couple of weeks), and I happened to go over to the fantasy section of a Barnes and Noble at a big mall near me while waiting for a table at a restaurant a few weeks ago. I've never been to that one specifically, but being a corporate entity, I assume all Barnes and Nobles are roughly organized the same way. Back in my Forgotten Realms heyday, there was a section of FR books within the fantasy section- not labeled as such, but all books with the FR logo were all together. Browsing the fantasy section, there was no grouping of Forgotten Realms books, just one or two Greenwoods, and a one or two Salvatores, arranged alphabetically along with everything else. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Feb 2017 : 09:35:46
quote:
Originally posted by Thrasymachus
To put it another way, it's like an old man's love life.
Biologically normal but conceptually icky? |
| Thrasymachus |
Posted - 02 Feb 2017 : 05:51:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The idea of rebooting to the OGB...
What OGB reboot you say? 
*reads rest of Wolly's post*
Aww nuts. You're a tease Wooly.
@Everybody, please say "OGB Reboot" three times if it actually happens.
*Slinks back to the basement after underlining Wolly's point*
*remembers the original poster*
To the OP's subject...
IMHO with a tablet and smartphones there's a lot of opportunity to continue the setting and D&D.
Specifically regarding the setting, one of the Realms greatest strengths for the vast detail of several specific region where you could just about taste the differences between those regions.
Doing that 100 year without detailing the changes at the same level of detail negated all the work and lure that the earlier editions had. YM-Will-Vary.
So I would equate the next 20 years like a tide going out. Occasionally a wave will reach higher on the beach than you expected, not as high as you hoped, and never as high as you remember.
To put it another way, it's like an old man's love life. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 01 Feb 2017 : 02:11:38
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Can you point me what are the problems with the Adventurer's League? (Beyond, that is, of being all set on the Realms, that I see as a problem because the other settings are being left to rot...)
As soon as I saw that one of the factions was the Emerald Enclave - operating in the Sword Coast - it was painful.
-- George Krashos |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jan 2017 : 10:16:27
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
I don't know if this has been discussed, maybe WotC should go the Star Wars route. Say everything is now Legends, and reboot the setting to the beginning. Just a thought I had today buying a couple of Star Wars novels...
The idea of rebooting to the OGB has been mooted since the 4E Realms were inflicted on us. The idea has supporters, but I don't think WotC has the will to pull that trigger. They've not shown any inclination to go that route yet.
Remember, it was the prospect of new movies that torpedoed the old Star Wars canon. The movie they're working on now would have to be freaking incredible and have a remarkable box office showing to have that kind of impact on the fiction. We're talking a Lord of the Rings or Force Awakens kind of performance. And without being negative, I think that an unlikely scenario. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 31 Jan 2017 : 05:12:22
I don't know if this has been discussed, maybe WotC should go the Star Wars route. Say everything is now Legends, and reboot the setting to the beginning. Just a thought I had today buying a couple of Star Wars novels... |
| KanzenAU |
Posted - 31 Jan 2017 : 00:04:39
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
There are actually five shades, now - CE, LE, N, CG, LG, which is probably a vestige of 4e's alignment system.
And THAT is why we have FIVE factions.
Very artificial, IMO.
What's this? There are still all 9 alignments plus unaligned in 5e. I suspect you're talking about something else, but the factions don't really line up with those alignments either... and I think people forget the factions are just a tool. Players don't have to join them, and Dms don't have to use them, or can introduce as many other factions as they want.
I imagine factions as mainly being for the enhancing the "shared experience" of Adventurer's League play. "Oh, you're a Harper too? Cool!" I don't take it as anything more than that, so they're not emphasized in the home game above any other organisation.
Edit: I'm still hoping the Adventurer's League is non-canon. |
| EltonRobb |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 23:09:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
There are actually five shades, now - CE, LE, N, CG, LG, which is probably a vestige of 4e's alignment system.
And THAT is why we have FIVE factions.
Very artificial, IMO.
And so unreal compared to whats gone before. I wish Ed Greenwood would just buy the Realms back and just make it a living breathing world again.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 20:55:05
There are actually five shades, now - CE, LE, N, CG, LG, which is probably a vestige of 4e's alignment system.
And THAT is why we have FIVE factions.
Very artificial, IMO. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 20:19:05
Well I wasn't entirely sure what I meant when I said the modern realms feels so Greyhawk but Markustay appears to have hit the nail on the head.
Its too black and white. Not enough nuances.
I suppose when I was younger I liked the D&D adventures made during 2nd edition (Sword and Shield etc). But that's because I was young and only saw the world in black and white or right and wrong. Now I'm older and I've done a few things I'm ashamed of I see the world in million different shades (most of them wrong). I like to play in a world of a million hues. I also like to tempt the players gradually towards the evil without them even knowing what they are doing.
D&D is back to being; kill all the bad guys even if they are just sat around having fish and chips for tea. Bad guys are evil so they can be murdered on sight. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 19:04:25
Yeah, I think the 'factions' thing is an awkward fit in the Realms, which not only had hundreds of factions, but most of the factions had divisiveness within their ranks (Harpers, Thay, Zhents, CotD, most churches {good & bad}, dozens of 'cartels' and 'trading costers', etc, etc...).
And then all of those were prominent in different regions, so all of them were fighting other, different groups on different fronts, and while some held a lot of power in one specific area, they didn't have a presence most elsewhere, etc, etc.
And on some occasions, groups that were fighting each other in one area found themselves allies on other fronts, against common enemies... and it wasn't always along a 'good vs evil' axis.
A million 'shades of grey' (and with everything that implies) - thats what made the realms feel so real. It wasn't B&W like other settings (like Greyhawk before it). Now, in order to do this Adventurer's League thing, they've latched onto the 'factions' mechanic that worked so well for Paizo/Pathfinder and Iron Kingdoms/Privateer Press (and probably others), but its just NOT a very good fit for the 'classic' Realms (in most of our opinions around here).
So its not so much that its bad in and of itself, but rather, a lot of us feel it diminishes the Realms by trying to keep everything within one, set 'template'. Especially since oft-times it makes more sense to have some other group involved (seriously, the Red Wizards almost never bothered with anything west of Cormyr or Anauroch in the old Realms).
And to add insult to injury, 5e just ignores 4e. I understand why (its a touchy subject), but there are SO MANY unanswered questions, and some of the material was pretty good, so what happened to that? What happened to the Warlock Knights, or the Eminence of Araunt? Are they just 'gone' - *POOF* in a puff of smoke? It would have been cool to see one of them added to these factions (the Eminence is the best fit, since the WKoV are very regional).
And lastly, they are completely (well, almost... I understand the Moonsea is getting some love) focused on just one region - The Sword Coast and The North. Now, as a gamer, I totally get that. As a long-time DM, I love that I don't have to schlep my parties over half a continent for the next adventure (Paizo does that... sometimes across the world, and even to other worlds), but as a FORGOTTEN REALMS fan, I really want to know what is going on elsewhere - the action is all just taking place in 'a bubble', which is unrealistic.
So its not the material itself, just how they are applying it. To be honest, I couldn't even give an opinion on the AL stuff, because I haven't played any of it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 18:35:44
I don't like the Adventurer's League, myself, because of the way it's handled. If you weren't familiar with the older material, you'd assume these five factions (which are somehow involved in everything that happens) are the only factions active in the entire Realms.
This is another one of the things that I disliked about the transition to 3E: even though some of the other factions didn't get a lot of airtime in 1E and 2E, they were still present and involved in various plots. Once 3E came out, the focus for bad guys shifted heavily in favor of Shar and the Shades, and there wasn't much of anything else to see.
I preferred the earlier editions of the Realms, where there were always a bunch of competing groups, sticking their noses into various affairs for various reasons. Depending on what was going on, you might see a merchants' cabal, the Zhents, and the Harpers, all mixing it up in one affair, and the next one would have Thayans and the Twisted Rune trying to get their hands on something while a dragon and a couple of independent wizards were trying to set the larger groups against each other and get away with the prize.
There were also smaller, regional groups to factor in, as well as the larger, more Realms-wide players.
Complexity in a setting adds to role-playing opportunities. Removing such complexity takes away from the setting. The low-calorie Realms we have now is less filling, and does not taste as great.
|
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 17:26:09
Can you point me what are the problems with the Adventurer's League? (Beyond, that is, of being all set on the Realms, that I see as a problem because the other settings are being left to rot...) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 15:58:12
The Adventurer's League is one of the things drawing new fans in.
Its not meant for us, but we can take those new fans - some of whom I've seen poke their heads in here - and NOT give them a face full of negativity. The only way WotC will EVER convince Hasbro to pump more money into the setting itself is by the numbers.
I look at both the Adventurer's League and the DM's Guild as a last-ditch effort to get more people interested in D&D (and FR), and also keep some sort of flow of 'new lore' (even if it is is all non-canon) coming to us. Its probably the best they can do at this time. Don't you think the guys getting a paycheck from D&D/FR are more desperate to save it than any of us are? They already shot themselves in the foot with 4e, and for awhile they were just trying not to bleed to death. In that analogy, 5e is kind of like 'rehab', and they're just learning to walk again. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 30 Jan 2017 : 08:32:46
If only the adventurers league were the only thing wrong with it.
The dnd rules themselves are alright (much like all the other rules), but the setting is just . . . . So greyhawk |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 29 Jan 2017 : 22:24:50
I'm not a fan of 5E FR simply because of this Adventurer's League nonsense.
-- George Krashos |
|
|
