| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kamuraki |
Posted - 13 Oct 2008 : 21:46:04
Am I the only one to notice this? In 3e there was a sense of hope in parts of the realms that somehow things might turn out alright. Now in 4e there's this sense of ennui. Sort of a grudging acceptance that everything is just going to rot to death under the weight of it's own apathy. Sort of like the entire realm is stuck in a Paris night club in the 50's, smoking a gauloise, listening to sad jazz and reminiscing about its youth.
I liked that sense of hopefulness in 3e. It made me enjoy the campaign setting more than any other D&D world. Now, it feels like the realm is permanently stuck in late November before the snow falls and there's no leaves or colors anywhere.
Am I the only one to notice this, or am I reading too much into it?
Or if you agree with me, what do you feel the solution to this would be? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 15:03:03
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
You know, I saw a couple of Discovery channel documentaries on the topic of the volcanic island of Thera (Greece), how the explosion of it virtually changed large parts of culture in the Mediterranean, as well as one about meteors and asteroids hitting Earth. A volcanic explosion (Tharsult maybe?) or e.g. a "fall-out" from the Kemp series about Cale and that draw-one-of-Selūne's-tears-nearer-to-Toril chap could have done the trick. Change the face of the Realms to a more "accessible" size (mind-wise).
Interesting enough, this is exactly the way they went with Pathfinder. A huge meteor impact 10000 years ago destroyed all human empires and resulted in 1000 years of darkness or fled into the Darklands below the surface becoming drow over the next millenia. Humanity sank into barbarism, the elves foreseeing the plot of the aboleths left the world for their own homeplane, orks errected a mighty empire only to be defeated by dwarfs reaching the surface later on, etc. etc. etc.
A plausible cause with plausible conseques is used for describing the changes the world faces over millenia. 4e FR lacks many (even for a fantasy setting) plausible explanations and is more driven by the need the change for change's sake, with the ultimate motivation for theses changes lying not in the setting itself but in factors beyond the setting (adaption to 4e being not the most important). |
| Zanan |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 14:36:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And please don't fall back on "the Setting needed to change" argument, because there are a 1001 ways it could have changed without alienating the old fans, and still drawing new ones in.
You know, I saw a couple of Discovery channel documentaries on the topic of the volcanic island of Thera (Greece), how the explosion of it virtually changed large parts of culture in the Mediterranean, as well as one about meteors and asteroids hitting Earth. A volcanic explosion (Tharsult maybe?) or e.g. a "fall-out" from the Kemp series about Cale and that draw-one-of-Selūne's-tears-nearer-to-Toril chap could have done the trick. Change the face of the Realms to a more "accessible" size (mind-wise).
IMHO, the 4E magic rules do not validate the death of Mystra either, it is just a hollow means to satisfy the questions marks that might come their way - and have.
quote:
If it was because of the "Over-preponderance of Lore" involved with running an FR campaign, then why is it all the 4e players keep coming on all the boards (not just this one) and asking the old fans of the setting questions about it?
Now, do not confuse the 4E-developers and 4E-FR nukers with somesuch! HOW c-/should they have known this?!
Dunno how it is with other people on here, but I have had my dip into 4E rules and FR and much like what happened "to me" when Eberron appeared, I leave it to those who like it and don't bother about it any longer. Suum cuique, as they said.
Which is not to say that I give up the Realms. But my Realms simply have not come close to 1385 D.R., not to speak of 1480 D.R.. And I doubt that I will have any campaign running there either ... (and certainly not with 4E rules). |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 14:06:08
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It does, however, seem like certain 'things' had a bullseye painted on them...
I have no doubts about that at all, as per actual statements from the designers (along the lines of "we had to get rid of Mystra, etc"). |
| Pandora |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 08:23:45
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What valid reason would someone have for getting rid of a proven money-maker? That's where the whole thing breaks down.
Well its not really "trying to get rid of" but rather "not caring about history, style and logic and forcing it to comply with a totally different gaming style". The 4th edition rules and its concept are a totally different style through the classes and many rules and - most importantly - the attempt to make them youth&computer compatible.
This isnt really trying to get rid of the setting on purpose but rather milking the name for whatever its worth while trying to push the whole game into a new and more productive direction. Its like trying to keep the old customers for a new game while getting millions of new ones ... like trying to turn this into a eierlegende Wollmilchsau (english translations: "Swiss Army knife" or "one-does-it-all", but not quite, since the animal does NOT work). Usually these things DONT WORK (because they try to do too much) and for me 4th edition belongs into this category. Thats where it becomes self-destructive, so its not an intentional "getting rid of".
Oh and its not the 4th edition rules in themselves that really "kill" the new Realms, but rather the design concept of "points of light" and the necessary slicing up of the Realms. That does belong to the 4e concept of not bothering with details (a.k.a. as lore) too much and sticking to rules and adventures (and miniatures) for making money.
It would have been MUCH easier to start a new setting in the new style, but they tried to keep the old customers and this failed for many. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 08:17:14
well in that case who would be the duke of hazards?? |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 06:05:17
Slightly OT: Just thinking of all of the amalgams we have created from Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro, my mind just latched onto this one:
Hasbro + Wizards = Hazards  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 04:37:09
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If the idea was to eliminate the need to know all that stuff, maybe we should just keep it all a secret and let the 4e players wallow in their under-devloped world. 
Alas, that goes against every fiber of my being. Information should never be hoarded.
*sigh* I miss Cadderly. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 29 Oct 2008 : 03:55:00
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The reasons for changing the Realms have nothing to do with Malicious Intent. Those are what I listed.
The manner in which they were done though? That's a different manner.
I would have to agree, here.
I understand the reasoning behind the changes (weather the reasoning was good or not is whole different argument), and I understand perfectly well that Wizbro is a company, and companies exist to make money.
It does, however, seem like certain 'things' had a bullseye painted on them, and were destroyed despite weather fans loved it/them or not. It also seems like more of certain people's 'toys' were obliterated over others.
Malicious? Perhaps not...
but certainly suspect.
It could be as simple as the 'new kids on the block' wanted to make room for their own ideas, and felt it neccessary to 'disconnect' the fanbase from the old concepts. That certainly wouldn't be an act of 'evil' (they could still be Paladins  ), but there does seem to be some deliberate 'targeting' going on.
For instance - Super Shar and her unholy Shadow Weave were one of the biggest things complained about in 3e, as it's power grew and all the story-lines revolved around her and it... and yet, rather then ditch what was obviously a thorn in fan's sides, they made it ascendent.
It was quite obviously much more about what THEY wanted rather then what the fans wanted.
And please don't fall back on "the Setting needed to change" argument, because there are a 1001 ways it could have changed without alienating the old fans, and still drawing new ones in. If it was because of the "Over-preponderance of Lore" involved with running an FR campaign, then why is it all the 4e players keep coming on all the boards (not just this one) and asking the old fans of the setting questions about it?
If the idea was to eliminate the need to know all that stuff, maybe we should just keep it all a secret and let the 4e players wallow in their under-devloped world. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 22:42:49
I think this is a case in which (as usual) it makes sense to apply the Principle of Parsimony--that is, go for the explanation that requires the fewest number of assumptions. In all likelihood, the designers sincerely did what they thought would sell the most FR products. We may disagree that what they thought "best for the setting" truly was the best artistically or even economically, but at the end of the day they are trying to sell a product. It's possible one or more designers actually wanted to hurt the success of the FR setting, but I think the likelihood of that is too remote to be considered (and it's also unethical to throw rumors/accusations like that around). |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 22:19:19
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Honestly, Wooly, I agree with you. I don't believe there is malicious intent for any of the Spellplague nonsense.
My point was that I have seen (personally) project managers that, who in everyday life seem quite sane, purposely run their projects under for no other reason than spite. I never said it was a good business practice, but there's a lot of people out there making bad business decisions based on their personal feelings and goals (look at the current state of wall street!).
I very *much* understand what Ashe is saying here, and I completely agree with his point of view. A lot people amidst the Greyhawk err.. Seattle/Renton crowd *really* hate the Realms, and would celebrate with wine and songs if the setting would ultimately DIE! I met many such folks firsthand, many of which worked directly or indirectly for WotC (i.e. 90% of all RPGA members I've met were anti-Realms, and every Con organizer/WotC staffer I've met personally had a beef against it, in some way or another...)
Hence my... ahem... previous vitriolic comments about Renton in general...  |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 22:06:48
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The reasons for changing the Realms have nothing to do with Malicious Intent. Those are what I listed.
The manner in which they were done though? That's a different manner.
can i be in the same boat as you?? |
| Lemernis |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 21:39:54
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
I guess it's just as likely that it could simply be abysmally poor judgment about whatever changes they wanted to make to the setting.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 20:07:34
Honestly, Wooly, I agree with you. I don't believe there is malicious intent for any of the Spellplague nonsense.
My point was that I have seen (personally) project managers that, who in everyday life seem quite sane, purposely run their projects under for no other reason than spite. I never said it was a good business practice, but there's a lot of people out there making bad business decisions based on their personal feelings and goals (look at the current state of wall street!). |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 19:11:52
The reasons for changing the Realms have nothing to do with Malicious Intent. Those are what I listed.
The manner in which they were done though? That's a different manner. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 18:51:16
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Have you ever been assigned to a project that you want to fail? I have. And no matter how much you keep your personal feelings out of the mix, you still find yourself working not quite as hard or as well as you would for a project you want to succeed.
I'm not saying anyone wants the Realms to fail. But there may be some people that are jealous of its success. Remember, this is all conjecture on my part based on what happens if some people are given control of a project they don't like.
And yet, none of this offers a reason for malicious intent. I fail to see how personal dislike is going to drive someone to deliberately end a profitable source of income. Doing that means less money for the company, which means less money in your pocket -- or the company telling you it's no longer going to put money in your pocket. Not only that, but being in charge of something that fails is not the best thing to put on a résumé.
Last -- if the intent was to kill the setting, why are the setting's biggest money-makers still around?
I hate what's been done to the setting as much as anyone else. Hells, if it was an option, I'd buy the company and forcibly reset the setting to back where I think it should be (between Cloak & Dagger and the 3E FRCS). I don't agree with a single one of the stated reasons why the Sellplague was necessary. But, at the same time, I can understand those reasons. I think they're wrong, but I see where people could think it was a good idea.
Hasbro wants money coming in. WotC wants money coming in. The people working for WotC want money coming in. All their decisions are, from a purely business standpoint, not unreasonable. And that's why it pisses me off so much to keep seeing people trying to make it sound like some us against them conspiracy, with the current designers working against all the old designers and their own customer base. Quit letting your anger cloud your judgment! It was business, pure and simple.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 18:39:55
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Point 1: Novels sell far more then sourcebooks. Too much lore build up makes it difficult for authors to work at their stories. So make it easier for the authors, by resetting the world. New starting point for everyone.
Point 2: Resetting the world also makes previous sourcebooks obsolete. So if people want more information about the setting masquerading as the Realms, they have to go to the DDI. This allows them to charge less, but gain far more customers. ($7 is a lot less then $20, after all).
Point 3: Sourcebooks, by accounts, didn't sell too well. Sure, the big ones did, but can you see the likes of Mysteries of the Moonsea making much money? Further, it's expensive to produce good quality hardback books. So take the content that would normally have gone into those sourcebooks for a reasonable price and split it down into smaller chunks via the DDI. You charge less per subscription, but give far less out. Further, you gain far more subscriptions.
End Result: Profit.
I'm a little confused... If this reply was directed at me, then please explain how any of this proves malicious intent. If this reply was not directed at me, then kindly disregard it.  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:54:34
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Point 1: Novels sell far more then sourcebooks. Too much lore build up makes it difficult for authors to work at their stories. So make it easier for the authors, by resetting the world. New starting point for everyone.
This has always been a sticking point with me. As much as I love all the stories, I still saw the Realms as a Game World first. By changing the game world to accommodate the authors makes it a Shared Fiction world instead. I don't begrudge the authors for writing (most often terrific) books based in the Realms, but once the fiction starts to dictate the game, you lose out on why you want to game there. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:50:31
Have you ever been assigned to a project that you want to fail? I have. And no matter how much you keep your personal feelings out of the mix, you still find yourself working not quite as hard or as well as you would for a project you want to succeed.
I'm not saying anyone wants the Realms to fail. But there may be some people that are jealous of its success. Remember, this is all conjecture on my part based on what happens if some people are given control of a project they don't like. |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:49:11
Point 1: Novels sell far more then sourcebooks. Too much lore build up makes it difficult for authors to work at their stories. So make it easier for the authors, by resetting the world. New starting point for everyone.
Point 2: Resetting the world also makes previous sourcebooks obsolete. So if people want more information about the setting masquerading as the Realms, they have to go to the DDI. This allows them to charge less, but gain far more customers. ($7 is a lot less then $20, after all).
Point 3: Sourcebooks, by accounts, didn't sell too well. Sure, the big ones did, but can you see the likes of Mysteries of the Moonsea making much money? Further, it's expensive to produce good quality hardback books. So take the content that would normally have gone into those sourcebooks for a reasonable price and split it down into smaller chunks via the DDI. You charge less per subscription, but give far less out. Further, you gain far more subscriptions.
End Result: Profit. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 17:43:50
What valid reason would someone have for getting rid of a proven money-maker? That's where the whole thing breaks down. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 15:56:37
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
The 4e changes make me wonder if WotC didn't actually destroy it with the intention to push more players to a setting like Erebon that they have complete control of! (Then not having to bother with an original creator, i.e., Ed.)
I guess it's just as likely that it could simply be abysmally poor judgment about whatever changes they wanted to make to the setting.
But still, if you wanted to wreck the a very popular setting and make it inhospitable for players what would you do? Hmm, let's see.
*sigh* Why are people so willing to assign malicious intent to what was done? If WotC didn't want people playing in the Realms, all they would have to do is stop publishing it. That's a hell of a lot easier than do more products for it.
Before I start, let me express that I don't think this was done with malicious intent. But, if it was, then it is possible Wooly.
The Realms RPG products have always been the best-selling of the lot. As such, even if designers wanted to get rid of the Realms, Hasbro might veto the idea because it is historically a money-maker. If a new Vice-President comes into Hasbro and has a great idea to possibly make LOTS of money, but to do so means to no longer produce Monopoly, Hasbro's not going to allow that. Now, if the VP has to continue with his idea and is given control of the Monopoly brand, he might be bitter and make the game 'less attractive' out of spite.
Of course, if things are done out of spite and it hurts the bottom line, Hasbro will undoubtedly take action to bring back the norm. But if those actions, taken out of anger, do produce much more new money, the higher-ups would probably look the other way. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 14:47:55
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
The 4e changes make me wonder if WotC didn't actually destroy it with the intention to push more players to a setting like Erebon that they have complete control of! (Then not having to bother with an original creator, i.e., Ed.)
I guess it's just as likely that it could simply be abysmally poor judgment about whatever changes they wanted to make to the setting.
But still, if you wanted to wreck the a very popular setting and make it inhospitable for players what would you do? Hmm, let's see.
*sigh* Why are people so willing to assign malicious intent to what was done? If WotC didn't want people playing in the Realms, all they would have to do is stop publishing it. That's a hell of a lot easier than do more products for it. |
| Lemernis |
Posted - 28 Oct 2008 : 10:02:59
The 4e changes make me wonder if WotC didn't actually destroy it with the intention to push more players to a setting like Erebon that they have complete control of! (Then not having to bother with an original creator, i.e., Ed.)
I guess it's just as likely that it could simply be abysmally poor judgment about whatever changes they wanted to make to the setting.
But still, if you wanted to wreck the a very popular setting and make it inhospitable for players what would you do? Hmm, let's see. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 27 Oct 2008 : 11:39:46
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Dunno where that feeling of "safety" came from. Stick your nose out of nigh any FR settlement and an orc or goblin sticks a dart or arrow in it ...
Well there were a few "good" nations around in 3rd edition and good in this case means both the alignment and the quality of its rulership. You could go outside and expect help there if you were threatened, something that seems less likely in 4e, right? Best example are the Silver Marches, which disbanded more or less with the dwarves retreating into their caves if I remember correctly from the discussions here.
A huge center of civilization like Waterdeep lives by certain rules and even the most evil cultists wouldnt openly run through the streets and slaughter people. They need to do it in secret. So while Waterdeep never was a place populated solely by Care Bears you could relax there and just have fun if you wanted to. Waterdeep doesnt exist in 4e anymore, right?
Oh and due to the loss of most of the high level do-gooders the threat coming from the still living evil baddies has become relatively greater. Now the bad guys arent held in check by the good guys, but can concentrate on any new good guys that might rise to threaten them, namely the PCs.
All this adds up to the setting changing from "dangerous" (with options to go to relatively safe areas) to "oppressive" and no safe spots.
I have played in an "oppressive setting" for years and it was challenging, but being the only ones you can really trust and the only ones who apparently work against the takeover of the world by demons (or whatever) does leave marks. There has to be a chance to "relax" inbetween. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Oct 2008 : 02:12:34
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I get it. There was a relative sense of normalcy/safety before, and it's been shattered.
Ehhh...no offense but that wasn't quite what I was getting at. But, I think I'll leave it at that. If you like the way the setting is now, I hope you enjoy it. |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 26 Oct 2008 : 01:28:46
While I understand your sentiment, I don't feel like they hit the reset button on the Realms. I feel like they reached up and put a whole bunch of muddy hand smears all over a painting of the Realms and called it 4th edition.
They could have hit reset by going back in time to before the elves came from Faerie. Or, go forward a 100 years but let the Realms evolve naturally, not forcibly. And you give your readers more artistically outlined rule books to pull from that draw on the 30 years of Realms history instead of forcing us to start over on what amounts to a different planet.
In other words, if the Spellplague happened on Earth and half of the Earth was inexplicably gone afterward, replaced by continents from Mars...then the planet Earth is destroyed, with something similar in its place. If you don't know anything about Mars, you don't know anything about Earth now regardless of how long you lived there. So it is with 4e Realms. |
| Neo2151 |
Posted - 26 Oct 2008 : 00:58:12
Personally I think that "new" feeling that the Realms has is easier to explain than all this. If someone were to ask me for an example of what kind of setting FR was, I would have pointed them toward Waterdeep, Sembia, Cormyr, etc. I'm not saying that those examples are all there is to the Realms, but it's basically the heart of the world. Politics, conspiracies, city-life, noble plotting, political mages trying to work scheming plans in the shadows of the big cities. If you were looking for a typical sword & sorcery adventure, it could be found, but your DM would pretty much have to make it up himself with vague bits of canon help. For the most part, everything has been done by somebody, somewhere, already, in regards to picking up yon sword and cleaving your way through some unexplored bit of dungeon or wild land.
Now, all the "important" areas of the Realms aren't so secure. The world had it's "reset" button hit and now there's adventure to be found everywhere and less politics to "clutter" the game. Now, some of us truly enjoyed that "clutter," myself included (political games of intrigue backed up by a strong sword arm or whispered words of power are TONS of fun to me) but to the typical gaming audience, it's too complex to sell reliably. Eberron is doing well because it's all new. New places to explore, new treasures to plunder, etc. FR didn't have that luxury until now. Now, everything's new again. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 24 Oct 2008 : 18:07:43
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I did not say I thought the Realms used to be perfectly safe, I was just saying I think the tone is darker than it used to be. There's a difference.
I get it. There was a relative sense of normalcy/safety before, and it's been shattered. Regardless of what may come later, it's dark and foreboding right now. Understood, and agreed: I wasn't trying to discount or dismiss that observation/opinion.
My point is just to try to help people to find that silver edge--er, lining--amidst all the darkness. It seems to me that there is room to carve out a little slice of home here, still. And that's exactly what had to be done before, in order to give the Realms that comfortable feeling that you guys have mentioned. (Volo's guides to all the finest diners and inns did not exist in the beginning, after all. Somebody had to actually go through the Hells to check all those places out, first. )
But I have no idea how long it will take to do so, all over again.
And it remains to be seen just how the balance of the fans will like this indefinite period of unease, versus their desire for that renewed, relative sense of safety.
This really reminds me of Drizzt's pontification on adventure versus domestication. Some people prefer to maintain a sense of safety and stability from the familiar, while others need the constant excitement and mystery and challenge and stress of the unknown.
It takes all kinds. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 24 Oct 2008 : 16:43:14
Dunno where that feeling of "safety" came from. Stick your nose out of nigh any FR settlement and an orc or goblin sticks a dart or arrow in it ... |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 24 Oct 2008 : 16:30:00
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
But I wonder whether the Forgotten Realms have ever been as "safe" as some people apparently perceived them to be. From my readings primarily of RAS's work, plus a subsequent perusal of a lot of the sourcebooks, I have always perceived FR as a ridiculously conflict-laden distortion of medieval times. It's the middle ages on steroids--or acid, or worse. Monsters and sinister magic abound. Convoluted conspiracies are afoot even in the most bass-ackwards, out-of-the-way dumps. It's always been dangerous in the Realms. It's skeery.
I did not say I thought the Realms used to be perfectly safe, I was just saying I think the tone is darker than it used to be. There's a difference. |
|
|
