| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| wintermute27 |
Posted - 29 Jul 2009 : 17:31:14
I recently re-read the Forgotten Realms Adventures book cover to cover, and it got me thinking, why is there so much hate for the Spellplague and not for the Time of Troubles? Both include Realms shaking events that serve no other purpose than to explain the "updated" rules (eg "Mystra's dead, here's a new one. That's why magic's kinda different" vs "Mystra's dead, there is no more Mystra. That's why magic's really different"). Is it because the Time of Troubles led into an acceptable set of rules, while the Spellplague leads us into the dreaded 4th edition?
Being a (relatively) new DM, I've only recently fallen in love with the Realms and all they have to offer me. D&D 3.5 and now Pathfinder RPG have been excellent props for me to use to tell the stories I want to tell. I've read and played 4.0, and I feel that it isn't part of the tools that I want to use in these efforts. Aside from the edition change over though, is there anything wrong with the Spellplague or the 4.0 Realms themselves? I have to say that I have gotten a lot of inspiration for stories and adventures reading through the 4.0 Campaign Guide. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
Note: I've recently gotten my hands on an "Old Grey Box" and am in the process of dialing my campaign back from The Year of the Blazing Hand (1380) to The Year of the Worm (1356) and relocate from Thesk to Cormyr. It was reading up on the Time of Troubles that got me thinking about this. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Nefarious |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 16:19:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And here is that link! 
the Wizards downloads page
Fantastic! There were quite a few I did not already have. |
| glitter |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 15:58:27
quote:
Originally posted by wintermute27
I recently re-read the Forgotten Realms Adventures book cover to cover, and it got me thinking, why is there so much hate for the Spellplague and not for the Time of Troubles? Both include Realms shaking events that serve no other purpose than to explain the "updated" rules (eg "Mystra's dead, here's a new one. That's why magic's kinda different" vs "Mystra's dead, there is no more Mystra. That's why magic's really different"). Is it because the Time of Troubles led into an acceptable set of rules, while the Spellplague leads us into the dreaded 4th edition?
Being a (relatively) new DM, I've only recently fallen in love with the Realms and all they have to offer me.
I discovered the D&D after the 3Ed, so the tot wasn't a problem for me, and for the oldest player of dungeons around me, transitions from 2nd to 3 and 3.5 edition were without hurt.
For me, there is one main difference between the ToT and the speelplague. The first one is driven by the story itself and everything seem to fit together while the speelplague looks more like a puppet writen "Wizards of the coast" on the head (and I won't repeat again my opinion of all the stupididies related to it).
Well, perhaps it's because I wasn't a player at the time of the Tot, perhaps I'm more cynical since I'm older but it's the feeling I have.
But it's obvious that the 4Ed is more revolutionnary than the 3Ed and had to go thought a simplification to try to find new customers.
We are in 2009, the situation is very different than during the 80's so I DON'T BLAME WotC, they must try to find solution against the time-consuming aspect of rpg and competitors such like electronic RPG.
My own opinion. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 09:27:40
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I think so, in that as a secondary world Realms-2008 is a stitched-together compromise without the Realms' accustomed creative particularity, richness, density, and much of its long-term subtext. But the reason I don't like it is that it's ended, for now, Ed's project of cumulatively detailing the Realms, as conceived from 1967 to 2007, in print.
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
Alas, instead, they visited all this change on the most fully-realized fantasy world ever published, invalidating the work and dreams of more than 3 decades. Again, YMMV, this is just my take.
From these two posts, what I bolded n coloured in blue is what I wholeheartedly beleive is the heart of the matter.
First hand, I've seen hostile business moves in many industries (sports, entertainment, hardware, and here in gaming/hobby), and the arrogancy that WotC displayed in making the 4E FRCG is a shining example of it. I sincerely believe the 4E FRCG was specifically designed to throw Ed and others under the bus.
What's more, I felt this way even before the 4E books came out. Look no further than Ed's non-FR book, "Dark Lord", which I'm sure he would've rather set in FR, but seeing they're tryna muzzle him, he couldn't.
It all leads me to conclude that 4E wasn't done w/creative intent, so much as it was made w/destructive intent, towards the person who brought it to us, as well as folk like R.A. Salvatore, and even to folk like Bioware (the BG series for PC is widely known as the best fantasy C-RPG of all-time...you would think WotC would make an attempt to capitalize on this, and make more storylines or products that have some threads of the story or places in the BG series).
quote:
Originally posted by wintermute27
The more I get my hands on earlier materials (1e/2e) the more I've fallen in love with the early realms. As I said in my original post here, once I got my hands on the "old gray box" and started reading it, I knew that this was where I wanted to tell my next story. I can sit down and read the 1e DM Sourcebook and Cyclopedia like a novel and it holds my attention, I find that the 3.x/4e core books fail to do this for me.
A bit off topic, but in your collective opinions, which 1e/2e materials would you recommend for a new collector of realmslore? I already have the 1e/2e Core Box Sets, City System, Waterdeep and the North, Realmspace, and Spellbound.
Ha! So I'm not the only one! And I only got heavily into FR and AD&D 6yrs ago, when 3E was being pushed!
My recommendations are:
- 1159 Lands of Intrigue, which is available in PDF from the WotC old edition downloads....my favourite sourcebook ever
- 1085 FRCG (2E)
- The Volo's Guides series, especially 9535 Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, and even Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate II. It's not as "commercial" as the title implies.
- 9233 Savage Frontier
- 9297 Draconomicon
- 9351 The Great Glacier
- 9388 The Shining South
- 9492 Wizards and Rogues of the Realms
- 9509 Warriors and Priests of the Realms
- 9547 Cult of the Dragon
- 11348 Skullport
- 11509 Drizzt Do'urden's Guide to the Underdark
LOL! I juss listed all the ones that I own!
And honest to God, the stories don't stop man! I can be a DM forever w/the books I got! The stories juss pour out of me man! |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 18:24:59
Thinking back to the ToT, I remember the souls I was guiding through the Realms had lost their cleric (the player had joined the military), thus insulating all of us who remained (somewhat) from the issues of dead gods and whatnot. Second edition rules did not differ from First all that much, really, and the players managed to update without even blinking. I remember thinking that some of the changes wrought by the event were rather bizarre, and I remember really not liking Cyric (foreshadowing?), but because divine spells had been inaccessible to the party before ToT even started, I was able to view it as change defined by a story, rather than the reverse.
Third Edition affected the Realms more than the ToT, in my opinion - it was like having a couple of your most favorite apples in a bowl on the table, then all of a sudden having someone dump the contents of the entire produce section from the local grocery on top of the apple bowl. It wasn't so much the Realms themselves, it was what Third edition did to the Realms. It wasn't necessarily bad - but to continue the analogy, it would have behooved you to really, really like produce - of every conceivable variety.
Now we have Fourth Edition, and IMHO, the actual rules carry little, if any, of the blame of what happened to the Realms. With a couple of exceptions (such as 'healing surges', which I am house-ruling to death), I actually find the game system useful.
I must also say that the jump across a century, along with the massed deicide, is what was mishandled. The Spellplague in and of itself is not a bad idea per se - it was stated that something had to explain the Realm's shift in magic to bring it into Fourth Edition's paradigm - it was what happened after the Weave went ka-blooie that makes the Realms of a century later seem like a pale mockery of the world I spent many a long dreaming hour traversing, whether in a Greenwood novel, at the gaming table, or simply perusing a gaming book and letting my mind wander.
The Time of Troubles could not stop my mind from wandering through the Realms. I just had to figure out where my next step would take me, because if I looked around me, it was still the Realms I had always known. I cannot tread the year of 1479 DR - my mind simply cannot fathom finishing stepping through the time portal, because the world that lies there is not the one I walked when I stepped through - it is a desolate alien landscape that mocks me from the first turn of the page. |
| Apex |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 14:26:29
The ToT happened about 6 months or so after we started playing the Realms with the gray box. We read the trilogy (bought the adventures, but never played them) and got the FR Adventures book (which is still one of my favorites), but never made the "transition". And that's the thing, with ToT you could ignore it completely and it almost never comes up in play and when it does it takes a bout 3 seconds to change back. And that's the big difference. The ToT can be almost completely ignored with a negligible effect on your game, while the spellplague is completely incompatible with most past lore. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 20:10:24
the 100 yr time jump for me was easiest to get over.
the spell plague and the following not so much.
sinceless death of helm and eilistraee( assuming she is a dead and just didnt just give up her godhood), the ultimate realmsian cliche of killing mystra, saying that deity x was actuakky an aspect of deity y.
destruction of hulruaa, and anything else that I cant think of right now becuase Ishould be cleaning the bathroom instead of posting here
sugar coated no matter how sweet is just as bitter |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 14:39:41
I didn't give up on the Realms with the Time of Troubles. Thats a difference |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 01 Aug 2009 : 05:14:17
I'm going to approach this topic a little differently.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
It's easy to look back on the Time of Troubles and say, "Oh, it didn't really change much."
But if you were a player who gamed heavily in the Realms and read the novels when the ToT came about, it was a different and -for some- harder experience.
I find myself agreeing with this.
I know from my own experiences with the Time of Troubles (and just for the purposes of this discussion, I'll note that the ToT doesn't feature in the Sage's Realms) that I was left flabbergasted by the portrayals and gross caricatures of the primary deities involved in the story. They were something of a deviation of what I'd come to expect or read about when learning more about the Realms pantheons. And that was a big enough change for me.
|
| Darkmeer |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 23:20:15
My realms started with 2e, after the Avatar Crisis. I was a boxed set collector, primarily being a DL/Planescape fan at the time. They lost me with the change to 5th age... but I digress.
Rereading the information in the boxed set, as well as the Faiths & Avatars book (thanks KnightErrantJR and Foghorn for letting me borrow your copies). There was soooo much information, and it all was put into a wonderful context. That's what made the realms special to me. The Avatar trilogy and Dark Elf trilogy were the primary sources of inspiration and were the novels I really liked. That and Tymora's Luck (which is on my list of Favorite Realms crossover books).
There's a great deal of information around and surrounding the Realms up to 3.x. This really doesn't include all of the information and wonderful tidbits that are found in the novels (of which I've read a total of eight). These game references are wonderful, and help add a lot of flavor, with so many organizations and everything working towards a cohesive "real" feeling world.
With the changes from the Spellplague, all of that feels like its been lost. I really had hoped that wasn't the case, but it just feels that way to me. I do like pieces of the new realms. I like the idea of an alternate placement for the "returned Abeir," and I even want to see that integrated in my 3.5 realms, minus the whole plague debacle. I'd even go so far as to say that the nations of Shou or Wa "discover" these new parts of the realms, opening up for more adventures than before. A nation of Dragons and Clockwork Soldiers (hmm... something Gond has been hiding, perhaps?) that wants to come out of seclusion, showing the rest of the Realms what they are. Certainly you could integrate the "new" races, such as the Warforged, shifters, changelings, and even the new dragonborn (not to be confused with the current ones) just by integrating a new continent for adventure in the Realms! Within 10-20 "Realms years" you could even have a good trade going on with them.
Overall, to me, the post-spellplague Realms feels... sanitized. Not in a good way either (kinda like rubbing alcohol and salt in the wounds type of sanitation). Sure there are some good ideas, but I think they could have been integrated into the Realms as they are, rather than eliminating vast areas of the continents (ahem: the Tashalar, which happens to be one of MY favorite places to run games is gone).
I see so much vitriol from both sides, and really, we're all playing a game. Play it the way you enjoy, and the rest of the world can play it the way they want to, as long as everyone's having fun. I'm disappointed with the "official" direction, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't play it if you like it. I just don't have to.
/d |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 13:30:12
With any luck the FRCG's nomination for "Best Cover Art" will be beaten by Paizo's Howl of the Carrion King, in the same category. Mainly as I thought the FRCG's cover was quite atrocious. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 11:51:01
Jepp, Karen Wynn Fonstad, author of the atlases to Pern, The Land, Middle Earth, Dragonlance and Faerun. The Realms Atlas is the greatest map resource for the Realms ever made in my opinion. I can hardly remember looking at other Realms maps since I acquired this book. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 11:33:33
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
[...]The Fonstad Atlas is a must and the 2ed. [...]
Fonstad? The same Fonstad as in "The Atlas of Middle Earth"? |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 09:17:40
quote:
Originally posted by wintermute27
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
What differences and similarities have you noticed between how the 1987 and 2008 settings are written and put together?
The more I get my hands on earlier materials (1e/2e) the more I've fallen in love with the early realms. As I said in my original post here, once I got my hands on the "old gray box" and started reading it, I knew that this was where I wanted to tell my next story. I can sit down and read the 1e DM Sourcebook and Cyclopedia like a novel and it holds my attention, I find that the 3.x/4e core books fail to do this for me.
A bit off topic, but in your collective opinions, which 1e/2e materials would you recommend for a new collector of realmslore? I already have the 1e/2e Core Box Sets, City System, Waterdeep and the North, Realmspace, and Spellbound.
Lets see, of the top of my head: Anything by Greenwood is a good way to start. All the Volo guides, Dwarves Deep, Forgotten Realms Adventures (don't be fooled by the title)and Anauroch are essential. The Seven Sisters, Code of the Harpers, Ruins of Myth Drannor and Drow of the Underdark are pretty good follow-ups. The Fonstad Atlas is a must and the 2ed. Campaign setting is a pretty good back-up to the Grey box.
After that its a matter of taste. The Three god books are great, but I am finding myself moving more and more away from them personally. The 2ed. Shining South is a personal favourite, as is Skullport and Elves of Evermeet. Lands of Intrigue, Empires of the Shining Sea, the Waterdeep bos and Drizzts guide to the Underdark are great books, but I don't use them all that much any more.
One thing I would do is take it a bit slowly, so you can let each book sink in and think about what you want and what to leave out. Personalize the setting somewhat. Some of the later 2ed. books actually became to lore heavy in a way that didn't really fit for me.
|
| Jakk |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 04:24:07
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
<snip>
As I've said elsewhere, it's not the setting that I object to: If this was 'The Spellscarred lands', or if they did this to Eberrwhatever, I might have even been interested enough to play it. Alas, instead, they visited all this change on the most fully-realized fantasy world ever published, invalidating the work and dreams of more than 3 decades.
Again, YMMV, this is just my take.
Not just yours... mine too.  I guess we'll see how well it's really been received when the ENnie results are in; if you haven't voted, please do so here. It's telling to me that the 4E FR setting was nominated only for its cover art, which I thought was far better than what was between the covers (with the exception of Laerakond, which I fully plan to use in my 3.x/Pathfinder Realms). |
| wintermute27 |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 04:12:20
Yeah, I've grabbed all of the PDFs there (and purchased a few others when they were still for sale), but there is just something about a print copy that I love. Also, I do a lot of my game writing at the library, and since I don't have a laptop, I need to take the books there with me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 03:53:36
And here is that link!
the Wizards downloads page |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 02:27:31
You need (make that NEED) Cloak and Dagger. There are actually a bunch of great 2e sourcebooks for download for free on WotC (wooly has the link). All the volo's guides, for instance. |
| wintermute27 |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 01:25:11
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
What differences and similarities have you noticed between how the 1987 and 2008 settings are written and put together?
The more I get my hands on earlier materials (1e/2e) the more I've fallen in love with the early realms. As I said in my original post here, once I got my hands on the "old gray box" and started reading it, I knew that this was where I wanted to tell my next story. I can sit down and read the 1e DM Sourcebook and Cyclopedia like a novel and it holds my attention, I find that the 3.x/4e core books fail to do this for me.
A bit off topic, but in your collective opinions, which 1e/2e materials would you recommend for a new collector of realmslore? I already have the 1e/2e Core Box Sets, City System, Waterdeep and the North, Realmspace, and Spellbound.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 01:09:48
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So the reason I am skeptical is because I can't see a dedicated fan of any setting saying "Oh, the new rule set is going to change a lot of things, huh? No, I don't need an in-game explanation for something like that."
Lolz you didn't read my post earlier, did you?
I did. I fail to see any connections or relevance. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 00:41:24
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So the reason I am skeptical is because I can't see a dedicated fan of any setting saying "Oh, the new rule set is going to change a lot of things, huh? No, I don't need an in-game explanation for something like that."
Lolz you didn't read my post earlier, did you? |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 00:27:39
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
IMO, the thing that causes the most rancor (amongst those you dislike the new setting) is the time-jump. The ToT changed some things, but in the end, ALL of the Realms materials previously published were still applicable. With the 100 year flash-cut, combined with certain events (viz. Halruua), the setting is not recognizably the Realms, inasmuch as virtually all of the NPCs are dead, and many political and national institutions are no longer extant. This all combines to obviate the vast majority of previously published Realmslore.
As I've said elsewhere, it's not the setting that I object to: If this was 'The Spellscarred lands', or if they did this to Eberrwhatever, I might have even been interested enough to play it. Alas, instead, they visited all this change on the most fully-realized fantasy world ever published, invalidating the work and dreams of more than 3 decades.
Again, YMMV, this is just my take.
Timejump or no, once they blew it up, it was no longer the same setting for me. And even without the timejump, blowing it up still rendered a lot of existing lore non-viable -- like either Shining South book or any of the Maztica stuff.
I do agree, though, that had this been a new, from scratch world, with us seeing the aftermath of some catastrophe, I would have readily embraced it. It's like my PBJ analogy. Short version: they took the peanut butter and the jelly out of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich that I loved, and substituted entirely different ingredients. It doesn't matter how good the sandwich is, because I ordered a PBJ, they gave me what they said was a PBJ, but it's nothing like what I expected.
I agree on all points, Wooly: I DO, however, think that had it not been for the timejump, the Spellplague itself wouldn't have so completely alienated many die-hard FR fans. If I can still use all my old sources for (at least) the Heartlands and the North, well that's about 25% more usefulness than I'd get out of my old books playing 4E as-is.
Again, I don't like ANY of the revelations of 4e- but I think that if it's one thing that made the whole setting go 'splat', I'd pick the timejump over the sellplague. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 00:13:04
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
IMO, the thing that causes the most rancor (amongst those you dislike the new setting) is the time-jump. The ToT changed some things, but in the end, ALL of the Realms materials previously published were still applicable. With the 100 year flash-cut, combined with certain events (viz. Halruua), the setting is not recognizably the Realms, inasmuch as virtually all of the NPCs are dead, and many political and national institutions are no longer extant. This all combines to obviate the vast majority of previously published Realmslore.
As I've said elsewhere, it's not the setting that I object to: If this was 'The Spellscarred lands', or if they did this to Eberrwhatever, I might have even been interested enough to play it. Alas, instead, they visited all this change on the most fully-realized fantasy world ever published, invalidating the work and dreams of more than 3 decades.
Again, YMMV, this is just my take.
Timejump or no, once they blew it up, it was no longer the same setting for me. And even without the timejump, blowing it up still rendered a lot of existing lore non-viable -- like either Shining South book or any of the Maztica stuff.
I do agree, though, that had this been a new, from scratch world, with us seeing the aftermath of some catastrophe, I would have readily embraced it. It's like my PBJ analogy. Short version: they took the peanut butter and the jelly out of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich that I loved, and substituted entirely different ingredients. It doesn't matter how good the sandwich is, because I ordered a PBJ, they gave me what they said was a PBJ, but it's nothing like what I expected. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 00:06:06
IMO, the thing that causes the most rancor (amongst those you dislike the new setting) is the time-jump. The ToT changed some things, but in the end, ALL of the Realms materials previously published were still applicable. With the 100 year flash-cut, combined with certain events (viz. Halruua), the setting is not recognizably the Realms, inasmuch as virtually all of the NPCs are dead, and many political and national institutions are no longer extant. This all combines to obviate the vast majority of previously published Realmslore.
As I've said elsewhere, it's not the setting that I object to: If this was 'The Spellscarred lands', or if they did this to Eberrwhatever, I might have even been interested enough to play it. Alas, instead, they visited all this change on the most fully-realized fantasy world ever published, invalidating the work and dreams of more than 3 decades.
Again, YMMV, this is just my take. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 00:03:53
quote:
Originally posted by wintermute27
I recently re-read the Forgotten Realms Adventures book cover to cover, and it got me thinking, why is there so much hate for the Spellplague and not for the Time of Troubles?
I've often railed against the Avatar Crisis, both for its handling and immediate effects and for its pernicious influence on the course of Realms publishing.quote:
Both include Realms shaking events that serve no other purpose than to explain the "updated" rules (eg "Mystra's dead, here's a new one.
No, both upheavals served multiple purposes. The Time of Troubles was an opportunity for a Dragonlance-modelled epic trilogy in TSR's new setting, a chance for the staff to put their mark on it, a big marketing hook, as well as a tie-in with the new ruleset and the bowdlerization of D&D. The Spellplague is the most visible effect of a thorough reconception of the Realms to match the new rules and their play assumptions more closely than before but also to play a different role in the publishing structure of D&D, due to Wizards' economically driven consolidation to two 'core brands' and switch from parallel setting lines to a series of setting books in which 'everything is core', to appeal to a broad range of purchasers including those who misunderstood or legitimately disliked the Realms, to reduce the company's reliance on outside freelance writers, to create a buzz of newness and a fresh entry point, and again to put their own stamp on it, to name the most obvious.
The Time of Troubles was certainly a traumatic catastrophe for Faerūn -- although as with the RSEs that followed you had to read between the lines to see much of its aftermath -- but the published Realms of 1990 had umistakably the same creative hands, largely Ed's, as the Realms of 1988.quote:
Aside from the edition change over though, is there anything wrong with the Spellplague or the 4.0 Realms themselves?
I think so, in that as a secondary world Realms-2008 is a stitched-together compromise without the Realms' accustomed creative particularity, richness, density, and much of its long-term subtext. But the reason I don't like it is that it's ended, for now, Ed's project of cumulatively detailing the Realms, as conceived from 1967 to 2007, in print.quote:
I have to say that I have gotten a lot of inspiration for stories and adventures reading through the 4.0 Campaign Guide.
Have you also read Castlemourn? I've still yet to read a comparison of the two books.quote:
Note: I've recently gotten my hands on an "Old Grey Box" and am in the process of dialing my campaign back from The Year of the Blazing Hand (1380) to The Year of the Worm (1356) and relocate from Thesk to Cormyr.
What differences and similarities have you noticed between how the 1987 and 2008 settings are written and put together? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 21:19:47
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I'd also like to point out that some years after the Time of Troubles, just at the turn of the century when TSR had been bought out by WotC and Third Edition D&D and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting were in the planning stages, Wizards of the Coast sampled the Realms community to find out if a ToT-style event would be acceptable as part of the change-over to Third Edition.
The resounding answer, even after several years? NO!
And yet they went the same route for the 4th Edition update...
Not only that, but knowing we didn't want a big RSE for the change-over, they instead gave us a flood of them after the change.
And I'm a little skeptical on the lack of 2E to 3E transition event, anyway. The 1E to 2E transition really didn't affect much in the Realms, rules-wise. Okay, some spells were a little different, and now we couldn't have assassins or cavaliers. And that was it. With the 2E to 3E transition, we had a lot of things change. There were entirely new classes, some existing ones were changed, and now any member of any race could be any combination of classes. Nowhere is this more notable that with dwarves and magic: in 2E, dwarves couldn't be arcane casters, and they were so non-magical that magical items used by dwarves had a chance of failure. Then, in 3E, with no explanation whatsoever, we've suddenly got dwarven spellslingers and any dwarf using any magical item without issue.
So the reason I am skeptical is because I can't see a dedicated fan of any setting saying "Oh, the new rule set is going to change a lot of things, huh? No, I don't need an in-game explanation for something like that." |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 21:00:33
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I'd also like to point out that some years after the Time of Troubles, just at the turn of the century when TSR had been bought out by WotC and Third Edition D&D and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting were in the planning stages, Wizards of the Coast sampled the Realms community to find out if a ToT-style event would be acceptable as part of the change-over to Third Edition.
The resounding answer, even after several years? NO!
And yet they went the same route for the 4th Edition update...
To WotC defence ( I cant believe I just typed that)no matter what path they take they will upset a large part of their fanbase. The "its always been that way" line wasn't all that popular either. All of us have an idealized version of how the Realms should develop and its more or less impossible to do anything without rubbing most people the wrong way. My ideal would be a complete retcon and "Greenwoodisation" of the Realms. something that would make a lot of people make great Deep Purple impersonations.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 20:51:47
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I'd also like to point out that some years after the Time of Troubles, just at the turn of the century when TSR had been bought out by WotC and Third Edition D&D and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting were in the planning stages, Wizards of the Coast sampled the Realms community to find out if a ToT-style event would be acceptable as part of the change-over to Third Edition.
The resounding answer, even after several years? NO!
And yet they went the same route for the 4th Edition update... |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 20:30:36
quote:
It's like a sequel to the Classic Star Wars trilogy, in which Han Solo has somehow become a Sith Lord named Darth Smirkus.
I feel it's more like the afore mentioned Darth Smirkus has opened up a gate way to the Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek universes, let all the creatures establish new planets and systems, destroyed the Force altogether, and then killed himself with a lightsaber.
Oh and for some reason, despite all this, Elminster is there. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 20:22:48
It's easy to look back on the Time of Troubles and say, "Oh, it didn't really change much."
But if you were a player who gamed heavily in the Realms and read the novels when the ToT came about, it was a different and -for some- harder experience.
Borrowing a post of mine from another forum:
quote:
Time to step into the wayback machine.....
Personally I didn't like the changes. Gone were Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul, not to mention Mystra, whom I couldn't believe was gone. In their place were mortals that were in no way inscrutable or mysterious.
I remember that our gaming group more or less ignored the Time of Troubles after trying and failing at finishing the railroad-style adventures that event spawned. We had the new AD&D 2nd Edition rules and soon after places like Undermountain and Phlaan to explore, so we had much to occupy us with anyway.
I think it was at that point that I realized as a D&D player I was starting to look on the setting as a fictional place in the sense of it being an alternate world that I read about but never participated in. The Realms that we played D&D in was becoming entirely separate from the one I was reading about in the novels, because I didn't like accepting that so much had changed or been replaced.
Before the ToT I never, ever thought of things being separate like this. When I read a novel like Darkwalker on Moonshae, the events that happened there were part of the same world my characters occupied.
It left me feeling like I'd lost something.
Fast forward back to now and I find I still don't like the ToT and what it did. Although I think it's an important lesson for DMs to learn that excluding elements of a campaign setting that don't fit is not only OK but sometimes necessary (as opposed to matching a campaign to the setting exactly; which many DMs did back then), I still think the method of teaching this lesson via the ToT was too harsh.
Like so much else about the Realms, it's ultimately a matter of perspective. Looking back at the ToT it may seem easy to hand wave it off, but if you stop to look through the eyes of the gamers that experienced the Realms during that time, then yeah, the ToT was the kind of event that changed how many gamers viewed the Realms.
I'd also like to point out that some years after the Time of Troubles, just at the turn of the century when TSR had been bought out by WotC and Third Edition D&D and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting were in the planning stages, Wizards of the Coast sampled the Realms community to find out if a ToT-style event would be acceptable as part of the change-over to Third Edition.
The resounding answer, even after several years? NO! |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 00:41:08
I lived through the Time of Troubles. For me, it was an annoyance... but one could ignore it or play around it, continuing 1st edition rules with 2e events without too much difficulty or pick up 2nd edition rules and keep on playing without really acknowledging the ToT events (or perhaps just limiting player exposure to those events).
Spellplague brings with it drastic rules changes and a 100 year jump in timeline with world altering events that are hard to play around or adapt to. The 4e rules are pretty harsh to adopt to, so if you have a 3.x character you want to carry over into the new system, you not only have to come up with a way to transcend the time jump, but you have to redefine your character... sometimes dramatically and no longer resembling the original character's abilities.
For me, though, its the fact that Spellplague brings with it the new lack of lore preference from the execs... FR has had the lore drop kicked out of it and adding new lore seems to be considered a bad idea. Add to that the complete disrespect for old school players who want to see old pre-4e lore released. That's why I harbor such ill will toward the spellplague. |
|
|
