| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jakk |
Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 07:10:06
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos in the "2010 Releases" scroll on the "RPG News & Releases" shelf in the "Realmslore" room (Ao only knows why it was there... you'll see why shortly.)
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
I find the 'Writing Guidelines' for the LFR modules quite intriguing on this point. Lets see what they have to say, shall we?
quote:
Don’t focus your adventure on the past too much. In other words, don’t provide tons of background that is extraneous to the adventure. Keep history light and very adventure-specific. You don’t need to tell folks that “the Spellplague did this!” or “you know that this ancient tomb was founded in 867 DR by...” This intimidates new players and creates a situation that makes the adventure too “dense” with facts. The old Realms is gone; focus on what’s going on in the adventure. Ask yourself this question: Is this information really needed for the play of the adventure? If it isn’t, then don’t use it. (With that, don’t try to shoehorn history into an adventure as an excuse to “create more history” or “tell the story of what happened decades ago.”) Don’t try to resurrect the past just because you want to remind people of what happened in the interim. Let the novels talk about those elements.
And..
quote:
In short, you’re writing a D&D adventure that happens to be set in the Forgotten Realms. You’re not writing a novel or a history book. Keep your adventure focused on gameplay and not extraneous details.
Ugh. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
-- George Krashos
You're not the only one, George. Just another reason why the 4E Realms are dead, or at least feel that way. Why bother having a wider campaign setting with these constraints anyway? Why not go back to the old days of Original D&D and the Red Box Basic Set, where all that exists is the town and the ever-expanding dungeon a few miles away? The Realms could consist entirely of Waterdeep and Undermountain, or of Eveningstar and the Haunted Halls, and you'd never know the difference by the philosophy presented above. I remember those days, and I much prefer playing in a world to playing in a dungeon and town in the midst of nothingness... that feels too much like a domain of Ravenloft ("Don't go into the mist!") or a computer RPG ("You've reached the edge of the map. You can't go any further." - particularly the old SSI Gold Box AD&D games). Mind you, the "town-and-dungeon" trope fits Wizbro's "points of light" model perfectly... in this case, it's a single point of light and a single point of darkness in the middle of an unknowable murky haze... |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jakk |
Posted - 14 Aug 2009 : 03:00:10
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Fair enough. If you require any help in putting such a scroll together, please contact me via PM.
 Thanks, Sage. I'm still assembling my initial outline, so it'll probably be a few days at least before I'm ready to set things up. Officially, I work part-time, but I have 40 hours this week (M-F) thanks to people being on vacation, so I'm a bit busy for putting lore together ATM, and tonight is game night at my domicile, so I'm about to sign off for the day.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Aug 2009 : 04:56:51
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Now, to my response to both Wooly and Sage: I'm not advocating putting together anything that would receive any more special status than a scroll of its own for interested scribes to post ideas and comments. This scroll would be clearly marked (ideally in bold and red) "(NON-CANON)", and would not be otherwise treated any differently from any other non-canon scenarios that have been presented in these forums. I'm just looking for a place where scribes can contribute their ideas for the Realms. Again, this would not be given any special status by CK, and would just be a forum for presentation of what those dissatisfied with the published Realms 4.0 would have liked to see, in such a way as to (hopefully) hammer out something that these scribes can use in their own campaigns as they see fit.
Hopefully this clears up my intent, as long-winded as it is.
Fair enough. If you require any help in putting such a scroll together, please contact me via PM.
|
| Jakk |
Posted - 13 Aug 2009 : 04:01:00
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
2) Any kind of alternate timeline that received any special status here would constitute standing against WotC as a website. Now only is that just asking for trouble, it's also going against our oft-stated desire to remain edition neutral.
As Wooly pointed out, this proposal is not really applicable for a site like Candlekeep. Nor should it be.
There's no problem in presenting your own alternate timeline, of course. But we'll always remain open to content for both the official and any unofficial timelines. Any shift from that position could create legal ramifications for Candlekeep. And with the directives of the Fan Site policy now becoming apparent, we need to work towards keeping in place a strategy that ensures this community's working within the confines of what is allowed with respect to the official Realms.
Before I reply to the above points, let me say that I'm impressed with the thoughtful debate I've generated on this topic. Since waking up on the morning of August 10 feeling much more well-adjusted toward the 4E Realms, if for no other reason than it's what we've been given to work with, I've found myself much more inspired. I'm not saying I'm going to run out and start up or join a canon 4E Realms campaign or anything, but it's freed up my mental energies to be more creative with my Realms... and ideas from other scribes here have provided the seeds for my new plans.
Now, to my response to both Wooly and Sage: I'm not advocating putting together anything that would receive any more special status than a scroll of its own for interested scribes to post ideas and comments. This scroll would be clearly marked (ideally in bold and red) "(NON-CANON)", and would not be otherwise treated any differently from any other non-canon scenarios that have been presented in these forums. I'm just looking for a place where scribes can contribute their ideas for the Realms. Again, this would not be given any special status by CK, and would just be a forum for presentation of what those dissatisfied with the published Realms 4.0 would have liked to see, in such a way as to (hopefully) hammer out something that these scribes can use in their own campaigns as they see fit.
Hopefully this clears up my intent, as long-winded as it is. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 22:33:12
the RPGA Realmslore I will not ever consider cannon.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 10:07:05
In the great and good Realms adventures, the past is anything but separate, irrelevant, or an opposed focus to the present -- so much essential Realmslore is established, for instance, by FRQ1, FA1, Ruins of Undermountain or Ruins of Myth Drannor. Ed has threaded through Realms sources a complex running discourse about responsible and irresponsible adventurers, the kind who don't care who built the dungeon they're plundering or who made their magic sword. It's precisely in play where Realmslore lives and most belongs, not locked up in dusty history books.
In other words, I'd struggle to write design guidelines more directly opposed to the Realms' spirit on this score than those paragraphs. On the other hand, it's evident that in practice they aren't being entirely carried out, and I'm not keener to have Realmslore set by the RPGA now than in the Fluffy/Charles O'Kane era. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 09:25:26
the lack of lore is just as bad as to much lore.
but not as bad as rudeness |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 08:00:24
Ok - leaving the issue of Lore in the 4th Edition Realms aside... The LFR guidelines make sense in a way. In my view, adventures should not be too lore-heavy. Yes, yes, I know, it's heresy  , but let me explain my POV.
Of course, adventures set in the FR should incorporate elements from the setting. However, there is something to be said for not turning scenarioes/modules/adventures into lorebooks. "Mysteries of the Moonsea" was an attempt to be both lorebook and adventure, and because it tried to be both, it failed to do either well. My view, of course. New Lore, if it is supposed to be canon, should be reserved for sourcebooks.
(Please note that I am talking purely as a gamer here - from my perspective, many of the FR novels, although fun to read in many cases, were a bad thing from the point of view of the development of a game world. It's because of the perceived need for novels upon novels that we had a whole ream of RSEs. Also, the idea of the Chosen as the equivalent of the Illuminati, the Justice League, the Galactic Empire, and the Chosa Nostra originated in large part in the novels. Just compare the stats for the Chosen (such as they were) in the Old Grey Box set, prior to any novels, and their stats in the later editions).
Adventures should not be written for the lore-hungry, but for the players and the player-characters. And to be honest, while I am very, very fond of Realms lore, the "deep background" usually does not have much impact on the daily lives of player characters, mots of which are too busy trying not to get killed to savour the finer points of history (yes, yes, very interesting that this mausoleum was originally built in -450 DR by the nephew of Karsus, seven times removed, to house the body of his beloved, and those are very interesting inscriptions detailing her lineage, but I would first like to run away very, very fast, as her somewhat irate ghost is trying to off me). I am talking about a player character's POV here, of course...
Further, when it comes to creating new lore - new lore needs to be static. Adventures should anything but static - they should not have a preset end or outcome, which makes it tricky to have new canon lore depend on the outcome of an adventure. The Baldur's Gate CRPG series are a point in case, in this case.
So although one can agree or disagree with WotC's policy regarding the Realms (I know I do), I think the LFR guidelines are basically sound - do not use adventures to establish canon lore. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 22:22:40
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
I have participated in enough LFR adventures to know that they are not “lore lite”. I believe the writers have ignored the basic guidelines since the said guidelines were issued. If you want to see it for yourself, then sign up for the RPGA (it’s free) and download some adventures (only two at a time).
Thank you.
Are you in Texas? If so need another player?
Yup, I reside in Texas near the new Cowboys stadium. Alas, my current group is full. But there is a gaming group that meets once or twice a month here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Here is the link:
http://www.warhorn.net/LFRArlington
Sign in and take a peek. They are a fun bunch and typically run three to four tables with six players at each. Sometimes they have more than that depending on the location.
Thats to funny.
I live by the old Cowboys Stadium in Irving! I posted that tongue in cheek. I figured you were in asia or something. I will check that link out so thanks.
Now about the RPGA site, yes that is one confusing bugger. I joined, got a card in the mail tried to log in to find a group and I COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS GOING ON! |
| Matt James |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 17:57:28
I didn't read all of the responses but I am apart of several regions responsible for putting out the adventures. I think people are taking what they are reading and making more of it than is reality. What is the reality? I have never seen any adventure author scorned or scolded for putting "too much" lore in an adventure. The goal of those statements was to prevent adventures from being 100% lore with little or no interaction in the form of encounters. One of the biggest goals has been to make new players feel at ease when playing in the realms without getting anxious that they do not know volumes about the past.
I have personally played in LFR sessions where the DM was so condescending about newer players not knowing this or that that it caused people to completely turn away. This has not happened once or twice folks. There are some zealous people out there and its a shame because its destroying the Realms. WotC wants to prevent this and the new edition was their segway to do so. I can't blame them; my entire group of D&D friends now enjoy the Realms and don't mind playing LFR with me. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 17:42:41
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Yup, seems that I'd need to go to a convention and sign up for the RPGA. That makes it very awkward.
Hmm. Don't know where you're seeing that, but at that first FAQ I listed, the second question is "How do I become a member?" and the answer given is this:
quote:
Becoming a member is as easy as finding an RPGA session near you, or at a convention, and sitting down to play. You'll be handed a membership card when you sit down, and just like that, you're one of us.
If you're having a hard time finding games near you, please try checking our event calendar.
Nothing near you, but you still want to join and possibly run events yourself? We can help you out there too. You can also simply send an e-mail to your local DCI office and let them know you want to join the RPGA, but need a membership card to do so. Give them your name and address, and a card will be dropped in the mail to you.
Offices are listed here:
North and South America:
dci@wizards.com
Japan:
dcijapan@wizards.com
Germany & Austria:
wizards@hasbro.de
France:
wpn@hasbro.fr
Italy:
enrico.boccabianca@hasbro.it
UK & South Africa:
dciuk@hasbro.co.uk
Rest of Europe:
custserv@hasbro.be
Asia Pacific:
apac@wizards.com
|
| Bakra |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 17:22:33
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Yup, seems that I'd need to go to a convention and sign up for the RPGA. That makes it very awkward.
Well Uzzy,
I could fill a card out for you then mail it to WotC. Processing takes a few weeks after they receive it. Once it is processed you would be able to sign in then rummage around. You don’t have to wait for it to be processed in order to play at an event. All you would need is the RPGA number located on the card. Or I could mail the card to you and let you fill in all of the information. My only condition is you have to play one game. As a matter of fact for anyone who wants to sign up but can’t make it to an event anytime soon, I have four blank cards to hand out…err give away. I can eat the mailing cost.
Bakra
Master Level RPGA DM
|
| Bakra |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 17:04:29
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
I have participated in enough LFR adventures to know that they are not “lore lite”. I believe the writers have ignored the basic guidelines since the said guidelines were issued. If you want to see it for yourself, then sign up for the RPGA (it’s free) and download some adventures (only two at a time).
Thank you.
Are you in Texas? If so need another player?
Yup, I reside in Texas near the new Cowboys stadium. Alas, my current group is full. But there is a gaming group that meets once or twice a month here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Here is the link:
http://www.warhorn.net/LFRArlington
Sign in and take a peek. They are a fun bunch and typically run three to four tables with six players at each. Sometimes they have more than that depending on the location.
|
| Auzoros |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 16:24:34
This maybe a little off topic, but I think it is fantastic that we can come to Candlekeep and work through an issue as big as this (4e and LFR). It is definately one of the Keep's strengths. We all have our opinions, likes and dislikes, and despite our different views, for the most part I see people interacting with respect for one another. Thanks to the moderators for encouraging this atmosphere.
I don't like what I see with 4e and what has been done to the Realms and I will no doubt continue to dislike it for a long time. Yet I'm hopeful their is light at the end of the tunnel, and maybe, just maybe, the LFR will become something I want to be a part of. For me it's a matter of time.
I read through scrolls like this and I gain an insight to the possibilty that the new Realms might turn out to be ok, for what it is. It won't be the same, that's for certain. I still love the 1,2,3e Realms and it will be a very long time (if ever) before that love wanes. But in the back of my mind, 4e and the LFR has yet to prove its worth, and admittedly I kinda hope it does. I don't want it to remain (as I see it) as a world without a soul.
|
| Uzzy |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 15:43:25
Yup, seems that I'd need to go to a convention and sign up for the RPGA. That makes it very awkward. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 15:33:16
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The RPGA site doesn't seem well designed. It looks like I can't join up online, and if I did, I'd have to pass a test on (presumably) 4th Edition to become a Herald GM in order to download some of these LFR modules. This makes it rather hard to get around to checking out some of the lore in them.
Now, if I'm wrong, please point me in the right direction.
You're certainly right about the site! I don't know if it's so much poor design as that it's woefully out of date. I think the best places to get information are the RPGA and LFR message boards. These FAQs should be a good start--if they don't answer any particular questions, just send me a PM and I'll see if I can help.
RPGA FAQ
Living Forgotten Realms Campaign FAQ
Cheers,
|
| Uzzy |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 14:59:06
The RPGA site doesn't seem well designed. It looks like I can't join up online, and if I did, I'd have to pass a test on (presumably) 4th Edition to become a Herald GM in order to download some of these LFR modules. This makes it rather hard to get around to checking out some of the lore in them.
Now, if I'm wrong, please point me in the right direction. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 14:21:00
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
I have participated in enough LFR adventures to know that they are not “lore lite”. I believe the writers have ignored the basic guidelines since the said guidelines were issued. If you want to see it for yourself, then sign up for the RPGA (it’s free) and download some adventures (only two at a time).
Thank you.
Are you in Texas? If so need another player? |
| Bakra |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 14:18:04
I have participated in enough LFR adventures to know that they are not “lore lite”. I believe the writers have ignored the basic guidelines since the said guidelines were issued. If you want to see it for yourself, then sign up for the RPGA (it’s free) and download some adventures (only two at a time). |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 13:54:31
I haven't found the LFR modules to be "lore-light," despite the wording of those guidelines. The Core, Moonshaes, Aglarond, Waterdeep, Luruar, and Cormyr region mods in particular are obviously written by people steeped in previous lore, and many of the modules contain new material written at what I've found to be the same levels of quality and quantity of many previous Realms adventure modules.
I don't what you mean by "ominous silence" from DDI. There have been quite a few Realms pieces, and more appear monthly.
But yeah, the novels are definitely not to be missed! 
Cheers,
|
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 13:40:23
On the one hand this seems to be a good thing. When the LFR started, there were fears here at Candlekeep that it could start to produce “wild lore”, i. e. lore developed by people not interested in existing lore and in gross violation of things already established in previous times. This danger seems to be non existent now.
But on the other hand we have to ask what light this guidelines shed on the character of the Living Forgotten Realms. The most distinguishing attribute of the Realms is that it is soaked with lore. It has a rich history, its parts are deeply detailed, yet there are other parts which remain mysterious and unknown. And there are scores of known individuals living in this Realms. These things make the Realms what they are. Now, by decreeing that the LFR have to be “lore-light”, something which goes straight against the fundamental characteristic of the Forgotten Realms, one has to ask: Is this a Realms adventure? A living adventure, sure, but not a Realms adventure at all, IMHO. If WotC has such problems with lore-rich campaign settings, they should have chosen a lore-light setting for their living campaign instead of destroying a setting loved by many.
And another point: Since the LFR shall not produce lore for the Realms, and there are no more gaming supplements based in the FR since the release of the CS, and the light of the ominous silence of the DDI in regard to Realmslore, there is nothing left producing lore except novels. So as D&D campaign setting, the Realms have ended, IMHO. I think it was one of WotC’s goals to discontinue the Realms as we know them with the introduction of 4e and to create a campaign setting which is interchangeable with “core” ore parts (or all) of other campaigns. And WotC took measures to ensure that nobody will start to deepen the 4e Realms with further lore as it happened in the editions before. Never again this setting should be “burdened with lore” again.
I fear, in WotC’s eyes Candlekeep is by its goals and intentions is something fundamentally contrary to the goals they have with the 4e Realms, not only by producing lore for the 4e Realms, but also by conserving and perpetuating and even be creating lore for former editions and times. In this light I view the long delay of the fansite policy and the result it finally took. |
| Amarel Derakanor |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 11:28:18
Mr Miscellany, you are indeed a vigorous defender of the 4th edition, as I've seen both here, and over at the Wizards of the Coast-forums. I think there are others besides myself, who would be interested in finding out where your enthusiasm stems from.
So please, would you care to explain to us why you propagate the 4th edition with such fervour? Why do you feel that it so good? Take note, I'm not insulting you here, I just can't understand you. But I want to! So please, share your thoughts! |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 08:29:52
I'm glad Uzzy posted a link to the LFR Writer's Guidelines.
Now that I'm reacquainted with the Living Forgotten Realms Campaign, its purpose, how it's organized, how it works as an entity within Wizards of the Coast and what the practical constraints are in opening up adventure writing opportunities to the public, I'm not so inclined to agree with criticism that relies on excerpts from the guide in order to conclude that the Realms are dead.
What I gather from the guide is that the job of sharing new lore, filling in historical gaps and creating new places on the map will be the job of the novels. OK then.
I admit it's hard to read statements in the guide like, "The old Realms is gone; focus on what’s going on in the adventure." But if you're writing an adventure for LFR, that advice does makes sense. And it still leaves plenty of room to focus on the adventure's specific locations, encounters and story.
The guide stresses that writers should place their adventures in the locations listed in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. This has practical value because it ensures that a DM and any group of players that go on the adventure together will be operating from the same page. It also means all those areas get to be fleshed out a little each time.
So for example I could submit a heroic tier adventure set in the trade village of Kront in the Great Dale, then create my own custom adventure sight nearby. Maybe even build it around a roaming Nar ghost or demon from nearby Val-Murthag that's been drawn to the area.
Or I could submit a paragon tier adventure where the characters travel north from Yeshelmaar at the behest of the Nentyarch to find and slay a petty demon lord (I could use Eschar from the FRCG or make up one of my own) within the Dunwood, whose forces are wreaking havoc all along the Great Road from Uthmere to Kront.
Any unique story elements I want to include that are important to the adventure can go in the appendix as a player handout or I can parcel the information out via skill challenges and NPC encounters as the adventure progresses.
So, adventures are adventures. Some Realms adventures rely heavily on prior lore and produce a lot of new lore (Into the Dragon's Lair for example) while others focus on the here and now of one area and let the DM build it up (Undermountain). If LFR is going to produce a lot of adventures that follow the later type, I don't think that's such a bad thing.
[Edit] Amarel_Derakanor, let's keep the focus on Jakk's topic hey? Please see PM.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 07:55:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
That being said, let's try to end this post with some positive mental imagery. The upside to all of this is that we've had some great alternative future timelines put forward by like-minded scribes here at Candlekeep, and I think that what we need is to settle on something we can all agree on as "unofficial canon" (I can't believe I just uttered an oxymoron) to give us something resembling what we had before the Sellplague: a shared world with a consistent and continuous backstory.
2) Any kind of alternate timeline that received any special status here would constitute standing against WotC as a website. Now only is that just asking for trouble, it's also going against our oft-stated desire to remain edition neutral.
As Wooly pointed out, this proposal is not really applicable for a site like Candlekeep. Nor should it be.
There's no problem in presenting your own alternate timeline, of course. But we'll always remain open to content for both the official and any unofficial timelines. Any shift from that position could create legal ramifications for Candlekeep. And with the directives of the Fan Site policy now becoming apparent, we need to work towards keeping in place a strategy that ensures this community's working within the confines of what is allowed with respect to the official Realms.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 07:24:48
uestions which weren't answered when this first came up are how reflective is this of the RPGA organizers' thinking?, to what degree is it being followed?, and to what degree does it reflect Wizards' own writers' guidelines and design philosophy (other than the extent to which it matches what they've said)? |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 07:12:41
I am working on a 225DR Magelord game. Lots of stuff going on in the Western Heartlands at that time. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 07:05:20
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
That being said, let's try to end this post with some positive mental imagery. The upside to all of this is that we've had some great alternative future timelines put forward by like-minded scribes here at Candlekeep, and I think that what we need is to settle on something we can all agree on as "unofficial canon" (I can't believe I just uttered an oxymoron) to give us something resembling what we had before the Sellplague: a shared world with a consistent and continuous backstory.
We can't do that, for two reasons.
1) Just about every one of us has a different concept of what needs to be done with the Realms to fix everything we dislike. Myself, I favor rolling back to just before 3E. However, some people advocate resetting to the Old Grey Box, and I'm inclined to think that might be a more workable alternative.
And as for alternate timelines, again, we all have different ideas. I've been fiddling with a way to replace Mystra, lower the number of Chosen, weaken Shar, and accomplish a couple other things. I've got the basic plot, I just need to write it down. This idea of mine would replace the Sellplague altogether. It's not my fave idea, though, because there are some events from 3E that I feel should not have happened.
2) Any kind of alternate timeline that received any special status here would constitute standing against WotC as a website. Now only is that just asking for trouble, it's also going against our oft-stated desire to remain edition neutral. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 06:58:47
Okay, folks, we need to damp down this discussion, some.  |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 04:37:29
Living Forgotten Realms Writing Guidelines
You're right Brimstone. What would the guidelines produced by WoTC for writing in the Living Forgotten Realms have to do with the Living Forgotten Realms, after all? Clearly nothing, as the LFR is a lore filled paradise!
Anyway, I found another interesting quote from the guidelines.
quote:
The Forgotten Realms has undergone large changes to its geography, culture, and timeline. The detail soaked past of the Realms has been eschewed for a more dangerous, adventure-filled Realms set almost 100 years later after a cataclysmic disaster known as the Spellplague ravaged Toril.
Though, of course, these guidelines for writing in the LFR have nothing to do with the LFR. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 02:57:51
The person to ask is Gomez from the WotC boards. Please don't listen to the Hype of scribes that take something from somewhere else to start an edition war or flamefest.
Just because those "might" be the guidelines doesnt mean that those doing the writing will be irresponsible and follow them. The Living Realms are alive and well and they are producing NEW LORE. Please quit insulting in an underhanded way. I don't see any reason for the authors or designers to post here anymore if certain scribes keep dragging up 2 year old garbage. Good grief.
Now returning to lurk mode until some kinda guidelines are made to stop this non-sense! |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 02:35:07
Uh... wow... I don't know what to say... didn't some guys on the WoTC boards claim that in addition to crafting new lore, 4E LFR modules are supposed to feature ancient history and pre-Spellplague Realmslore as well? However, that piece of text seems to encourage DMs to disregard pretty much everything that has happened as irrelevant... 
Maybe Christopher can shed some light on this, i.e. who/when/why has written the guidelines that way? |
|
|
