| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 18:47:38
You'll forgive my reference to pickled Irish children... Lol.
Erik suggested I repost a comment I made under another thread here, so always open to constructive suggestions, here I'm doing just that.
Here is the (somewhat edited) text of the original post:
I have, in my adult life, not been much of an internet forum poster (no offense intended to the denizens of this quite cool site Lol). The first time I ever felt sufficiently moved to post something on a company site was when they killed Fox Mulder off on the X-Files and the second was a post to the Paizo forums in the immediate wake of release of the 4E Realms sourcebook (for reasons I'm sure you can imagine). My third foray came recently on this site. Here then is my fourth (which just so happens to bear an eerie resemblance to what I said on the Paizo boards back in 2008).
It would seem to me that there is no shortage of people less than delighted with the direction of the 4E Realms over the last few years. Some (like me) abhor the changes of the Spellplague, some think they didn't go far enough, but either way, there seem not to be all that many people who really fully embrace (and run campaigns in) the canon 4E Realms. Furthermore, there seem to be no shortage of talented, creative people with a background writing Realms material whose talent is thus free to engage in a little bit of good old fashioned entrepreneurial work.
Like many of the long term (read people who cut their teeth on 1E or 2E AD&D) players who were fans of the Realms and of the older spell casting classes and magic system which dominated pre 4E systems, I've switched to Pathfinder and have been running in that system since it's Beta Release a couple years back. Now, Pathfinder (and it's world) have been pretty darn successful over these past couple of years going head to head with 4E (when the boys over at Penny Arcade flirt with abandoning 4E for Pathfinder you know there is a problem) and stealing away most of what remains of 3E's gamer base. The only thing they, or some other enterprising game company (and here I'm thinking of something like the folks who brought us Hackmaster or those who are working to bring us the Midgard setting) don't have is the cache of the Realms setting. Well, that's impossible you say. Hasbro is hip deep in trying to relaunch the Realms as their flagship setting (see varied Neverwinter product releases) and would never in a million years dream of selling it off to someone else. Here I agree.
However, I'm a lawyer (when I'm not DMing, hell, even when I am Lol), and I know that just because something novel hasn't been done in the law doesn't mean it CAN'T be. Negotiating novel contractual concepts is how law firms get rich. I'm of the view that the Realms is big enough for everyone to have their fun in (and make money from) and here is how...
The key isn't focusing on the where's of the intellectual license, it's focusing on the when's. 4E jumped 100+ years into the future for an assortment of reasons (some good some bad). However, in so doing they left a number of (non immortal) characters and the recent events of places and things all over the Realms high and dry. This would allow two creative forces, Hasbro operating in the 1400 post Spellplague Realms with their 4E product line, and some other entity (or entities) operating in the 1300 era (or even before should they choose) with a different product line. These lines, while potentially competing for sales to some degree (more on how to make that a win/win for all in a moment), would not be at all competing with each other over plot, unique and interesting characters, and the like. They literally cannot cross over to any great degree and, just like Old Republic Star Wars, older authors/game designers clearly know who they can and cannot kill off (and have little incentive to kill off the few 4E survivors anyway).
Even shackled with these considerations, there would be PLENTY of creative freedom for the pre Spellplague crew. They could keep chugging from 1375 forward for a few years, or they could (more interestingly to me anyway) take us back to the 1330's, where Elminster and the other Chosen still serve as key background figures, Mystra is still Mystra (and Bhaal, Myrkul, etc still remain), but where Durnan is first establishing the Yawning Portal, Mirt still roams the Sword Coast as a dashing reaver, The Zhents are on the rise, and all manner of old conflicts brew in Waterdeep and across the Realms. Several of the key literary characters from various Realms authors could also have their backstories laid out. Plenty of room for product release and a pre-built sales base eager to buy them...
As to how such a thing could be a win/win, even for 4E and Hasbro, one could take the simple view that any increase in sales of Realms products (and interest in the Realms) accrues to the benefit of the entity that owns the product lines future incarnation (and let's face it, the Realms need a 4E boost). Or, if they wanted to be even more direct in their revenues, they could take the step of licensing the time period or, better yet (I think) just taking a clean percentage of all product sales (say in the neighborhood of 5 % to 10%) of all of the pre-Spellplague Realms products sold or even some variant on a royalty payment system.
Now, my idea may be a bit complex or overly ambitious, but it is a thought for all those many creative people who have spent years working in the Realms only to now find themselves marginalized to some extent and all those gamers who would love to see Realms content translated into their new system of choice (be that Pathfinder or something else).
Thoughts? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Caolin |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 23:25:38
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Kris the Grey
5) it is okay with us if WoTC serves as the needed quality control agent (Lucas style)
The main reason for the time-jump was to eliminate the need for designers and authors to do TONS of research to write every single sentence (which was quickly becoming the case). They nuked the canon to streamline things.
Then, when the RPGA started creating tons of new canon - that they had to approve and keep track of - it made them have to 'work hard' all over again. Solution: Get rid of the RPGA as canon (which they did). Now there is plenty of time for kick-boxing and novel-writing again.
I really need to get the heck out of this thread before I get myself in hot water, but seriously, they have absolutely NO WISH to keep track of anyone else's writings - they can't even be bothered to read each others stories (and several authors have admitted that - that they haven't read every single Realms novel out there, which I would think should be a pre-requisite for a shared world).
You are saying the guys in-charge should work harder to make us happy, AND risk discovering 'new talent' that could turn-out more popular then themselves. It would be self-defeating - why would they ever agree to such a thing? I sure as hell wouldn't. What you are proposing would be good for everyone - Hasbro, the IP itself, the fans - except the people who would be making the decision to move in this direction. No-one gives up power lightly (and this has nothing to do with 'good & evil' - its more of a "I know what they need better then they do" type of thing).
Using the fans to build an IP is the Paizo way; ignoring them and force-feeding whatever you feel like is the WotC way. This thread is a pipe-dream. sorry.
I seem to have the grognard demon back on my shoulder - excuse me while I thwack him with a newspaper. Apologies all around - Have a good holiday folks, Markustay Out.
I'm not so sure that it is laziness on WoTCs part. It's probably Hasbo taking a super corporate approach to one of their many many IPs. Maximize profits with minimal money input. LucasFilm has realized where their cash cow is and they put maximum effort in nurturing that cow and making sure it keeps funding ILM and George's different ventures. So they dump a lot of money into maintaining the Star Wars IP. Hasbro on the other hand will most likely only ever invest enough into DnD to make sure it turns a profit. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 20:24:23
quote:
Originally posted by Kris the Grey
5) it is okay with us if WoTC serves as the needed quality control agent (Lucas style)
The main reason for the time-jump was to eliminate the need for designers and authors to do TONS of research to write every single sentence (which was quickly becoming the case). They nuked the canon to streamline things.
Then, when the RPGA started creating tons of new canon - that they had to approve and keep track of - it made them have to 'work hard' all over again. Solution: Get rid of the RPGA as canon (which they did). Now there is plenty of time for kick-boxing and novel-writing again.
I really need to get the heck out of this thread before I get myself in hot water, but seriously, they have absolutely NO WISH to keep track of anyone else's writings - they can't even be bothered to read each others stories (and several authors have admitted that - that they haven't read every single Realms novel out there, which I would think should be a pre-requisite for a shared world).
You are saying the guys in-charge should work harder to make us happy, AND risk discovering 'new talent' that could turn-out more popular then themselves. It would be self-defeating - why would they ever agree to such a thing? I sure as hell wouldn't. What you are proposing would be good for everyone - Hasbro, the IP itself, the fans - except the people who would be making the decision to move in this direction. No-one gives up power lightly (and this has nothing to do with 'good & evil' - its more of a "I know what they need better then they do" type of thing).
Using the fans to build an IP is the Paizo way; ignoring them and force-feeding whatever you feel like is the WotC way. This thread is a pipe-dream. sorry.
I seem to have the grognard demon back on my shoulder - excuse me while I thwack him with a newspaper. Apologies all around - Have a good holiday folks, Markustay Out. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 18:19:50
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Canon matters to the game because if the games and novels are separated, people who enjoy both will either want to play in novel events, or they'll be affected by them, or they'll wonder why something in the books isn't in the game.
I might be showing my naivete, but am I in the minority to consider novel canon as merely another story that happened in the Realms, and quite possibly, not in my Realms?
I imagine there are quite a few Realms fans that completely tie in Realms novel lore into their games somehow....but I've never met one or ever even heard of someone doing so. Novel canon is a story of someone else's adventures. I suppose a DM could inject that story lore into the ongoing story of the player characters if he felt inclined to do so. I consider novel lore to be on the level of Ed's Everwinking Eye articles in Dragon; interesting stories and lore told to make my game better if I ever choose to incorporate it into my game. They're basically adventures of other people that could become adventures for us, or even simply the concept of the adventure within the novels could be used to create new adventures.
My players have never met Elminster. Quite probably, they never will, but his novels are his adventures, and they either happened in my game, will happen, or never will. The fact that they exist only serves me insofar as what I choose to use them as. Sometimes, a novel is just a story, read for entertainment and possible sparks of imagination for the DM, and doesn't necessarily need to be injected into one's campaign in order for the game to be canon. Just my humble opinion on this Xmas eve. 
I'm not saying a novel has to be injected into a campaign... But if your players have read the Rogue Dragon books, and your campaign is set at the exact same time, they're going to expect to hear something about rampaging dragons. Ditto for the Reclamation of Myth Drannor or the Time of Troubles. On the flipside, though, unless they are well-informed Harpers and/or in the area, they're prolly not going to know anything about what Arilyn did in Tethyr.
What I'm saying is that I want the novels to happen in the same setting described in the rulebooks -- not the same setting with changes, or to have one be an alternate universe of the other. Obviously every DM's Realms is going to be different from straight canon, but that straight canon makes a good starting point for the players to know the setting and what to expect. |
| Varl |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 16:45:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Canon matters to the game because if the games and novels are separated, people who enjoy both will either want to play in novel events, or they'll be affected by them, or they'll wonder why something in the books isn't in the game.
I might be showing my naivete, but am I in the minority to consider novel canon as merely another story that happened in the Realms, and quite possibly, not in my Realms?
I imagine there are quite a few Realms fans that completely tie in Realms novel lore into their games somehow....but I've never met one or ever even heard of someone doing so. Novel canon is a story of someone else's adventures. I suppose a DM could inject that story lore into the ongoing story of the player characters if he felt inclined to do so. I consider novel lore to be on the level of Ed's Everwinking Eye articles in Dragon; interesting stories and lore told to make my game better if I ever choose to incorporate it into my game. They're basically adventures of other people that could become adventures for us, or even simply the concept of the adventure within the novels could be used to create new adventures.
My players have never met Elminster. Quite probably, they never will, but his novels are his adventures, and they either happened in my game, will happen, or never will. The fact that they exist only serves me insofar as what I choose to use them as. Sometimes, a novel is just a story, read for entertainment and possible sparks of imagination for the DM, and doesn't necessarily need to be injected into one's campaign in order for the game to be canon. Just my humble opinion on this Xmas eve. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 03:59:41
I never said Canon should be done away with totally, I just feel that the One Ring approach just doesn't work very well. And having heard how Lucas does it, I really like that idea. You could to B-Canon (novels and books and Ed's own words finializing everything), G-Canon (gaming supplements for D&D that has been incorporated into the Realms), and V-Canon (Virtual Realms, such as anything dealing with movies, tv, cartoons, video games).
And as Wooly mentions, the Canon in novels DO affect the game a lot espically when something like the Time of Troubles happens. Arcane Magic doesn't function correctly, DIvine magic works but only in certain areas, and also it's affected by what Gods are resurrected, killed, or changed. A priest of Tyr is nigh impossible in 4E Realms unless you homebrew that Tyr is alive and well or that he's getting his power from some other unknown entity (like Asmodeus  hehehe). Or what if I started a HUGE campaign in the Moonsea region around the town of Hullburg and one of my PCs reads Blades of the Moonsea trilogy and finds out many areas of discontuinity, which breaks immersion or they attempt to correct areas that I, possibly not having read that series, got wrong. It's just as nerve-wracking as the other way around. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 01:23:24
Markus - I'll just paraphrase something from Babylon 5 on this one. Faith and Reason are not incompatible forces, they are like the shoes on your feet: you can walk farther on both than an either one alone. The opposition between science and religion exists only as a false dichotomy perpetuated through history.
The indisputably obvious manifestations of faith in the Realms only underscores this. Even those who violently oppose and refute the validity of a faith cannot ignore things like resurrection of their slain enemies, or lightning and pillars of flame directed at them from above.
Having said that, I shall follow your lead and cautiously back away from the topic. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 01:20:01
Canon matters to the game because if the games and novels are separated, people who enjoy both will either want to play in novel events, or they'll be affected by them, or they'll wonder why something in the books isn't in the game.
I lost interest in the Dragonlance setting because the few books that were available at the time weren't moving the setting forward. At the time, there were five trilogies, and only two of them advanced the timeline. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 01:03:55
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Seems to work pretty well for Eberron, and while I'm not sure what is and what isn't Canon in Star Wars, I had reason to believe that not all of the novels comming out of that title were all Canon. And it seems to work well for them too. It basically comes down to this, what authors/designers put into the supplements and novels are "their" version of the Realms, what they deem as official and the like. People may or may not like that and that tends to create a lot of homebrew changes.
Yet each time a designer or writer puts out more Realms stuff, it's stamped with "officially liscensed by WotC as an OFFICIAL REALMS product" and stuff, sometimes very big stuff changes within the setting. This creates further grief for those not liking how things are handled and that causes more complaining. With enough complaining comes a LESS DETAILED SETTING so people have more room to put in what they want, where and when they want it and have little contradiction to Canon as possible. This is what 4E Realms was designed for. Enought setting material to make a "NEW" DM understand the style and scope of the setting without bogging them down with a lot of possibly useless trivia that many feel have to "fit" into the Realms.
And this isn't even just Realms novels and supplemnts, but D&D products as well. Everytime a new class, race, or whatever is produced is yet another item that has to be "fitted" into the Realms to be a viable option for gamers (the main reason for the Realms in the first place). Were it only certain supplements and novels focued on Canon and the rest just un-official, we could take those ideas and incorporate them into the Realms to be more inline with Canon OR disregard them as un-Canon and be done with it.
I don't really understand why anyone would care about canon in the game products. I mean the whole essence of DnD has been in the home brew campaigns. At every turn in every game product they encourage you to use the information in your own way. You should be able to adapt ANYTHING into your own campaign without any trouble. So if you are looking to eliminate Thay, go for it. But I don't play the game anymore so I don't know how the kids play it these days.
As for the novels though, canon is very important to maintaining continuity. I don't read Eberron so I don't know how they function. But I worked for LucasFilm for a few years and I am pretty familiar with how they maintain canon and continuity throughout all of their different IP. The way they handle canon might actually fit into the the idea you have. They essentially have 5 levels of canon that deals with all the various projects they have going on.
It starts with G-canon whichs covers the moviesor "whatever George says is true" which trumps anything anyone else might have written. Next is T-canon which covers the television shows created by George which trumps anything but G-canon. Then you have C-canon which is basically the main canon for the novels, comicbooks, games, etc. Under that you have S-canon which is sort of a trash bin of older stuff that hasn't been used in any of the higher canon levels, but can be used by author or director. Lastly you have N-canon or Non-canon. It's all explained here:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon
So essentially, they open things up to all sorts of people to use their IP. But they ultimately have control of how the product interacts with Star Wars at the canon level. There is also one guy who maintains a huge bible of canon for Star Wars. It's a pretty impressive internal web page and it used to be a series of binders. I imagine that something like this would work for Hasbro in regards to DnD and the Realms to a lesser extent. But they have no where near the resources required to make such an undertaking happen. LucasFilm is bankrolled by the licensing of Star Wars.
But back to my main point. You can remove FR canon from the game products, again as Markustay suggested, and make the rules system as neutral as possible. Then they could produce lore books that paint the world of the Realms. Use the lore or don't use the lore. That's why I don't think canon matters to the game. But the novels absolutely need canon. I don't think opening up FR to non-canon fiction would work either. It would just be confusing to most people save a few disgruntled Realms fans. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 21:12:27
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I don't agree with this at all. Canon brings integrity to a fictional universe. You can't just have a ton of amateur authors putting their own take on the Realms out there just because that's how they want to see things written. You'd have so many contradictions that, anyone new coming into the Realms would be so confused as to what is going on that they most likely would avoid reading any Realms fiction.
If you want to totally recreate the Realms in your own home brew campaign, well they encourage that and more power to you. But keep the home brew out of the literary Realms. I'd hate to see FR go the route of DC and Marvel and create all these "what if" stories and alternative universes. It's chaotic and annoying.
Seems to work pretty well for Eberron, and while I'm not sure what is and what isn't Canon in Star Wars, I had reason to believe that not all of the novels comming out of that title were all Canon. And it seems to work well for them too. It basically comes down to this, what authors/designers put into the supplements and novels are "their" version of the Realms, what they deem as official and the like. People may or may not like that and that tends to create a lot of homebrew changes.
Yet each time a designer or writer puts out more Realms stuff, it's stamped with "officially liscensed by WotC as an OFFICIAL REALMS product" and stuff, sometimes very big stuff changes within the setting. This creates further grief for those not liking how things are handled and that causes more complaining. With enough complaining comes a LESS DETAILED SETTING so people have more room to put in what they want, where and when they want it and have little contradiction to Canon as possible. This is what 4E Realms was designed for. Enought setting material to make a "NEW" DM understand the style and scope of the setting without bogging them down with a lot of possibly useless trivia that many feel have to "fit" into the Realms.
And this isn't even just Realms novels and supplemnts, but D&D products as well. Everytime a new class, race, or whatever is produced is yet another item that has to be "fitted" into the Realms to be a viable option for gamers (the main reason for the Realms in the first place). Were it only certain supplements and novels focued on Canon and the rest just un-official, we could take those ideas and incorporate them into the Realms to be more inline with Canon OR disregard them as un-Canon and be done with it. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 18:59:13
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Aye, that would be me. I agree that it would definitly put WotC at odds with whoever publisehd further "novel" content, it really wouldn't effect the game very much. Honestly, the biggest problem is the Realms requirement of published material being Canon. That, in a nut shell, is pretty much where all the problems lie. Take out that aspect, and well who cares what X author writes about the goings on of Impiltur of 1134 DR or their rendition of the Dawn Cataclysm...because it's not Canon. WotC could focus solely on the "current" Realms of 1479 DR, using 4E mechanics to further the gaming material and all that while other 3PP could do whateve they want because it's not "real".
But, given the restrictions of "One Canon to Rule Them ALL" approach the Realms have done severly limits anyone fleshing out anything not really WotC approved, which now means anything pre-Spellplague. A way to work around this is to ensure that nothing written prior to 1479 DR makes the current timeline/history/etc. null-and-void. Specifically making a series of novels that single-handedly destorys Thay, kills Telemont Tanthul, or stops the murder of Mystra for example. Adhering to these specifics could make such an endeavor more appealing and bring some people back into the fold.
I don't agree with this at all. Canon brings integrity to a fictional universe. You can't just have a ton of amateur authors putting their own take on the Realms out there just because that's how they want to see things written. You'd have so many contradictions that, anyone new coming into the Realms would be so confused as to what is going on that they most likely would avoid reading any Realms fiction.
If you want to totally recreate the Realms in your own home brew campaign, well they encourage that and more power to you. But keep the home brew out of the literary Realms. I'd hate to see FR go the route of DC and Marvel and create all these "what if" stories and alternative universes. It's chaotic and annoying. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 18:37:06
Well, with one or two exceptions it appears as though we all pretty much agree on a few key points on this topic:
1) it would be nice to see the Realms opened up a bit more so that it isn't only WoTC producing materials for them
2) it would be nice to explore earlier eras (pre 1479 in any event) in Realms history through game products or novels
3) there are many characters (and/or locations) presented in sourcebooks and novels from prior versions of the game who we would like to see expanded upon or at least 'finished properly'
4) whatever happens, quality control is important to us - no C quality Realms products that totally contradict everything else every produced
5) it is okay with us if WoTC serves as the needed quality control agent (Lucas style)
6) it would be nice if Ed (and other key designers from earlier editions) was/were involved in whatever Realms projects came out of any 'opening up'
7) we would gladly buy quality pre-1479 Realms products, be they sourcebooks, novels, or just regional guides written in a 'non system specific' way - for many of those willing to buy such products this would be our first Realms purchase post 4E...
and, last but certainly not least:
8) the 'great opening' we all want will never happen, owing to either a feared myopic concern about monopolizing profit and reducing competition by WoTC, or the general impending doom in the tabletop market which lurks right around the corner
To all of that I'll simply say the following three things: the 'squeaky wheel gets the grease', 'build it and they will come' and 'every dog has it's day'.
It is true that (at least until I win this Saturday's Christmas Powerball...) we as FR fans find ourselves in a place where we have no control over the official fate of our 'adopted homeworld' and are forced to watch as people who generally don't have our level of attachment to it make decisions about it that we often don't agree with. That however is the nature of things. When you expand a game setting (or any idea) so that more than a handful of people can enjoy it (as Ed did when he sold the Realms rights all those years ago) it enters the world of business and profit and decisions about it get made by those who steer the ship based only upon a profit motivation. Sometimes those people listen to ideas from their in house 'experts' that end up being less than ideal and quite less than well received by old time fans.
However, 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease' and, just like in politics, a loud and frequent squeal uttered by enough dedicated people for long enough eventually gets noticed, ESPECIALLY if it comes at a time when profits are down... As every businessman knows that as long as you 'build it they will come', and if enough people are telling you (over and over again) that they want a certain product then rest assured that a company will find a way to eventually deliver it. And, if that business ignores it's customers long enough, then they will eventually find out that, 'every dog has it's day'. Companies who make bad business decisions fail. Ask the folks in charge of TSR. Eventually even the mighty Wizbro will cease to be, or more likely will cease to care about tabletop gaming ('computers are all the rage don't you know') and the Realms IP will fall into the mud like the eagle of a beset Roman legion. When that happens, you can rest assured there are likely to be a core of enterprising and creative people watching and waiting to pick it up.
So, while I'd advise you all to use some of your internet time to write the good folks over at WoTC and tell them what you want pre 1479 in the hopes that they hear you out, I'd also console those of you who think the Realms will never again be in the hands of those whose vision for it you agree with. Give it time, it will happen. When it does, if you guys ever need a lawyer, give me a call.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 17:16:56
I would also love to see such stories. I have often said here and elsewhere how they bypassed what was probably THE most intersting period of Realms history, and one heck of an era to adventure in. Why they decided to do the reboot when "things died down" is beyond me.
Give us the 3.75 Realms, at least in novels. Lets find out the endings to those thousand thousand plots, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Faith by this definition is utterly senseless and irrational.
I'll probably get in-trouble for this one, buuuuuuut...
You actually think that Faith and Religion are related in some way?
Faith is personal, religion is a business. 
Constantine re-wrote much of Christianity and merged it with Apollo-worship. Thats a fact. Things like that happen all the time in the re-world - some sects catch on, others die out, and some actually out-perfom the original religion they were based upon (And Christianity itself is just a sect of Judaism, technically).
What I am saying is given the amount of time, cultural degradation, outside influences, and everything else, the names should at least be slightly different.
All I am asking is for a little bit of originality - Ed managed it, why can't teams of designers and four editions do the same? Why couldn't the Mulhorandi pantheon be lead by Amaun-Ra, the sun-tyrant? Would that be so terrible? Its all that RW crap that gives ammunition to FR's detractors.
Then don't tell us if the sun god is the same as the Faerunian one - leave that to the individual campaigns. Part of the problem with FR - from the end of 1e on - is that we know TOO MUCH about the gods. Make them mysterious again - we shouldn't be told two deities are one and the same - maybe just hint at it a little. Bring back the 'unreliable 3rd-person' narrative style of 1e/2e.
Obviously the designers felt the same way about the Egyptian pantheon, becuase they also got rid of them. However, the way they did it still leaves them as historic canon. If we are going to get a full-blown continuity re-boot, then they don't need to fix anything. The Mulan peoples could have continued to worship their 'old gods' from home, but it could be that FR deities answered their prayers. None of that silly "Spelljammed through space" crap - that was just gawd-awful (no pun intended). Gods flying from world to world in spaceships, Yeaaah.... thats going to give FR the respect with the greater literary community we so desperately want.
The Mulans brought their beliefs with them - no-one says that the deities themselves needed to interlope. In fact, the Spelljamming rules (I hate using those to prove a point) actually indicate otherwise. When you enter a sphere that does not contain your deity, then a similar deity will answer them instead (there is some sort of 'cosmic deal' worked-out... but thats fodder for another thread). If that is THE canon rule in regards to mortals traveling to another world, then why did the Middle-Eastern pantheons need to emigrate at all?
I would personally rather believe that deities are world-specific. They may have the same or similar names, and may even answer to the same mutlti-spheric Archtype (the Seldarine were once referred to as 'Archtypes'), but once a single god has power outside of his sphere, he has now attained power that Overgods and most primordials don't have, and that doesn't sit right with me. Deities should be at low-end of the Divine pyramid - they are the 'mail room guys', just there to sort through all the junk the mortals keep sending heavenward.
Continuity is the most important thing to both a setting/IP, and to a game system. You can't have different protocals from source to source, because then the whole thing falls apart. I truly believe the 4e guys realized this, and thats why they made so many of the sweeping changes they did. I don't think the changes were the problem at all with 4e's lackluster reception, but rather, the piss-poor presentation of those changes.
You can serve dog-poo to folks on fine china, and they will eat it, but if you serve caviar on paper plates, not so much. At this point, looking back over the past couple of years, I think 4e's biggest problem was horrific PR. Its not what you say, but the way you say them. For instance, the only 4e podcasts that were tolerable were the interviews with Ed Greenwood - he made us actually want to try it. The rest of them just came off a little smug (IMHO). Looking at them now, that was probably just pride for what they accomplished, but unfortunately, the sweeping changes tainted most of our opinions, and it was easy to see something that may have not even been there.
Had it been handled a little differently, I feel they could have still done most of what they did (the rules for sure), and we would have accepted it all, as we have done in the past, with lots of griping, but that's what gamers do - we GRIPE. In fact, had they just not done the century time-jump, I think it would have been better received. That was the deal-breaker right there, for most of us.
Thats why this thread is important; it shows THEM that us fans WANT to know what happened after Mystra died. We don't want it all just ignored and new stories told. that just leaves us with the impression that they will never finish anything (plot-wise), so why even put yourself through that again? In other words, when 5e comes around, do we loose all the 4e plots and intrigues, all the NPCs we grew to love? Why even bother, if thats the case? What made Ed's world so grand were the people and their stories - the planet itself is just so much generic fantasy fare. I think the 4e guys missed that point - they kept the planet and threw out the rest.
That wasn't "throwing the baby out with the bath-water", it was tossing out the baby and high-lighting the bath-water. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 15:26:14
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Somebody mentioned a condition applied to 3E-era submissions, basically stating "don't contradict/obviate lore which has been (will be) already established in the 4E setting". It's feasible in theory but I suspect too difficult in practice to consistently and fairly implement across the board. It would essentially force WotC to simultaneously publish two different games.
I would welcome some novels or stories - perhaps even a few adventures or other gaming materials - to bridge the timejump a little. An anthology of shorts detailing the last adventures of some of the most popular NPCs/heros/villains would be welcome.
Aye, that would be me. I agree that it would definitly put WotC at odds with whoever publisehd further "novel" content, it really wouldn't effect the game very much. Honestly, the biggest problem is the Realms requirement of published material being Canon. That, in a nut shell, is pretty much where all the problems lie. Take out that aspect, and well who cares what X author writes about the goings on of Impiltur of 1134 DR or their rendition of the Dawn Cataclysm...because it's not Canon. WotC could focus solely on the "current" Realms of 1479 DR, using 4E mechanics to further the gaming material and all that while other 3PP could do whateve they want because it's not "real".
But, given the restrictions of "One Canon to Rule Them ALL" approach the Realms have done severly limits anyone fleshing out anything not really WotC approved, which now means anything pre-Spellplague. A way to work around this is to ensure that nothing written prior to 1479 DR makes the current timeline/history/etc. null-and-void. Specifically making a series of novels that single-handedly destorys Thay, kills Telemont Tanthul, or stops the murder of Mystra for example. Adhering to these specifics could make such an endeavor more appealing and bring some people back into the fold. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 02:45:28
lol Markus, I think you just haven't been exposed to enough RW history. And language, and mythology, and cultures. Ed - and a few dozen FR game designers, and a few hundred FR authors, and many thousands of DM's and players and fans of the Realms - have produced quite a mountain of Realmslore, which I appreciate and enjoy immensely. But it is still a quaint and contrived little anthill compared to what RW writings have offered through our ages.
If a deity like Hermes exists - and even has the same name - in the Realms, then that's great ... but why is it necessary for that to have to make any sense? No one said faith has to make sense ... in fact, faith gives us strength and hope when reason tells us there is no point in continuing onwards. Faith by this definition is utterly senseless and irrational. I don't see how this necessarily implies any grand cosmic conspiracy between dieties and worlds, beyond pointing out the obvious fact that we invent fiction which we can understand. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 01:16:05
Somebody mentioned a condition applied to 3E-era submissions, basically stating "don't contradict/obviate lore which has been (will be) already established in the 4E setting". It's feasible in theory but I suspect too difficult in practice to consistently and fairly implement across the board. It would essentially force WotC to simultaneously publish two different games.
I would welcome some novels or stories - perhaps even a few adventures or other gaming materials - to bridge the timejump a little. An anthology of shorts detailing the last adventures of some of the most popular NPCs/heros/villains would be welcome. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 00:56:21
Actually, the insult I thought you might take was thinking I was implying that you had no horse sense. It had nothing to do with the 'big picture' (which would include things like Pathfinder taking Gencon from Wotc, which has been happening gradually for three years now). So no insult intended (and I know that usually means someone is about to be insulting, but this isn't aimed your way at all - you are just choosing to throw yourself on the grenade here). I wasn't singling you out - my point was that while Paizo happily uses designers from WotC (where you started), I have yet to see wotC use any of the people who have started with Paizo (many 'newbie' designers over there as well). The lead people at Paizo came from TSR, but there is a lot of new talent there, which WotC isn't using.
Its not just one thing, its a number of things, and when WotC says "everything is just fine", I can recall a mod over on the Wiz boards saying "There is no such thing as 4e", a mere month before the 4e announcement. I don't believe anything corporate America tells me, because if you listen to them, then every car ever made is "the best-selling car in America", every mattress is "the softest", and every knife is "the sharpest'... and five years later, you still can't cook on it.
Employees usually find out about a problem the day they show up for work and the doors are chained shut.
Toys aren't selling this year, at all - the shelves are still full at Walmart. Electronics are the only thing doing well. This means in the first quarter of 2012, the Hasbro headsman will be looking to cull the least profitable parts, and the axe will fall, repeatedly.
To be perfectly honest, I doubt they are going to be allowed to finish 5e. I'm not psychic, just old. I've seen this drama play out way to many times before. I was the guy who had to board-up the foreclosed homes of dozens of Grummans engineers, a mere decade and a half after they had their greatest moment - you remember that amazing LEM that flew back from the Moon in the movie Apollo 13? Something that shouldn't have been possible, except for a marvel of American engineering? The guys who designed that were unemployed just 15 years later. So much for proud moments in history.
D&D had a good run, but I can't imagine it making a come back this time. RPGs need a lot of hand-holding, and big conglomerates just don't do that well. I just don't see them pulling the same 'hat trick' WotC did for D&D with 3e.
Rich Baker is very talented, and IMHO, way more talented then certain people they've kept - that is a decision that simply makes no sense to me. Why he was working on their WWII game is beyond me. Hiring Monte is a bit of enigma, in regards to my logic. I'm sure that set them back quite a bit. It was probably a 'desperation move', which could indicate something is amiss, but only time will tell. I just don't know what to make of the guy (he went his own way, then teamed-up with Paizo, and now jumps over to Wizbro - the man should be a politician). He is insanely talented though, so who knows? He could be the 'Steve Jobs' of the RPG industry, for all we know, and he may just pull a miracle out of his arse yet.
EDIT: Time to apologize to the Mods now - I seem to have drifted off topic. The topic itself invites that, but that doesn't mean I/we should be doing it. I also want to apologize to Matt and whoever else - I am blunt, but I don't mean to be insulting... at least not to people I like (and I like the James boys  ) I feel passionately about FR and D&D - it was a big part of my growing up, and it has the ability to make me overly emotional, which is stupid in regards to a game. Apologies all around. 
And for what its worth, despite what I think may happen, I hope I am wrong. I love D&D and FR, and would love to see them soar again. I wish WotC no ill will, truly. If I did, I would revel in some of their decisions, instead of taking umbrage at them. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 23:12:55
Caolin,
Your wide open range of eras and product development (and developers) was really what I had in mind. I got to know the Realms most (and best) in the 1E and 2E time frames, so I've usually run games pre 1372. I'd be delighted to see the scope opened up as far back as interest runs, but keep in mind the 'core' or 'classic' Realms generally involves characters operating in the early to late 1300s. So, if you were a company seeking to make product that sold well to an established fan base (and tell stories about beloved characters now dead in the 4E Realms), you'd probably do best concentrating on that time frame (at least initially).
Keep in mind that pretty much everything published for the Realms (with a few exceptions like Arcane Age) prior to 4E covered play in a period of only nineteen years - 1356 to 1375. Using just that time frame TSR, then WoTC, then Wizbro turned out a metric ass ton of sourcebooks, novels and accessories. If you only took the years 1330 to 1355 you would have 6 more years to play with then 1E, 2E and 3E combined... |
| Caolin |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 20:36:09
I haven't had a chance to read through this whole thread. SO I apologize if this was already brought up.
I want to respond to the original poster Kris. I like the idea of having separate IPs in FR like they have in the Star Wars universe. It definitely works for Star Wars. I mean they have multiple different IPs going on at the same time in multiple points in the timeline. They all co-exist very well. The only flaw in your idea is focusing on the original time period. I don't see 3E Realms and 4E Realms being different time periods. I mean they are, but the 4E Realms is very tied into the 3E Realms. There are a lot of story threads that have their roots in 3E and continue into 4E, the Spellplague being one of them. So in a sense I think of 3E and 4E being the same era in a literary sense.
Now, this doesn't mean your idea won't work. You just have to think bigger and further back. FR has an even longer timeline than Star Wars and it is entirely possible to have not just 2 but possibly 4 different IPs going on in the Realms. You have the modern timeline with 3E and 4E. You can have the Empires timeline that would cover all the material in the Lost Empires source book. You could then have the Elvin timeline which covers the Crown Wars. Lastly you could go even further back and have a timeline which covers the Creator races. This last one would be quite alien to most of FR but I think it could work.
Man, just thinking of this makes me giddy imagining all of the novels I would have to read. But alas it's probably beyond the realm of possibility. One can dream though. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 19:34:26
I was just using your reply as the reasoning for my one sentence query that Markustay jumped on. I'm in agreement as well on competition. I like both Paizo and WotC. I like both of their products and I don't want to see either of them go away. Without Paizo, WotC's D&D would not evolve. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 19:33:11
I wasn't referring to data on the DDI. I was referring to the sales information mentioned in the ICv2 reports.
So far as I know, no one outside of the bean-counters at WotC have info on DDI subscriptions.
I personally think it likely, however, that sales of printed material exceeds DDI subscriptions.
And I'm pretty sure no one is cheering for the failure of any game. Commenting on -- even reveling in -- the fact that there is now more competition for gaming dollars than there once was is not the same as wanting someone to fail.
Hells, I personally have a serious dislike for what WotC has done, and I don't want them to fail -- I just want them to want me as a customer again. If they fail, that's the end of the Realms, and none of us wants that... |
| Matt James |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 19:08:59
I'm going to chop this post up because I find it somewhat insulting.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Its all speculation, but seriously, all the signs are there Matt. You can ignore them
Please tell me what I am ignoring. I asked for the data that Wooly said exists. I'm looking to get educated as I have not seen it. I posted one sentence.
quote:
Sometimes you don't need facts to have horse-sense.
For me, I don't care about horse-sense. I want facts. It's not an illogical request.
quote:
And I mean absolutely NO insult to you here, so pease don't take it that way. I am just looking at 'the big picture', which I am sure everyone else here is.
Usually when someone says they mean no insult, it is exactly what they intend. So everyone else here, beside me, is looking at the big picture?
quote:
You are doing a Golarion project, correct? And your brother? So Paizo's hiring while WotC is laying off? 'Nuff said. 
You're so out of place here I don't know where to begin. I'm not a full-time employee of either corporation. I am a freelancer. You can't compare the two at all, in any fashion, other than to say we both type words. WotC still hires me to do game design work. Nuff Said 
How in the nine-hells you singled me out, I'm still not sure. I wanted the data, and then asked for it. Don't get mad at me if it doesn't exist (I still can't find it). I'm not convinced things are as dire as some would make it out to be. Above all, why people are cheering for any tabletop RPG to fail is beyond me. It's such a niche market that makes up less than 1% of the gaming industry as a whole. |
| Erudite |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 18:54:23
Whoops. Bowing out! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 18:03:44
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Its all speculation, but seriously, all the signs are there Matt. You can ignore them, but when the weatherman says 'Bright and sunny', and I see the farm animals running for cover, I am going with the animals. Sometimes you don't need facts to have horse-sense.
And I mean absolutely NO insult to you here, so pease don't take it that way. I am just looking at 'the big picture', which I am sure everyone else here is.
You are doing a Golarion project, correct? And your brother? So Paizo's hiring while WotC is laying off? 'Nuff said.
I just don't see this, sorry. Even with the firing of Rich Baker, something I was upset with, I don't get the feeling that WotC is failing or losing some sort of race. And you mention WotC laying off people, yet they bring Monte back on full-time (he even moved to Seattle) so really, I take their HR decisions with a grain of salt.
I've also seen how much they put out in their DDI articles and many of them are submissions by free-lancers. Which means lot of their content is fan-based and not on WotC payroll. So the signs your pointing to are really just a minor factions in the 'Big Picture' that we (as consumers) will probably never get a full accouting of. These numbers don't say one edition or company is better than the other, though I'm happy to say they're different (variety being the spice of life and all that..).
To tie this into the topic at hand, the disparity of both companies (or more importanlty OGL material vs. GSL material) just doens't mix well and any attempt to put the two together would result in failure. This is strictly from a game-mechanics standpoint though, as I think lore and story information would be a great asset to both pre- and post-spellplague Realms and, like I mentioned, a more fleshing out of that lore could only make the setting better. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 16:54:24
Its all speculation, but seriously, all the signs are there Matt. You can ignore them, but when the weatherman says 'Bright and sunny', and I see the farm animals running for cover, I am going with the animals. Sometimes you don't need facts to have horse-sense.
And I mean absolutely NO insult to you here, so pease don't take it that way. I am just looking at 'the big picture', which I am sure everyone else here is.
You are doing a Golarion project, correct? And your brother? So Paizo's hiring while WotC is laying off? 'Nuff said.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
But consider that large portions of the Earth-born populations also followed these deities to Realmspace. So unless the populations themselves begin venerating their old deities as new interpretations on a new world [for whatever reason], I think it would be difficult to establish why these formerly Egyptian deities now have different names.
Consider this:
FR's history is far better detailed and much 'older' (from a 'historic', rather then 'prehistoric' point of view) then our RW, with far more culture-shock and interloping civilizations 'butting heads'. In our RW, deities have changed names many, MANY times. It happens, either through linguistic evolution (I think I just made that term up ), blending of cultures, or just changes within the church of the god (or any number of other things). Take a look at the Etymology of Hermes, as a good example. IIRC, he started out as some sort of 'monkey god' in Africa, or some such, and was part of dozens of different pantheons (he is a popular guy), including the Egyptian. Mercury might be is most common alias, but he was also Hermes Trismegistus in the Pharaonic Pantheon, when combined with Toth. That means the Greek God Hermes actually has a slight foothold within the Realms (which is really a no-brainer, since a couple of others have been mentioned as well). The argument could be made that the conjoined deity occurred after the interloping, but either way, you see my point.
If Hermes can have dozens of different names and aspects in our RW, in just a few thousand years, then why do we have the same exact names for deities thousands of years later, on an entirely different planet, after much cross-cultural and linguistic pollination? What makes NO sense to me is that they would be the same.
Add in the fact that for over a thousand years the Mulan had to worship their gods in secret - which means they would have had to think of cover-names for their deities - to avoid discovery by their Imaskari overseers.
I'm not saying we can't have those deities - I love the Egyptian Pantheon - just give us some Realmsish names for them; is that so hard? call Ra(Re) 'Amaun'... now that ought to get everyone's creative and speculative juices going (since the second half - A'tar', is already in-use ).
Another good one would be 'Mysis'. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 14:40:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erudite
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Markustay
Permission to do something, plain and simple. Why would [Wizbro] just give that away? they aren't our friends, they are company in the business of making money (like all companies are). Giving us a fan license does nothing for them, and any sort of license issued before (OGL) has come back and bitten them in the arse. Open licensing is a huge can of worms, and they would be smart to avoid it.
How do you know the OGL licenses "bit WotC in the ass"? Without access to their proprietary sales data, I can only speculate based on anecdotal observations ... and from what I've seen, if the number of staff at WotC and the number of 3E sourcebooks published (only) by WotC are any indication (more than in any previous or subsequent D&D edition, to date), is that OGL was an overwhelming success which must have generated substantial revenues. Even in the face of WotC's constant knee-jerk complaints about "massive loss of revenues caused by persistent piracy". Hardly what I'd call a failure.
So, we have an example of past licensing which appears to have been profitable.
You said it yourself: Wizbro is in the business of making money. As I see it, they're sitting on a D&D IP which (in the face of PRPG competition) has slowly diminishing value, they have an opportunity to reposition that IP to exert better leverage in the market; ie: to increase it's value and possibly diminish the success of it's primary competitor (by attracting a larger segment of the market).
Also seems profitable to me, if done well.
Actually, I think friend Markus refers to the way Paizo capitalized on the OGL and is now outselling D&D 4E. If I was a WotC exec, that factoid would cause me to say most unpleasant things about the OGL.
I would need to see data on DDI subscriptions before I could say anything like that. There is not enough to go off of. Its all conjecture right now.
This has been reported more than once, based on sales by distributors. That's not conjecture.
DDI subs were reported? Can you link me? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 14:00:25
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erudite
I would need to see data on DDI subscriptions before I could say anything like that. There is not enough to go off of. Its all conjecture right now.
This has been reported more than once, based on sales by distributors. That's not conjecture.
Actually, it's a little from both columns. Paizo fans boast the claim due to the ICv2 reports, which comes from a host of distributors sales from hobby-stores. But what these sales don't take into account are large retailers such as Barnes and Noble, Boarders, etc.. nor does it take into account online retailers such as Amazon. com or Ebay. Nor does it take into account the two respective online sales such as Paizo's PDFs or DDI subscriptions.
Is it great for Paizo? Yes, it's a wonderful thing to have such great success, but it's not indicative that WotC is hurting in anyway, nor does it give us fans an overall idea of who's doing better in the RPG arena overall. I think healthy competition is really good for WotC AND I think it's great that we have two distinctly different games that are supported. The last thing people need is more of the same or almost the same. |
| arry |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 12:46:33
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I just want to see the Realms finally in all their glory, the way Ed intended them to be. Why can't we see that, just once?
It's not proffitable enough?  |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 07:15:12
All in all, I'm going to have to agree with Ayrik here relative to both the wisdom of this point(s):
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Agreed, all the relevant information about sales figures and such is known only to WotC and Paizo.
I'm still of the opinion that PRGP's adoption of WotC's OGL was good for D&D 3E/3.5E, in theory it at least forced everybody to purchase WotC's core D&D rulebooks. I believe that - setting-specific content (like the Realms or Golarion) being set aside - the existence of both games encouraged healthy competition and a large range of options for customers; people would generally buy a bit into both product lines, and their intercompatibility promised a lot of variety in present and future products. I remember being attracted by this, in fact I'd be mildly miffed whenever a product didn't completely adhere to compatibility with the OGL SRD.
I feel the failure point didn't lie in this license, but in Wizbro's deliberate decision to discontinue it and promote a new D&D edition which is fundamentally incompatible with all previous versions. Creating their OGL license didn't create WotC's competition, intentionally terminating their own participation in the license did. They encouraged a schism in their own product line, many customers chose to align themselves with the competition (particularly those who judged this in an emotional context and felt angry, betrayed, or cheated that their "loyalty" was rewarded so poorly).
It might not be impossible to revise the OGL for compatibility with D&D 4E, and I think that those people who do have the secret numbers should consider the implications of such a decision. Their only other options for long-term survival are to essentially monopolize the niche - purchase Paizo outright (assuming it's for sale) - or to abandon the D&D IP entirely so they can focus on profitable brands.
And on his point about how deities specific identities matter to them quite a bit.
I get that some don't like the idea of an Earth/Realms connection, but that Satan Claus is out there, and he knows when you are sleeping...
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Satan%20Claus)
In all seriousness, apparently those very connections were a part of Ed's original vision for the Realms, so if you want 'Classic Realms' they are likely to be in there somewhere. You can use them or ignore them (to any sufficiently educated Realms native the idea that someone from another/world/plane/solar system/zipcode might be popping in and out isn't all that outside the norm) as you see fit without impacting the game overmuch.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 04:50:24
Ah, the fansite policy is specified within the "contract" you agree to prior to downloading the image archive. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 04:49:26
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
<ahem>
That's not a fan site policy. It's a set of logos you can use. Nowhere on that site does it say something like "we're cool with fanfiction on your site so long as you meet these criteria" or "you are authorized to use WotC IP in such-and-such a fashion, so long as no money changes hands". That would be a proper fan site policy, not this thing, especially with its line "However, we cannot allow Wizards Materials be used on any Fan Site that promotes sexually explicit materials, violence, discrimination or illegal activities, or makes disparaging, libelous or dishonest statements about Wizards and/or its products, employees and agents." (emphasis mine)
In other words, they give us some logos, and if we use them, we can't say negative things about anything associated with WotC. |
|
|
