| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 13:51:56
Would you like to see a complete reboot of the Forgotten Realms for 5th edition D&D? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Nilus Reynard |
Posted - 14 Oct 2019 : 09:55:32
The poll is closed. But my answer is a resounding yes. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 21:53:59
I'm not going to repeat ad infinitium what many others have said, although I did read all of the comments. My take is that the Realms were pretty amazing in the 3E phase. I liked the "new" Mystra, because she humanized the gods, and her battles with Cyric, whom I happen to find an annoying deity, still play out well. But WoTC decided to hit the "self-destruct" button and kill most of the pantheon because, as I've been told by many, the game was "just too complex." Well, I learned it, and so can anyone else. Knowledge of all the lore isn't a requirement to playing D&D, and DMs can and do ignore pantheons and continents as they wish and always have. But to take them away from us, that was and remains inexcusable. The reason: they shrank the content despite the fact that people were using it, and they removed new versions of the sourcebooks for new players.
I play Neverwinter online, but I don't think of it as D&D. It may or may not use the latest 4E rules, but if that's how dumbed-down they've made the game, then it's so far below "basic" that I want no part of it. They were able to capture the 3E/3.5E rules in the original Neverwinter Nights with all of its myriad of spells and gods, and it was a lot of fun to play. The sequel, while somewhat lacking in story, was still fun. All those messy mechanics weren't difficult to grasp, and they worked hand-in-hand with the published rulebooks. I was happy to see THAC0 go away, but I digress. The game mechanics are different than the Realms themselves, and to that, I do not want a "complete" reboot. Abeir was totally unnecessary...that's why they had Spelljammer, after all. No reason to kill a planet to bring that about. But, they also killed a lot of great characters with the massive time jump. I liked the Seven Sisters, and I liked Azoun IV, Fi, and the others. Killing characters for a reason is part of artistic license, as George R. R. Martin proves, but just killing them by sweeping the timeline ahead seven decades?
Which brings me to my final point: continuity. We were introduced to "Ao" as "The Keeper of the Balance." Whether or not DMs chose to use him is irrelevant, he had absolute and total control over the world and keeping things "In Balance." He could wipe out the pantheon at will, he could create a new one. But he did all of this, if we are to believe the official, published novels, because he cared about mortals on Toril. I just don't see him letting Cyric kill his Goddess of Magic because he has a personal vendetta against her. Reset us to 3E and most (not all) people will be happy. We don't have to learn new geography, we don't have to learn a new pantheon, and the characters in the majority of books we like are still alive for us to tap as needed.
A note on cartography: we don't need highly-detailed maps of everywhere. The opening pages of the A Song of Ice and Fire series give just enough detail for us to track where things are in relationship to one another, but don't take up time explaining everything. That's what supplemental books are for, and as one who would buy them, I'd love to see them. But this notion that the core books are "overwhelming" can only be true if WoTC makes them so.
|
| Alruane |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 20:56:25
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
My heart says yes but my brain says no. I voted no because the setting can't afford to lose any more fans...and it WOULD lose more fans. Now, if they were to start printing material for all eras of play, so that players could decide which era to play in AND have new material to use, THAT'D BE GREAT. It's not going to happen, but it would be great.
Another reason fans should have a say in these changes, this would be perfect for EVERYONE! |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 20:55:07
My heart says yes but my brain says no. I voted no because the setting can't afford to lose any more fans...and it WOULD lose more fans. Now, if they were to start printing material for all eras of play, so that players could decide which era to play in AND have new material to use, THAT'D BE GREAT. It's not going to happen, but it would be great. |
| Alruane |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 19:51:55
I'm just going to go with No. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 16:38:49
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think your correct in that they're not going to please everyone and I'm not blind to the presumption that a good majority of Realms fans enjoy a pre-Spellplague setting. That being said, they could've given us an extreamly detailed source book that featured many intriciate details of Akanûl, Tymanther, and Laerakond in a similiar fashion they did with Neverwinter and the Menzoberranzan supplements. Having those, I wouldn't need to create anything new for these regions and it would've allowed me to maintain their presence in an extreamly detailed fashion after the Sundering.
I think that ultimately, it all boils down to money. I'm guessing they believe that the 4th Edition Realms have turned as much profit as they can reasonably expect, and now they're going to see how many of us will buy into the 'Sundered Realms' (for lack of a more accurate yet abbreviated description).
And I think Apex has the right of it - the geographical reset was yet another way for them to more easily (in other words, 'for less money') support all editions, and working from the same base map allows them to do that. I'm just really hoping we get the entirety of Toril this time around, at least a page or two devoted to a good world map. Just outlines and continent names would be fine, but they really need to consider doing that.
What I'm curious to find out about is how they handle the temporal and sociopolitical aspects. Does this 'reset' mean Szass Tam get another shot, now that his ruined homeland has 'rebooted'? Does Halruaa actually get its people back? Do the restored cities of Lantan have any...Lantanese? And of course, we have the iconic Realms personalities...not all of them had a decent exit story like Khelben did. I'll be interested to see if any of the ones who didn't get a fair shake this last time around show up.
I agree we should have had more source material - at the very least, I hope they'd do a sourcebook for Abeir, with all the Toril-born influences (and vice versa) that carried over (such as elves). At least then we'd be able to see the results of what happens after that world's geography reset. Apart from where it landed, Laerakond was one of the best things about the 4th Edition FRCG.
And deities...we can hope against hope they get that right.
- OMH
You brought up Halruua, my sorespot with the spellplague......I am deeply interested in it's restoration and how it is handled. |
| KacyCrawford |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 16:28:16
Yes,I would like to see it. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 21 Mar 2013 : 12:43:58
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think your correct in that they're not going to please everyone and I'm not blind to the presumption that a good majority of Realms fans enjoy a pre-Spellplague setting. That being said, they could've given us an extreamly detailed source book that featured many intriciate details of Akanûl, Tymanther, and Laerakond in a similiar fashion they did with Neverwinter and the Menzoberranzan supplements. Having those, I wouldn't need to create anything new for these regions and it would've allowed me to maintain their presence in an extreamly detailed fashion after the Sundering.
I think that ultimately, it all boils down to money. I'm guessing they believe that the 4th Edition Realms have turned as much profit as they can reasonably expect, and now they're going to see how many of us will buy into the 'Sundered Realms' (for lack of a more accurate yet abbreviated description).
And I think Apex has the right of it - the geographical reset was yet another way for them to more easily (in other words, 'for less money') support all editions, and working from the same base map allows them to do that. I'm just really hoping we get the entirety of Toril this time around, at least a page or two devoted to a good world map. Just outlines and continent names would be fine, but they really need to consider doing that.
What I'm curious to find out about is how they handle the temporal and sociopolitical aspects. Does this 'reset' mean Szass Tam get another shot, now that his ruined homeland has 'rebooted'? Does Halruaa actually get its people back? Do the restored cities of Lantan have any...Lantanese? And of course, we have the iconic Realms personalities...not all of them had a decent exit story like Khelben did. I'll be interested to see if any of the ones who didn't get a fair shake this last time around show up.
I agree we should have had more source material - at the very least, I hope they'd do a sourcebook for Abeir, with all the Toril-born influences (and vice versa) that carried over (such as elves). At least then we'd be able to see the results of what happens after that world's geography reset. Apart from where it landed, Laerakond was one of the best things about the 4th Edition FRCG.
And deities...we can hope against hope they get that right.
- OMH |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Mar 2013 : 03:42:05
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Let's face it - they're giving us back one aspect of the Realms that a goodly number of us demanded (geographical reset), and in my opinion, in the only manner they realistically can, the one that won't alienate the people who came in during 4th Edition. They've taken steps to not be arbitrary about it and say 'the universe shifted back to the way it was, that's all the explanation needed' - well, no, it isn't, and they know that, and they made it so that there is a good explanation.
And what might that be? Becaus Ao (an ambigious being created to change plot/setting at a whim) said so? Because that's the impression I got when reading some of their ideas about bringing back Mexico and Egypt into the Realms. Count me in the "Like" category of Akanûl, Tymanther, and Returned Abeir. I thought these areas had SO MUCH FRICKIN' POTENTIAL and was pretty much dropped in all but one or two Dungeons/Dragon articles plus the FRCG.
As for the Gods coming back, I'll handle them like I did last time (by ignoring their presence unless specifically called out by a player) *shruggs*. Though I am glad that they aren't doing any of that reset nonsense.
As for the 5E Rule, I'm planning another Playtest Party soon using the most revised version so far. They've made some substantial changes since out last one (which didn't go over too well TBO) and I'm hoping for a bit more optimism this time around. The inclusion of the Barbarian, Monk (and I might bring in the Warlock and Sorcerer even though they're discontinued as of yet) will help provide some additional diversity. I'm still leery about a number of mechanical changes that I don't think are being handled well but that'll go into the playtest feedback part.
The 5th Edition rules, I have no idea. I've not seen them, so I'm not qualified to comment on them. And even then, I'll do for them what I did for 4th...judge them on their own merit, rather than on the Realms. 4th Edition rules actually aren't bad. Some things (like 'healing surges') I absolutely despise, while other things (stepping on 3.X's endless multiclassing, for example), I thought was wonderful beyond words. I just ultimnately decided they weren't my cup of tea. It's a pick-and-choose environment, though from what you say, I'm going to have to jerry-rig warlocks and sorcerers back into the game if they aren't included when 5th rolls around.
And I misspoke - I should have said 'they are trying to alienate as few people as possible'. In something like this, someone is going to wind up feeling cheated. Am I willing to say that having Ao geographically reset everything, as if rebooting the Well of Souls, is the lazy man's solution?
Well...yeah, actually, I would. I, too, rather liked Laerakond, (Returned Abeir, take your pick on names), though I am one of those rare neutrals on the issue of Tymanther and Akanul versus Unther and Mulhorand...whichever solution they arrived at would have been fine with me (though I would have liked to keep High Imaskar). There are things a geographical reversion will bring back that I don't much like, Anauroch being the foremost coming to mind - I simply couldn't get into it, especially with the Bedine being so similar to Calims (and later Zakharans). But...eh...I'll live with it.
I truthfully don't see how else they could have done this. Serious statement, not trying to pick a fight. I am genuinely interested to know what else they could have done (as an academic exercise, of course). How else could they have mollified as many people as possible while annoying the fewest amount possible? Edition-bashing is a superfluous exercise these days (until 5th comes out, I'm sure there'll be plenty to say here in the Keep), so that affords us the luxury of speculation: What should they have done?
- OMH
I think your correct in that they're not going to please everyone and I'm not blind to the presumption that a good majority of Realms fans enjoy a pre-Spellplague setting. That being said, they could've given us an extreamly detailed source book that featured many intriciate details of Akanûl, Tymanther, and Laerakond in a similiar fashion they did with Neverwinter and the Menzoberranzan supplements. Having those, I wouldn't need to create anything new for these regions and it would've allowed me to maintain their presence in an extreamly detailed fashion after the Sundering.
|
| Apex |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 22:21:44
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I truthfully don't see how else they could have done this. Serious statement, not trying to pick a fight. I am genuinely interested to know what else they could have done (as an academic exercise, of course). How else could they have mollified as many people as possible while annoying the fewest amount possible? Edition-bashing is a superfluous exercise these days (until 5th comes out, I'm sure there'll be plenty to say here in the Keep), so that affords us the luxury of speculation: What should they have done?
- OMH
The reason for the map reversion/reboot is likely because if you are going to an "edition neutral" type of setting for information, then everyone needs to have the same base map for it to work. Hence the return to the earlier map, so as to allow all the old gamers back in without doing a ton of damage to the newer entrants, since there has been little published for the "new" regions.
I am still somewhat agnostic towards 5th, as rule wise I know I will stick with 1st/2nd, and I don't see what I am going to gain information wise that will help my 1340s DR campaign. But at least there is now a shimmer of hope for me that with the old maps they might actually put something out i can use. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 10:32:15
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Let's face it - they're giving us back one aspect of the Realms that a goodly number of us demanded (geographical reset), and in my opinion, in the only manner they realistically can, the one that won't alienate the people who came in during 4th Edition. They've taken steps to not be arbitrary about it and say 'the universe shifted back to the way it was, that's all the explanation needed' - well, no, it isn't, and they know that, and they made it so that there is a good explanation.
And what might that be? Becaus Ao (an ambigious being created to change plot/setting at a whim) said so? Because that's the impression I got when reading some of their ideas about bringing back Mexico and Egypt into the Realms. Count me in the "Like" category of Akanûl, Tymanther, and Returned Abeir. I thought these areas had SO MUCH FRICKIN' POTENTIAL and was pretty much dropped in all but one or two Dungeons/Dragon articles plus the FRCG.
As for the Gods coming back, I'll handle them like I did last time (by ignoring their presence unless specifically called out by a player) *shruggs*. Though I am glad that they aren't doing any of that reset nonsense.
As for the 5E Rule, I'm planning another Playtest Party soon using the most revised version so far. They've made some substantial changes since out last one (which didn't go over too well TBO) and I'm hoping for a bit more optimism this time around. The inclusion of the Barbarian, Monk (and I might bring in the Warlock and Sorcerer even though they're discontinued as of yet) will help provide some additional diversity. I'm still leery about a number of mechanical changes that I don't think are being handled well but that'll go into the playtest feedback part.
The 5th Edition rules, I have no idea. I've not seen them, so I'm not qualified to comment on them. And even then, I'll do for them what I did for 4th...judge them on their own merit, rather than on the Realms. 4th Edition rules actually aren't bad. Some things (like 'healing surges') I absolutely despise, while other things (stepping on 3.X's endless multiclassing, for example), I thought was wonderful beyond words. I just ultimnately decided they weren't my cup of tea. It's a pick-and-choose environment, though from what you say, I'm going to have to jerry-rig warlocks and sorcerers back into the game if they aren't included when 5th rolls around.
And I misspoke - I should have said 'they are trying to alienate as few people as possible'. In something like this, someone is going to wind up feeling cheated. Am I willing to say that having Ao geographically reset everything, as if rebooting the Well of Souls, is the lazy man's solution?
Well...yeah, actually, I would. I, too, rather liked Laerakond, (Returned Abeir, take your pick on names), though I am one of those rare neutrals on the issue of Tymanther and Akanul versus Unther and Mulhorand...whichever solution they arrived at would have been fine with me (though I would have liked to keep High Imaskar). There are things a geographical reversion will bring back that I don't much like, Anauroch being the foremost coming to mind - I simply couldn't get into it, especially with the Bedine being so similar to Calims (and later Zakharans). But...eh...I'll live with it.
I truthfully don't see how else they could have done this. Serious statement, not trying to pick a fight. I am genuinely interested to know what else they could have done (as an academic exercise, of course). How else could they have mollified as many people as possible while annoying the fewest amount possible? Edition-bashing is a superfluous exercise these days (until 5th comes out, I'm sure there'll be plenty to say here in the Keep), so that affords us the luxury of speculation: What should they have done?
- OMH |
| LordXenophon |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 18:26:50
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Because that's the impression I got when reading some of their ideas about bringing back Mexico and Egypt into the Realms.
You mean Maztica and Rauryn? They were already there and didn't need to be added. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 13:15:49
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by ksu_bond
I left because of the 4e changes to the Realms, not because of the new editions rules...
Enough time has passed that we know what the future holds, at least in some respects. The Sundering is their answer to what has gone before.
What we know:
*There will be a complete geographical reset by Ao back to the Old Grey Box-era configuration. I may have the era slightly wrong, but all the big changes wrought by the Sellplague/time jump are going bye-bye, such as Returned Abeir, Tymanther, and Akanul.
*There will be no reboot - what has come before will not be erased, but the timeline will continue forward.
*Many of the old gods are coming back. With a couple of definite exceptions, one person's guess as to which ones in as good as anyone else's.
Most other details are under wraps. I may have left a few released details out (unintentionally), but what we have learned has made me cautiously optimistic. I am one of the biggest grognards amongst all grognards, but I've set aside the funds for this purchase...if I didn't think I had a good chance of being impressed with the effort, I wouldn't have done that. I'm willing to give it the chance it's asking for.
- OMH
If I am not mistaken, they are also making the 5E FR source books edition neutral. This means that we can play in whatever era of the Realms that we want and it should be supported by the source books. Thus, it seems to me that the most hated changes such as the time jump will only continue to impact those who read the novels.
In addition to this, they're working on a way to update and re-release all previous edition source books in digital format. This means all the great source books that came out during 2E will be accessible again. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 12:26:46
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Let's face it - they're giving us back one aspect of the Realms that a goodly number of us demanded (geographical reset), and in my opinion, in the only manner they realistically can, the one that won't alienate the people who came in during 4th Edition. They've taken steps to not be arbitrary about it and say 'the universe shifted back to the way it was, that's all the explanation needed' - well, no, it isn't, and they know that, and they made it so that there is a good explanation.
And what might that be? Becaus Ao (an ambigious being created to change plot/setting at a whim) said so? Because that's the impression I got when reading some of their ideas about bringing back Mexico and Egypt into the Realms. Count me in the "Like" category of Akanûl, Tymanther, and Returned Abeir. I thought these areas had SO MUCH FRICKIN' POTENTIAL and was pretty much dropped in all but one or two Dungeons/Dragon articles plus the FRCG.
As for the Gods coming back, I'll handle them like I did last time (by ignoring their presence unless specifically called out by a player) *shruggs*. Though I am glad that they aren't doing any of that reset nonsense.
As for the 5E Rule, I'm planning another Playtest Party soon using the most revised version so far. They've made some substantial changes since out last one (which didn't go over too well TBO) and I'm hoping for a bit more optimism this time around. The inclusion of the Barbarian, Monk (and I might bring in the Warlock and Sorcerer even though they're discontinued as of yet) will help provide some additional diversity. I'm still leery about a number of mechanical changes that I don't think are being handled well but that'll go into the playtest feedback part. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 11:38:02
quote:
Originally posted by LordXenophon
Why would I want to erase all that, just because somebody who isn't Ed Greenwood wants to completely change the Realms? To me, the Gray Box, post Time of Troubles, is definately the era to be in. Many people posting in this thread seem to agree, or to have other old eras they prefer.
I am definitely an 'Old Grey Boxer' (just old and grey, really), and while I can't fault you for your reservations, the simple truth is that there's no going back. A reboot is categorically out of the question, and they're not going to do any other sort of rewind.
Any issues (beloved NPC's are one of mine) that may remain after the release of the latest effort...well, the time to deal with that will be then. For now, we have to put faith in the outlook that Ed himself has for this effort, which seems to strike a positive tone overall.
Let's face it - they're giving us back one aspect of the Realms that a goodly number of us demanded (geographical reset), and in my opinion, in the only manner they realistically can, the one that won't alienate the people who came in during 4th Edition. They've taken steps to not be arbitrary about it and say 'the universe shifted back to the way it was, that's all the explanation needed' - well, no, it isn't, and they know that, and they made it so that there is a good explanation.
I'm sure there will be things I don't like. That's unavoidable, because you can't please all the people all the time. But they're doing their best to listen to us this time around, all of us. I say we wait and see what they offer us before dismissing their effort - even in 4th Edition, they gave us Neverwinter, which I think we can safely say was a superior product. Let's take it on faith that this is a trend that's going to continue.
- OMH |
| Lilianviaten |
Posted - 10 Mar 2013 : 01:11:50
Does anybody know what the significance of "Rise of the Underdark" is in relation to the Sundering? I didn't really all the books in that RSE, because some were only in ebook format. The big enemies for 4e are supposed to be Thay, Abolethic Sovereignty, Netherese, and Drow. Thay and the Netherese have made major moves, and the Abolethic Sovereignty has made a bit of noise (though they have been underused, in my opinion). What did the drow accomplish in the Rise of the Underdark? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 22:29:31
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
However, I don't think that fixes things enough... the biggest problem that 4th E had was that in an instant the hundreds, if not thousands of rich characters were wiped out. From a writer's perspective this might not be all that bad, but from the perspective of someone who is not great at making game characters feel "real" it was a terrible loss.
There are very few campaigns that have introduced more than a small percentage of all the known Realms NPCs from the pre-Spellplague era.
This is fortunate, because the easiest thing for a DM not all that skilled in creating NPCs to do is simply use those old NPCs in his or her post-Spellplague game. That and a DM also has the option to simply change an NPC's name, but keep the NPC description.
Borrowing NPCs from earlier eras of the Realms is really no different than borrowing names and character ideas from other game worlds and from sources outside of D&D, save that doing the former keeps a hefty dose of proper flavor.
I do it all the time and my game is the better for it. |
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 22:22:28
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I mentioned before, Ed told me -- personally, in an email, and entirely unprompted -- that he was excited about what was coming. That's good enough for me.
This simple fact and the release of Ed's latest work is why I'm back...if the creator of the setting that I love is excited about what's coming then that gives me reason to be as well...I was holding out hope for 4e but looking back on it I should have heeded Ed's reservations regarding the changes...
That being said I have never ceased my personal endeavors into the Realms, unfortunately the 4e Realms has offered little and as a result I have in corporated little from it. That being said I have found a place for the Spellplague, and incorporated it as a variation of the Wild Magic areas that deteriated due to the "attempted" assassination of Mystra...
So let this be my official return to being an active part of the Realms once again, as well as an active member of the Candlekeep community...now I'll just have to see if I can't drag Kuje back :) |
| LordXenophon |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 19:51:51
It doesn't really matter what they do to their version of the Realms. My players no longer live there. Their timeline diverged at the death of King Azoun IV, which they prevented. They went on to save several other of the major characters, rebuild Castle Dragonspear, kill Hobarth three times and then throw him into the Fountain of Nepenthe while he was trying to resurrect Bha'al, turn the Fountain of Nepenthe into one of the holiest sites of the church of Mystra, and establish a school of wizardry which specializes in Abjuration. One of the player characters (Erystalben Majarra) even became a Magister, then retired from adventuring to serve under Azuth as the god of abjurers.
Why would I want to erase all that, just because somebody who isn't Ed Greenwood wants to completely change the Realms? To me, the Gray Box, post Time of Troubles, is definately the era to be in. Many people posting in this thread seem to agree, or to have other old eras they prefer.
I do understand that somebody at WotC decided that there was too much rampant magic in the Realms, but that's why we choose to play in that world. WotC should respect that and give us the magical world that Greenwood created. If you want a world of mostly fighters and rogues, you can always play one of the other D&D worlds. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 18:09:00
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by ksu_bond
I left because of the 4e changes to the Realms, not because of the new editions rules...
Enough time has passed that we know what the future holds, at least in some respects. The Sundering is their answer to what has gone before.
What we know:
*There will be a complete geographical reset by Ao back to the Old Grey Box-era configuration. I may have the era slightly wrong, but all the big changes wrought by the Sellplague/time jump are going bye-bye, such as Returned Abeir, Tymanther, and Akanul.
*There will be no reboot - what has come before will not be erased, but the timeline will continue forward.
*Many of the old gods are coming back. With a couple of definite exceptions, one person's guess as to which ones in as good as anyone else's.
Most other details are under wraps. I may have left a few released details out (unintentionally), but what we have learned has made me cautiously optimistic. I am one of the biggest grognards amongst all grognards, but I've set aside the funds for this purchase...if I didn't think I had a good chance of being impressed with the effort, I wouldn't have done that. I'm willing to give it the chance it's asking for.
- OMH
I'm very much in favor of restoring the old gray box realms and the geography of the FR atlas.
I'm also a huge fan of the restoration of the gods.
However, I don't think that fixes things enough... the biggest problem that 4th E had was that in an instant the hundreds, if not thousands of rich characters were wiped out. From a writer's perspective this might not be all that bad, but from the perspective of someone who is not great at making game characters feel "real" it was a terrible loss.
I don't know if I'd reset to before the time of troubles as one or two suggested. I think that would be over-reaching. But I'd definitely go back to pre-spell plague. To those few who enjoyed those novels so much that it really bothers you I'd say it should not be too hard to keep what you liked without the spellplague. Or if you really like the spellplague you could simply make it a local phenomenon, not unlike wild magic areas, or maybe wild magic areas gone amok. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 17:55:53
IDK if this is what it means, but if the question is would I like to see the Forgotten Realms rebooted to say, 1300-1360 DR the answer is a resounding yes. The biggest reason is its an instant restoration of the best rpg setting and richest NPCs ever created. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 17:04:57
I can't wait until 5E drops. Definitely curious as to how things are going to play out. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 15:10:22
As I mentioned before, Ed told me -- personally, in an email, and entirely unprompted -- that he was excited about what was coming. That's good enough for me. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 05:45:43
quote:
Originally posted by ksu_bond
I left because of the 4e changes to the Realms, not because of the new editions rules...
Enough time has passed that we know what the future holds, at least in some respects. The Sundering is their answer to what has gone before.
What we know:
*There will be a complete geographical reset by Ao back to the Old Grey Box-era configuration. I may have the era slightly wrong, but all the big changes wrought by the Sellplague/time jump are going bye-bye, such as Returned Abeir, Tymanther, and Akanul.
*There will be no reboot - what has come before will not be erased, but the timeline will continue forward.
*Many of the old gods are coming back. With a couple of definite exceptions, one person's guess as to which ones in as good as anyone else's.
Most other details are under wraps. I may have left a few released details out (unintentionally), but what we have learned has made me cautiously optimistic. I am one of the biggest grognards amongst all grognards, but I've set aside the funds for this purchase...if I didn't think I had a good chance of being impressed with the effort, I wouldn't have done that. I'm willing to give it the chance it's asking for.
- OMH |
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 09 Mar 2013 : 00:24:35
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
At the end of the day, it will be the consensus they must go with, no matter what any of want individually.
I think I've only seen two others with my exact attitude/preference; Jorkens was one, can't remember the other. Basically, what we want, and what we think is best for the game (and FR) are two separate animals. They cannot afford to disenfranchise the fans they have - they tried that and we got 4e (which has lead us straight here).
If not handled delicately, 5e could blow up in their faces all over again.
But if they stayed with the current model I'm sure a change of edition wouldn't bring back those who left. I thought what happened to the Realms was what caused people to leave, not the 4th edition rules. I left FR because the Spellplague was the dumbest thing ever and what happened afterwards.
Pretty much a new edition isn't going to suddenly make people like the change.
I left because of the 4e changes to the Realms, not because of the new editions rules... |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 24 Oct 2012 : 02:46:18
IMO diversity is key especially over a product line stretching many years. Every story being a tragedy is just as boring as every story having the hero winning the day. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 23 Oct 2012 : 23:22:37
Mmm, point taken. I guess it would depend on the story/tragedy then. I don't think a character with a perfect life would be very interesting. Heck, plenty of my characters have had terrible pasts that they have to try and overcome. Some author once said (and the name escapes me) "put your characters through hell, but give them a happy ending". Or at least semi-happy. With the Haiti example, yes, I'd probably want to read about the founding of the school (Haiti needs them, after all). And if the story continued after the earthquake, I wouldn't expect it to be "woo, happy ending". What I'd expect to see (and this would depend on how far you took the story) would be them in the "recovery stages", with maybe some promises/hopes to rebuild. A lot of books I've read, after the "big thing", if you will, has happened, people are working to rebuild--be it a city or something else. There are exceptions, but I haven't read many books where whatever was destroyed was completely rebuild at the end. It was in the recovery stage, so to speak.
I like trials and tribulations in a story. If no suffering happened, it would be a pretty boring story. And stirring up the emotions of the reader is part of what makes a good author. So I'm not against characters suffering, be they my own or someone else's. I just like my endings to be at least semi-happy.
So ulmitately, it would depend on the story. There was a lot about the Spellplague I didn't like, but I still read the Realms, and I'm reading some pre-Spellplague stuff. So yeah, depends. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 23 Oct 2012 : 19:52:19
Well, I enjoy bittersweet endings, myself, with happy endings being something that need to be earned and suffered for.
But, say I were to write a story set in the real world in Haiti a year before that earthquake hit. About a missionary or a charity worker or just a concerned citizen working to build a school for at risk children or some such. An inspiring tale of working to make the world a better place.
Is the merits of that story invalidated because, inevitably, an earthquake is going to hit and reduce the school they worked so hard to build to rubble? Or is it simply a new challenge put in their path to be overcome?
To me, the Spellplague is just another challenge the world must face and overcome, and possibly a gift to be harnessed and utilized(Big supporter of the Order of Blue Fire). It shook up the status quo- took a sledge hammer to it, really- but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Gives people a chance to grow in unexpected ways and develop in new directions.
Suffering builds character. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 23 Oct 2012 : 19:36:27
Haha yet another thing we disagree on XD I'm not a big fan of tragedy. I don't expect--or want--the stories to be all all happy and fluffy. There needs to be some conflict, otherwise you wouldn't have much of a story. And fantasy makes for epic conflict. But I like at least semi-happy endings. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 23 Oct 2012 : 09:08:52
I personally consider the realms, and all D&D settings save maybe Dragonlance, to be game/RP worlds first and novel worlds second. I think the novels help add a lot of depth and color to the world, help expand it, and are a wellspring of inspiration for character behavior within the setting, but I don't feel particularly bound to see any of them as canon within my games.
For instance, I loved Erik's novel, Shadowbane, painted a great picture of Luskan and I've been toying around with setting an rp there in the basic time frame of the novel, but it would completely disregard the ending. And the better part of the middle, for that matter.
Anyway, knowing impending catastrophe is coming doesn't invalidate the accomplishments or adventures of a party set before the Spellplague or before the Time of Troubles, unless it takes place literally the day before. To me, it's one of those things that adds a sense of tragedy to the world. And I'm a big fan of tragedy.
|
|
|
