| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Apex |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 19:40:48
That is the year the first Forgotten Realms Novel (Darkwalker of Moonshae) took place. How would you do it? What (if any) reason would you give? Would all the now "future lore" still be canon or would it be a total reset? How fast would you move the timeline forward once you reset? What/whose stories would you want to hear about that were "skipped" the first time? Let's skip the debate on whether you would like this or not and what ruleset gets used. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 13:47:47
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
That is the year the first Forgotten Realms Novel (Darkwalker of Moonshae) took place. How would you do it? What (if any) reason would you give? Would all the now "future lore" still be canon or would it be a total reset? How fast would you move the timeline forward once you reset? What/whose stories would you want to hear about that were "skipped" the first time? Let's skip the debate on whether you would like this or not and what ruleset gets used.
I did this almost exact same thing for one of my campaigns (I set my timeline start to 1356 DR). I started my players out as 1st lvl characters. I played them through the ToT. I used it as a means to play through other things that may have been happening in the realms at the time. At that particular time, I had it that fiendish powers that had tapped into deific power were also cast down in avatar form (in that instance, I had my players face off against an avatar of Orcus and kind of skewed the backstory of what Gareth and company had actually accomplished in the abyss... i.e. Gareth and company had recovered Orcus' wand, but they didn't take it from Orcus himself, and Gareth's group actually had some clandestine aid from some Dark Elves worshipping Kiaransalee). Of course, I think later timelines made the whole Gareth / Orcus thing happen prior to the ToT, but it was a fun campaign. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 12:59:28
I'd love to see material published on the 1340s or 50s Realms, but I don't see it in terms of a reset or reboot, just putting focus on the original (and by far the most detailed, including unpublished material, and also arguably the most open) Realms. Since I'm not a fan of the ongoing timeline, at least in its RSE-filled, big-jumping form, a new replacement timeline flowing from that point isn't so much of a thing for me. I'd love to see an article by Ed sketching how things might go if the Avatar Crisis didn't occur -- I say 'might' because both it and the existing timeline are hypothetical possibilities in my imagination and campaigns. Beyond that, I have to side with the second-guessers in thinking a 'new' timeline would be more trouble, overall, than it's worth, and that freeing the novel programme from the latest 'now' of the history would achieve much of the same, as well as being a profitable move.
But 'canon' has never concerned me much either. Rather than a particular fixed way a reworked timeline might go, I would be happy if the new Realms works revive Ed's tools of making the Realms live: above all current clack, adventure seeds and full adventures, of the kind we got in the 1987 set and Polyhedron, which don't need to be fixed to a particular year to do their work. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 06:23:15
yeah they were saying they were spening to much moeny and not getting enough profit for each campaign....
well they did say at the start of 4e, that it would be three books per setting.
a campign, character and one adveunre....
I thikn it would ahve been better if they did three books
one campiagn, one character and a deity book.
screw the adventure to ddi.
btw dont know if anyone cares but the 4e supplement heroes of the elemental chaos listed akadi and the other primordials in one of the last preview articles....
too much info spread out to far..... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 06:18:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I'd always thought Dragonlance enjoyed greater popularity than Greyhawk ... I mean, Greyhawk was gloriously supreme for some years, but it became a ghost town the moment Dragonlance and the Realms showed up, it barely squeaked into 2E. I think, really, the only people still loving Greyhawk are the same ones who grew up playing it in the late 70s and early 80s, for most of us Greyhawk is just "another" place to visit when collecting spells and items. So it seems quite odd to me that Wizbro would decide to keep forcibly recycling Greyhawk while allowing Dragonlance (and Ravenloft) to languish in legal doldrums.
In terms of DRAGONLANCE, it almost always seemed to sell better as a novel-line. When the conversion to the SAGA rules came along, that hurt the game, I think, in terms of how it was received among the general RPG community. When the shift to 3e began, a lot of those older fans were initially won over when the 3e DLCS was released in August 2003.
As for RAVENLOFT... aside from the high-point of sales it enjoyed back in the early 90's -- when TSR campaign settings were at their peak of popularity -- I don't think it's ever enjoyed repeated success in sales. Even the White Wolf 3e books sold poorly for the most part, due to the fact that the publisher couldn't make specific references to all the other campaign-specific elements of other worlds influencing the Dread Domains, because of the separation of Crystal Spheres under the 3e planar cosmology. So a great many historical elements of the setting had to be re-written and/or changed to reflect the absence of those influences from settings like the FORGOTTEN REALMS and DRAGONLANCE. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 06:14:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Sagequote:
Jorkens
If these books are a success they can do what was done in the 3ed. Dragonlance namely single volume books for different eras.
That's a workable plan. Those various "Age" volumes of the 3e DRAGONLANCE setting were tremendously well received among the community. Though only several of these tomes were released, they each focused specifically on a certain period of Krynnish history.
I hate to ask, but why exactly did a product line that was well received fade into obscurity? Was Dragonlance basically abandoned because the Realms was a "better" official setting?
When the license Sovereign Press were using to publish the 3e books expired in April 2007, Weis made the announcement that Wizards of the Coast would not renew Sovereign's license agreement to continue publishing 3e products for DRAGONLANCE. As such, the licensing IP reverted back to Wizards... and it's sat in limbo since.
The same thing happened with White Wolf's license for producing 3e RAVENLOFT books as well.
I'd imagine that Wizards had some plans, here, and subsequent events wound up delaying/cancelling those plans.
Well, 'twas about a year and a half after those events, that Wizards rumoured the possibility of DRAGONLANCE being one of the annual campaign settings for 4e, which was eventually supplanted by, first, EBERRON, and then DARK SUN. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 06:13:37
Your personal speculation is quite sensible. It would also cast some light onto Dragonlance, if one considered it as a "dead" setting unless/until Weis and Hickman could be brought (bought?) onboard.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 06:05:23
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I'd always thought Dragonlance enjoyed greater popularity than Greyhawk ... I mean, Greyhawk was gloriously supreme for some years, but it became a ghost town the moment Dragonlance and the Realms showed up, it barely squeaked into 2E. I think, really, the only people still loving Greyhawk are the same ones who grew up playing it in the late 70s and early 80s, for most of us Greyhawk is just "another" place to visit when collecting spells and items. So it seems quite odd to me that Wizbro would decide to keep forcibly recycling Greyhawk while allowing Dragonlance (and Ravenloft) to languish in legal doldrums.
It is my opinion -- and really, it's just pure speculation -- that 3E using Greyhawk as the default setting was part of the price of getting Gary Gygax back aboard. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 05:52:43
I'd always thought Dragonlance enjoyed greater popularity than Greyhawk ... I mean, Greyhawk was gloriously supreme for some years, but it became a ghost town the moment Dragonlance and the Realms showed up, it barely squeaked into 2E. I think, really, the only people still loving Greyhawk are the same ones who grew up playing it in the late 70s and early 80s, for most of us Greyhawk is just "another" place to visit when collecting spells and items. So it seems quite odd to me that Wizbro would decide to keep forcibly recycling Greyhawk while allowing Dragonlance (and Ravenloft) to languish in legal doldrums. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 05:37:51
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Sagequote:
Jorkens
If these books are a success they can do what was done in the 3ed. Dragonlance namely single volume books for different eras.
That's a workable plan. Those various "Age" volumes of the 3e DRAGONLANCE setting were tremendously well received among the community. Though only several of these tomes were released, they each focused specifically on a certain period of Krynnish history.
I hate to ask, but why exactly did a product line that was well received fade into obscurity? Was Dragonlance basically abandoned because the Realms was a "better" official setting?
When the license Sovereign Press were using to publish the 3e books expired in April 2007, Weis made the announcement that Wizards of the Coast would not renew Sovereign's license agreement to continue publishing 3e products for DRAGONLANCE. As such, the licensing IP reverted back to Wizards... and it's sat in limbo since.
The same thing happened with White Wolf's license for producing 3e RAVENLOFT books as well.
I'd imagine that Wizards had some plans, here, and subsequent events wound up delaying/cancelling those plans. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 03:19:47
And then on the wotc forums a poster will sometimes show up time to time and ask about the history of a certain location, item, race, or organization.
someone there was asking about the monk orders in teh 4e FR.
myself, I'd rather deal with it regardless of the era and not have what happened in the past no longer matter.sure it still would be ancient history and wont matter on a broad sence.....ummm I lost my train of thought... not good if anybody rides a train down this track and you find my derailed train of thought, stop and check for survivors.... |
| WalkerNinja |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 03:09:46
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
You also said "If some want to ignore the 4E era, let them." and I ask, what's stopping people from doing that now?
The reason people can't do it now is because the common language of the Realms is lost. Before the 100 year time jump, every new thing was in some way related to a old things.
There's always new fans, and they buy the new material. That's what they know. But it's the common background that always tied new fans and old fans together. The past was always relevant to the present.
This is not the case any longer.
Now new fans buy the new material (as they should), but the new material operates totally independently of its forebears.
Old fans that reject the new world find that they no longer connect with the new fans, and they become a shrinking population as they move away from each other, die, or leave the hobby.
I'd rather play through the Spell Plague era than just leave everything we loved in a 100 year deep hole. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 03:09:20
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Sagequote:
Jorkens
If these books are a success they can do what was done in the 3ed. Dragonlance namely single volume books for different eras.
That's a workable plan. Those various "Age" volumes of the 3e DRAGONLANCE setting were tremendously well received among the community. Though only several of these tomes were released, they each focused specifically on a certain period of Krynnish history.
I hate to ask, but why exactly did a product line that was well received fade into obscurity? Was Dragonlance basically abandoned because the Realms was a "better" official setting?
When the license Sovereign Press were using to publish the 3e books expired in April 2007, Weis made the announcement that Wizards of the Coast would not renew Sovereign's license agreement to continue publishing 3e products for DRAGONLANCE. As such, the licensing IP reverted back to Wizards... and it's sat in limbo since.
The same thing happened with White Wolf's license for producing 3e RAVENLOFT books as well. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 02:11:14
quote:
Sagequote:
Jorkens
If these books are a success they can do what was done in the 3ed. Dragonlance namely single volume books for different eras.
That's a workable plan. Those various "Age" volumes of the 3e DRAGONLANCE setting were tremendously well received among the community. Though only several of these tomes were released, they each focused specifically on a certain period of Krynnish history.
I hate to ask, but why exactly did a product line that was well received fade into obscurity? Was Dragonlance basically abandoned because the Realms was a "better" official setting? |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 19 Jan 2012 : 08:07:09
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Their idea, as I currently perceive it (they've been pretty open about it), is to release products in all eras. Its a nice idea, IN THEORY.
The first thing I say to myself is "why bother?" In the 3e era - we all know the world goes to s**t in 1385. If the Spellplague remains canon, then it is rather pointless to 'save the world' in 1384 DR.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here - I don't give a rats arse in my own games - they are all homebrew anyway. I only care about canon in regards to storylines, useable 'current clack', and the Realms in-general (which I suppose means the novels). However, there are people out there who adhere to canon, and complain every time something 'goes wonky' in regards to their own game (strange, I know). I used Khelben in my 1380's campaign - so what? I was annoyed, but fudged things amicably.
This is why I - and most folks - don't bother with 'past' campaigns. I understand there are folks who do enjoy them, but they are in the minority (IMO). They tried this before - I think the "Arcane Age' product line was a complete failure (gaming-wise; it did give us gobs of lore to build on). Seriously, how many people actually PLAYED in the Arcane Age, as opposed to just buying the products for the lore? They need to look at that, before they try this multi-era thingy. There is a feeling of 'futility' that goes with past-gaming.
All IMHO, of course.
I agree entirely... and this is why I think we need a "split-future" timeline; I've talked about it in various other threads in the last couple of days, and I think it's the only way to make an "all eras" Realms work, because (imho) the only reason to play pre-Spellplague now is to try to prevent it. If WotC had taken its own advice and allowed the PCs to be the big heroes... and prevent the Spellplague all by themselves in the mega-module trilogy... that would have gone over FAR better than what was done. So they should take their own advice, allow the PCs to prevent the Spellplague, and make the 4E timeline an alternate reality... as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'd call it "Realms-404"... 
Which threads have you brought this up in? I must have missed those.
Anyways, this is basically a reverse of the Star Trek-style reboot proposed earlier, but the results are much the same - you get a timeline that will (likely, IMO) get the lion's share of people's interest, but Sellplague-timeline folks still get to retain their main timeline of interest.
The only way this wouldn't be the case is if Wizbro decided that the 'reboot' was the only one worth keeping, and decided to simply deep-six the Sellplague Realms. This, I believe, is the main reason we are seeing such entrenched resistance to the idea of dual timelines, and your concept of heroes actually being in the limelight before the Blue Fire events (particularly if the characters know what the stakes are) - the very real possibility that the Sellplague Realms may simply be written off by Wizbro as a bad idea. And they (the Blue Fire Group, as I think of Sellplague Realms fans) may very well be right.
There's some material in 1480 DR Faerun worth keeping - most things in the Neverwinter book are easily 'ported, and even the FRCS had some awesome stuff - High Imaskar and Returned Abeir (despite its execrable location) come to mind. But with everything as hush-hush as it is at Wizbro, we really won't get any idea of what they're planning until it's all but finished.
Anyways, a 1345 reset would certainly open up the future field - even at that early stage, though, players (and thus adventurers) would still have 'prevent the Sellplague' firmly in mind (if they were of a mind to do so), and I know my own players would be doing exactly that - to the point where I know the chap who plays a paladin would have zero compunction about said paladin hunting down pre-ascended Cyric and cutting him down where he stood without preamble.
That said, I think a 1345 reset unlikely. I wouldn't mind, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see it.
- OMH |
| Jakk |
Posted - 19 Jan 2012 : 06:51:56
Oh, and it goes without saying that Halaster somehow survives. A Realms without Halaster might as well go through the Spellplague.  |
| Jakk |
Posted - 19 Jan 2012 : 06:46:16
To get this scroll back on topic: a reset to 1345DR would be interesting, and it might give Ed an opportunity to get the *complete* Haunted Halls published (with all of its foreshadowings of the Spellplague)... but I don't like the slow pace of timeline advancement. I would prefer to do a minor reset back to 1375, also erasing the War of the Spider Queen (because its only purpose was to make the drow one-dimensional again)... and I choose 1375 because it's the last year in the GHotR with specifically-dated events. Post-1375, events in the GhotR belong to the "Realms-404" timeline, and events proceeding from a successful prevention of the Spellplague belong to the main new-edition timeline. At least, that's how I'd do it. It keeps the Spellplague and post-Spellplague Realms around for those who want to write and game in that setting, and it gives the rest of us a chance to see what would happen if we (the PCs) managed to successfully prevent the Spellplague... after all, the point is that the PCs are the heroes, right?  |
| Jakk |
Posted - 19 Jan 2012 : 06:31:40
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Their idea, as I currently perceive it (they've been pretty open about it), is to release products in all eras. Its a nice idea, IN THEORY.
The first thing I say to myself is "why bother?" In the 3e era - we all know the world goes to s**t in 1385. If the Spellplague remains canon, then it is rather pointless to 'save the world' in 1384 DR.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here - I don't give a rats arse in my own games - they are all homebrew anyway. I only care about canon in regards to storylines, useable 'current clack', and the Realms in-general (which I suppose means the novels). However, there are people out there who adhere to canon, and complain every time something 'goes wonky' in regards to their own game (strange, I know). I used Khelben in my 1380's campaign - so what? I was annoyed, but fudged things amicably.
This is why I - and most folks - don't bother with 'past' campaigns. I understand there are folks who do enjoy them, but they are in the minority (IMO). They tried this before - I think the "Arcane Age' product line was a complete failure (gaming-wise; it did give us gobs of lore to build on). Seriously, how many people actually PLAYED in the Arcane Age, as opposed to just buying the products for the lore? They need to look at that, before they try this multi-era thingy. There is a feeling of 'futility' that goes with past-gaming.
All IMHO, of course.
I agree entirely... and this is why I think we need a "split-future" timeline; I've talked about it in various other threads in the last couple of days, and I think it's the only way to make an "all eras" Realms work, because (imho) the only reason to play pre-Spellplague now is to try to prevent it. If WotC had taken its own advice and allowed the PCs to be the big heroes... and prevent the Spellplague all by themselves in the mega-module trilogy... that would have gone over FAR better than what was done. So they should take their own advice, allow the PCs to prevent the Spellplague, and make the 4E timeline an alternate reality... as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'd call it "Realms-404"... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Jan 2012 : 00:53:55
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
If these books are a success they can do what was done in the 3ed. Dragonlance namely single volume books for different eras.
That's a workable plan. Those various "Age" volumes of the 3e DRAGONLANCE setting were tremendously well received among the community. Though only several of these tomes were released, they each focused specifically on a certain period of Krynnish history.
I"d actually recommend one step further, as evidenced by the War of the Lance tome, and suggest that one singular Realms source also offer alternate realities/histories based on changes to particular historical events across the history of the Realms. The War of the Lance tome offered some intriguing alternate developments that were detailed as "mini-campaign settings" within the entirety of the DRAGONLANCE setting.
This, then, would help to satisfy those individuals who wish for the "alternate realities" scenario. I think Sovereign Press proved themselves to be rather innovative with this sourcebook format. |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 19:58:15
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
On longer era-spans, like AA* to OGB, or even 3e to 4e, there shouldn't be any problem, as I see it.
But what happens when your circa 1e era game hits the wall of the ToT? If you ignore it and continue past it, you've pretty much invalidated most of the 2e, 3e, and 4e product-lines. I'm not saying this won't work - I'm just asking precisely the kinds of questions the 5e designers must be asking themselves right now.
I think that for major events (ToT, Return of Shade, Spellplague) that the fanbase has to come to grips with the idea that if they choose to ignore these events they will have to wing it a little and that official products that deal with those events or affected areas will be less useful to them. There realy isn't an easy way around that without going down the train wreck alternate realities route. I think the best the designers could do for that problem is to make some notes and suggestions for how to keep on going. ToT? Certain gods never died and got replaced. Or, it never happened at all. Don't like the return of Shade, then they never came back, the Sharn Wall wasn't breached, and Sembia is still controlled by Sembians. Or, maybe make some web based articles that follow certain "what if?" type scenarios out a few steps. Similar to Marvel's "What If?" comic series they would likely be single "issues" that explore a limited range of possible impacts.
I agree that the designers need to ask these kinds of questions and if possible try to get a feel for how the buying public might receive their ideas.
quote:
And the canon Realms MUST be established, because without a set canon, the novel continuity crumbles like a rope of sand. How will they divorce 'novel canon' (THE canon) from the game material? Will they {finally} say that novels are non-canon? I like that idea, but I also know most folks here don't (an it would probably ruin the IP - that concept never worked in GH, and I don't think its working for Eb).
I agree that a singular canon needs to be set in stone. To a large extent they have done that with SW (with one man being the only thing that can really cause major headaches when he chooses to) and I think they need to look to their model. A large database of names, places, events, artifacts, etc needs to be established and made permanent. Then as new material comes about it needs to be crosschecked against this database and when it passes it is added to the database. As I understand it, this is what they do for SW (I could be wrong though). It would take some serious work, but if it is done then they can support past eras with little worry of stepping on the toes of future events.
I also believe the novels should remain canon. I think it's a bit late in the game to shift course on that one.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 19:10:10
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Okay, I need to go through this one more time, how I see it (and since we've already established that folks don't even agree on terminology, this may not be the way everyone else sees it).
Reset = Producing new products for an earlier (then the last official campaign date) time period. You have basically 'Reset' the clock.
Gotcha. Well I can work with this as it doesn't disrupt the future I'll still be playing in. I don't mind supplements that work in this era (meaning produced with the circa 1300's DR). But I hope that doesn't discourage other timelines of the Realms such as 1400's from getting lore and the like as well. Why not just support all times though, each supplement having a wide range of locale and events that take place through out FR's history?
I mean, they could put out a type of "Volo's Guide of the Western Heartlands" and do each era of events that happen there in, with famous people who've come and gone and a bunch of other lore-heavy aspects from 1350 to 1480 DR. They could add in "the next D&D" rules here and it'll work out well. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 19:01:12
On longer era-spans, like AA* to OGB, or even 3e to 4e, there shouldn't be any problem, as I see it.
But what happens when your circa 1e era game hits the wall of the ToT? If you ignore it and continue past it, you've pretty much invalidated most of the 2e, 3e, and 4e product-lines. I'm not saying this won't work - I'm just asking precisely the kinds of questions the 5e designers must be asking themselves right now.
And the canon Realms MUST be established, because without a set canon, the novel continuity crumbles like a rope of sand. How will they divorce 'novel canon' (THE canon) from the game material? Will they {finally} say that novels are non-canon? I like that idea, but I also know most folks here don't (an it would probably ruin the IP - that concept never worked in GH, and I don't think its working for Eb).
*Arcane Age |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 18:45:27
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This is why I - and most folks - don't bother with 'past' campaigns. I understand there are folks who do enjoy them, but they are in the minority (IMO). They tried this before - I think the "Arcane Age' product line was a complete failure (gaming-wise; it did give us gobs of lore to build on). Seriously, how many people actually PLAYED in the Arcane Age, as opposed to just buying the products for the lore? They need to look at that, before they try this multi-era thingy. There is a feeling of 'futility' that goes with past-gaming.
All IMHO, of course.
There seem to be a few people who believe that a majority of Realms fans are either playing in a "past" campaign since they didn't make the time jump (or possibly didn't make earlier time jumps) or are just not playing in the Realms.
I do think that it could be viable. Consider it like this. You have a group that hates the Spellplague so in their campaign it was somehow stopped and time moves on. They need to know what else was happening in the world at that point. They may still want other plot hooks, NPCs, regional info, etc. The types of information that we will never have enough of. If they are going to go their own way, while still trying to make use of existing information, I assume they will have a use for products set in the past. Likewise with info from the immediate-post Spellplague world. Some events that played out were already in motion and it isn't a stretch that their resolution would be still be much the same with or without the Spellplague.
The assorted polls and posts around here have shown me that the number one desire presently being voiced is more lore and I believe that need can be met in a satisfactory way for the majority. Some people will still hate the Spellplague, but now they will potentially know even more about their preferred time period and can figure out how to deal with the Spellplague when they get to that point. Just because I know I will most likely be dead in 100 years doen't mean I give up on anything now. Everyone should've known these characters weren't going to last forever (barring any of the ways that they could achieve immortality, obviously). I didn't quit reading Star Wars books set in the movie or post movie era just because I know how things are going to go down 100 years later (which we do know from the Legacy comics). I don't enjoy Old Republic era material any less even though I know how the galaxy will be set up 5000 years later thanks to the movies. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 18:36:15
Okay, I need to go through this one more time, how I see it (and since we've already established that folks don't even agree on terminology, this may not be the way everyone else sees it).
Reset = Producing new products for an earlier (then the last official campaign date) time period. You have basically 'Reset' the clock.
Total Reset: See Hard Reboot below.
Reboot.. =
'Soft' - keep all continuity and canon, UNLESS over written by new official lore. This has actually been the exact policy with every edition thus-far (which is why I don't understand the hostility toward it - this is nothing new)
'Hard' - Total restart of the campaign setting, and everything can change (or remain the same, as they see fit), basically, its like going back to when the OGB was released, and starting from there. While this may appeal to many, it is also the chanciest (everyone working for WotC - including freelancers - will have an opportunity to change all the stuff they didn't like). This is what happened after the OGB was released, and we got towns named after stupid rock songs, and NPCs named after sports players. To me, this is the most frightening prospect of all, and completely impossible if they want to do the 'multi-era' thing.
Well... not impossible. If they enscapsulate each era into its own unique continuity, its possible. I'd hate to see THAT train-wreck.
All IMHO, of course.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 18:00:08
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT: Changing things is a 'reboot', setting the clock back (resetting it) is a 'reset', IMHO.
Soo...that doesn't answer what happens to people, authors, designers, and the like that which to produced supplements and novels based in later time of the setting. I'm one that completly feels rules =/= setting. So aside from any changes they make to the next D&D rules, how does "re-set" change anything aside from what supplements they put out? Is this a more of open source idea of producing anything they want or is it WotC ONLY focusing on 1357 DR time and nothing else?
NOTE: The time I chose was just to an example and in no way or shape is a time which anyone says is going to be placed. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:55:38
Their idea, as I currently perceive it (they've been pretty open about it), is to release products in all eras. Its a nice idea, IN THEORY.
The first thing I say to myself is "why bother?" In the 3e era - we all know the world goes to s**t in 1385. If the Spellplague remains canon, then it is rather pointless to 'save the world' in 1384 DR.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here - I don't give a rats arse in my own games - they are all homebrew anyway. I only care about canon in regards to storylines, useable 'current clack', and the Realms in-general (which I suppose means the novels). However, there are people out there who adhere to canon, and complain every time something 'goes wonky' in regards to their own game (strange, I know). I used Khelben in my 1380's campaign - so what? I was annoyed, but fudged things amicably.
This is why I - and most folks - don't bother with 'past' campaigns. I understand there are folks who do enjoy them, but they are in the minority (IMO). They tried this before - I think the "Arcane Age' product line was a complete failure (gaming-wise; it did give us gobs of lore to build on). Seriously, how many people actually PLAYED in the Arcane Age, as opposed to just buying the products for the lore? They need to look at that, before they try this multi-era thingy. There is a feeling of 'futility' that goes with past-gaming.
All IMHO, of course. |
| Apex |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:37:29
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth.
I would love to see how they can come out with something that can both bring back the 1st/2nd edition crowd, please the lovers of crunch heavy 3.x, and still keep the 4th edition gamers. That would be some feat. Based on recent history, the safer bet is that they will peeve off everyone instead. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:35:25
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth.
Ah, this is a question one should never have to ask, but: What did I nail?
LOL 
And Brian, how is supporting earlier editions NOT a reset? If they produce a pre-plague supplement, even if they make no changes, I consider that a reset. Its not 4e, its not 'beyond' 4e - its a RESET to an earlier time.
I think we may be getting into different terminology definitions again. 
EDIT: Changing things is a 'reboot', setting the clock back (resetting it) is a 'reset', IMHO. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:21:43
I don't think I understand the idea of a "reset". What is that even supposed to mean? Are we talking about resetting novels and gaming supplements that incorporate these areas in the time line? So if a author wanted to do a novel set in say...Lantan in 1371 DR it's perfectly acceptable where as another author makes a novel based in 1479 DR from say High Immaskar. Both are acceptable.
But if we're talking about going back to the starting point of 1357 DR and everything produced from that point on "didn't happen" or "happened to a different Faerūn" then I'm out. Simply put, I'm SOO out. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:20:18
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth.
Ah, this is a question one should never have to ask, but: What did I nail? |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 16:56:45
Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth. |
|
|
