| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 03:25:49
…I think I’ll be happy.
Lately I’ve been enjoying the Forgotten Realms a lot. You could even say it’s the most fun I’ve had from the setting since it was first released and my friends and I started playing D&D and AD&D there.
In particular, I’ve been collecting new lore about Cormyr. Also, I’ve been having a blast DMing in the Realms. The players in my realms campaign just completed the second campaign arc (set in Cormyr). It’s the first time I’ve ever had players clap at the table at the end of an adventure arc.
I tried to tell them it’s all in the books; that the adventure (Into the Dragon’s Lair), the sourcebooks (Volo’s Guide to Cormyr), online content (Backdrop: Cormyr, Crowns and Mantles: the Ranks and Titles of Cormyr) and the novels (Cormyr, Death of the Dragon, Elminster Must Die, Bury Elminster Deep), and a few bits and pieces from several other sources, all made the adventure possible, but they wouldn’t have it.
I think as long as I get something Realms-related from D&D Next/5E that I can add to the list of books I use to run successful D&D games, I’ll be happy.
With Ed at the helm I suspect I’ll get that.
And if I don’t get something to add to the list, I know that I’ll still be able to have at least as much fun as I’m having right now.
And that’s what it’s all about: having fun. So things will be fine and I (and my players) will still be happy.  |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 05:01:11
As an over-all fan of the Realms, you can see both sides. The regional approach is brilliant for someone who just considers the Realms and RPG setting (after all, most adventures only encompass a very small geographic area). Take the Nentir Vale non-setting setting - you play the heck out of it, and when you've done just about everything there is to do, you move on to someplace else. Unfortunately, I don't think there was anyplace 'beyond' Nentir Vale, but I suppose by that point the DM should have been experienced enough to continue on his own.
So apply that to The Realms - when you've beaten Cormyr to death, you head into the Dales, or down to the Vilhon Reach, or over to the The North, or the Lands of Intrigue, or even further afield. The setting becomes modular, and you pick the regions you want your players to travel to next. It almost becomes like a VG with 'chapters' based around different locales/continents/worlds/etc.
As over-all fans (as many of us are, but not that many really play anymore), we also appreciate the setting for the settings sake, and treat it like a massive, complex, on-going story. You are definitely correct about us loosing site of 'the big picture', but how bad is that? I get the feeling when we 'pan-back' and take in the whole continent, certain people start thinking about RSE's. Regional books don't really allow for Realms-wide events (unless they do cross-overs) - the events stayed localized and contained.
And they can also now handle the 'big picture' in the DDi articles. If they want, they can tie a series of them to novel cross-overs, or what have you. We don't need that info to run D&D games - we just want it as fans.
If 5e turns out to be as great as I think it might, more people will sign up for the DDi, which means it will probably get more support, and the DDi itself turns into our never-ending campaign guide (sort of like the almanacs they had for Mystara). So which is worse? A campaign guide that makes sweeping changes and a lot of people get bent out of shape over, or a campaign guide that never ends, or gets out of date because a new edition over-wrote the old one?
If they support the setting as a whole with the DDi (and keep Ed steering this ship into uncharted yet strangely familiar waters), then we really don't need a campaign guide. Like the Realms, our RW is in a different era, and maybe a new, modular approach is the right way to move forward (and get folks playing P&P games again).
Besides, even in the old 1e/2e regional splats we got lots of full Realms coverage, with obtuse references sprinkled in all over the place. When it comes to design, Ed's a master chef - he knows what ingredients to stir into the pot to make it tasty.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 02:21:57
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
From what I gather from several discussions, certain folk (who may have more info then us) have mentioned more then once the 'regional' approach (which I am a BIG proponent of), and treating each regional guide just like a mini-setting unto itself. This alleviates them from having to produce yet another FR CG/CS this time around. We already have ones for all the eras tied to editions. this time out, it appears they want he edition tied to no particular era, but rather, all of the ones already released (so in a sense, our 1e/2e/3e/4e CG/SG's ARE the 5e campaign guides. pick whatever you want to use - they have nothing to do with the rules.
There are positives and negatives attached to this approach, however.
Focusing deliberately on regional-specific books, rather than a world-wide encompassing CS/CG, allows for greater development with the local Realmslore of a particular region of the Realms -- which can be a positive. But at the same time, we're not fully aware of how that relates to the rest of the setting -- which can be a negative.
Granted, the broad-scope view that the CS/CG usually presents of a particular setting, can often be faulted for skipping a lot of what makes the Realms such a special place. The intricate level of detail at street level. Though, usually, that's why regional-specific books follow the CS/CG... focusing on the major areas highlighted in the CS/CG.
That's largely been the classic publishing formula for past editions. The 4e Realms development team tried something a little different -- by just presenting a CG and leaving most of the rest of the working on the 4e Realmslore, to DDI articles, and the odd occasional published adventure or "mini-campaign setting," like the Neverwinter book. And I know there are significant numbers of folk who think that this approach failed:- that Wizards missed the opportunity to fully explore what they'd presented with the post-Spellplague Realms by deciding not to publish new regional books.
I'm inclined to speculate, perhaps, that if we'd been presented with regional books for the 4e Realms, then many of the long-time fans who walked away from the setting after the CG was released, might have at least been intrigued by what was happening in one of the favourite areas, when a new regional sourcebook was released. It may have even enticed them to revisit the 4e Realmslore with an eye toward learning more.
Rambling aside, I don't believe there is truly any "right" or "wrong" way to publish material for a particular campaign setting. Whether the "no CS/CG" option could work or not, remains to be seen. But Wizards are showing that they can now learn what's important from past weaknesses in their publishing agenda, so I'm hopeful that they'll at least try to formulate a new strategy that doesn't immediately alienate their past fans in favour of bringing in new ones. There can always be compromise. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 01:58:56
It's not a bad idea. You'd need 900 pages of a book in order to address the various editions, and all 3 crammed into 300 pages or so wouldn't do it justice. I just hope they adjust their book page counts as they seem to have been steadily in decline. Lords of Darkness 3E, 191 pages, the upcoming Menzo book is 128, the Undermountain one was 96 pages. Wizards needs to find a way to increase page count and reduce costs. Hardcovers can go if it's a big cost, back to the format of 3E sourcebooks is fine with me. I'd even take a step into colorless 2E provided we saw a good page count increase. Art is supposedly a big cost too, they could reduce or even recycle. When I buy a book I want words, not necessarily art. Art is nice and all, but book pagecount shouldn't be sacrificed for a picture every 3 pages or so.
I don't have an issue shelling out 30 bucks for a book. But I do when its literally half the content I'm accustomed too...for the same price. Not good there. :( I don't know the dynamics of bookpublishing, but I hope they attempt to address these issues. If it costs too much to publish, get rid of the publisher and start putting out online content to fill out the rest of the hard cover that was just published.
At any rate, any new Realms work is great and I'll take it, I just wish we saw more of it. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 01:36:41
Right.
From what I gather from several discussions, certain folk (who may have more info then us) have mentioned more then once the 'regional' approach (which I am a BIG proponent of), and treating each regional guide just like a mini-setting unto itself. This alleviates them from having to produce yet another FR CG/CS this time around. We already have ones for all the eras tied to editions. This time out, it appears they want the new edition tied to no particular era, but rather, all of the ones already released (so in a sense, our 1e/2e/3e/4e CG/SG's ARE the 5e campaign guides). Pick whatever you want to use - they have nothing to do with the rules.
I was worried they would favor one era over another (showing favoritism, and thus creating more strife), and I couldn't imagine how they would avoid that without producing multiple campaign guides.
Then it was explained to me - they already have.
All the 5e campaign guides are done - just pick one and run with it. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 18:47:28
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wait, what? No 5E FRCS/G?
Possibly, if Markus is talking about what we've seen here at Candlekeep.
I asked for something like that over on the D&D Next General board too.
EDIT: I'm starting to get excited about the 5E Realms. I wish we had some more concrete information about what WotC's up to. We'll probably have to wait for GenCon to get an update, I bet, so those of you going: please bring your laptops and keep me informed, will ya?  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 18:30:47
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Some of the comments made by folks 'in the loop' (like no setting guide in 5e) make it sounds like this is what they are aiming for.
Wait, what? No 5E FRCS/G? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 16:02:56
I'm of a mind where I 'think' I know what they are attempting, and if I am correct, I think it could work.
RULES have editions, NOT settings. We need to stop attaching the 1e/2e/3e/etc to Realms eras (or any other setting for that matter). What we should try to do from this point out is refer to the Realms in terms of time, and not rules editions. I think we used to mostly do this, but now 4e has so badly galvanized the community that people are throwing around 1e vs 2e, or 2e vs 3e arguments, which should have died years ago.
Hell, I even referred to Ed's Realms as 0e, which is really bad. Settings have time periods, and thats how we should refer to the lore. I think 5e plans to do away with that. Some of the comments made by folks 'in the loop' (like no setting guide in 5e) make it sound like this is what they are aiming for. It also alleviates the need to have RSEs every time the setting needs to 'move forward'.
We can even have novels (interesting stories) written in any time now, so we no longer have to worry about all those 'dead plots' and 'loose threads' - authors will not be forced to write in a 'current' timeframe (if I understand this 'support for all eras" thing correctly), which means even the novel-only (and VG) fans can also enjoy The Forgotten Realms, even if they don't play D&D.
And this can only be accomplished by detaching the rules from the settings - I can definitely be on board with that. Use the rules edition you want in the era you prefer - how can they cater to us any more then that?
As Jeremy said, its all about having fun.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 15:20:53
While I'm skeptical about the new rules with D&D:next and feel that it's an edition that I might not partake in, if the Realms stuff is good and mostly divorced from the rules, I'll be sure to pick it up.
Also, I'm glad you had a great time with your campaign. Sounds like everyone had lots of fun. I plan on presenting my group with a Campaign idea for an E6 Campaign set in the Realms. The adventure is a group of smaller adventures called "The Hills have Drow" in where Drow are gathering an army of Orcs and Ogres to assail a small village called Haddock. The frontier town was established sometime in 1360's DR and is located West of the Forest of Wyrms, along the Serpent's Tail Streams.
The objective of the Drow is to analize how the surface people fight and war and to draw tactics from these encounters. They're also working with an inside agent (the evil court mage) and promis him the town once it's sacked. Of course they have no intention of keeping this promise and want to see the town raised. The PCs have to defend the town from Orc raiders, Ogre soldiers, keep the supply lines open to the town just south of Haddock, and then find out the traitor and his Drow backers. They'll then have to venture into a cave to confront the major Drow threat.
The whole thing is observed by a Drow Priestess with a crystal ball. Going by the PCs actions, she'll determine if an assault is worth the risk and how to best ply the knowledge gained from the "experiement". If the PCs do well and defeat the Orcs, Ogres, and few Drow enemies then she'll think that the venture is too costly but if they struggle or have a difficult time fighting off the opposition, she'll think that a real assault is worth the effort and plan accordingly.
I chose E6 because I think that's the best way to use v3.5 games and I like the low-level, gritty, "realism" factor it seems to provide. it also keeps the threats of Orcs, Ogres, Goblins, Drow very real and scary and combats remain pretty quick as people don't have multiple of multiple attacks or spells per turn. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 12:27:20
+1 |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 05:34:30
I can definitely agree with this.
We should make it a 'mission statement'. |
|
|
