| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 09 Aug 2012 : 05:02:35
Good morning, gentles!
A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to be invited, along with a number of my fellow lore-lords of the Realms—those being Eric Boyd, George Krashos, Brian James, and Erik Scott de Bie—to chat with members of the story team over at Wizards of the Coast (including D&D Creative Director James Wyatt, Matt Sernett, and ex officio non-employee but kinda sorta, Ed Greenwood) about the future of the Forgotten Realms. We got a sneak peek at some of the secrets that are going to be revealed at this Gen Con’s D&D Keynote and the ‘What is the Sundering?’ panels that will follow it, as well as a glimpse at how the Realms will be treated in the coming years and edition(s).
There is good reason for us all to be excited.
None of us can talk all that much about what’s going to happen over the next week and a half, but I encourage you all to stay tuned. On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of next week, information’s going to come out that will affect what you think about the state of Realms publishing. In a good way, I think.
If you can make it to Gen Con, you’ll want to make sure to be at the "The Future of Dungeons & Dragons" keynote (Thursday night), and at least one of the Sundering panels (Friday afternoon and Saturday morning). If you can’t make it, the links below will help you get as much exposure as you can.
The full slate of Gen Con D&D Panels is listed here.
The D&D keynote will be live streamed here.
The ‘What is the Sundering?’ panels will be posted here. No word yet as to whether they will be live, or edited and posted later.
Also not to be missed—and following immediately after the D&D keynote—is our own panel, Candlekeep Presents: 25 Years of the Forgotten Realms. If you’re going to be at Gen Con, you should not miss this event, where we’ll be discussing the revelations of the address, speculating about the future of the Realms, and possibly welcoming a surprise guest or three. From what I hear, there will also be a fun giveaway at some point in the night, which we already expect to go well past our scheduled end time of 10 pm.
These are exciting times for the Forgotten Realms, folks. Get ready. Get excited.
Get to Gen Con (or, you know, to a computer...).
Brian |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 04:57:58
Maybe the "non-eladrin" sun and moon elves split off again? Or perhaps the eladrin revert back? |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 02:35:01
Dragonborn are mammals. So they count as demihumans about as much as gnolls.
I'm not saying the races couldn't be done that way mechanically. I'm just pointing out that in 4e, moon elves and sun elves are just eladrin. Pre-4e, they were distinct races that got very offended when you confused them. in 2e you have green elves, with the civilized and less civilized types being the same race, but in 3e they made the civilized ones and uncivilized ones different subraces, one of which is like half moon elf, to explain the vast difference in culture and abilities (3e basically had subraces of humans too for different cultures). come 4e, that means that a good chunk of "Elves" are 50% Eladrin.
So if they keep Eladrin IN FR, how can they have sun and moon elves again?
You know what I mean? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 17:39:21
They can have generic races, like in OD&D. Then they can have templates you slap onto the races to give you the subraces. The templates could work very much like 4e's paths (or 3e's PRC's), and you could just avoid using them and 'stay generic' (the way you could still be a plain-vanilla fighter in 3e, or wizard, etc).
I like that approach very much, because it allows me to teach the game to younger people and get it going faster - attention span is a BIG issue with kids, and 3e was a bear to get new players to play (and thats not a knock - 3e is still my favorite edition thus-far).
So you could be a plain, old 'city dwarf', or 'town elf', etc - one that was born and raised in human settlements - which would work for the generic versions of everyone. Then, if a player wants something a bit more exotic down the road, they can run a demi-human class with a subrace path attached.
I just realized something that may be a big issue with terminilogy - are dragonborn demihumans? 
Up until now, that was a great term for non-human playable (core) races, but the dragonborn may have screwed that up royally. We may have to fall-back on 'civilized races' and 'savage races', but then we still get some that don't quite fit (like drow and Illithids). |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 06:21:54
Interesting.
Pathfinder's been the kitchen sink setting since it was a setting for 3.5 though. That's not a recent development.
I don't know how they would: "Keep Eladrin while having all the old elf options back" for example when supposedly more than half the elves spontaneously turned into (or spontaneously and retroactively always were, as the case may be) celestial fey creatures due to the presence of another plane.
And I would be interested in hearing where the cult of the dragon and all of the dragonkin disappeared to for the past hundred years, while the dragonborn showed up.
It's true that it's become the generic setting for D&D instead of a rich detailed and unique setting, and that's a shame.
I dont know how they can make it "all things to all people" unless they somehow bring all the things that disappeared in the past hundred years back, or fork the setting (possibly with the option of back and forth travel between the two worlds). Regardless of what you do it sounds like time travel is the only option to make that happen.
Paizo is not really making a unique game, they've been making D&D under a different name, while WotC went off and made a different game under the D&D name. We'll see how that goes, but Golarion has never been the big draw to pathfinder, not really. Either it's the continuation of 3.x (holding onto many of the problems that come with 3.x), or its the massive number of modules and adventure paths released. They put out an adventure path each month, in addition to intermittent standalone module releases, and pathfinder society modules. So far they're on the 12th Adventure Path. With 6 96 page modules per AP + player's companion guide, and map folio for the DM. That's 110 Pathfinder Module Books, with 12 plots that take you from 1-15, and 24 other one-off modules. There are setting books, but the setting books and game rules are mostly there to support their Adventure Path lines.
I don't know that I will switch to 5e, though as I mentioned, it was fun in the playtest. Lately I haven't been playing much d20 of any variety, and it's been RuneQuest (custom setting). I've pondered RuneQuest Faerun. I've pondered updating 3.x to pathfinder. I've pondered making a revision of pathfinder myself (since its all OGL, and I often don't like paizo's design philosophy). I'm not sure what I will do for a game system at this point.
But I only use Golarion if I'm using a pre-written Adventure Path. If I am writing the plot myself, I use another setting. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 21:10:42
They want to make it 'feel' (play-like, as in edition) like OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, & 4e all at the same time.
The want the Realms to 'go back to like it was' (in both feel, and races/nations available), while at the same time keeping all the 4e lore intact.
They want to go back to older terminology and cosmology, while keeping all the newer lore and terminology intact.
They want to provide more then enough fluff to run games in any era. In other words, they want it to be 'all things to all players'. After that they plan to walk on water. 
@Sylrae: So your answer is "NO, we have nothing set in stone, because apparently they are trying to give us everything at once". Should be a pretty neat trick if they can pull it off. I believe they mentioned a 5-10 year time-jump (from 1479 DR), but that is more of a "what we are currently thinking about" at Gencon, and nothing solid.
I plan to run any future games in the Forgotten Realms. I would like to run them in the current (5e) Realms when they become available, but if I do not find them enticing, I will simply run a 1386 DR game instead (so I can pick & choose which lore to borrow from). I may just do that regardless.
The one thing I would like them to keep in mind is this: Yesterday I went to an LGS - I hadn't been to one in a couple of years (since 4e came out). When I was trying to generate interest in the 5e Realms, the general consensus there (a bunch of guys were playing some board games) was that FR had become "Too much of a kitchen-sink setting". That right from the horse's mouth (the owner of the store, and everyone agreed with him). If their current plan is to give us all editions at once, and shoe-horn every edition of FR lore into the new setting, then I think they may further engender this notion. As much as I love the idea they are trying to please everybody, they have to be VERY careful they don't accidentally not please anyone.
BTW, they all raved about Lords of Waterdeep - it seems to be a new favorite at the store. Way to hit a homerun - keep that up and you may be able to overcome the aversion most people have to FR these days.
And by the way - after the 'kitchen sink' comment, they went on to say how sad it was that Pathfinder was going the same route. I found that even more interesting then how they felt about FR - people don't want generic, "one size fits all" settings anymore. If FR can manage to stand out from the generic fantasy pack (a tall order now), it may have a 'second coming'; it could be exactly what folks looking for alternatives to Golarion are after at this point. I caught a bit of that vibe at Gencon as well (people looking for something fresh and new). Paizo's wave may be about to crest.
|
| Sylrae |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 18:00:04
Do we have some idea what sort of transition we're looking at?
Even if its not terribly specific? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 17:53:00
I don't think we'll get the hard info until the release is imminent. They're prolly still ironing out everything, getting all the sections assigned and written, etc.
Once it's within 4 or 6 months of release, then we'll start seeing previews, I think. |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 16:08:23
Did we ever get some real info on what they're doing with the new edition of the realms?
I want to know so I can anticipate whether I am going to want to buy this one, or whether I will skim it in the store and put it back on the shelf again?
The past four years has basically been me catching up on 3.x & 2e books I was missing. I now have the 2e grey box, all the myth drannor sourcebooks, and a second FRCS.
I dont need to see all the same faces in the realms, but the change in tone in 4e, and my older source materials being no longer relevant got in the way of me buying the 4e FRCG. I'm hoping for some news that will indicate that my 1e, 2e, and 3e, FR source books will be relevant again in the new edition.
That will be hard to do unless this edition's RSE makes the world closer to how it was before: bringing back many of the dead gods, bringing back many of the old countries and races (sun/moon/wood/wild etc elves, as opposed to elves/eladrin).
I'm hoping I like the way this edition changes FR, and I hope it lets me use old material again. As an aside: the 5e playtest was fun.
So: anyone have any *REAL* news on this yet?
As for thoughts on what could be an interesting RSE that might work for the most people:
An RSE that involves portals or somesuch which allows for many things to pass between the Forgotten Realms and the 4gotten Realms. People from the 4gotten Realms could end up stopping the sundering, and the Forgotten Realms timeline forks in two directions. There's already a precedent for it (Cormanthyr Empire of the Elves page 6). Then instead of splitting the setting, because there's no mystra or mystryl in 4e, the two timelines don't stay disconnected; a permanent portal (or many portals) form between the two, and there's travel between the two worlds.
Events in the regular timeline occur in the non spellscarred landscape, as well as in the spellscarred one, and some events in one effect the other, and people are traveling back and forth.
Just a nice idea. It would make my old books relevant again. lol. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Sep 2012 : 02:08:44
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think the people who do art for Magic: The Gathering cards also show some stunning pics as well.
Agreed. Specially the works of Aleksi Briclot. |
| Xnella Moonblade-Thann |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 08:55:48
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
<snip>@My last comment: Maybe the only lycanthropic template a warforged can acquire is 'weredragon'. That would explain much. 
LOL... mechagodzilla... I crack me up.... {snicker}
Just finished talking to a co-worker about the "Godzilla-monster" movies before we were sent home. I think I was sensing that I'd find something like this when I got on here today.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 00:02:54
Like I said, I liked each edition's artwork at the time. However, I do not care for 'retro', and would rather keep moving forward (no disrespect to the 'artists of yesteryear' - I still love their stuff).
I think the 2e dwarves made famous by Elmore(?) were a bit too crtoony, but once again, it fit the era.
@My last comment: Maybe the only lycanthropic template a warforged can acquire is 'weredragon'. That would explain much.
LOL... mechagodzilla... I crack me up.... {snicker} |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 23:04:22
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Aryalómë
Is it just me, or does anyone else want a return to more "old-school"/"classic" fantasy artwork?
Not I. I do like the "modern" artwork.
One of the things that I had very few complaints about in 4th Edition was the artwork. It wasn't up to the Elmore Standard, no, but it was not bad, by any means. Especially after you compare it to 'Mialee' - type art from 3rd Edition (ugh).
- OMH
Personally, I can't stand Elmore's stuff and the older artwork in general but I wouldn't stand against having that included along with more modern stuff. If this is supposed to be the Edition (and Setting) to bridge the gap then there should be a mix of older styles along with newer. So long as they have Lockwood (good looks there Markustay!) art in there I'll be happy. I think the people who do art for Magic: The Gathering cards also show some stunning pics as well.
I like these few:
Finest Hour
Planeswalker
Female Cleric
Vampire |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 21:39:07
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Aryalómë
Is it just me, or does anyone else want a return to more "old-school"/"classic" fantasy artwork?
Not I. When I see the hand-drawn figures in the OD&D modules, I think of the "Saturday TV Funhouse" animated segments on the TV variety show Saturday Night Live. The early line art looks like "Ambiguously Gay Duo" and stuff!
Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 21:37:31
quote:
Originally posted by Aryalómë
Is it just me, or does anyone else want a return to more "old-school"/"classic" fantasy artwork?
Not I. When I see the hand-drawn figures in the OD&D modules, I think of the "Saturday TV Funhouse" animated segments on the TV variety show Saturday Night Live. The early line art looks like "Ambiguously Gay Duo" and stuff!
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 05:44:55
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I just get confused when someone calls a warforged a dragon...
Why would one do that? Their nature and what constitutes their very being is way different. Warforged are living constructs, but constructs nonetheless, even if some authors tried to "humanize" them. Dragons are living, natural beings. And warforged don't breathe fire.
He's referring to artwork in the Grand History of the Realms, where a pic of a warforged was identified as a dragon. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 04:23:04
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Aryalómë
Is it just me, or does anyone else want a return to more "old-school"/"classic" fantasy artwork?
Not I. I do like the "modern" artwork.
One of the things that I had very few complaints about in 4th Edition was the artwork. It wasn't up to the Elmore Standard, no, but it was not bad, by any means. Especially after you compare it to 'Mialee' - type art from 3rd Edition (ugh).
- OMH |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 03:30:23
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I just get confused when someone calls a warforged a dragon...
Why would one do that? Their nature and what constitutes their very being is way different. Warforged are living constructs, but constructs nonetheless, even if some authors tried to "humanize" them. Dragons are living, natural beings. And warforged don't breathe fire. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 02:47:46
Yeah - that is what I am talking about. It was good to set the tone for EB, but all wrong for FR. I think I saw a couple of examples of a similar style (not the insets) in a few 3e FR books, but maybe it was some of the core books I am thinking of.
Not all Eberron art was bad - some of it was rather excellent. I prefer most of 3e's art to earlier stuff. I loved 1e/2e artwork at the time, but I think its a bit dated now. Not a big fan of 'retro'.
I just get confused when someone calls a warforged a dragon (and no, they will never live that one down). |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 02:41:38
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So long as we don't get the comic-bookish art of Eberron in FR. There were a few instances of it, and it was jarring. I like it in EB, because I feel it has the correct 'vibe', but it isn't right for FR, IMHO.
Comic-bookish? I dunno. I haven't yet seen an Eberron art that resembles even remotely of comic books. Besides, it's supposed to be steampunkish, and so far, they more or less have that vibe.
I'm assuming Markus is referring to the earlier 3e sourcebooks for EBERRON, which relied heavily on noir-styled comic book-like frames/panels in their imagery of setting elements. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 01:42:48
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So long as we don't get the comic-bookish art of Eberron in FR. There were a few instances of it, and it was jarring. I like it in EB, because I feel it has the correct 'vibe', but it isn't right for FR, IMHO.
Comic-bookish? I dunno. I haven't yet seen an Eberron art that resembles even remotely of comic books. Besides, it's supposed to be steampunkish, and so far, they more or less have that vibe. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Sep 2012 : 01:38:35
quote:
Originally posted by Aryalómë
Is it just me, or does anyone else want a return to more "old-school"/"classic" fantasy artwork?
Not I. I do like the "modern" artwork. |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 21:39:00
The 2e era artwork was,IMNSHO, was the best artwork the game saw. I would love to see some of those old artists back! |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 21:19:19
I'm mostly talking about the artwork in 2e. It was the best. Great work. A lot of the artwork in The Complete Book of Elves, Moonshaes, Elves of Evermeet, Dragon Lance, etc was fantastic (no pun intended). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 21:14:43
So long as we don't get the comic-bookish art of Eberron in FR. There were a few instances of it, and it was jarring. I like it in EB, because I feel it has the correct 'vibe', but it isn't right for FR, IMHO.
Also, whoever the artist was in the UE book. Whoever did those angler-fish Star Elves needs to go away (Guantanamo Bay?) How anyone approved that 'art' is beyond me.
Musta been the same guy who approved the 4e campaign map. 
EDIT: Todd Lockwood forever. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 15:07:35
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Oohh! Can we get Larry Elmore back? I LOVED his work!
Elmore is undoubtedly the Master, but Clyde Caldwell is awesome, too. And Jeff Butler. And Jeff Easley. I would also add Keith Parkinson, but sadly, he will no longer be able to grace us with his truly remarkable talent. 
Brom also did some fine pieces, mostly for Dark Sun. All of these gents would only add to the quality of any work Wizbro puts out.
- OMH
I'm a huge fan of Elmore, and I consider the era where he, Caldwell, and Easley were doing most TSR art to be the high point of D&D art.
That said... I still have a habit, whenever I see a piece of Caldwell art, of trying to locate the round red gemstone. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 14:43:20
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Oohh! Can we get Larry Elmore back? I LOVED his work!
Elmore is undoubtedly the Master, but Clyde Caldwell is awesome, too. And Jeff Butler. And Jeff Easley. I would also add Keith Parkinson, but sadly, he will no longer be able to grace us with his truly remarkable talent.
Brom also did some fine pieces, mostly for Dark Sun. All of these gents would only add to the quality of any work Wizbro puts out.
- OMH |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 13:22:59
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Sounds good to me. Heck, I'll take some black and white in pencil or ink too.
Most every creature you might meet in the underdark...or heck in a cave complex of anykind should have a black/white/grey base...thats what you would see |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 06:43:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
One of my all-time fave D&D illustrations was a black-and-white ink drawing in the 2E PHB.
Some of my favorite black and white work was done in SSI's* Creature Collection books.
Those monsters just dripped deadly awesome and they were all ink or pencil drawings.
To anyone at WotC who might be listening: half the reason I use a monster is the artwork for it. I like being able to show my players an awesome picture of what they're facing before getting down to combat.
*Sword and Sorcery Studios |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 06:37:11
Oohh! Can we get Larry Elmore back? I LOVED his work! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 05:17:42
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Sounds good to me. Heck, I'll take some black and white in pencil or ink too.
Yeah, black and white art definitely has its place!
I would like to see more of it in D&D books.
One of my all-time fave D&D illustrations was a black-and-white ink drawing in the 2E PHB.
And who can forget the wonderful interior art of Valerie Valusek? |
|
|
