| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 26 May 2013 : 01:10:56
Look over our thread of late , nothing but gods.
no complaints over characters or Cities
we are more curious about the gods then anything else. so that's what they're gonna write about. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 02 Jun 2013 : 03:42:20
This 'over writing' thing is an interesting phenomenon. Having kibitzed - I think that's the term - on many an FR 3E product I know for a fact that Eric Boyd and Ed always overwrote (with some of their stuff going into web enhancements), with other designers 'writing to contract'. In other words, if they were getting paid for 20,000 words, they put up 20,000 words. Sensible business if you are trying to make a living out of this business, tough as that is.
I know also that, free of charge, Ed, Eric and myself provided extra material and in some cases partial re-writes of chapters/sections of products to iron out kinks, fix a few gaffes or hopefully without too much arrogance, put in stuff of our own that was mouldering on our PCs waiting to go. The Impiltur information in "Champions of Ruin" is a case in point as are large chunks of "Lost Empires of Faerun".
In 2E Steven Schend invited participation from the entire FR online community when he wrote LOI and EotSS. He candidly admitted that he didn't have the time to track down everything, but didn't want to miss anything either - and so harnessed the old TSR aol and Realms-L to throw a lot of research his way, which he then massaged into a product. That volume of information created an overwrite because Steven, being Steven, couldn't let good lore go to waste. He kept some of the stuff that got cut, other bits like a slightly more detailed timeline for LOI was a Gen-Con handout and a few bits got folded into his fiction many years down the track.
If I may, my opinion is that for a campaign setting like the Realms, if you are a fan of that setting, you will do your research, churn out a ton of lore and that in and of itself will create an overwrite. My original "Impiltur" Dragon magazine article was about 30% bigger than what got published as was my Semmemmon and Ashemmi piece. The reason for me was that I thought I had cool lore to add to the setting. Lots of cool lore. In my opinion, that is what leads to an 'overwrite': the need to add more detail to explain, enhance and create the interconnections that generate fantastic Realmslore. If that isn't your standard operating procedure when you write for the Realms, then you are going to do enough to get paid. There's not anything necessarily wrong with that, but again in my opinion, over decades of FR products you can see time and time again where that has occurred and where it hasn't.
In my view great Realmslore trumps everything for making a quality FR product. Given the length, breadth and depth of this setting now after 20+ years of product releases, you can't do it justice if you skimp on the word count or the detail. Being a fan of the setting helps when you are actually doing more than you are technically getting paid for when writing for the Realms. Some people will say that's not right or shouldn't happen. Many of us will have been in jobs where reward doesn't quite equate to output. I'm also sure that there have been times when people have been prepared to work in that context and nevertheless felt rewarded and satisfied. I've said for a few years that working on the Realms is a labour of love with masochistic overtones. I'm also on the record as saying I'll do FR work for free for WotC if they need a hand. After all, for me at least, the joy has always been in the Realmslore and the friendships made along the way, not any money.
If WotC want some overwriting dirt cheap, send them my way. Bring back the mouse type!!
-- George Krashos
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 21:01:26
quote:
Originally posted by Ze
I wondered that too, and after reading Jeremy's reply several times, I came to the conclusion the he's using "overwritten" as a positive attribute.
Jeremy?
Too much is being read into the word "overwritten".
I used that word simply because that was the correct word to use. It had neither a positive or negative connotation attached to it.
The context should be obvious, given that I quoted Markus' post and was responding to it with an example that both supported and contradicted his statement.
The relevance that Venger seems to be struggling to find has to do with the disparity in word count between the 3E FRCS and the 4E FRCG. As Venger noted earlier, one is packed with words, the other not as much and with some unused space on its pages.
To me the lesser word count isn't so much the issue as the empty space. I want to know why it's there.
There is not, to my knowledge, a written history of how the FRCG was put together. We don't know, for example, if parts of it were overwritten. We also don't know why, as part of the design and layout, blank space was left on some pages.
We do know that after the FRCG there were several Dragon articles formatted with white space at the end of each article, so I wonder if this is an extension of the layout process from the FRCG, coincidence or simply a fact of working in an e-publishing as opposed to print format.
Either way I don't like unused space and I don't think most collectors of expensive (and not getting any cheaper) Realms books like it either. I hope WotC takes that message to heart and fills up future Realms books from top to bottom.
Since we're on the topic of overwritting: it's a positive quality of an in-house game designer that he or she overwrites.
Sean K. Reynolds put it best: "If I can put 200 pages of work into a 100 page product without having to work evenings and weekends (allowing me to spend time with my friends, girlfriend, pets, and doing fun and relaxing stuff), I will do so. My editor will hate me, and most of it will get cut, but I'll do it."
WotC, to my knowledge, has relatively few in-house designers left and I don't think compensation works the same (salary vs. paid by word count). They outsource a whole bunch. I hope that doesn't adversely affect future Realms sourcebooks. |
| Ze |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 18:08:50
You may be right Wooly - but with sourcebooks, isn't that pretty much always the case?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 16:04:47
I believe what he was trying to say was that more content was produced than could be used in the book. For example, a given section may have been allotted 5000 words, but the author wrote 7000 words. The excess 2000 words were trimmed out and sometimes used in other supplements or web enhancements. |
| Ze |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 15:22:20
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
If you're not complaining then what's the point of labeling it as overwritten? What does that even mean?
I wondered that too, and after reading Jeremy's reply several times, I came to the conclusion the he's using "overwritten" as a positive attribute.
Jeremy?
|
| lordsknight185 |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 14:53:40
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Hmm, one thing I did not see referred to yet though might have missed it. The time jump.
We as players had nothing to do with that choice.
For gaming groups that tend to follow canon any one playing human dies of old age or some how gets magical aid in order to be in the new Realms of 4th Edition.
Map changing and deities changing clearly was discussed, not much at all about the time change itself.
I do wonder if 5th Edition will have much if any time jump greater then a decade.
Ooh! I asked a similar question to Erin M. Evans in one of the WOTC book clubs and got a good answer. I shall quote exactly what she posted in that thread when I asked her about her Brimstone Angels sequel "The Adversary"
"The event "The Sundering" takes place in 1487 DR. The series, The Sundering, takes place in the years leading up to that event. The books are chronological, so The Adversary takes place after Teh Godborn but before The Reaver, so you can see the events in the world unfolding in the background. Make sense?
But yes, there's going to be a little bit of a time jump in The Adversary. It starts in 1478 DR, but it ends in 1486 DR. It's not an easy thing to write, but I think I got it figured out. Nothing is going to just be dropped. In fact, I think everything gets more complicated, and the characters deepen even more. This is one of those hurdles in writing tie-in--sometimes the setting throws you a curveball. You get to let it pass and hope another pitch comes. Or you can swing and hope you knock it out of the park." - Erin m. Evans
So while it doesn't answer your concern about 5e's release, I personally do not see it being more than a couple years after "the sundering" event takes place in 1487, as anything longer would alter her characters and her building plots beyond recognition (IMHO). |
| Venger |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 10:29:33
If you're not complaining then what's the point of labeling it as overwritten? What does that even mean?
quote:
just as it's a fact that the material left out wasn't withheld out of some form of spite
I never said it was, nor do I think that Markus believes that it was held back out of spite. There was, however, a reason why it was held back, and the reasoning for that is what he's curious about.
quote:
I don't think anyone disputes this. The amount of white space in that book makes it something of a ripoff.
I'd also like to know why this was allowed to happen. Was it deliberate? An issue of too much going on during the edition transition? Did they have to pair down the FRCG in order to make it possible to print the FRPG?
That's exactly what he was asking. Nothing at all to do with spite. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 10:02:32
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
"Overwrote"? I've never heard that particular complaint before. Would you seriously have preferred a 220 page book over the 320 page book packed full of information which we got?
Nobody is complaining.
That the FRCS was overwritten is simply a point of fact, just as it's a fact that the material left out wasn't withheld out of some form of spite.
I'd like to know how much the FRCG was overwritten (if at all) and whether or not any material from it was used in later Dragon or Dungeon articles.
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
And there was certainly room in the 4E FRCG to include more stuff.
I don't think anyone disputes this. The amount of white space in that book makes it something of a ripoff.
I'd also like to know why this was allowed to happen. Was it deliberate? An issue of too much going on during the edition transition? Did they have to pair down the FRCG in order to make it possible to print the FRPG?
RE microfont: No Thank You. For myself, I don't care for uber-small font that I have to squint to read. Just fill the pages up with a mid-size font. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 07:59:15
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
MY RPG background is with FGU and their games, including the notorious Chivalry & Sorcery rules (called 'an unplayable simulation' by some). The rules were so complex that they used Quarter-sized type just to get it all in the one book.
This is the second time I've heard mention of this game on this forum, the first is back when I first started posting here on how to deal with blind players. My friends, well the two of them that played the thing, said I'd liked it. Could you by chance tell me who published the game, so I could be on the preverbial look out for it.
Chivalry and Sorcery? That was produced by Fantasy Games Unlimited. They also made a SF game called Space Opera. I still can read the type unassisted (for how much longer is anyone's guess), but small type is a standard feature of their products. |
| Venger |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 05:44:03
"Overwrote"? I've never heard that particular complaint before. Would you seriously have preferred a 220 page book over the 320 page book packed full of information which we got?
And there was certainly room in the 4E FRCG to include more stuff. Just reduce the font and reorganize the book so that there's less blank space. You can't very well argue that there's no room when that book produced 2,463 words in a Cormyr entry over four pages while its 3E counterpart produced 3,885 words in a Cormyr entry over 3 1/2 pages. Either the 3E book is a TARDIS and is bigger on the inside than on the outside, or the 4E book is just poorly organized by comparison. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 01 Jun 2013 : 05:21:23
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You know what the real shame is? Listening to everyone who worked on that product and so many others, usually about half of what they write actually makes it in - the rest ends up on the 'cutting room floor'. That means the material was THERE... they just didn't want to give it to us. I guess they thought we'd get spoiled or something.
In the case of the 3E FRCS, the design team overwrote the book by about 100 pages.
It was certainly not the case that WotC didn't want that material to be published, there was just no room for it.
Fortunately WotC decided to publish (for free) web supplements for future 3E Realms sourcebooks that included material otherwise left on the cutting room floor.
I don't know how much material (if any) from the 4E FRCG made it into articles in Dragon and Dungeon. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 19:20:12
I think that the open playtest of the Pathfinder rules was an absolutely brilliant maneuver, for Paizo. Not only did they get extensive, real-world playtesting of the rules (as opposed to doing it in the office or with small, select groups), they got that playtesting for free. And by listening to what the players thought -- and responding to it -- Paizo showed great concern for the opinions of their customer base. Responding to customer concerns and making the appropriate changes is great PR, and doing it with the rules meant people felt more connected to the company and the ruleset.
I'd love to see other companies follow that lead. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 18:50:21
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I actually believe the 'failure' is more upon book sales, as in novels. From whate I understand, the 4eFR game books didn't sell too badly.
Isn't there some sort of way of tracking all this - Amazon or something?
Anyhow, I think thats where they may have really screwed up. The Realms were once a place to tell stories, theirs and ours. Now - as of 4e - its pretty-much 'just a game setting' in most of our minds. At least, thats how I think of it now. As a game setting, I can get a lot of mileage out of the 4e material. As for the story... not really caring at this point.
So if it failed anywhere, I think it may be in the novel department. I really don't like this E-book only crap - reminds of those movies that "go straight to video".* 
Bottom line is, century time jump = Poo. There's no way of getting around that. I could have lived with the Spellplague (wasn't it just a ToT on steroids?), and we could have lived with a new ruleset (we have before.. grumpily), but that was jumping the shark, big time. There was just not enough left to hang on to. Not sure how they are going to fix that one, but strangely, I am still holding out hope. I refuse to prejudge 5e (rules or FR).
*P.S. - and PLEASE, I am not blaming individual authors here. They have no say over the setting as a whole, and if most setting story fans have experienced a complete disconnect, then that is not the fault of the authors - its the fault of the design team that has been steering the setting. When you have to scramble for ways to save your favorite characters (trapped in a sword, absorbed the essence of a Shade, etc) then there is something really wrong with 'the plan'.
Not to edition bash... just going to state, my problem was with BOTH the changes to the realm AND the changes to the rules.
I'll also state that for those that praise Pathfinder, I think the base PF rules is very much an improvement on 3.5. They also do a really good job of rehashing things like feats from 3.5 under a new name and improving upon them. However, I find a lot of their own design stuff is kind of poor or not well thought through... which is what happens... someone comes up with an idea (like say the sorcerer) and it comes out inherently broken. However, if its intriguing enough the customer base will help you fix it. That was what was different about 4E for me.... it wasn't intriguing enough to make me want to help them fix their rules through discussion. The 4e realms on the other hand, I saw what they tried to do, it was very bad... I see it as still intriguing enough to save. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 16:33:31
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You know what the real shame is? Listening to everyone who worked on that product and so many others, usually about half of what they write actually makes it in - the rest ends up on the 'cutting room floor'. That means the material was THERE... they just didn't want to give it to us. I guess they thought we'd get spoiled or something.
MY RPG background is with FGU and their games, including the notorious Chivalry & Sorcery rules (called 'an unplayable simulation' by some). The rules were so complex that they used Quarter-sized type just to get it all in the one book.
Nothing like the 'good old days', eh?
Before I lost it all, I cherished those products... even though I could no longer read them without reading glasses (funny how the print didn't seem so tiny when I was 16).
I'd seriously like an an answer to that question: If the writing (lore) was there, why not just include it? What was the point of cutting so much and then going to a bigger type face? Where was that coming from?
I don't think we are 'bashing' at this point (although we are certainly riding the line) - I think we are trying to get out a few last-minute grumbles, so they know exactly what not to do the next time. They need to know what irked us so bad... bad enough for so many of us to go running to Paizo. I don't want some other setting, I want The Realms back, with that 2e feel and 3e smell.
I am SO HOPING this Sundering thing turns out to be the greatest thing since the OGB. It could be, if we just give it half a chance.
This is the second time I've heard mention of this game on this forum, the first is back when I first started posting here on how to deal with blind players. My friends, well the two of them that played the thing, said I'd liked it. Could you by chance tell me who published the game, so I could be on the preverbial look out for it. |
| Venger |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 16:19:23
Well, I'm certainly willing to give it a chance. After all, I wouldn't be here if I weren't. I was looking at my posting history earlier and there's a three year gap in there. The only reason I showed up here and at the WotC boards again was because I was interested in finding out about the 5E rules and the 5E Realms, and so far I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about both (I say cautiously because I thought I'd like the 4E rules, but after playing a while using the 4E rules I came to really dislike them. I also tried giving the 4E Realms a chance despite my strong dislike for the changes at the time. Not edition bashing, just speaking to my own experience and dissatisfaction). So here's hoping the 5E Realms will give me a reason to want to play in the Realms again. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 16:10:59
You know what the real shame is? Listening to everyone who worked on that product and so many others, usually about half of what they write actually makes it in - the rest ends up on the 'cutting room floor'. That means the material was THERE... they just didn't want to give it to us. I guess they thought we'd get spoiled or something.
MY RPG background is with FGU and their games, including the notorious Chivalry & Sorcery rules (called 'an unplayable simulation' by some). The rules were so complex that they used Quarter-sized type just to get it all in the one book.
Nothing like the 'good old days', eh?
Before I lost it all, I cherished those products... even though I could no longer read them without reading glasses (funny how the print didn't seem so tiny when I was 16).
I'd seriously like an an answer to that question: If the writing (lore) was there, why not just include it? What was the point of cutting so much and then going to a bigger type face? Where was that coming from?
I don't think we are 'bashing' at this point (although we are certainly riding the line) - I think we are trying to get out a few last-minute grumbles, so they know exactly what not to do the next time. They need to know what irked us so bad... bad enough for so many of us to go running to Paizo. I don't want some other setting, I want The Realms back, with that 2e feel and 3e smell.
I am SO HOPING this Sundering thing turns out to be the greatest thing since the OGB. It could be, if we just give it half a chance. |
| Venger |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 15:38:31
quote:
To add insult to injury, not only did our setting get nuked and nearly everyone we loved died, but they wanted to sell us less for more.
More than you know. Here's a more direct comparison, the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting versus the 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. The former was 320 pages long while the latter was 288 pages long but, more importantly, the latter used larger font and had a lot of white spaces, which is great for filling up a page count but not for providing content. What difference does this make? Look at the descriptions for Cormyr in each.
The Cormyr description in the 3E FRCS (discounting the pages where it's just NPC stats for Alusair and Caladnei) is four pages long. But even then it's not four full pages, because its description starts a quarter of the way down on its first page and ends three quarters of the way into the fourth page before continuing with Alusair's stat block, so in reality we're talking 3.5 pages. In the 4E FRCG Cormyr is also described across four pages, but all four pages are devoted solely to describing Cormyr, so the 4E book had half-a-page more space than its 3E counterpart to produce more info, so what was the word count?
3E FRCS - 3,885
4E FRCG - 2,463
Despite having an additional half-page, that large font and all those white spaces means that the 4E book produced only about 63% of the material which its 3E counterpart gave us. Frankly, I'm surprised that they didn't also try to sneak in 1" page margins. I'd very much be interested in finding out what the total word count for both books are, because something tells me that even if one were to count only the first 288 pages of the 3E FRCS book, the word count there would leave that of the 4E FRCG in the dust. But yeah, we got far, far less than what even the previous editions book provided. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 14:57:01
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
If the gods disappear from the Realms, then so do I. If they take a backseat, okay, so log as they still have some kind of presence. They`re as much a part of the Realms as anything else.
But I realize I am in the minority in this view.
I don't want the Gods to go away, as you say they are part of the realms. If FR had that built into the setting like some other D&D settings then that would be one thing, but it's not. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 14:31:35
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
For me the time jump really isn't a major factor in my dislike of 4e FR. <snip>
This was kinda my point, when I said they 'jumped the shark'. That wasn't THE thing that did it in, but it was that final final straw, that 'line' that shouldn't have been crossed.
As I just said to someone else in PM, I believe that they became so enamored with the concept of change itself, that they just didn't stop long enough to ask themselves, "is this necessary?" Any one piece of 4e lore - even perhaps half of it - was acceptable. They just didn't know when to apply the brakes. They wanted a 'brand new setting', and unfortunately, they succeeded.
Its not so much a specific thing - its all of it added up together. It was simply too much all at once. For me, the Time Jump was the final Straw, for someone else it may have been something completely different...
...including what George talked about. To add insult to injury, not only did our setting get nuked and nearly everyone we loved died, but they wanted to sell us less for more. As for quality, compare the 4e FRCG to the PF Inner Sea Guide - its like night and day (and I only liked about 75% of what was in the ISG, and still found I got more then my money's worth). I realize that 4e lore got better near the end - that people's hands were tied for awhile about what they could write about, how much 'history' could be included, and what percentage of an article had to be 'crunch'. Thats why I don't blame any of the Freelance guys who worked on any of 4e - they had strict guidelines they were forced to work within. It was those guidelines that are to blame. You ask someone to create a masterpiece... and then tie their hands. What would the Sistine Chapel have looked like if they (literally) tied Michelangelo's hands?
The setting felt vague and incomplete because they weren't allowed to scratch the surface. As I said, it got much better toward the end of 4e (Neverwinter being a prime example), but by then, it was too late. You only get one chance at a 'first impression'. As Krash was implying, FR was known for its sheer depth, and all we got was a whole lot of shallow (for the longest time). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 14:20:42
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Elminster isn't my fave Ed character, either... Of the Chosen, it's Khelben (though Steven Schend is the one that took him over). Of the Seven Sisters, it's Laeral.
From non-Chosen, I really like Mintiper Moonsilver and Baelam the Bold.
For both Chosen and Seven Sisters, Laeral fills the bill for favorites of mine (with Qilue a close second). Naturally, they're both dead.
Non-Chosen (or Sisters), you just can't beat Halaster Blackcloak.
Its never the 'big guns' I am interested in. Anyone can 'fight the good fight' when they are Superman. Its the Batmans and Daredevils that make a setting interesting. For instance, two characters I would LOVE to have entire novels about are Filfaril and the Shadowsil. There are just two great stories there yet-to-be-told, out of millions I am sure are running around Ed's head (amongst others). You want to know about Azoun? See him through Filfaril's eyes. You want to know about Manshoon (and Elminster), see him through the Shadowsil's eyes. That was FR"s strength - its got a cast of thousands, and they all have a part to play. Its the folks standing in 'the shadows of greatness' that are really getting stuff done. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 03:51:50
"No amount of prettyness will fix stupid."
I like that. I may have to barrow it from time to time. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 03:44:37
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
It's not about time jumps, high level characters, places getting nuked over and over. The latter two phenomena were present in the Ol' Grey Box with Elminster an co already being high level and the Dales and the Moonsea having a no holds barred brawl topped off by a Flight of Dragons. Things happen in the Realms - that's been a constant of the setting since 1987...
I'm really not looking for a fight, but I respectfully disagree that the execution was the only thing wrong with the 4e changes in the Realms. I agree that Elminster being high-level is not a problem, and the time jump isn't that big of a deal either... or at least they're not big deals when evaluated objectively and independently of all our other objections.
But if the 4e approach were comparable to the Zhent war and Dragonflight that had just happened when the grey box was printed, then Ed's only objection to anything in 4e would be what you point out: formatting and linkage issues. He hasn't given me a list of specific things he doesn't like about 4e, but I suspect if he did it would be a bit longer than that.
The setting isn't really defined by the characters for me, either. I've spent most of my Realmstime in Mulhorand and Imaskar, where few characters were ever officially developed. I wrote my own, no biggie. The characters can drive the campaign, but that's true regardless of who's in the current cast. The same is true for the gods; it's somewhat important that they be there, and their personalities can come into play, but whether the god of the dead is Myrkul or Kelemvor isn't too terribly important in itself.
But there's a rather large difference between the design philosophies of 4e versus 1e. Dragons flying over every ~300 years... okay, they knock a few bricks off the turrets and they kill some folks who didn't have the opportunity or sense to hide in cellars and sewers. Even if the fighting is constant; Ed's Dales/Zhent wars didn't obliterate entire cultures. Granted, the Dalesfolk kinda did that to each other once, but that was one war that got out of hand, in one small geographic area, and the aftermath is tension and sorrow for generations. Contrast that with WotC annihilating a double handful of nations without even having a war, over a spat between Gods, fueled by a story that made zero sense from the get-go, and expecting us to be giddy with delight.
Dragonflights don't erase entire countries; even if the royal family is killed the nation persists and rebuilds, and grows some mages and clerics to better defend themselves. That makes dragonflights "okay" ...because they don't do irreparable harm to the setting. Ed even massaged the ToT (to the extent that he could) with the goal of leaving the door open for churches to persist after deities were killed, and for those deaths to be an uncertain thing. Unfortunately, WotC doesn't leave doors open... they slam the doors shut, weld plates over it, and then bring up the wrecking ball when they finally realize that they need the door to be open. If they ever realize that.
Unless we accept Markus' theory that this is giving the designers too much credit, the 4e Realms was specifically designed to "revitalize" and fundamentally alter the setting. That is a bigger problem than some Zhentarim letting off steam.
You want to revitalize a nation that seems stagnant? Cool. Do that (after making sure you're not just imagining the stagnation) by developing something there... not by nuking it (and 5 or 10 others because why not) in some massive zomgwtfbbq. Especially when the "explanation" involves the gods. Especially when those gods have had absolutely nothing to do with that region of the Realms for the last 6,000 years or so. Yes, Mulhorand, because it happens to be the best example of the stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Only one thing will save FR 5E - mouse type and tons and tons of lore. Anything else, and I fear that the fans might just have had enough.
This I will not fight with.
I want a return to the state of being excited about every new Realms book that comes out, rather than being nervous about what they're going to blow up this time. Ed (and other authors when they're allowed to) create conflicts, with heroes and villains and a neverending pile of stories to be told. WotC creates permanent irrevocable death, and then tells authors to make it look cool.
So, formatting: absolutely yes... no fancy scrollwork or watermarks, drop the font size down, eliminate or at least dramatically reduce interior art, and stop using the last 3 pages for advertisements. Formatting is important, in the interest of maximizing the space available for lore.
But without good lore, and without a total halt to the destruction of that lore, no amount of pretty formatting will fix stupid.
Edit: This is the part I probably should have quoted to be more precise:
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
it had design flaws and the execution that followed on the 4E FRCS was just plain bad.
I'm not sure exactly what you meant to be included in "design flaws" and I shouldn't have responded as if the execution was the only thing you wanted to point out without getting clarification first. It's not my intent to twist words or misquote anyone.  |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 03:24:17
For me the time jump really isn't a major factor in my dislike of 4e FR. The time jump itself was poorly executed, but it was everything else that went along with it that made the setting terrible. Time jumps can work fine for a brand, Star Wars legacy era is a great setting and involves a 125 year time jump. However, the setting is clearly still Star Wars.
It was removing every element that added uniqueness to the setting(gods,characters,magic items,the tone, the magic system, organizations etc) and only adding in Spell plague as a defining feature for the setting. 4e FR is basically the default 4e D&D lore + spell plague.
I am a huge fan of having a setting that obviously exists across the entire level spectrum i.e has NPCs from level 1 to cap level present. Elminster and Alustriel are my favorite chosen. I have also always had a soft spot for the Ranger Three. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 02:08:46
The timejump was the worst part of the 4e for me and made me entirely disinterested. You move things forward 100 years and it is no longer the same setting. That was the intent. And, in my opinion as a consumer, it sucked.
I also hated the nuking of places and people that I loved, of course. But done right, those can be great and interesting events. The way it was handled was TERRIBLE (to me). Especially Thay. That was so awful, like the Realms had to copy WoW and do a Lich King, because undead are SO cool. Ugh.
For Ed's characters, the Simbul is my favorite by far. Giogi Wyvernspur is my favorite character in general (love most of Jeff Grubb's characters though) and for Bob's it would be Kimmuriel, Regis and Robillard. An eclectic mix to be sure. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 01:40:28
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Elminster isn't my fave Ed character, either... Of the Chosen, it's Khelben (though Steven Schend is the one that took him over). Of the Seven Sisters, it's Laeral.
From non-Chosen, I really like Mintiper Moonsilver and Baelam the Bold.
For both Chosen and Seven Sisters, Laeral fills the bill for favorites of mine (with Qilue a close second). Naturally, they're both dead.
Non-Chosen (or Sisters), you just can't beat Halaster Blackcloak.
- OMH |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 01:34:57
It's not about time jumps, high level characters, places getting nuked over and over. The latter two phenomena were present in the Ol' Grey Box with Elminster an co already being high level and the Dales and the Moonsea having a no holds barred brawl topped off by a Flight of Dragons. Things happen in the Realms - that's been a constant of the setting since 1987 - and there are plenty of high level NPCs around to give the PCs some perspective. That's a flavour of Ed's gaming style where he didn't like the PCs being the schoolyard bullies who ran roughshod over every civilised element of the campaign setting. It's a nuance that I'm a huge fan of and my preferred way of operating in a campaign world also. Mileage, as it does, varies.
There was only one thing wrong with the Spellplague and the time jump - it had design flaws and the execution that followed on the 4E FRCS was just plain bad. A return to big font, low level of detail, (IMO) gimmicky introduced elements (okay, I'm putting my hand up - I'm not a fan of either spellscarred anything or earth motes) and very poor lore with bad linkages between the old Realms and the new meant that 4E was never going to hit the heights.
Only one thing will save FR 5E - mouse type and tons and tons of lore. Anything else, and I fear that the fans might just have had enough.
-- George Krashos
|
| Sightless |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 01:16:30
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I don't think WotC gained anything by killing of all their iconic characters. It is still a very common complain that FR has too many high level character despite the fact that they were virtually all removed in 4e. All they really did was succeed in ticking off all the people that read the amazing supplements like 2ed Seven sisters and Heroes Lorebook that defined those characters.
Agreed, and it's for the simple fact that WotC will never get rid of the NPC's which those critics hate the most, Elminster and Drizzt. You have a segment of people who just don't care how many fans Elminster and Drizzt have, how many books those characters sell, or that every single Drizzt novel has made the New York Times bestsellers list. So long as those two characters are still about, then those people will never stop. And as they've said time and time again over on the WotC boards, they're completely unable to enjoy the setting because, so long as those two characters exist, they can't have any meaningful adventures in the Forgotten Realms because Elminster and Drizzt are better than their characters, are capable of handling all the real problems, and are apparently even intrusively invading their home campaigns.
So no, killing off Alusair, Caladnei, Khelben, Laeral, Qilue, Wulfgar, Cattie-Brie, etc, didn't change anything, because the biggest "offenders" in their minds, Elminster and Drizzt, are still around and will always be around. And so long as Elminster and Drizzt are there, those same people will continue to be critical of the setting.
The Drizzt hate has always puzzled me. I get the whole "he's popular, so I must show that I am not a conformist and must therefore hate him" mentality, silly though it is. And I get people who think he's too brooding, emo, whatever. But the "he can handle all the problems so why do they need me" is the one I don't get. Anyone saying that has obviously not read any of the books. I can get where they are coming from with Elminster, even if they are wrong. He can level nations if he chose, but Drizzt is just better than average at stabbing things. His equal/rival/nemesis/potential bromance partner is just a (now rather long lived) human that happens to be equally good at stabbing things. They aren't exactly world shakers and both seem to just want peace. Aside from that, not counting the occasional trip to Calimshan Drizzt stays in one fairly small area of the map. It seems like any actual attempt to get to know the character would debunk a lot of the ideas about him.
I think the powers that be would do well to ignore those folks as they obviously aren't interested in giving the products a fair shake in the first place.
I am only responding to this, because of my previous post, and because I want to ensure that something is understood. I don’t hate Drizzt, or Elminster, I don’t particularly like them, but that’s more from the fact that they seem to be setting dependent characters, when I feel that they shouldn’t be. One thing that I kind of liked about Elminster’s daughter, was that El didn’t take center stage. Sure he was there, but he wasn’t what the story was all about. Personally I feel that having setting dependent characters limits not only the authors, but the overall imigination of the setting itself. Am I in the minority, I am beginning to seriously think so. Do I believe my opinion will have any major impact on WOTC marketing decisions, no. This is however, how I feel, and I shall leave it that. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 01:09:19
Elminster isn't my fave Ed character, either... Of the Chosen, it's Khelben (though Steven Schend is the one that took him over). Of the Seven Sisters, it's Laeral.
From non-Chosen, I really like Mintiper Moonsilver and Baelam the Bold. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 00:57:01
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
But it's the destination of this line of thought that prompts me to be so ugly regarding the 4e changes in the Realms. I'm worried that we're just going to keep on accepting.
I see that point too, and believe me, I've more-then-once had to question my own motives regarding some of my opinions - do I believe it to be TRUE, or am I having an emotional, knee-jerk reaction (which I am now of the opinion about 70% of the '4e uproar' was).
So, in hindsight, I have to say (as a DM) the Spellplague is kinda useful. It gave me the ability to change canon while staying within canon... neat trick, that. As for the sweeping changes (thinking about the cosmology ATM), I love some of it, hate some of it, and other parts I'm just sorta "why did they bother?" As for the rules... screw the rules (such language!) I've played this game without any rules, and you know what, it was damn fun! I've played it with T&T, C&S, Runequest, Traveller, Rolemaster, etc, etc, etc - its just about having fun with your friends. The rules mean diddly squat. If 4e didn't look like any previous version, well, neither did any of those other systems I just mentioned. I can RP with CLUE rules (and have) - 4e is no better or no worse for people who like to Roleplay. Different strokes for different folks - lots of people these days like that 'tactical feel'. No sweat off my brow. I've probably never run a campaign where I knew even half the rules I was using (and didn't feel I needed to).
So my point is, over the many long years I've been playing 'D&D' (and I use that term in the loosest sense), I've dealt with just about everything they (and everyone else) has thrown at me. The only time I ever felt the need to 'stay in the past' and not move on to what was current was with 4e FR. I can't blame that on the rules, because I've dealt with that before. I can't blame it on the Spellplague, because even in light of how badly scripted the trigger event(s) was, the Spellplague itself is very useful to me. So Cyric thwacked the 'Almighty Mystra' with a stick while Azuth was sticking dollars in Shar's G-String (because thats how the whole thing comes off) - I've seen sillier stuff in my 35 years of gaming.
NO, when all is said and done, I have to say the only thing that I couldn't get past was the century. A decade? Meh! We've seen it before. Two decades? Hmph... thats a lot... but oh well. Once you start going beyond the one generation point, you are pretty much throwing out the thing that made FR what it is - the PEOPLE. Without the NPCs, FR is just a pretty map and some cool locales. The people made it come to life - THEIR stories. They just killed them all.
I know they weren't real, but we cared about them. They were real enough to us. Somehow, they completely missed that during design. 
So if they are asking themselves now "why don't the fans care about FR anymore?", its because they didn't live us much to care about. Its a world full of strangers now.
I know that often having a disability means I come to most issues differently, but to me FR isn’t just about the people, heck, many of the characters I liked, weren’t “flagship characters,” and often got very little screen time. The noblewoman at Candlekeep in Elmenster’s daughter is a great point, I wanted to see where her story continued, but never got to find out, and that’s just one character. To me, it’s as much the “setting” of FR, than the people that I am enterested in. It’s the culture and psychology of the individuals that comprise the setting that interests me. A lot of the “ main” characters I’m not that fond of. Take Drizzt for instance, every Drizzt story I ever read was more to get a glimpse of the setting, not to read about Drizzt. It’s not that I really dislike Drizzt, he just doesn’t interest me. The same goes for Elminster, yes I expect to hear a lot of flack for this, but it’s very often the other characters that Ed thinks up that interests me, rather than Elminster. Was Making of the mage the first noval I ever read, sure, but at that time, reading it in brail, I knew very little about Dungens and Dragons other than the few games I’d already played in, which were taking place at such a later point in time that everything in the book seemed, at the time irrelevant. All I got out of it, was there was a really powerful wizard that was named Elminster, and that what he did had no impact on any of the characters I’d be playing. Two months later I learned that wasn’t necessarily the case, but the disconnect continued, up until two years ago. So when you say, the hundred year time jump bothered you because the characters are no longer there, I don’t see that as a problem, I see it as an oppertunaty for all these authors to write new characters, to explore personalities rather different than the ones that they’ve already done. Perhaps that’s why I’m reluctant, comments about the book aside, Bob’s recent book “the last threshold.” I know that even if they kill of Drizzt, then there just going to bring him back, so his death wont have the finality that it could have, the meaning that it should have if it really was the end. His kind of death would naturally impact the Drow in some incredible ways, it could lead to a new level of dynamic social interactions that haven’t been yet explored, males might realize that they don’t have forever to act, that they might have to take risks, big risks to act.
And this is turning into a foolish rant, which is really of no consequence, but hopefully you see a bit of my point. Excuse me for it’s length, and hopefully this wont be taken too much the wrong way; respectfully, Sightless.
|
| Venger |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 00:55:10
No kidding. It was destroyed, what, twice in a 15 year time span? |
|
|
