| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 03:43:06
If you need a villain with no back history, instead of pulling it out of your rump, you pull it out of the feywild.
the gods, seem to have learned a lesson from the spellplauge and are less involved personally.
I have utterly no clue what is going on with locations I use to love, and have given up trying to connect the dots, as they are rather large.
The far realm is an awesome place.
Warlocks have more meat when it comes to why they do what they do, and how pacts are made.
Amadeus is a great god, but should be treated as a guest star, and return back to the red pit he rules.
I miss my old friends mask, mystara and heck was nice to see malar come back.
With less mega powerful things running about to save the day, was nice to meet new friends and heros in the realms, that did not get overshadowed.
The drow went poof? Where the heck did they go, almost no books seem to even touch them.
The feywild really seems to be the new chaotic evil power in the market, asleast now that the demons went bye bye.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 23:33:35
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
As someone whose primary interest is in the novels I cannot speak for the quality of the gaming materials however I must say that the quality of the novels in 4e has not 'nose dived' , in fact many of my favorite novels are set in 4e or at least in the period leading up to it. Such as the Twilight war trilogy, which pretty much everyone agrees is a great series.
I wonder if you have given these products a fair chance or just have an " I hate all 4e stuff" attitude.
While I agree that the realms have become darker but that is the trend nowadays and it can hardly be called a 'post Apocalyptic wasteland' especially compared with many other settings.
The twilight war trilogy(or at least the first two books) was a solid series, the Sembia changes were actually really well done and made sense in the setting. The haunted lands books weren't that interesting IMO and they made the setting less interesting as a whole. Book one of the empyrean odyssey was terrible from start to finish. I didn't bother with any other "4e FR" stuff, because they have no relevance to any setting that I care about. I did read the newest Elminster trilogy, because it basically marks the end of the 4e FR era. I did purchase the 4e FR game supplements and used them for a single campaign and to be quite frank, they are the worst roleplaying game product I have ever owned(and L5R third edition was pretty bad). To be clear, the Dungeons and Dragons 4e stuff is not my cup of tea, but I can understand the appeal of a system that focuses solely on player character class balance.
Even during the end of 3e, it was worthwhile to read the novels, because they were effectively a newspaper for the setting. I didn't care for every RSE and feel like they occurred to close together. However, they still shined light on areas of the realms and provided me ideas I could use for campaigns. Even if I didn't care for them, I could find value in the information. 4e FR on the other hand might as well be an entirely different setting. The design goal of separating the setting from its vast amounts of lore that hypothetically intimidated new DMs and players(and certainly intimidated WotC employees) was successful IMO. Other than borrowing the map along with a dozen or so NPCs(Elminster, Drizzt and every super villain NPCS except poor Halaster), 4e FR is just the core 4e lore combine with some of FR's map.
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Try out The Biomass Revolution by Nicholas Sansbury Smith if you want some really dark stuff.
I don't have any problems with dark stuff. I just prefer to have the choice of apples and oranges rather than everything being an apple. After FR, my second favorite D&D setting is Ravenloft. That doesn't mean I think that I,Strahd would make a fantastic addition to the Realms. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 22:18:27
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm looking forward to 5e providing reasons to reconsider.
I really hope it won't. The things you describe as "bad" are the only way to keep a shared setting used by a host of different authors consistent.
If an author is "pulling to much at the leash" he might not be suited to work in a shared setting where everyone has to keep the greater picture in mind and follow some common rules.
Letting each and every author just pull a shared setting into whatever direction he wants is a sure way to ruin a shared setting very quickly.
Not sure if you meant to quote me but I'm going to agree with what you're saying here, and also add that WotC apparently disagrees strongly with both of us. If they had even the slightest sense of a greater picture, or a shred of respect for the concept of shared settings, the 4e changes in the Realms would not have happened.
(9k snipped because I get passionate sometimes, and my rants are either misunderstood, misdirected, or preaching to the choir.)
 |
| Krafus |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 21:18:55
The more I think about it, the more I believe that a lot of FR fans are angry that WotC tried in a way to have its cake and eat it too. Or rather, to make us pay for the cake, and then make us pay again to watch them devour it.
With the 2e and 3e sourcebooks/supplements, they went to considerable effort to intricately detail large parts of the Realms, and to make us buy all those products. But then came the succession of RSEs in 3e, which often invalidated previous material (speaking only for myself, I'm still unhappy that Myth Drannor was retaken by the elves instead of remaining the largest and deadliest treasure hoard in the Realms).
It's as if WotC wanted us to, one on hand, pay over a number of years for material/products detailing the Realms and become attached to the lore within, and then, with the succession of 3e RSEs, pay again for the dubious privilege of watching places, characters, and lore we'd grown attached to get blown up and/or replaced by we something didn't like. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 17:29:06
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Yes, I get what you mean, that 4e was only the last of a series of changes that drove many people away from canon.
I know that I tend to be not so clear when explaining my opinions (english not being my native language surely makes it worse), and I apologize for it.
It's cool, describing feelings is difficult to describe in peson let alone on a messageboard.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
It was a discussion sprung from the statement that 4e promoted the ''lore as tool'' take on canon, while its approach was exactly the same as the previous editions, but with less lore (unlike -say- the way 5e is supposed to offer pieces of lore, that actually encourages their use as sourcse of ideas and info, even as stand-alone). In fact, the idea I get from you and Diffan is that being ''liberated'' was more a feel than anything else.
Exactly. Going back into 3E Realms I don't feel obligated to remain true to the words as written. It's nice, sure, but that feeling of keeping the puzzle in tact (or nearly so) is gone. It was long after I started 4E that I went back to pre-3E timeline and did a v3.5 campaign set in 1374 DR Moonsea region and I changed a lot to fit my campaign. I put in castles and Zhentarim outposts, NPCs, organizations, and lore into the area that I knew none existed before. I don't think I would've thought to do that had I not started 4E. I probably would've just created my own world for that stuff because it didn't fit into the grand puzzle. And funny enough, that campaign used all pre-made adventures in it (The Burning Plague, Sons of Gruumsh, and the Moonsea supplement) for the PCs to run though.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 17:15:28
I would almost go so far as to say it is/was a 'respect thing'.
The material they were producing (at one time) was just so darned good (for the most part) that we felt that if we changed any one thing, certain things would begin to unravel, and we'd have to work hard to put it back together (to use some plothook we 'cancelled out' at a later date). So although none us truly ran a 'canon world', we all tried to follow the canon as close as possible, so we could latch onto all those juicy bits as they came at us.
When 4e came along, many of us felt there really wasn't much we would want to use (as things progressed), so the canon became unimportant to adhere to so closely. At least, thats how I think it went for me, anyway. I do believe this was one of 4e's major design goals - to detach us from this almost phobia-like fear of 'breaking canon', and on that point, they probably succeeded well beyond their expectations.
Case-in-point: My last (3e) campaign I ran was set in 1385 DR, and I was using Khelben as a sort background character (WELL in the background), and then the novel Blackstaff came out, and I was like, "crap! Now what?" I was purposely running a game a decade ahead of current canon just so I could iron-out any wrinkles, but that was one MAJOR wrinkle! The whole point of running something ahead in time caused a snafu, and things began to unravel. I was able to still fix it (using the 'real' Khelben Blackstaff from GH), but I shouldn't have run into that problem, and wouldn't have if I wasn't so damned worried about 'sticking to canon'.
So even though we knew our games weren't canon, and we veered from it at will (when we wanted to), it was still there, in the background, like some hungry beast needing to be appeased. What 4e did was slay the beast. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 16:45:56
Irennan -
I think you're getting your point across.
It is definitely a "feeling" more than anything else. I mean, it was never a situation where WotC or some canon nazi was going to jump through your window and attack you if you didn't use the Realms as it was presented. People WANTED to do that because we loved the setting, and other people were encouraged to do the same because of that love for the setting.
Perhaps, a good way to describe it would be a romantic relationship that turns abusive. In the beginning you're deeply in love. However, after some time problems begin to appear in the relationship. You don't split at the first sign of problems, of course, you instead try to work it out. Then things take a turn for the worse, and the relationship turns abusive. You go through a period of breaking up, then getting back together, followed by periods of separation, and attempts to try and fix the problems... by the time you reach the 4E point of the relationship - it's at that point you truly hate each others guts and are actively going through a nasty divorce.
However, it's easy to forget that at one point in time that relationship started with a deep and strong love for one another. That things weren't always bad.
That is pretty much how my relationship with the Realms feels at this point. 5th Edition is post-angry divorce, and where we are contemplating "being friends" for the sake of the children. 
The only thing I wanted to get across is that things were not fine prior to 4E. No, things were going to hell long before 4E was even conceived of by WotC, it was just the final straw that caused the inevitable divorce from canon. Without 4E things probably would have continued to drag out even longer than they needed to, but the outcome was inevitable due to what WotC was doing to the setting with the RSE's. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 16:28:03
Yes, I get what you mean, that 4e was only the last of a series of changes that drove many people away from canon.
I know that I tend to be not so clear when explaining my opinions (english not being my native language surely makes it worse), and I apologize for it.
It was a discussion sprung from the statement that 4e promoted the ''lore as tool'' take on canon, while its approach was exactly the same as the previous editions, but with less lore (unlike -say- the way 5e is supposed to offer pieces of lore, that actually encourages their use as sourcse of ideas and info, even as stand-alone). In fact, the idea I get from you and Diffan is that being ''liberated'' was more a feel than anything else.
So, my original point is very simple: the people who used to follow canon were aware that they weren't restrained by it. Therefore RSEs in both 3e and 4e (I get your feel here. It kinda sucked to see things change so much while starting to read about the setting, and I still feel strongly about the drow deities and redemeed elves pointless RSE) didn't send the message that canon is just a tool, they only made the ones who were looking to make their Realms authentic (and that disliked the changes) no longer able to do so, forcing them to be selective about lore.
That's it. Sorry for being prolix or repeating myself, just wanted to make my point clear. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 16:02:36
Re: The Novels.
I have to agree with the prevailing sentiment. I think most people think that the quality of the post-4E novels are perhaps some of the best the Realms has ever seen.
If they were set in another setting, it's no doubt they would be much more highly praised than they are - they are definitely a cut above some of the crap that used to be churned out. (Especially during the TSR era with their dislike of moral ambiguity and 'evil must never win nor be shown in any favorable light' policy... which pretty much destroyed groups like the Zhents.) |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 15:54:23
Irennan -
I'm not sure how to exactly describe it, but it was just a different time. Judging by the responses of others, it seems that I'm not the only one to have had this experience.
Due to the RSE's things were shifting toward the late end of 3E. People were being forced to choose between following the canon or having their home Realms constantly blown up. It wasn't 4E that CAUSED the break with canon, at least not for me - and I'm sure it's true for many others - it was just the final nail in the coffin. Most of us were already picking and choosing what would be canon in our Realms by late 3E.
I would describe it as if I was watching the Realms get carpet bombed. I was standing there screaming and begging WotC to stop blowing things up, and their response was to drop a nuclear bomb.
I think Diffan described it rather well:
quote:
In previous editions, it always felt (to me) that the Realms were a HUGE puzzle that most of the pices were already set. The cities, the NPCs, the nations, rivers, landmarks, hills, mountians, etc. were all detailed in some form or another (and that's good, to a point) but it also made me feel that messing with that puzzle would result in something bad or unrecognizable and thus, ruin my experience. Because 4E made the lore and map much lighter in scope and detail, it also removed this willingness to work within a narrow frame and to branch out a bit to make it a bit more "my own".
That's EXACTLY how the Realms felt to me as well, and it was one of the reasons all the RSE's drove me absolutely nuts. They were doing things that I would have been afraid to do in my home Realms, because of all the little fiddly bits of lore out there - it would have been a herculean effort to determine the consequences of some of their actions. They got around this by IGNORING the consequences of their actions, and in many cases simply hand waving them away.
I saw the Realms as a living and breathing world, and just like in the real world if you impacted one part of the setting you've impacted it all. Small actions could have big consequences, and even bigger actions could have catastrophic consequences.
When you were gaming in the Realms you wanted to know what would likely be the consequences of your actions, and how that would influence your Realms in relationship to the canon.
It's somewhat hard to describe to someone who didn't live through it, because as Diffan said - it had more to do with "feeling". As Markus pointed out prior to 4E and late 3E there was a desire to be up-to-date on what was happening in the Realms, a real sense that if you didn't have the latest product that you were missing important stuff that was going to directly impact your home Realms.
A decade or so ago, I think you would have found so many more people trying to stick close to the canon of the Realms. Nowadays? I don't think anyone sticks to the canon anymore. Even people who have active campaigns which are set pre-Spellplague openly say that they won't follow the Realms canon into the post-Spellplague, that they will diverge at that point.
Even the people who like and play in the post-Spellplague Realms do not have that same "feeling" (as Diffan described it), that they have to stay canon.
It's just a different time, with a different feeling. The water was shifting in late 3E, and I think the tide really broke against WotC as a result of The Lady Penitent Trilogy by Lisa Smedman in which the Drow Pantheon - in particular Eilistraee was killed. Although I was personally crying foul with all the RSE's long before that, it's around this point when I felt more people were shifting to my position. ...and like I said, 4E was the equivalent of a nuclear bomb, but the problems existed long before that point. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 15:23:49
I am going to have to agree here that the subject matter of the 3e novels began the downward spiral for me as well.
In 1e/2e novels, I could read about some local heroes, and even learn about some new place (or a dozen), and learn not only the name of the local tavern, but the family that runs it. All those minute, little details that brought the Realms to light.
Much erased here because it served no positive purpose.
So what 4e also taught me was that I am way too anal about 'trivia'. Maybe it was some well-needed therapy. |
| Krafus |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 14:59:24
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I will agree that 4e "taught" me that following cannon was a waste of time. However, the reason for that is the quality of realms products noised drived with 4e and the "cannon" was a big one fingered salute to fans of the setting. I also don't purchase 4e FR products, because they have nothing to add to my game. I would much rather have a setting with an interesting cannon that was populated by great characters rather than a post apocalyptic waste land that has no advantage over the vastly superior Dark Sun setting.
While I don't like 4e as an edition and absolutely hate the butchering the grand, gaudy Realms suffered to make them fit the tiny "points of light" hole, like Thauranil, I feel I must speak up on behalf of the 4e FR novels. To tar them with the "4e products are inferior quality-wise" brush is just wrong IMO.
In particular, Erik Scott de Bie's Shadowbane novels have reawakened my interest in the Realms and D&D in general in a way the 3e RSEs never managed (indeed, the RSEs were a turn-off for me). If not for them, I'd not be here today posting this. I'm also hopeful that WotC's stated intent to have post-Sundering novels be character-driven like the old Harpers series will result in more novels being not just character-driven, but character-focused like the Shadowbane novels, which is exactly the kind of novels I want to read nowadays. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 14:36:37
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
As someone whose primary interest is in the novels I cannot speak for the quality of the gaming materials however I must say that the quality of the novels in 4e has not 'nose dived'... <snip>
I just want to be CLEAR (and not unintentionally insult people I like and respect)- I have no problem with the quality of 4e novels - I have read a few and they were pretty good.
My issue is with the setting itself, which means it did not matter how good the novels were, I just didn't care about the information they contained (as opposed to 1e/2e/3e novels). I felt no need to rush and and buy every one, as I did before.
So its not a knock to any authors - I know they did their damned best with what they were handed. Quality has nothing to do with it at all - I can think of several 1e/2e/3e novels I re-read, even though I thought the quality was severely lacking, just to get a better understanding of the information they contained. This is what 4e 'taught me' - not to care about the lore itself. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 14:17:42
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
that might be the only way they could describe it, after all Diffan, each class did get x amount of powers per day.......
On the surface, sure it appears the same but in actual application it was much much differeent (at least to me). Because a Fighter had two exploits he could peform all the time did not somehow mean he could use "Magic" just because the wizard got two 1st level spells which they could perform all the time. The effects were wildly different, keyed off of different Stats, had different targets, ranges, and applications AND wizards used implements like staffs/orbs/wands where as the Fighter used weapons.
Still, some people felt that the classes played the same because the structure was AEDU and I recognize that even if I never had the same experience. In fact, I had the opposite experience because I felt the classes were far more diverse due to other factors such as Roles, Ability score requirements, weapon/armor prof., and the powers themselves were diverse enough to me that the "sameness" just wasn't there. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 13:28:59
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I will agree that 4e "taught" me that following cannon was a waste of time. However, the reason for that is the quality of realms products noised drived with 4e and the "cannon" was a big one fingered salute to fans of the setting. I also don't purchase 4e FR products, because they have nothing to add to my game. I would much rather have a setting with an interesting cannon that was populated by great characters rather than a post apocalyptic waste land that has no advantage over the vastly superior Dark Sun setting.
As someone whose primary interest is in the novels I cannot speak for the quality of the gaming materials however I must say that the quality of the novels in 4e has not 'nose dived' , in fact many of my favorite novels are set in 4e or at least in the period leading up to it. Such as the Twilight war trilogy, which pretty much everyone agrees is a great series.
I wonder if you have given these products a fair chance or just have an " I hate all 4e stuff" attitude.
While I agree that the realms have become darker but that is the trend nowadays and it can hardly be called a 'post Apocalyptic wasteland' especially compared with many other settings. Try out The Biomass Revolution by Nicholas Sansbury Smith if you want some really dark stuff. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 12:51:39
I agree on that point as well.
So, in a sense, the 4e design team achieved what they set out to do, and on that point it was a whopping success.
Unfortunately for them, they didn't foresee the side-effects of the 'no need for canon' attitude they engendered in fans... no-one really feels the need to read novels anymore. I don't have to 'keep up to date' with anything. We also don't need to rush out and buy every single sourcebook.
So Hurray for them, and Hurray for us. They don't have to work so hard, and we get to save money. When you look a that way, 4e was win-win for everybody.  |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 12:15:07
I will agree that 4e "taught" me that following cannon was a waste of time. However, the reason for that is the quality of realms products noised drived with 4e and the "cannon" was a big one fingered salute to fans of the setting. I also don't purchase 4e FR products, because they have nothing to add to my game. I would much rather have a setting with an interesting cannon that was populated by great characters rather than a post apocalyptic waste land that has no advantage over the vastly superior Dark Sun setting.
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 09:46:32
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
To me it was two parts:
1). 100 year jump into the future changes the course of the setting and made it feel new. I didn't feel obligated to adhere to specific elements within the scope of the setting because of such-and-such novel or a specific supplement (this obligation was totally voluntary, not pressed). Further I didn't have to justify any of the customization I made because there was little supporting evidence to the contrary. With previous supplements and the microscopic lense it placed into the setting, well......it can be discouraging to the imagination when that imagination wants to create something new AND remain close to (if not 99%) within Canon.
2). Lore-lite approach to the setting at the beginning. While I find now that I'd like MORE lore (well, informational stuff about Abeir/Akanûl/Tymanther) going into the setting without first needing a large pool of info to read through really helped fuel imagination. The fact that the map isn't ridiculously detailed allowed me to add in a town or city or change the name of a river AND follow that up with the "offical" map. Sure, I could've done this with other eras but I didn't because i felt obligated to follow Canon as strictly as possible so I didn't bother adding in my own elements because they felt out of place.
I understand, having less lore gave people the impression to be free from its restraints (while they were getting less options from the books). Then it was mostly a matter of feeling that way, rather than 4e approach actually having a ''structure'' promoting customization (like 5e modularity, which can achieve what you said w/o the need of destroying stuff). |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 08:08:53
that might be the only way they could describe it, after all Diffan, each class did get x amount of powers per day....... |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 05:55:29
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
That said, I still don't see what 4e did to encourage compete customization of the setting that other editions didn't (besides, a single line doesn't do much in that regard).
To me it was two parts:
1). 100 year jump into the future changes the course of the setting and made it feel new. I didn't feel obligated to adhere to specific elements within the scope of the setting because of such-and-such novel or a specific supplement (this obligation was totally voluntary, not pressed). Further I didn't have to justify any of the customization I made because there was little supporting evidence to the contrary. With previous supplements and the microscopic lense it placed into the setting, well......it can be discouraging to the imagination when that imagination wants to create something new AND remain close to (if not 99%) within Canon.
2). Lore-lite approach to the setting at the beginning. While I find now that I'd like MORE lore (well, informational stuff about Abeir/Akanûl/Tymanther) going into the setting without first needing a large pool of info to read through really helped fuel imagination. The fact that the map isn't ridiculously detailed allowed me to add in a town or city or change the name of a river AND follow that up with the "offical" map. Sure, I could've done this with other eras but I didn't because i felt obligated to follow Canon as strictly as possible so I didn't bother adding in my own elements because they felt out of place.
In previous editions, it always felt (to me) that the Realms were a HUGE puzzle that most of the pices were already set. The cities, the NPCs, the nations, rivers, landmarks, hills, mountians, etc. were all detailed in some form or another (and that's good, to a point) but it also made me feel that messing with that puzzle would result in something bad or unrecognizable and thus, ruin my experience. Because 4E made the lore and map much lighter in scope and detail, it also removed this willingness to work within a narrow frame and to branch out a bit to make it a bit more "my own".
Its hard to explain because its far more a "feeling" element that one might get from their experience. For contrast, I heard people complain that 4E classes felt far too similiar in scope and style and that they played the same. I cannot understand this feeling for the life of me. A wizard plays completely different in feel, application, scope, and roleplay than a Fighter or Monk that this feeling is completely alien to me, yet there the feeling is. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 01:35:20
Really wish we had spoiler tags, pain to read all this on a phone :( |
| Irennan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 01:30:44
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Stopping you right there for a moment. No one said that WotC was forcing me to do anything, nor did I say that it wasn't my choice. My choices were only partially influenced by WotC, and to the extent that they were it was because of the source books - I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing any lore. If I radically changed Cormyr (which I've done in my Realms), it pretty much means that any future Cormyr source book is useless to me outside of a 'love of the lore' pursuit. It also makes it harder for older source books to be mined for information.
[...]
Today, my Realms is largely canon in the sense that all of events leading up to and immediately after the Time of Troubles is completely canon. After that point, I fiddle around a bit with certain things, even if I'm not 100% in favor of it. For example, I have Returned Netheril appearing, but I get rid of them immediately after the Spellplague.
My version of the Spellplague is when my Realms diverges and separates completely from canon. This allows me to ensure that all my source books are still valid as historical lore texts for my Realms. I can still use them for inspiration and ideas.
[...]
Also, keep in mind that I was screaming at the top of my lungs during 3rd Edition. It drove me nuts how many RSE's they were having, and I absolutely hated it. The fact that they threw a RSE to end all RSE's at us was... well, it was par for the course in my opinion, and it was the point where the Realms jumped the shark completely.
I became very much anti-Realms novels (even to the point of openly boycotting them!) because of all the RSE's that they introduced. By the end of 3E, I was pretty much already standing in the doorway with one foot on the other side, ready to abandon the setting entirely due to the large number of RSE's.
4E didn't change to something I disliked, I was pretty much already disliking what they had done during 3E as well, and was a strong and vocal critic.
[...]
For me, 4th Edition was just the final nail in the coffin. It wasn't the singular event that caused me to break from canon, it was just the last straw.
I see. Then, in a sense, you were already using the lore as you saw fit, but keeping it ''close'' to the official version so that the material about it could still be useful. This is about what I wanted to point out, i.e. people wanted to stick to canonical realms, but they knew that they could choose otherwise. RSEs of sort (and I totally agree with what you said about this matter), 4e or whatever change that they absolutely and completely disliked made them ignore official lore and run whatever they wanted. It's not like the changes suddenly made people understand that when it comes to a campaing, the point of having lore is not only details, but choice.
About what you pointed out concerning the FR community, I wasn't aware that a similar behaviour was as radicated as you said (I picked up the Realms during late 3e, and joined this forum the last year), but I really think that it was related more to wanting to impose their opinion about the matter, than to being shackled to canon.
quote:
Buying Realms source books had nothing to do with options. At least not for me. It had to do with gaining information - lore. I wanted to know more about certain regions of the setting, about its people, it's culture, it's geography, and all that good stuff.
That is a very different thing than looking for "options". Even if I had access to an older source book, I still wanted a newer one because of the advancing timeline. I wanted to know what changed.
When you're looking for information instead of "options" (as you put it), your mindset is completely different. If you want to run games that try to authentically capture the Realms as they are within the canon, those source books are pretty important. And if I wanted those books to be useful, I couldn't do things like what I did to Cormyr. How useful is a 4E source book on Cormyr going to be for me? Not very useful. At best, I could mine it for some good ideas. However, the same is true for other campaign settings.
You may have interacted with it differently, and that's fine. It's irrelevant at this point. However, that's not how I handled or interacted with the setting.
My point was this:
Sourcebooks have the purpose of providing ideas and details (these are the options I was talking about) when it comes to the game. No one would spend their money on it, if they saw such things as actually restraining (unless it's purely for the info). The people who sticked to canon and wanted to run an ''authentic'' campaing knew that they could choose to use whatever parts they wanted, drastic changes they disliked simply forced them to do so (as they couldn't use the sourcebooks for that purpose anymore).
It is about the same thing I said above, I was using the act of buying sourcebooks as an example (sorry if I wasn't clear about it).
The only people actually shackled to canon are the one who buy the sourcebooks only for the lore: they have no choice but to stop buying, if they don't like what they read. However this has little to do with the use of canonical lore in D&D (or whatever system) games.
quote:
Actually, 4th Edition did kinda do that.
quote:
NOT "FR"? NO PROBLEM!
You can take advantage of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (and its companion volume, the Player’s Guide) even if your campaign is not set in the world of Toril.
All of the concepts and details in this book can work just as well in a setting that you have devised yourself. In other words, you can pick and choose, using the parts of this material that you find most interesting or most compatible with your current setting. By doing so, you can inject the wonder and intrigue of Faerun into your game while keeping all the elements of your existing world that you and your players have become accustomed to.
For example, the realm known as the Underdark had its beginnings in earlier Forgotten Realms products. Since then, that term and all it encompasses have been adopted into the core D&D rules. Although you can certainly create your own Underdark if you want to, there's a fully developed version of the World Below waiting for you inside these pages.
Remember, your setting is always unique to you. It is what you and your players make it. That's true whether you use every bit of a book like this one, or whether you use it as seasoning to spice up the world you've already made.
- pg. 4, of the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide
That was probably the most useful part of the entire book, and it's something that should appear in the introduction of every FR book hereafter.
The 3e campaign book also contains something similar.
quote:
[...] It's a setting for your adventures, a background for your characters and plots, a set of suggestions for how
you could play a continuing game, and a source of ideas for how to
develop a world of your own. [...]
It's less explicit, but is there.
That said, I still don't see what 4e did to encourage compete customization of the setting that other editions didn't (besides, a single line doesn't do much in that regard). |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 23:54:16
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Meh. Honestly I don't consider ''slapping'' people who chose to bend their campaing....
Stopping you right there for a moment. No one said that WotC was forcing me to do anything, nor did I say that it wasn't my choice. My choices were only partially influenced by WotC, and to the extent that they were it was because of the source books - I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing any lore. If I radically changed Cormyr (which I've done in my Realms), it pretty much means that any future Cormyr source book is useless to me outside of a 'love of the lore' pursuit. It also makes it harder for older source books to be mined for information.
For example, in my Realms a lot of important things happened around the time Azoun V ascended to the throne. Cormyr ends up conquering Sembia, and the nation begins to morph into a theocratic monarchy - in which a lot of the power rests in the hands of the priests of Amaunator. There has been huge changes throughout the entire region. The Shades are gone. The primary enemy for both the Dalelands and Cormyr are the Elves of Cormanthor who very much have an almost Eldreth Veluuthra like stance when it comes to the humans of the region. ...and to some extent, that bigoted stance toward humans is justified.
I completely changed how the Spellplague happened - the Weave ended up being corrupted by Moander with the aid of Shar. Those that use Weave magic slowly over time become corrupted - rotting from the inside out and going insane. Mystra herself lives on as well, but as a twisted, bloated and rotting monstrosity that has been driven utterly insane.
So, yeah... with changes like that it can be hard to make it work with source books. However, what ultimately most heavily influenced the way that I did things was not WotC, but the FR community itself. When I was first coming to the Realms to begin using the setting many years ago - over a decade ago now, probably - the lore was a bit overwhelming. I came to one of the forums (not Candlekeep) and started a discussion over whether or not the Realms needed as many deities as it had. I happened to include a rather long list of deities that I was considering flushing down the toilet. My line of thinking, and intention behind posting, was basically, "Are any of these deities actually important? Some of these racial deities here look redundant, will it break anything if I just get rid of them?"
...and the response was basically having people absolutely flip their crap. I was basically told, in less than kind words, that if I wanted to make such drastic changes to the setting that I should create my own homebrew world. I was flatly told that "no one would consider THAT to be the Realms!"
Back then people really seemed to be pushing the notion that if you wanted to play in the Realms it had to be the canon Realms. If you made significant changes to the setting then no one would want to play in your "bastardized" version of the Realms.
It wasn't just that one conversation, of course, it was how other people were playing in the Realms as well. I frequently read posts about how people were running their players through a certain story that took place in the novels (replacing novel characters with the PCs), and it was starting to run off the rails. They were worried about their players not engaging in certain important critical plot points, and thus altering the outcome of the final events. So, basically, they were looking for assistance in how to rail road their players to keep them in the canon.
Things are different today, though I'm certain some people would read about the changes I've made to my home version of the Realms and say the same things that were said over a decade ago.
Back then, I assumed that if you wanted to play in the Realms, and wanted other people who were interested in the setting - you couldn't make drastic changes. I would have argued that it would invalidate the purpose of an off the shelf campaign setting, and a shared world. After all, one of the major benefits is that most everyone who plays the game is going to already be familiar with the setting. This was sort of a basic built in assumption.
Of course, that assumption is wrong. Lots of people did avoid the Realms because of the heavy amount of lore. I personally fell in love with it, and threw myself into it. At a certain point - when you have tons of source books - you become financially invested in ensuring that things stick close to canon. After all, you've spent a lot of money on those books, and the last thing you want to do is turn them into paper weights.
So, my opinions and choices were shaped by things like the above.
Today, my Realms is largely canon in the sense that all of events leading up to and immediately after the Time of Troubles is completely canon. After that point, I fiddle around a bit with certain things, even if I'm not 100% in favor of it. For example, I have Returned Netheril appearing, but I get rid of them immediately after the Spellplague.
My version of the Spellplague is when my Realms diverges and separates completely from canon. This allows me to ensure that all my source books are still valid as historical lore texts for my Realms. I can still use them for inspiration and ideas.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
...worth all the pointless (and at times nonsensical) drama and destruction that stormed the Realms. Besides, would you smash something in order to teach people how to use it? I doubt it.
I never said it was worth it, nor that the intention was to teach me anything. It's more of finding a silver lining amid the destruction. Sometimes you end up learning valuable lessons when things go horribly wrong. In fact, that's likely when you learn the most valuable lessons.
Also, keep in mind that I was screaming at the top of my lungs during 3rd Edition. It drove me nuts how many RSE's they were having, and I absolutely hated it. The fact that they threw a RSE to end all RSE's at us was... well, it was par for the course in my opinion, and it was the point where the Realms jumped the shark completely.
I became very much anti-Realms novels (even to the point of openly boycotting them!) because of all the RSE's that they introduced. By the end of 3E, I was pretty much already standing in the doorway with one foot on the other side, ready to abandon the setting entirely due to the large number of RSE's.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I cannot possibly believe that you were actually convinced that by buying Realms books, you were basically paying to have less options. The function of lore when it comes to gaming is to provide ideas, not limit them: it's what defines good lore and -to be blunt- it is quite obvious.
Buying Realms source books had nothing to do with options. At least not for me. It had to do with gaining information - lore. I wanted to know more about certain regions of the setting, about its people, it's culture, it's geography, and all that good stuff.
That is a very different thing than looking for "options". Even if I had access to an older source book, I still wanted a newer one because of the advancing timeline. I wanted to know what changed.
When you're looking for information instead of "options" (as you put it), your mindset is completely different. If you want to run games that try to authentically capture the Realms as they are within the canon, those source books are pretty important. And if I wanted those books to be useful, I couldn't do things like what I did to Cormyr. How useful is a 4E source book on Cormyr going to be for me? Not very useful. At best, I could mine it for some good ideas. However, the same is true for other campaign settings.
You may have interacted with it differently, and that's fine. It's irrelevant at this point. However, that's not how I handled or interacted with the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Also 4e didn't ''liberate you from canon'', It simply changed it to something you didn't like.
4E didn't change to something I disliked, I was pretty much already disliking what they had done during 3E as well, and was a strong and vocal critic.
Once again, it goes back to my issue with RSE's.
I also argued about the inaccurate perception the novels were creating about the Realms by featuring powerful characters such as Elminster, which was leading people to believe that there was no room for their PC's in the setting. This was an inaccurate perception directly created by the novels, and it was not reflecting the authenticity of the setting. It was giving people a very skewed view of the Realms - they were creating the perception that you needed to be very powerful individuals to make a difference, and the world was constantly in danger as one RSE after another shook it. We even had people say stuff like this when people brought up this imaginary problem: "It's easy to ignore, because Elminster has more important things to do! He has to tackle the big stuff while the PC's handle X!" Which only went to further the perception that such characters were basically the "true heroes" of the setting, and "spotlight thieves".
All of this was completely false, but it was directly created by the novels and then reinforced by people saying stupid stuff like the above. How many arguments over the years have we've seen over things like this? Hundreds and hundreds, no doubt.
Then there was the whole issue of turning the Gods into characters and overly humanizing them.
There were just so many things that pissed me off pre-4E that I feel my blood pressure rising and a rant coming on just thinking about it.
For me, 4th Edition was just the final nail in the coffin. It wasn't the singular event that caused me to break from canon, it was just the last straw.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
That edition didn't do anything to directly encourage people to use the lore as they wish...
Actually, 4th Edition did kinda do that.
quote:
NOT "FR"? NO PROBLEM!
You can take advantage of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (and its companion volume, the Player’s Guide) even if your campaign is not set in the world of Toril.
All of the concepts and details in this book can work just as well in a setting that you have devised yourself. In other words, you can pick and choose, using the parts of this material that you find most interesting or most compatible with your current setting. By doing so, you can inject the wonder and intrigue of Faerun into your game while keeping all the elements of your existing world that you and your players have become accustomed to.
For example, the realm known as the Underdark had its beginnings in earlier Forgotten Realms products. Since then, that term and all it encompasses have been adopted into the core D&D rules. Although you can certainly create your own Underdark if you want to, there's a fully developed version of the World Below waiting for you inside these pages.
Remember, your setting is always unique to you. It is what you and your players make it. That's true whether you use every bit of a book like this one, or whether you use it as seasoning to spice up the world you've already made.
- pg. 4, of the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide
That was probably the most useful part of the entire book, and it's something that should appear in the introduction of every FR book hereafter. |
| Renin |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 22:05:33
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
In the end, I got the setting I wanted. There may be some people who'd claim I "ruined" the Realms, because many of my changes were even more drastic than 4th Edition. It's certainly much more darker in tone and feel - with a lot more moral ambiguity, and drastically reduced levels of magic from a D&D perspective (no longer using D&D rules). ...but I'm happy with what I've done, and that's what matters to me.
Hear, hear! |
| Renin |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 22:02:05
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
4E taught me not to be a slave to Canon and use it however I see fit.
Sheeeeet...I've been doing that since 2nd Edition.
My group and I have NEVER met Elminster, any of the 7 sisters, Manshoon, Semmemon, Fzoul, Drizzt, Knights of Myth Drannor, or Szass Tam.
And the Realms felt like the Realms still; big and daring, grand old histories and ruins to explore, treasures to be found, death and peril to encounter, and many an inn to drink, share tales in, and...start bar fights at.
We are not locked into anything. There's so much material from 2nd and 3rd that I don't believe you possibly could have explored all prior 4th edition canon. Couple that with making your own campaigns, why worry about the product line? It'll either sort itself out...or be destroyed (which I believe is all our worry).
So yeah, I'm down with Diffan. Enjoy playing with what you like, and ditch the rest.
But I can tell you that the Spellplague will never have happened in my Realms. Heck, we haven't even caught up to the Shades returning-and we hate that stuff too. Bad guys just to be bad guys? Lame I say. Probably won't even bring that in either. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 21:41:30
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
You chose to do things according to canon, but I cannot possibly believe ...
Dude, could you please lay off?
Nobody needs you to qualify their feelings for them or tell them that they don't feel how say they feel.
Please let those who want to enjoy the thread do so without threat of harassment.
I wasn't harassing anyone, please let me enjoy the thread without the threat of blame. I think that my words didn't contain insults and that I didn't try to qualify Aldrick's feelings.
I don't see why what I said would look like that. I stated that he felt like he said -i.e. chose to stick to canon because he wanted his Realms to be ''authentic''-, but that no one would waste money on lore if (s)he saw it as actually restraining, in the sense that it forces realmsian campaigns to bend to it (which is the perception problem whose solution 4e is being given credit for. I find it really hard to believe that it existed in that way: sure some people wanted to stick to canon even if they didn't like some parts of it to reflect the ''bigger'' Realms, but they knew that they could do things in a different way if wished so).
Anyway, if anyone took offence from what I wrote, (s)he has my apologies. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 21:13:41
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm looking forward to 5e providing reasons to reconsider.
I really hope it won't. The things you describe as "bad" are the only way to keep a shared setting used by a host of different authors consistent.
If an author is "pulling to much at the leash" he might not be suited to work in a shared setting where everyone has to keep the greater picture in mind and follow some common rules.
Letting each and every author just pull a shared setting into whatever direction he wants is a sure way to ruin a shared setting very quickly |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 21:06:03
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
You chose to do things according to canon, but I cannot possibly believe ...
Dude, could you please lay off?
Nobody needs you to qualify their feelings for them or tell them that they don't feel how say they feel.
Please let those who want to enjoy the thread do so without threat of harassment. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 19:38:34
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
4E truly liberated me from the canon Realms, and as a result gave me much more freedom. Prior to 4th Edition I was afraid to make massive and sweeping changes to the setting as I was worried that people wouldn't consider it the Forgotten Realms anymore. I was also afraid that if I made massive changes, that a new source book would eventually come out - I'd want it - only to find that most of it is useless for my home Realms.
My OCD level of perfectionism also drove me nuts with all the fiddly bits of FR lore. I was very much obsessed with trying to make the Realms feel "authentic" (whatever that means ).
I did this in spite of the fact that I found things I disliked about the setting, but refused to change out of a misguided notion of "sticking with the canon".
When 4E came with its changes, well... it was like a slap in the face. I liked a small handful of the changes made, but the time jump effectively killed the canon more than anything else. I couldn't follow where the Realms went, and that forced me to strike out on my own.
In the end, I got the setting I wanted. There may be some people who'd claim I "ruined" the Realms, because many of my changes were even more drastic than 4th Edition. It's certainly much more darker in tone and feel - with a lot more moral ambiguity, and drastically reduced levels of magic from a D&D perspective (no longer using D&D rules). ...but I'm happy with what I've done, and that's what matters to me.
So, yeah. I guess 4th Edition taught me that I should have done this a long time ago - back in 3E when they were blowing everything up with one RSE after another.
Now, all I need are players and time to actually run a campaign. 
Meh. Honestly I don't consider ''slapping'' people who chose to bend their campaing to whatever Wizbros decided for the setting so that they could start to use lore as they please something worth all the pointless (and at times nonsensical) drama and destruction that stormed the Realms. Besides, would you smash something in order to teach people how to use it? I doubt it.
You chose to do things according to canon, but I cannot possibly believe that you were actually convinced that by buying Realms books, you were basically paying to have less options. The function of lore when it comes to gaming is to provide ideas, not limit them: it's what defines good lore and -to be blunt- it is quite obvious.
Also 4e didn't ''liberate you from canon'', It simply changed it to something you didn't like. That edition didn't do anything to directly encourage people to use the lore as they wish (as I said, IIRC there was this line in the 4e FR player book that told people ''old lore and your campaing based on it are gone, new one is the good stuff'' EDIT: I was wrong, it doesn't say that).
@ xaeyruudh:
quote:
You also can't pick and choose lore if you have any hope of ever having a story published in that setting. For authors, canon is the setting, and the only way you can get away with re-interpreting anything is if (1) you can explain it to readers in a way that will make sense to them (taking into account both readers who are new to the Realms and/or D&D and young readers who don't yet have an advanced understanding of the language or worldbuilding) and (2) WotC approves of both your interpretation and your explanation, and doesn't already have conflicting plans in either of those areas.
4e taught me that I don't want to write for WotC, and delivered the lesson much more forcefully than any previous edition.
I'm looking forward to 5e providing reasons to reconsider.
Ofc, and this influences writers and -by consequence of it- the people who enjoy the Realms as a ''world'' (not only a setting) and that like the characters and places that were drastically changed or removed. This is exactly what I was talking about. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 19:09:42
And well said, Aldrick! This is true for me too, as far as my own campaigns go.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
4E truly liberated me from the canon Realms, and as a result gave me much more freedom. Prior to 4th Edition I was afraid to make massive and sweeping changes to the setting as I was worried that people wouldn't consider it the Forgotten Realms anymore.
|
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 02 Jul 2013 : 19:07:17
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
the problem with canon has never been game focused, but setting focused and concerned many of the people who enjoyed the Realms independently of their D&D campaign (and that for this reason couldn't pick and use only the parts of lore they liked).
You also can't pick and choose lore if you have any hope of ever having a story published in that setting. For authors, canon is the setting, and the only way you can get away with re-interpreting anything is if (1) you can explain it to readers in a way that will make sense to them (taking into account both readers who are new to the Realms and/or D&D and young readers who don't yet have an advanced understanding of the language or worldbuilding) and (2) WotC approves of both your interpretation and your explanation, and doesn't already have conflicting plans in either of those areas.
4e taught me that I don't want to write for WotC, and delivered the lesson much more forcefully than any previous edition.
I'm looking forward to 5e providing reasons to reconsider. |
|
|
