| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 16 Oct 2015 : 06:48:36
Do you think Ed Greenwood is happy with the current state of the Realms? I see all the mindless destruction of the Realms just for the "kewl" factor and I ask myself- "Is Ed Greenwood happy about the current state of the place and all the decisions so far?"
I remember hearing about Ed being excited about the new Realms but I'm still waiting to see this excitement. So far I'm only seeing things that just make me cringe to be honest. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 12 Nov 2015 : 13:52:25
I wouldn't say that. The commercial success of 5E just isn't tied to FR.
I am a member of fansites for Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc. A lot of guys online would like to see new iterations of their favorite setting. But I think only a small minority of collectors would just go out and buy all the new versions of old settings.
So which setting to do first? Old or new? And how much of your limited capital and design team time and effort do you out into it?
Last time WOTC did market research of which I am aware, they learned that most DMs run homebrew.
And the best selling product ever, IIRC, was the AD&D PHB (first edition)
Looked at as a business model, I am pretty sure focussing on rulebooks is the way to go. Sell core books. Sell splat books. When bloat sets in and people start griping, reboot to a new edition. It has worked pretty well thus far.
There is also the question of where TSR messed up by putting out so many campaign setting specific products.
And the real killer is that now so many old settings are available again on PDF. Why spend the money and time making a new product that may not sell well when it costs almost nothing to sell PDFs of older products? If a fan wants to run FR, a whole library of books may be purchased at cheap prices. Ditto the other old TSR settings.
I am not suggesting that WOTC won't make more FR stuff, or that other settings will never show up in print. I just mean that they are likely doing the smart thing by focusing on selling rulebooks and generic modules.
YMMV |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 12 Nov 2015 : 13:34:56
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
I don't think he's upset, but I doubt he's happy anymore, because WotC isn't giving anything to be excited about, the SCAG is poor substitute for a FRCG, there are barely any novels being done, it all started with so much promise, then was basically left to rot on the vine.
I imagine WOTC is focused on getting more people to buy 5E rule books. That is where the money is. Why focus on a campaign setting? Plenty of people will never buy the SCAG because they:
Run a homebrew setting and are not in the market for a " boxed" world
Run in a premade setting but just use a wiki or something like that, and some maps taken from the net
Run in one of many other published settings
Are not at all interested in FR and may even have negative vibes towards it
Are players, not DMs, and so do not invest much money in world products
Add up all those categories and I suspect you have an overwhelming majority of people likely to buy new D&D books. Especially that last category.
But I could be wrong.
Sounds to me like they've backed themselves into a corner. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 12 Nov 2015 : 12:41:03
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
I don't think he's upset, but I doubt he's happy anymore, because WotC isn't giving anything to be excited about, the SCAG is poor substitute for a FRCG, there are barely any novels being done, it all started with so much promise, then was basically left to rot on the vine.
I imagine WOTC is focused on getting more people to buy 5E rule books. That is where the money is. Why focus on a campaign setting? Plenty of people will never buy the SCAG because they:
Run a homebrew setting and are not in the market for a " boxed" world
Run in a premade setting but just use a wiki or something like that, and some maps taken from the net
Run in one of many other published settings
Are not at all interested in FR and may even have negative vibes towards it
Are players, not DMs, and so do not invest much money in world products
Add up all those categories and I suspect you have an overwhelming majority of people likely to buy new D&D books. Especially that last category.
But I could be wrong.
|
| Gyor |
Posted - 12 Nov 2015 : 12:10:22
I don't think he's upset, but I doubt he's happy anymore, because WotC isn't giving anything to be excited about, the SCAG is poor substitute for a FRCG, there are barely any novels being done, it all started with so much promise, then was basically left to rot on the vine. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 12 Nov 2015 : 11:04:41
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Dragon 223.
Thank you very much, LordofBones! |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 15:25:36
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
The Nine Hells articles were printed in 1e. The best supplements for Baator - and the Lower Planes - overall are the Planescape books, with Colin McComb, IIRC, describing the Lords of the Nine themselves in a Dragon issue.
I do like pretty much all Colin McComb stuff.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 14:35:48
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
My enthusiasm is ... conditional. The Forgotten Realms remains a fantastic campaign setting. I'm on the record as stating that for my Impiltur work, I stop just prior to the ascension of Imbrar II as monarch of that realm. For my creative and narrative purposes, that is my Impiltur "sweet spot". So it makes me wonder, whether you play 3E, 4E, 5E, Pathfinder etc etc, why you can't set your campaign in any time era of the Realms you prefer? Given the decision of WotC to not publish a 5E FRCS and instead focus on the organised play adventures as the fulcrum of the 5E Realms, anyone who seeks immersive detail in their campaign setting should just kick off their campaign in 1350 DR using whatever rules float their boat and have a ball - knowing the whole time that they have a series of events/historical progression to weave into their campaign if they so choose. I am a time poor individual. I have zero time to create vast swathes of setting lore on the Realms to bring the 5E Realms to anything resembling the level of detail that would make it easy to create/write in the late 1400s DR. The greatest godsend to the Realms was the publishing of the 2E boxed set and its timeline, which provided fantastic background detail to really bed down the Realms. Well that and a ton of products. WotC have gone in a different direction with the Realms in 4E and 5E. It's a direction that I find challenging from a creative standpoint. The reason for that is quite simple - there is insufficient setting detail for my liking. Others obviously love the freedom to create in an environment lacking in detail - and I say more power to them. My fun has always been derived from extrapolating from existing lore, building on disparate references and explaining away inconsistencies. In the 4E and 5E Realms, I don't even know where to start as the prospect seems too daunting.
-- George Krashos
Interesting that you say that George. I've been playing instead of DM'ing the last few years, but I can see my DM is getting tired of the seat. I was thinking I may just see if my group wants to return to 3.5 rules but starting in 1347 and play in Thay. This puts the actual gods still in Mulhorand, Zhengyi (an ex-red wizard) starting a campaign in Damara/Vaasa, and possibly entirely different Zulkirs in power in Thay from the list we were given for the 1360's.... but still a rough timeline that I can work from, such that the players will be high level when the ToT hits (if the campaign lasts that long).
Oh, and Velsharoon is still a mortal with a primary residence in the Tower Terrible in Soorenar, and Gilgeam is still a despotic ruler without a rebellion risen up against him yet (though his detractors HAVE just summoned an aspect of Tiamat known as the "Dark Lady"). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 14:27:49
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
My enthusiasm is ... conditional. The Forgotten Realms remains a fantastic campaign setting. I'm on the record as stating that for my Impiltur work, I stop just prior to the ascension of Imbrar II as monarch of that realm. For my creative and narrative purposes, that is my Impiltur "sweet spot". So it makes me wonder, whether you play 3E, 4E, 5E, Pathfinder etc etc, why you can't set your campaign in any time era of the Realms you prefer? Given the decision of WotC to not publish a 5E FRCS and instead focus on the organised play adventures as the fulcrum of the 5E Realms, anyone who seeks immersive detail in their campaign setting should just kick off their campaign in 1350 DR using whatever rules float their boat and have a ball - knowing the whole time that they have a series of events/historical progression to weave into their campaign if they so choose. I am a time poor individual. I have zero time to create vast swathes of setting lore on the Realms to bring the 5E Realms to anything resembling the level of detail that would make it easy to create/write in the late 1400s DR. The greatest godsend to the Realms was the publishing of the 2E boxed set and its timeline, which provided fantastic background detail to really bed down the Realms. Well that and a ton of products. WotC have gone in a different direction with the Realms in 4E and 5E. It's a direction that I find challenging from a creative standpoint. The reason for that is quite simple - there is insufficient setting detail for my liking. Others obviously love the freedom to create in an environment lacking in detail - and I say more power to them. My fun has always been derived from extrapolating from existing lore, building on disparate references and explaining away inconsistencies. In the 4E and 5E Realms, I don't even know where to start as the prospect seems too daunting.
-- George Krashos
Interesting that you say that George. I've been playing instead of DM'ing the last few years, but I can see my DM is getting tired of the seat. I was thinking I may just see if my group wants to return to 3.5 rules but starting in 1347 and play in Thay. This puts the actual gods still in Mulhorand, Zhengyi (an ex-red wizard) starting a campaign in Damara/Vaasa, and possibly entirely different Zulkirs in power in Thay from the list we were given for the 1360's.... but still a rough timeline that I can work from, such that the players will be high level when the ToT hits (if the campaign lasts that long). |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 10:26:21
Dragon 223. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 09:30:57
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
The best supplements for Baator - and the Lower Planes - overall are the Planescape books, with Colin McComb, IIRC, describing the Lords of the Nine themselves in a Dragon issue.
Can you please tell me the specific issue? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 05:04:36
I think Ed is infinitely patient...not happy. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 04:15:46
I never liked the idea of an overarching planar cosmology controlling the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. The Nine Hells in my Realms mirror those showcased by Ed in his Dragon articles, not what was provided for in the Planescape material. #Realmsfirst
-- George Krashos |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 01:59:45
The Nine Hells articles were printed in 1e. The best supplements for Baator - and the Lower Planes - overall are the Planescape books, with Colin McComb, IIRC, describing the Lords of the Nine themselves in a Dragon issue. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 11 Nov 2015 : 00:47:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by deserk
(snip) and dumping in elements that haven't had anything to do with the classic Realms, like Tiamat cultists (snip)
Tiamat has had worshipers in the Realms dating back to 2E. Not sure how much more classic you can get.
Well, you could get AD&D first edition. That would be " more classic" for FR.
But I would not be surprised if a reference to Tiamat shows up in a 1E FR book, box, or module.
She is surely in Greenwood's Nine Hells articles, no? Those are the Nine Hells and not FR, but I would be tempted to use them in any FR game I ran that involved outer planar stuff. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 22:30:04
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
If you want a blank canvas then you make up your own or you use Nentir Vale.
Of course DMs can pick from several regions in the Realms that are 200 or so miles on a side (about the size of Nentir Vale, last I checked) and have at it for a full campaign.
They don't even need to call it the Realms. It's easy to substitute names or just not tell your players you're using Realms material if they're not already familiar with it.
DMs can plop Nentir Vale down in the Realms.
DMs can create their own campaign world from scratch.
DMs can create their own campaign world from scratch and incorporate elements from other campaign settings into it, as well as stuff from books, movies, third party companies, etc.
Let's not forget: ever since 3.5 there have been elements of the Realms finding their way into the Core Rulebooks. If you play D&D, it's impossible to not be exposed to the Realms.
This idea you're presenting, that if a DM wants A then they must use X, if B then they use Y...in practice things are not so cut and dried.
The Realms exist for everyone to use.
The Realms are receiving the lion's share of WotC's attention. Before, during and after WotC's launch of 5E, they have been pushing Realms material: adventures, sourcebooks, organized play, board games, computer games, the idea of the rebirth of the Realms...
To get this post back on topic: I don't know what Ed thinks. I think it's a waste of time to ponder it. But there's no denying the Realms are front and center, at the fore of D&D's latest edition.
I'll wager there's something in that fact for Ed to be happy about. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 20:46:01
The Realms weren't or have never been a blank canvas. The fact that 4e didn't hyper-focus the same areas we've had over and over and over again doesn't mean that they didn't care what happens in those areas. They did expect the DM to put a bit of thought in what they want to do with that area besides going from the script.
And heaven forbid ANYONE use prior info, books, or source material from previous editions to fill in any gaps or to draw inspiration from. Oh wait...everyone did that for every edition except for 4e and because why? The time-jump? Please.... |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 19:26:48
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think anyone here has ever asked to be provided with "absolutely everything." But asking for more than just a paragraph -- if we even have that much -- is a quite reasonable request.
I wasn't speaking to the budding conversation about the amount of available content for the Realms.
I was speaking to the uninformed remark suggesting that someone who enjoys a campaign setting light on detail ought not to be using campaign setting to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People aren't asking for an entire sandwich...
I realize you're operating with good intentions whenever you use food metaphors to try and explain something, but all it does for me is make me lose my appetite. 
If you want a blank canvas then you make up your own or you use Nentir Vale. The Realms is not a blank canvas. It was stupid of them to try and make it into one. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 18:57:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think anyone here has ever asked to be provided with "absolutely everything." But asking for more than just a paragraph -- if we even have that much -- is a quite reasonable request.
I wasn't speaking to the budding conversation about the amount of available content for the Realms.
I was speaking to the uninformed remark suggesting that someone who enjoys a campaign setting light on detail ought not to be using campaign setting to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People aren't asking for an entire sandwich...
I realize you're operating with good intentions whenever you use food metaphors to try and explain something, but all it does for me is make me lose my appetite. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 18:44:59
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
If you want a blank slate why do you then pick a campaign setting?
He didn't say "blank slate". He said "broader blank canvas".
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Kind of defeats the purpose really.
This is one of the more pernicious Candlekeep memes. It needs to die a final, bloody death.
The job of a campaign setting is not to provide DMs with absolutely everything they need. Campaign settings are backdrops to set a D&D campaign in, and they provide inspiration to the DM when he or she creates encounters and adventures.
Running a campaign requires the DM to create material. That's always been the DMs job. It's the primary way in which a DM can make a campaign world her own, which is the first thing any decent Realms sourcebook will instruct a DM to do in order to run a fun, memorable Realms campaign.
There's a reason why parts of the Realms were left undeveloped, and why in something as hyper detailed as a Volo's Guide you'll find areas that are not detailed, or that are ignored outright.
Who says so? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 18:00:31
I don't think anyone here has ever asked to be provided with "absolutely everything." But asking for more than just a paragraph -- if we even have that much -- is a quite reasonable request.
People aren't asking for an entire sandwich, with all the ingredients pre-cut and measured and the sandwich itself already assembled and cut in half. They are asking for more than just two pieces of bread, though.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 17:37:36
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
If you want a blank slate why do you then pick a campaign setting?
He didn't say "blank slate". He said "broader blank canvas".
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Kind of defeats the purpose really.
This is one of the more pernicious Candlekeep memes. It needs to die a final, bloody death.
The job of a campaign setting is not to provide DMs with absolutely everything they need. Campaign settings are backdrops to set a D&D campaign in, and they provide inspiration to the DM when he or she creates encounters and adventures.
Running a campaign requires the DM to create material. That's always been the DMs job. It's the primary way in which a DM can make a campaign world her own, which is the first thing any decent Realms sourcebook will instruct a DM to do in order to run a fun, memorable Realms campaign.
There's a reason why parts of the Realms were left undeveloped, and why in something as hyper detailed as a Volo's Guide you'll find areas that are not detailed, or that are ignored outright. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 17:14:15
If you want a blank slate why do you then pick a campaign setting?
Kind of defeats the purpose really. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Oct 2015 : 09:57:38
I guess I'm one of those guys who enjoys a broader "blank" canvas when it comes to creating new material for the Realms. I, for one, really embraced the huge changes to the Realms both geography and systematically.
One of my favorite changes I did to the post-plague Realms was to establish Lantan as an underwater bastion of mechanical and magical innovations. Further, I went into how the underwater kingdoms dealt with this new arrival with their whirling gizmos and strange magic. It also explained why gunn-powder seemingly vanished during this period of time as water generally ruins black powder.
I do wish we received a bit more info, but it wasn't entirely necessary for me to continue to enjoy the 1400 Realms. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 25 Oct 2015 : 09:33:21
Indeed, why would you develop for a version of a campaign setting where the major selling point and design focus is a lack of detail and development.
When 6e comes around next year all the work you had done would be erased and this version abandoned.
Plus it's loads easier to develop when you have detail to work with. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 25 Oct 2015 : 04:04:08
My enthusiasm is ... conditional. The Forgotten Realms remains a fantastic campaign setting. I'm on the record as stating that for my Impiltur work, I stop just prior to the ascension of Imbrar II as monarch of that realm. For my creative and narrative purposes, that is my Impiltur "sweet spot". So it makes me wonder, whether you play 3E, 4E, 5E, Pathfinder etc etc, why you can't set your campaign in any time era of the Realms you prefer? Given the decision of WotC to not publish a 5E FRCS and instead focus on the organised play adventures as the fulcrum of the 5E Realms, anyone who seeks immersive detail in their campaign setting should just kick off their campaign in 1350 DR using whatever rules float their boat and have a ball - knowing the whole time that they have a series of events/historical progression to weave into their campaign if they so choose. I am a time poor individual. I have zero time to create vast swathes of setting lore on the Realms to bring the 5E Realms to anything resembling the level of detail that would make it easy to create/write in the late 1400s DR. The greatest godsend to the Realms was the publishing of the 2E boxed set and its timeline, which provided fantastic background detail to really bed down the Realms. Well that and a ton of products. WotC have gone in a different direction with the Realms in 4E and 5E. It's a direction that I find challenging from a creative standpoint. The reason for that is quite simple - there is insufficient setting detail for my liking. Others obviously love the freedom to create in an environment lacking in detail - and I say more power to them. My fun has always been derived from extrapolating from existing lore, building on disparate references and explaining away inconsistencies. In the 4E and 5E Realms, I don't even know where to start as the prospect seems too daunting.
-- George Krashos |
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 25 Oct 2015 : 03:42:21
quote:
Originally posted by Darkheyr
I am fairly certain though that even if he completely disliked it, he would not be at liberty to say so - or at least, WotC wouldn't like him to, even if it wasn't specifically forbidden. It's bad press if the creator of your flagship selling is telling people that said flagship setting now sucks in his own eyes, after all.
Like when the director of the latest Fantastic Four movie basically threw his own film under the bus and told everyone it was a steaming pile? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Oct 2015 : 19:25:16
I wasn't trying to put the WotC Realms down in any fashion - they will still be producing the same vast plethora of lore and FR books they have as they've done over the past three years. If this is what you like, continue to support them. I run a 5e game myself.
I am just stating that people who have previously supported the Forgotten Realms with their own time and out of their own pocket may not be so willing to do so moving forward, for multiple reasons.
George Krashos may be the exception. God bless his enthusiasm. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 24 Oct 2015 : 19:17:46
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I believe the Secretariat has been rolled into the Onder Librum site, but I am not sure if there is 'public access' yet*, or if they've even ported the stuff over yet (there is a tab there for it). The link works differently for me then most of you, so I can't really say whats there and whats not.
As for the OP - NO.
*I just checked from a different computer, and NO, the 'Realms Secretariat' category is not publicly displayed, and when I click on it (on my computer) there is nothing there yet, so they are still in the process of migrating that information.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I am not even sure if it will be added, considering the monumental workload the TEGG group currently has, or if they are even interested in still supporting The Realms at this time. Thats not from Ed, thats just from me. I know Ed would love to support it until the end of time, but this is business now, and you do not help to prop-up people who have no intention of doing the same for you. Just my 2¢ is all.
Thanks for the update. And I see what you mean. That doesn't speak well for the (published) Realms  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Oct 2015 : 19:10:33
I believe the Secretariat has been rolled into the Onder Librum site, but I am not sure if there is 'public access' yet*, or if they've even ported the stuff over yet (there is a tab there for it). The link works differently for me then most of you, so I can't really say whats there and whats not.
As for the OP - NO.
*I just checked from a different computer, and NO, the 'Realms Secretariat' category is not publicly displayed, and when I click on it (on my computer) there is nothing there yet, so they are still in the process of migrating that information.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I am not even sure if it will be added, considering the monumental workload the TEGG group currently has, or if they are even interested in still supporting The Realms at this time. Thats not from Ed, thats just from me. I know Ed would love to support it until the end of time, but this is business now, and you do not help to prop-up people who have no intention of doing the same for you. Just my 2¢ is all. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 24 Oct 2015 : 18:33:43
Also, the FR secretariat is still down. Anyone knows what's up with it? |
|
|
