| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 23 Jul 2017 : 08:48:22
Hopefully, someone can get me up-to-date on this stuff. My understanding is that after the Sundering Mulhorand and Unther came back from Abeir, and then for some strange reason the God-kings returned.
I am hoping there is some greater explanation for this and things do not look as odd as they do on paper. What I am trying to understand and figure out is how these places have changed over time, and the reason for the God-kings being there.
Prior to the Time of Troubles the Old Empires were in heavy decline. Many of the God-kings were dead, Unther was pretty bad off and was under the tyrannical rule of Gilgiem. Post-Time of Troubles the Untheric Pantheon had all been wiped out, Gilgiem was dead, and the only two survivors of that were Tiamat and Hoar (known as Assuran in the Old Empires). Both of these deities had basically already become part of the Faerunian Pantheon by that point anyway. The Untheric Empire basically collapsed with Gilgiem, and it was being picked apart by warring factions and being gobbled up by Mulhorand.
Mulhorand was also in a state of decline. However, it had more of a late Western Roman Empire feel to it. The glory days were in the past, but the state--in theory--was still in tact. That being said Faerunian cults were making their push into Mulhorand, and this was causing conflict between the established cults of that pantheon.
What changes to Mulhorandi and Untheric people and culture took place while they were on Abeir?
What happened to them while they were there and completely cut off from their deities?
How has this changed them?
As for the God-kings themselves... Just so everyone is on the same page: When the Imaskari stole the people who would become the Mulan from their homeworld (presumably Earth), they also erected a magical barrier--the Godswall--that prevented those deities from following their faithful back to Toril. The Mulan deities eventually found their way to Toril, but could not interact with the world in the same manner as the other deities. As a result, they created physical manifestations--basically super-charged avatars. Sometime after the Orc Gate Wars these manifestations decided to go into slumber. During their time they had mated with some of their faithful, who began to give birth to incarnations of that deity. The incarnations are somewhat similar to Chosen--in that they house a portion of the deities divine essence. However, they are still mortal, can be killed, and still apparently age and die as normal. However, these incarnations are worshiped as the physical manifestations were and are essentially living gods. After the Time of Troubles, Ao removed the Godswall, and as a result, the physical manifestations of the deities left the material plane to rejoin with their full essences within their divine domain. The incarnations were also significantly weakened as a result.
This brings us back to the post-Sundering Realms.
What are we dealing with here? Are we dealing with divine manifestations or incarnations?
If we are dealing with manifestations, how and why is this possible? Is the Godswall somehow back in place?
If we are dealing with incarnations, then where did they come from, who are they, and do they work like the incarnations pre or post Time of Troubles?
It feels like someone just pressed a reset button on the Old Empires, and reset them to their pre-Time of Troubles state as if nothing had happened. I am hoping there is a decent explanation for everything, or there is more depth that I am missing. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 22:05:25
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I do like your explanation for the creation of the spellcasting style magic, though. "Vancian magic" should predate the current civilizations in many D&D worlds. This would explain why the system is so pervasive in many worlds. Though, I guess I would credit the elves for it. If not for its creation, at least they were the ones who spread it.
Except I think Elves learned their original magic from the Fey (after all, they ARE fey), or rather, from the Eladrin in 4e/5e parlance.
And I don't think that was ANYTHING like 'Vancian Magic' This isn't really the proper thread for this discussion (I've been meaning to start a 'Non-Cosmological Theories Thread', to go with the cosmological one), but in a nutshell, I picture Fey magic being tied closer to the fundamental forces of nature itself, which includes 'Time'. They can slightly tweak the 'great dimensions' and that's how they get their results. They literally 'hack' reality. But they do so like sorcerers - its an innate gift (which is why all sorcerers have to have those bloodlines - magic doesn't come to humans naturally).
Conjecture:
'Vancian' Magic was developed by the Blackmoor Culture (I really need a name for the first human race, not just its empire - Mahnkīn?) Its actually a form of super-science (which is precisely what it was in Jack Vance's wonderful books). Humans couldn't 'do magic' like elves or 'the gods' could (as a natural trait), so they developed a highly complex, codified science based around symbology, spoken words, somatic gestures, and material components to do their own 'hack' of the underlying code of the universe (and such code REALLY exists, BTW - its what the study of quantum physics is all about). Think of them like 'cheat codes' that those early guys figured-out, to make changes to the universe (probably created by 'the Builders' for just such a purpose, and then just left in-place).
Now, the original world/universe was very mutable. That was its nature. It was easy or 'magical races' to just reach in and make changes on the fly. Nothing was supposed to be 'set in stone' (quite literally) until after everything was complete/perfect... which may have never happened, what with so many different beings all trying to 'do it their way'. The Fey were one of the Creatori - the first (im)mortals. They had access to all of that.
The Elves were different - they were born after the God (Dawn) War, after 'death' came into the world*. Things were harder to manipulate (as we can see by the tremendous disasters they caused whenever they sued 'Elven High Magic'). Their ritual no longer had the power (or they no longer had the power to control what they unleashed) to do their bidding properly, and so, they learned from the humans, and others. 'Vancian' casting wasn't theirs, but they embraced it fully, over time. Its what the Weave is based on (the Weave is that 'Vancian' code written over the 'fundamental code' of the universe itself - as I've said many times elsewhere, like a GUI).
In fact, come to think of it, the Blackmoorians may have created the very first Weave, and since they lived on an endless plane, it was more of an 'area affect' for them, like a Mythal, but much, MUCH greater (like they would have created continent-sized 'magical fields' so they could do their 'spells'). Who knows? Maybe they called that first proto-Weave 'Mystara'. 
Of course, all of this means Vancian (D&D) 'spells' shouldn't work in the Phlogiston. Personally, I'm fine with that.
*I actually think all of that is less 'death' based, and more 'time' based - suddenly, everyone had to adhere to TIME - it became linear, and everything had a 'shelf life', so to speak. All it took was one irreconcilable act - the death of an Elder God - and time had its very first Fixed Point. After that, everything had time applied to it, which meant it had to have a beginning, and an end. people died before then, but it was through violent acts (accidental, or killing), or a god simply snapping its fingers and making them all 'just go away' as if they never were. The 'Death' that came into existence (from the story of the WoL&D) is death by old age. That's my take on it. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 21:19:11
Well, people have been saying that for years - that the spells get 'redeveloped' on each world. Problem is, we loose those cool names that way (because it wouldn't make sense if someone re-invented something and then spontaneously re-named it the original name as well). It might be interesting to come up with new names for each world, but it would soon turn into a convoluted mess (or more likely, as with the Netheril box, no-one bothered to use the alternate names).
Perhaps someone could possibly see the spell described somewhere in a history book or story, and then create a very similar spell (same spell, for all intents and purposes), and then use the name from the book. But for every spell? You could do that for a few, perhaps, but it would just get silly doing that with every one (on every world!)
And then we go back to the writing. Authors tend to 'go back in time' a lot. Either with the entire story, or with parts of it taking place 'in the past'. Anthologies used to be known for those 'historic bits'. You start to get the weirdness of an author using names they shouldn't, but its an anachronism (in-setting). The GHotR is actually rife with that - you'll see realms mentioned by name in an entry, long before that realm even existed. Then again, I'm probably the only one who notices that, or gets annoyed by it. Mountain ranges, rivers, etc, etc. Even occasional references to swamps and marshes that shouldn't have been there at that time (or an entire SEA, etc, etc).
And don't even get me started on The Ring of Winter. Great story, but set way too far back in the past for certain things to make sense (like describing the kingdom of Cormyr, before there was a Cormyr). The giant talking rodents are also rather annoying.
We can't fix all the geographic inconsistencies that have crept-in over the years, but we can at least get our very kewl, very D&D-ish spell names back, just with a little tweak. Greyhawk fans might get their feathers ruffled, but those same feathers have been ruffled since about 1987 or so... ain't nuthin' gonna change.  |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 20:49:02
Well, you can also say that they rediscovered lost stuff on their own. Like, learning to recreate lost technology without ever having seen such technology.
Even if the Hand spells have existed in worlds far beyond in the past, perhaps Bigby was the first one who developed them in Oerthhe, researching on his own, discovered how to create those Hand spells that the ancients may have used in the young days of creation, but whose knowledge was lost to time. And in the modern age, prompting people to say that he was the one who created them, even if he just rediscovered such magic. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 17:43:59
Yes, but we also have evidence that at least some of these spells existed long before those 'Greyhawk guys' were even born, so thats a problem. Thats part of the reason why they renamed the spells in the Netheril box (which no-one at all ever used, AFAIK).
Its been a LONG time since I was a GH DM, but I do recall a couple of passages about members of the Circle of Eight creating at least a few of their spells (Bigby jumps to mind). So here's my solution - he did create/modify some of the spells created by the original Bigby. In fact, he took the name 'Bigby' because he was such a fan of those spells. Perhaps only one 'Bigby Hand' spell survived from the pre-Sundered prime material world, and the GH Bigby has built all the rest off of that one. It doesn't really matter - we don't even need to go into detail. All that matters is that we establish their was an original 'set' (NOT 'group' - they may not have even known each other), and on various worlds over time, magically powerful folk have taken those names, probably just to invoke awe in the 'unwashed masses' (people who are not schooled enough to know better). In fact, we could even go a step further and conjecture that not all the members of the CoE (pre-GH Wars) were the same people throughout their tenure. It could have even been like 'titles', before the GH Wars. The original (GH) Mordenkainen may have died at some point, and Khelben Arunson (the younger) may have taken his place, without anyone but the other Circle members even knowing (and that could even 'patch' some other stuff, come to think of it).
The idea here is that the Circle of Eight wanted to instill that sense of awe (fear?) in people, so they took those names, and would continue to maintain those names, so people would truly believe they were the ones who came up with all those spells (and they probably did create a few variants during their careers). Same thing goes for Ioun - he took that name because of the stones, not the other way around. He wanted folks to think he was responsible for that. This was a common practice back in the days of ancient kings and emperors (taking a new name upon getting your 'position'). And then after Rary betrayed everyone, the CoE survivors dropped the whole thing, and the new members who joined didn't need to adjust their names.
Thats my fix - bring back those beloved naming conventions, and tweak the history just a tad. Thats all we need. Once you put them that far back in time, writers no longer have to worry about creating anachronisms in regards to spells. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 00:17:41
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
AFAIK, the solution they came up with is that the spells came from books "imported" from other worlds. And this is canon, at least with Mordenkainen (as per Volo's to all things Magical). So, if you got spells created by Mordenkainen that way (buying books from planeswalker merchants), I guess that spells created by other wizards or sorcerers or whatever, could have reach the Realms the same way. And viceversa, some spells developed in Faerūn may have spread to other worlds the same way.
I do like your explanation for the creation of the spellcasting style magic, though. "Vancian magic" should predate the current civilizations in many D&D worlds. This would explain why the system is so pervasive in many worlds. Though, I guess I would credit the elves for it. If not for its creation, at least they were the ones who spread it.
Though, I remember having read in some 4e material that Netheril had a different system of magic that didn't relied that much on the Weave, and it was like the system used in 4e adter the Spellplague (in fact, that is the in-universe explanation for the system of using magic in the Spellplagued Realms: it was developed using the old Netherese style as a basis, to allow spellcasters to cast magic without the use of the Weave).
As for Ioun, the goddess of knowledge and prophecy (not magic; although she also has some wizards as her followers, she is just an academic goddess), she predates Ioun the Netherese mage for... eons? (I mean, in-universe). xDD I guess, he got named after her, and this could mean that the Netherese knew about this goddess (this also opens some interesting questions about the Netherese gods that may have been forgotten in the current Realms).
Mordenkainen was weirdly in the last novel for the Forgotten Realms that Ed wrote, so yeah, basically the Greyhawk and FR connection is solid. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 19 Nov 2017 : 20:59:44
AFAIK, the solution they came up with is that the spells came from books "imported" from other worlds. And this is canon, at least with Mordenkainen (as per Volo's to all things Magical). So, if you got spells created by Mordenkainen that way (buying books from planeswalker merchants), I guess that spells created by other wizards or sorcerers or whatever, could have reach the Realms the same way. And viceversa, some spells developed in Faerūn may have spread to other worlds the same way.
I do like your explanation for the creation of the spellcasting style magic, though. "Vancian magic" should predate the current civilizations in many D&D worlds. This would explain why the system is so pervasive in many worlds. Though, I guess I would credit the elves for it. If not for its creation, at least they were the ones who spread it.
Though, I remember having read in some 4e material that Netheril had a different system of magic that didn't relied that much on the Weave, and it was like the system used in 4e adter the Spellplague (in fact, that is the in-universe explanation for the system of using magic in the Spellplagued Realms: it was developed using the old Netherese style as a basis, to allow spellcasters to cast magic without the use of the Weave).
As for Ioun, the goddess of knowledge and prophecy (not magic; although she also has some wizards as her followers, she is just an academic goddess), she predates Ioun the Netherese mage for... eons? (I mean, in-universe). xDD I guess, he got named after her, and this could mean that the Netherese knew about this goddess (this also opens some interesting questions about the Netherese gods that may have been forgotten in the current Realms). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 19 Nov 2017 : 20:17:14
What they could have done (and STILL should, considering how 'all inclusive' 5e is meant to be) is say that the named spells are so-named after "mages of vast power from a distant age" (Blackmoor, and this would actual be TRUE, from a meta-gaming perspective). You backfill the Blackmoor setting into the the Pre-Dawn war Prime Material plane (because most settings have some residual piece of Blackmoor in them), and say THAT was the original 'Mankind' Creator race (which I picture being 'superior' to modern humans - its a common trope in fantasy/scify). This would also harken back to where we got our 'Vancian' system from - from Jack Vance's Dying Earth books. Gygax & Co. copied that spell format BECAUSE it sounded very cool and fantasy-ish. Thus, those mages are long dead from a bygone age (The 'Time before time").
And on MANY worlds those names are still in-use, and in some cases, wizards of great power take those names for themselves to reflect their might... but they certainly aren't the originals. The Circle of Eight should NOT be the creators of those spells, because therein lies the whole problem. If we keep that bit of lore, then we either have to lose the names (which would be a damn shame - thats part of D&D's awesome flavor), or we'd have to go with setting-specific names (as they attempted in the Netheril material, which didn't work for us at all). Its such an easy fix to just say the GH Guys (and gals) are 'knock-offs'. The ancient names for the ancient spells have simply withstood the test of times (thanks, in no small part, to long-lived races like elves and dragons, who save that sort of thing for tens of thousands of years).
EDIT:
They've actually already somewhat done this already with one - Ioun. He was a Netherese archmage. Now he is a God (as of 4e). He may have even been part of GH's history (if not, he'd be the only 'named' personage in magic who wasn't). Obviously, the Netherese guy was named after the original - precisely what I propose here with the others. As for the original Ioun - I am picturing him being the first 'Chosen' (ascended mortal/immortal) of the first 'God of Magic' (which may be Corellon in the 4e/5e lore - I am not sure). He was probably one of the few - if not the only - former-mortal-turned-deity from the First World (pre-Dawn war era).
And he would have been from Blackmoor, naturally. 
EDIT2:
Oops... she's a female. My bad. It doesn't change anything though. The culture the name came from would be long dead, thus, the 'gender' of the name is meaningless. So a man from Netheril could have taken her name and no-one would have batted an eye.
Plus, maybe he was transgender.  |
| see |
Posted - 19 Nov 2017 : 05:53:10
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Then in 2e they started publishing other settings, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. To us, it was a godsend, because we got The Forgotten Realms (and those Dragonlancers got their stuff). And something strange happened - the 'core' setting was no longer THE setting - FR became more popular than GH. That means they were producing rulebooks for for their less-popular setting, and nothing directly for their most popular setting (rules-wise).
Actually, the GH-to-FR switch was something TSR pushed, rather than a market reaction. With Gygax gone, TSR wanted to displace it. They maybe should have replaced Greyhawk references with FR ones in 2nd Edition to make the break clean, but that would have broken compatibility (The Simbul's Interposing Hand?) |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 14 Nov 2017 : 21:34:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As for your question, I guess this would be another case of, "they are, if you want them to be".
Something that really bugs me of the current Realms products. I prefer a yes or no, even if I end up not liking the answer, than a "maybe". Damn neutrals...
But yes, I guess that this is the case here, as well.
EDIT:
Ohh, this is my 777th post.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Nov 2017 : 21:26:02
I'm pretty sure you only have to do the 'raise dead' thing when a topic is over a year old. This one's just a month old - thats 'fresh', around here.
As for your question, I guess this would be another case of, "they are, if you want them to be". |
| Gyor |
Posted - 14 Nov 2017 : 20:30:29
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I cast raise death!
I revive this topic for a draconic question. We know the Father of Chessenta, Mighty Tchazzar was reborn during the Second(or so) Sundering. Did his not-so worthy companions, Skutosiin and Gestaniius, revived as well? Or we can assume they remained dead, their skulls in the trophy room of the Vanquisher Hall in Tymanther?
If they remained dead, we then can assume that Tchazzar was not revived by Tiamat, but by his own godhood or something? (Perhaps Ao brought him back because of the cult he had in Chessenta, that was stronk in the 1480s, as per the Brotherhood of the Griffon novels).
Unknown, but it appears he only controls Ebros, not all of Chessenta this time, other areas have other leaders. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 14 Nov 2017 : 17:52:52
I cast raise death!
I revive this topic for a draconic question. We know the Father of Chessenta, Mighty Tchazzar was reborn during the Second(or so) Sundering. Did his not-so worthy companions, Skutosiin and Gestaniius, revived as well? Or we can assume they remained dead, their skulls in the trophy room of the Vanquisher Hall in Tymanther?
If they remained dead, we then can assume that Tchazzar was not revived by Tiamat, but by his own godhood or something? (Perhaps Ao brought him back because of the cult he had in Chessenta, that was stronk in the 1480s, as per the Brotherhood of the Griffon novels). |
| Gyor |
Posted - 28 Oct 2017 : 19:41:00
Calimshan is partly Genasi still, it's just mix of humans and Genasi, the Genasi I think were only ever just a large minority, even when they ruled. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 25 Oct 2017 : 08:18:07
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Am I the only one who loved the 4e Realms because were the Realms I knew first?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
WotC's plan was to do products for a Spellplagued world.
I wish we have seen such products, though. Beside a few adventures at the end of 4e life, we only saw dragon articles that didn't covered the whole world (almost all were focused in the Heartlands).
It has always been thus. Since 2e, we almost never see anything outside the Heartlands.
And no, you're not the only one - I believe Sleyvas 'came on board' with 4e as well. Glad those days are over - now we can all be FR fans together again.
Yeah, I've accepted the spellplague. I've been here since prior to the old grey box being released, and I've seen so many changes that my head spins. My problem comes down to the same problem I have at work.... keeping track of all the changes over a 30+ year timeframe.
Still, to me, in the end, it comes down to "what went wrong" and I have the advantage of some hindsight. It looks like the crew is trying to get rid of some of the blatant f'ups. As I see it, their big problem was learning moderation... and I have the same problem at times. They've made Calimshan back to what it was, not some new genasi country like they tried to make it. We're getting back SOME of Unther, but also keeping SOME of Tymanther. We're getting back Mulhorand, but keeping the surface Imaskari threat (though out in the desert sands again). Nimbral, Lantan, and Halruaa aren't wiped from the map. Luiren is back somewhat.
Then there are those of us who are exploring the more far flung areas that were hit OR areas which never saw development at all OR which we can now take undeveloped territory and "magically" develop it overnight by taking advantage of "hey 100 years passed in another world". |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Oct 2017 : 02:24:00
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Am I the only one who loved the 4e Realms because were the Realms I knew first?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
WotC's plan was to do products for a Spellplagued world.
I wish we have seen such products, though. Beside a few adventures at the end of 4e life, we only saw dragon articles that didn't covered the whole world (almost all were focused in the Heartlands).
It has always been thus. Since 2e, we almost never see anything outside the Heartlands.
And no, you're not the only one - I believe Sleyvas 'came on board' with 4e as well. Glad those days are over - now we can all be FR fans together again. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Oct 2017 : 02:11:08
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Am I the only one who loved the 4e Realms because were the Realms I knew first?
I started to actually get into RPing and FR towards the end of 4e (even tho I already knew the Realms from various PC games). Suffice to say that I didn't enjoy it when I started reading the 4e FRCS, and the more I learned about the changes, the less I enjoyed it. But then, everyone looks for different things when approaching fiction and RPing, so I guess it boiled down to that. With 4e, WotC took a world that I wanted to explore, warped it, took a bunch of stuff that I liked from it, and then severed all ties with its previous history (although they would later try to put some of those ties back). |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 25 Oct 2017 : 01:52:42
Am I the only one who loved the 4e Realms because were the Realms I knew first?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
WotC's plan was to do products for a Spellplagued world.
I wish we have seen such products, though. Beside a few adventures at the end of 4e life, we only saw dragon articles that didn't covered the whole world (almost all were focused in the Heartlands). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Oct 2017 : 01:06:59
Well, same thing then, just the other way around. Most of the people who liked the 4e Realms were people who greatly disliked earlier versions of the Realms, and they would have been just as vehemently opposed to the idea of 'two settings'. In fact, it actually makes a lot of sense that THEY would be even more opposed - WotC's plan was to do products for a Spellplagued world. If they split the product line, it would have meant less products for the Spellplague crowd.
We've come to a point in human history wherein people feel 'compromise' is a dirty word.  |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 20:31:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Guessing, I guess that its because the idea excludes them. Dunno how you presented the idea, but reading the paragraph before I can imagine that some of them believed that you proposed that the main, canon line was made with no-Spellplague, disregarding whatever 4e had done to Realms; while the second, incanonical line would have the Spellplagued-Realms, and because of its secondary nature would have little to no support.
Again, this is what I'm guessing, without having read the stuff.
Back in the day, this was a big issue because of the Edition Wars. I'm glad I didn't took part in those.
Nope. I proposed two separate settings with full support for each.
Then it beats me... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 19:09:38
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Guessing, I guess that its because the idea excludes them. Dunno how you presented the idea, but reading the paragraph before I can imagine that some of them believed that you proposed that the main, canon line was made with no-Spellplague, disregarding whatever 4e had done to Realms; while the second, incanonical line would have the Spellplagued-Realms, and because of its secondary nature would have little to no support.
Again, this is what I'm guessing, without having read the stuff.
Back in the day, this was a big issue because of the Edition Wars. I'm glad I didn't took part in those.
Nope. I proposed two separate settings with full support for each. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 18:02:18
Guessing, I guess that its because the idea excludes them. Dunno how you presented the idea, but reading the paragraph before I can imagine that some of them believed that you proposed that the main, canon line was made with no-Spellplague, disregarding whatever 4e had done to Realms; while the second, incanonical line would have the Spellplagued-Realms, and because of its secondary nature would have little to no support.
Again, this is what I'm guessing, without having read the stuff.
Back in the day, this was a big issue because of the Edition Wars. I'm glad I didn't took part in those. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 10:16:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Because it wasn't just the Spellplague itself - and all the new lore 4e brought - that people hated.
They HATED the people who liked it (there are still a couple of those floating around). Thus, any sort of compromise was out-of-the-question - they didn't want 4e Realms supported at all - they wanted it GONE; all the products burned and 'struck from the records'.
I suppose people felt 'threatened' by it, and then I step back an look at America's current political climate and realize the 'edition wars' was just the start of a much larger 'social movement'.
It would have never mattered how much material they produced for 'Plagueless FR', Wooly, or how good it was. So long as someone somewhere was playing with the material they did not like, people would have continued attacking 4e relentlessly. They took its very existence as a personal insult.
Actually, the larger portion of the attacks against that idea came from the pro-4E crowd. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 05:36:40
Because it wasn't just the Spellplague itself - and all the new lore 4e brought - that people hated.
They HATED the people who liked it (there are still a couple of those floating around). Thus, any sort of compromise was out-of-the-question - they didn't want 4e Realms supported at all - they wanted it GONE; all the products burned and 'struck from the records'.
I suppose people felt 'threatened' by it, and then I step back an look at America's current political climate and realize the 'edition wars' was just the start of a much larger 'social movement'.
It would have never mattered how much material they produced for 'Plagueless FR', Wooly, or how good it was. So long as someone somewhere was playing with the material they did not like, people would have continued attacking 4e relentlessly. They took its very existence as a personal insult. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 05:04:02
Now I'm curious. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 04:37:27
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
My theory is because the Spellplague would still be a thing, and the people that hate the changes the Spellplague brought (the good and the ill, they just hate them all) don't wanted that. The current solution also makes the Spellplague a thing, but is downplayed enough that is as if never happened, and that pleased at least some people.
My idea was that there would be a Realms where the Spellplague didn't happen, keeping the anti-Spellplague people happy, and that there would be a Realms where it did happen, keeping the pro-Spellplague people happy. So both sides of the debate would have had a supported version of the Realms that they liked.
And judging by the reaction I got at the time, this was, inexplicably, one of the worst ideas ever.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Oct 2017 : 04:35:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I still feel that the ideal solution would have been to split the Realms into two settings, the Sundered Realms and the Forgotten Realms. Take the Forgotten Realms forward from right before the Spellplague, and let it evolve in a new direction, and let the Sundered Realms go off from the Spellplague and the time jump.
I think this would have kept both camps happy, and still don't understand why the idea was so strongly opposed when I first suggested it. (Actually, I have a suspicion about it, but I'll not voice it).
Mostly, because right now they want to combine all the settings together, not split the fanbase further.
This wasn't a recent suggestion. This was something I put forward right after the 4E FR book came out -- so when the fanbase was already at its most fractured point, I suggested a way to keep both sides happy. And people came crawling out of the woodwork to attack my idea, saying things like giving both sides exactly what they want was somehow kicking one side to the curb and ignoring them, or that there was no way a game company could ever support two settings, and things like that.
|
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 23 Oct 2017 : 21:29:44
I only knew the WotC forums, and I was not very active there. From there to the Piazza after a looooong hiatus, and then here. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Oct 2017 : 19:44:00
I went from AOL to WotC - I skipped right over the Realms-L list, unfortunately.
I tried here and didn't like it (I though it was too snobbish, to be honest). But then WotC shut down their forums and I was homeless... so I guess Candlekeep became my Soup Kitchen. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Oct 2017 : 12:09:30
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I still feel that the ideal solution would have been to split the Realms into two settings, the Sundered Realms and the Forgotten Realms. Take the Forgotten Realms forward from right before the Spellplague, and let it evolve in a new direction, and let the Sundered Realms go off from the Spellplague and the time jump.
I think this would have kept both camps happy, and still don't understand why the idea was so strongly opposed when I first suggested it. (Actually, I have a suspicion about it, but I'll not voice it).
Mostly, because right now they want to combine all the settings together, not split the fanbase further.
The one thing nearly every other company does as a rule (that TSR couldn't learn so they tanked so bad they went under) was "One rules, one setting". In the beginning TSR did that. Blackmoor went with chainmail. OD&D went with 'The Known World' (which later became Mystara), and when 'Advanced' (1e) came out, it was Greyhawk. We didn't have discussions about 'what canon applies to what setting', and the whole idea of something in the rulebooks not applying to the setting because it was 'core' was alien to us. Everything in the 1e rulebooks applied to GH, no questions asked.
Then in 2e they started publishing other settings, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. To us, it was a godsend, because we got The Forgotten Realms (and those Dragonlancers got their stuff). And something strange happened - the 'core' setting was no longer THE setting - FR became more popular than GH. That means they were producing rulebooks for for their less-popular setting, and nothing directly for their most popular setting (rules-wise). Then 3e came around and they started producing FR-specific rulebooks, but you still needed the core books... which were for a setting they were no longer even supporting! Its just got weird. Basicaly, you were forced to buy rulebooks for a setting you weren't playing in, and then you had to not only buy the lorebooks for that setting, but also rulebooks that were nothing more than 'glorified errata' for the setting (because toward the end of 3e there, for each 'core' book we got with a concept, a similar, FR-specific book came out telling us how to apply the rules in the other book to the Realms, specifically. For example, 'Book of Vile darkness' = Champions of Ruin. We started having to buy them in pairs, because they were still producing books about a setting no-one was playing! ('Core', or GH)
It was a complete mess. No other company was dealing with that - if it was in their rulebooks, it applies to their setting. That was it. No need to double-dip from the customers for each new concept. Then 4e comes along, and that got rid of all that. They weren't doing any other settings (they may license them, or let others license the rules for their own settings, but they stuck to "one rules, one setting", or "One rules to rule them all", which was actually a 4e mantra for awhile). Sadly, that mantra may have worked better in 3e, with the OGL (D20).
So now what we have is a mega-setting, or rather, an omni-setting, that includes ALL the other official settings, and ALL the rules apply across the board, because its just one setting. One setting, many worlds (and planes). I don't need to question whether Iggwilv is FR canon - of course she is! It doesn't matter if she from Oerth (and 'nocked boots with Grazzt to give birth to luvable little Iuz). Hell, I was just reading yesterday that in one 4e article, she was even mentioned as having a part in Waukeen's kidnapping... but none of that matters. She would have been 'FR canon' regardless, because now it is all one canon.
Bane still need to have the kinks knocked out of him, but he seem to be the only one stuck with this whole 'core' or 'FR' thing. I think just saying 'The Bane' is an archtype that many worlds have is a simple solution, but what do I know. FR had an opening, and that guy we know applied for the job, end of story. Even DC comics and SW have their 'Banes' (Marvel Comics: "But we have a Hulk!")
Let us not forget as well, when chainmail and OD&D and even the start of AD&D and dragonlance came about, MOST of us had no means to actually get together and converse like we have today. So, the writers at that time had it easier from a feedback perspective, as the only way for most people to do anything was to try and get a Dragon Article done. America Online, even for its short span, changed D&D a lot, because for the first time for a lot of us, we could connect easier. The fact that they made a special forum just for D&D made us all feel connected. Then, at least for me, came the realms-L list. Then, at least for me, came here. I never got into TSR's/WotC's web site much. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Oct 2017 : 06:42:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I still feel that the ideal solution would have been to split the Realms into two settings, the Sundered Realms and the Forgotten Realms. Take the Forgotten Realms forward from right before the Spellplague, and let it evolve in a new direction, and let the Sundered Realms go off from the Spellplague and the time jump.
I think this would have kept both camps happy, and still don't understand why the idea was so strongly opposed when I first suggested it. (Actually, I have a suspicion about it, but I'll not voice it).
Mostly, because right now they want to combine all the settings together, not split the fanbase further.
The one thing nearly every other company does as a rule (that TSR couldn't learn so they tanked so bad they went under) was "One rules, one setting". In the beginning TSR did that. Blackmoor went with chainmail. OD&D went with 'The Known World' (which later became Mystara), and when 'Advanced' (1e) came out, it was Greyhawk. We didn't have discussions about 'what canon applies to what setting', and the whole idea of something in the rulebooks not applying to the setting because it was 'core' was alien to us. Everything in the 1e rulebooks applied to GH, no questions asked.
Then in 2e they started publishing other settings, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. To us, it was a godsend, because we got The Forgotten Realms (and those Dragonlancers got their stuff). And something strange happened - the 'core' setting was no longer THE setting - FR became more popular than GH. That means they were producing rulebooks for for their less-popular setting, and nothing directly for their most popular setting (rules-wise). Then 3e came around and they started producing FR-specific rulebooks, but you still needed the core books... which were for a setting they were no longer even supporting! Its just got weird. Basicaly, you were forced to buy rulebooks for a setting you weren't playing in, and then you had to not only buy the lorebooks for that setting, but also rulebooks that were nothing more than 'glorified errata' for the setting (because toward the end of 3e there, for each 'core' book we got with a concept, a similar, FR-specific book came out telling us how to apply the rules in the other book to the Realms, specifically. For example, 'Book of Vile darkness' = Champions of Ruin. We started having to buy them in pairs, because they were still producing books about a setting no-one was playing! ('Core', or GH)
It was a complete mess. No other company was dealing with that - if it was in their rulebooks, it applies to their setting. That was it. No need to double-dip from the customers for each new concept. Then 4e comes along, and that got rid of all that. They weren't doing any other settings (they may license them, or let others license the rules for their own settings, but they stuck to "one rules, one setting", or "One rules to rule them all", which was actually a 4e mantra for awhile). Sadly, that mantra may have worked better in 3e, with the OGL (D20).
So now what we have is a mega-setting, or rather, an omni-setting, that includes ALL the other official settings, and ALL the rules apply across the board, because its just one setting. One setting, many worlds (and planes). I don't need to question whether Iggwilv is FR canon - of course she is! It doesn't matter if she from Oerth (and 'nocked boots with Grazzt to give birth to luvable little Iuz). Hell, I was just reading yesterday that in one 4e article, she was even mentioned as having a part in Waukeen's kidnapping... but none of that matters. She would have been 'FR canon' regardless, because now it is all one canon.
Bane still need to have the kinks knocked out of him, but he seem to be the only one stuck with this whole 'core' or 'FR' thing. I think just saying 'The Bane' is an archtype that many worlds have is a simple solution, but what do I know. FR had an opening, and that guy we know applied for the job, end of story. Even DC comics and SW have their 'Banes' (Marvel Comics: "But we have a Hulk!") |
|
|
