| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Venger |
Posted - 31 May 2018 : 02:44:47
I'm just wondering if there are any good sources to tell me what the Realms looks like in 5E. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 20:23:58
quote:
Originally posted by Balmar Foghaven
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
There is bound to be inconsistencies. It is a shared world, after all. But there used to be the sense that enough designers cared about the setting not to mess it up completely (YMMV).
Exactly, inconsistencies are one of the drawbacks of having a shared world. That being said, the Realms is one of the best shared settings I've ever read, and is hands-down my favorite despite the small lore oversights. My second favorite is the Thieves' World setting, which surprisingly has few inconsistencies, because its lore seems to be made up on the spot as stories move along (not a bad way to work with shared settings).
That's exactly how inconsistencies happen, though... If author A says Bahb Nounsilver is a fighter, and author B decides he needs Bahb to be a rogue, then there's an inconsistency. Now, if author B checks, and either writes into the story how Bahb changed careers, or decides to make up a new NPC, Rahb Goldverb, then it's all good. |
| Balmar Foghaven |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 17:33:06
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
There is bound to be inconsistencies. It is a shared world, after all. But there used to be the sense that enough designers cared about the setting not to mess it up completely (YMMV).
Exactly, inconsistencies are one of the drawbacks of having a shared world. That being said, the Realms is one of the best shared settings I've ever read, and is hands-down my favorite despite the small lore oversights. My second favorite is the Thieves' World setting, which surprisingly has few inconsistencies, because its lore seems to be made up on the spot as stories move along (not a bad way to work with shared settings). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 13:48:08
Let's face it folks... I've been watching the realms since it came out. I can't keep up with everything that's happening. Hell, as I've stated, its only in the past few years when the railroad slowed down that I've started to catch up with all the 2e and 3e stuff that was published... much less the 4e changes... meanwhile, they're rolling out new 5e changes, and I'm not able to keep up with all of them. I have probably 3 years worth of dungeon magazines that I've never even opened, yet I'd still be happily buying them if they were still publishing. At the same time, I'm talking about my own developments I'd like to see for the realms. But, that's also why I love the realms. I love designing, even if its only for my own entertainment. I love sharing ideas here, because I occasionally see someone else pick up on them and develop something. Sometimes it even makes it into the games (for instance, I can't help but notice that all my talk about jungles and Katashaka and Lopango and Maztica, etc... and suddenly a book comes out for Chult of all places). |
| Irennan |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 04:09:36
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-The weird thing is, with things like the FR wiki and online communities and other in-house stuff we don't have access to/know about, it's easier than ever to keep internal continuity.
This is why it's obvious that they simply don't care. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 03:56:13
-The weird thing is, with things like the FR wiki and online communities and other in-house stuff we don't have access to/know about, it's easier than ever to keep internal continuity. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 03:17:38
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
I have to say there were plenty of inconsistencies in pre-3E lore. Basically it took Steven Schend and Eric Boyd to clean them up throughout 2E and Eric to try to continue that process through 3E.
You hit the nail on the head right there -- there were inconsistencies in pre-3E lore, but someone was trying to clean them up. Some of the 3E designers didn't care if there were inconsistencies or not -- and they cared less if they created such inconsistencies themselves. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 03:02:16
There is bound to be inconsistencies. It is a shared world, after all. But there used to be the sense that enough designers cared about the setting not to mess it up completely (YMMV). |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 05 Jun 2018 : 02:41:08
I have to say there were plenty of inconsistencies in pre-3E lore. Basically it took Steven Schend and Eric Boyd to clean them up throughout 2E and Eric to try to continue that process through 3E.
The very nature of the Old Empires's Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek cultures (which were not generally contemporaries) both fascinates me and makes me cringe, not to mention the I series of modules, unceremoniously shoved into the Durpar region with gods from across Planescape that had no reason to be there. Heck the whole reason we have a St. Dionysius of Ilmater is a goof. And how many Arabian-esque cultures do we have scattered Gods know where. Oh, and the Utter East's mix of Ffolk and Northmen who somehow teamed up and sailed halfway around the world to settle because they decided to either retrofit a videogame into the Realms or because the video game company had no idea about the Realms. And don't get me started on the Blade Kingdoms. Now, I say that only in defense of the inconsistencies that have popped up in every edition. I don't think 3E was any worse or better in that regard. 4E was like a different world in my opinion. In the end, it what's the clean up crews do with it that makes it work or no, and some of it has turned into gold. Steven was the avatar of this. He constantly argued that every consistency was a reason for a good story, and I think he was right.
I think it's fairer to say that 3E and 4E (and now 5E) were less lore focused than 2E (and maybe 1E, but 1E was just new, most of the supplements were pretty skinny), especially with Steven, Eric, and Julia Martin in particular. The three of them also relied heavily on the predecessor to this community the REALMSListserv where a lot of us started. For that matter, there were others from the 3E era (like Sean Reynolds or Rich Baker) who sometimes consulted these boards or certain folks on the boards. In 4E, it appears that Brian James, Eric, and others got consulted sometimes.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Jun 2018 : 22:14:15
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I agree the authors don't need to know all the lore, but they should know the lore for the area, time period, and races they are writing about (and check if they are uncertain about something).
Starting in the 3E era, we saw a lot less emphasis given to maintaining continuity with what had come before, up to and including changes literally made on the whim of the author/designer. I think that blowing up the setting, having a timejump, and then staying vague on things is more of that same attitude.
Which is why I said that the authors should at least know the history of the region and race they are writing about. Not saying they do (thus the lack of continuity), but they should. If they can't be expected to know all the Realmslore, then they should at least be up to date on whatever it is they *are* are writing about. For instance, if I were writing about dwarves, I would make sure I knew their culture, history, gods, big events that have taken place, the location I am writing in, etc. And checking with editors to make sure I am accurate.
Oh, I agree that they should -- I'm just saying that once 3E hit, that became less and less important from a design point of view. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 04 Jun 2018 : 22:10:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I agree the authors don't need to know all the lore, but they should know the lore for the area, time period, and races they are writing about (and check if they are uncertain about something).
Starting in the 3E era, we saw a lot less emphasis given to maintaining continuity with what had come before, up to and including changes literally made on the whim of the author/designer. I think that blowing up the setting, having a timejump, and then staying vague on things is more of that same attitude.
Which is why I said that the authors should at least know the history of the region and race they are writing about. Not saying they do (thus the lack of continuity), but they should. If they can't be expected to know all the Realmslore, then they should at least be up to date on whatever it is they *are* are writing about. For instance, if I were writing about dwarves, I would make sure I knew their culture, history, gods, big events that have taken place, the location I am writing in, etc. And checking with editors to make sure I am accurate. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Jun 2018 : 18:16:30
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I agree the authors don't need to know all the lore, but they should know the lore for the area, time period, and races they are writing about (and check if they are uncertain about something).
Starting in the 3E era, we saw a lot less emphasis given to maintaining continuity with what had come before, up to and including changes literally made on the whim of the author/designer. I think that blowing up the setting, having a timejump, and then staying vague on things is more of that same attitude.
And it is my opinion that it's not how daunting the amount of Realmslore is, it's that some of the designers simply don't recognize the value of continuity -- so after an edition of disregarding it, they simply decided to chuck it out the window and start from scratch.
I don't have any current Realms designers/authors in mind when I say this, though -- this is my opinion after watching the development of 3E and 4E. I don't have enough information to make that call on the current group, though with what the Chult book did to Ras Nsi and with what I've been reading about changes to Vhaeraun, I can't say I'm convinced that this corporate attitude has greatly changed. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 04 Jun 2018 : 17:38:16
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
That said, if I had to guess, I think the more likely issue is that FR is so big that it became an impediment to playing the game (much like the implicit requirement for minis in 3.5 and especially 4E caused some to not play or even start playing) for some (probably a lot, especially more casual players) who felt they needed to know all the lore so they don't want to overproduce. I think this is partially why they got out of novels. In the beginning it was a great selling, ahem, novelty, but over time saturated the setting with so much lore (and again became another impediment to new players) you needed the PhD in Realmslore that we all have to get it right.
Getting out of producing novels because they're 'overlore'd'? Seriously? Why do novels have to be official lore? I'm currently reading Red Magic of the Harper series, and I finished up Parched Sea and Elfshadow, both of which I could easily conclude were stories self-contained. Sure, they have some new NPCs, spells and other "lore" I could add to my game, but I don't read them for any possible lore I can mine out of them; I read them for the stories. The crunch is a positive side effect of reading the stories.
Why do stories have to be internally consistent? Fantasy fiction if replete with exceptions to the rules. You can either choose to use said exceptions in your tabletop game or not. That isn't a WotC choice. For all the loremasters out there that might find issue with any single exception, I know a lot of us already have made a choice such as that when we decided the changes made post-2e FR never happened. So, to expect fiction authors to have to know all the lore of the Realms before they write a novel for it is silly. All they need to know are the players, locales and events they're writing about within the self-contained manuscript.
Yes and no. It's fun to read about lore in the novels (I learned quite a bit of lore from the novels, then checked source books for more info and background). Often, the novels drove the setting forward. I understand this may not have been the best approach, as the novels were ultimately secondary, but I enjoyed it.
The novels should at least honor the setting. I read a lot of fantasy, but when I read a Realms novel, I want to be able to feel like it's a *Realms* novel, not just any fantasy novel (and any fantasy series should have a well established world, anyway). I agree the authors don't need to know all the lore, but they should know the lore for the area, time period, and races they are writing about (and check if they are uncertain about something). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Jun 2018 : 14:37:00
From what I've heard from long-time TSR/WotC people, the issue was that the company was never comfortable with novels -- because they regarded themselves as a gaming company, not a novel-publishing company. |
| Varl |
Posted - 04 Jun 2018 : 14:26:02
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
That said, if I had to guess, I think the more likely issue is that FR is so big that it became an impediment to playing the game (much like the implicit requirement for minis in 3.5 and especially 4E caused some to not play or even start playing) for some (probably a lot, especially more casual players) who felt they needed to know all the lore so they don't want to overproduce. I think this is partially why they got out of novels. In the beginning it was a great selling, ahem, novelty, but over time saturated the setting with so much lore (and again became another impediment to new players) you needed the PhD in Realmslore that we all have to get it right.
Getting out of producing novels because they're 'overlore'd'? Seriously? Why do novels have to be official lore? I'm currently reading Red Magic of the Harper series, and I finished up Parched Sea and Elfshadow, both of which I could easily conclude were stories self-contained. Sure, they have some new NPCs, spells and other "lore" I could add to my game, but I don't read them for any possible lore I can mine out of them; I read them for the stories. The crunch is a positive side effect of reading the stories.
Why do stories have to be internally consistent? Fantasy fiction if replete with exceptions to the rules. You can either choose to use said exceptions in your tabletop game or not. That isn't a WotC choice. For all the loremasters out there that might find issue with any single exception, I know a lot of us already have made a choice such as that when we decided the changes made post-2e FR never happened. So, to expect fiction authors to have to know all the lore of the Realms before they write a novel for it is silly. All they need to know are the players, locales and events they're writing about within the self-contained manuscript. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 23:44:55
Yes, don't buy anything, so they stop publishing anything and we thus destroy the thing we love. That makes sense. 
Not all of us bash every single thing WotC does. And not all of us are interested in entirely rewriting and changing every part of a setting we claim to love, despite almost continuously bitching about it.
Me, I'm going to be over here giving every bit of new Realmslore a shot. I'll evaluate it on its merits, use what's good, and disregard that which isn't. I'm not going to pre-judge everything as soon as its announced. I'm not going to jump on the herd hate bandwagon. I'm going to give it all a fair shot.
And I'm going to hold out the hope that things will come around again, and that development of the published setting will get back to those who care about it. It's obviously not going to happen soon, but it'll never happen if we just bitch and don't buy anything.
If you look at something that's published and then opt not to buy it, that's one thing. Blindly refusing to even look, or to even consider that it might be worthwhile? That's just childish -- especially since you could miss some really awesome stuff because you're too busy with the petulant whining.
No company in the world is going to bother trying to cater to someone who just stomps their feet and screams like a little kid. And heck, even my seven year old is more mature than that, and can be persuaded to try something new rather than turning his nose up at everything.
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 19:26:12
I would still urge everyone to have a try at developing the realms, give something back to the community and help keep the realms alive. You can see how much fun it is, how hard it is (Which makes you appreciate what Ed, George, Eric and others do all the more) and it will also highlight how little effort Wotc are putting into the realms.
So next time you read a sourcebooks and see a throwaway magic item hook placed there by Steven Schend or an event placed by George in the chronologies have a go at developing it further, give it history, give it future, give it an effect on the surrounding people and places, and finally give it a secret plot hook of your own (or three if you can because that is Eds rule).
Do that and you will never buy another wotc book again because you can see that no love or effort went into the development of building that lore, just kewl ideas. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 15:34:56
You may be waiting a long time for that to happen wooly.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 15:32:47
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
If people want to play in the realms and want new lore then they need to join in and help create it for themselves (or help others in their efforts). Otherwise all you will receive is the confusing and contradictory garbage that we have seen from wotc so far plus a few passable adventures.
And with no coordination, no centralized guidance, and just anyone doing what they want and also being able to ignore whatever they wanted, "confusing and contradictory garbage" is all we'd get.
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Let wotc provide the rules for the game. Everything else needs to come from people that love the setting.
No. Have WotC do what they once did -- employ and use people with a passion for the setting. Then we'll get good material, and it'll all be official so we'll all be on the same page.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 15:28:33
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's part of why Pathfinder was so successful as an RPG, right from the start -- they held the open beta and involved the players, giving people a real stake in their hobby. Plus that open beta was a brilliant maneuver from a playtesting standpoint, because they go way, way more playtesters than any other RPG has ever had -- and they did it for free.
Did you miss the two years of development D&D: Next had with thousands of playtesters? I wish I had my old packets from the early days - back around 2014 or so - which was very interesting to be a part of to say the least. Its one of the reasons why I think its popularity has soared higher than any previous edition in the game's history
Actually, I totally forgot about that, partially because I don't pay attention to the current ruleset of D&D (not dislike, just not my thing), and partially because Paizo did it first.
Consider my prior statement amended to "way more playtesters than any other RPG had ever had before". |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 07:12:43
I sincerely wish I could get to candlekeep to join in such a discussion.
I entirely agree that the realms will survive as long as we fans wish it to. However I don't think people should rely on wotc to develop the realms for them, it should be clear by now that wotc has no intention of creating anything like the Forgotten Realms. What wotc is creating is vacuous, small, expensive, uninteresting, and flavourless.
If people want to play in the realms and want new lore then they need to join in and help create it for themselves (or help others in their efforts). Otherwise all you will receive is the confusing and contradictory garbage that we have seen from wotc so far plus a few passable adventures.
Let wotc provide the rules for the game. Everything else needs to come from people that love the setting. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 04:57:24
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
It means they don't have to pay for expert realmsian consultants on their "FR" products.
I always did it for free, except for GHotR where I was one of several official designers. But the contact some writers/designers/tinkerers (the last group is me) received prior to the Sundering event and the advent of 5E was very interesting from my point of view. A big web meeting where a few things were discussed and our input requested, a request for a bunch of race specific information that we scrambled to provide, then queries from our end re what our role was to be (and to be truthful, queries as to how WotC was going to recognise this assistance "officially" going forward from some of our number - I didn't waste my time in that regard; I knew we had a snowball's chance in Avernus of being paid, and I don't need their money) and then ... nothing.
I think that what the Realms was going to be in 5E was still up in the air at that stage, and certainly they were still intending to produce novels. That clearly changed as time went on and WotC decided to go with their current model - adventure paths leading the way (stealing off Paizo in that regard), soundbites from all of their campaign world intellectual property, and a big focus on the Adventure's League organised play.
So the Realms remains a place to set adventures in and to borrow bits and pieces from when playing your game or setting up your campaign. I guess it's always been that, throughout the editions. It was only through the prolific and brilliant creativity of Ed Greenwood that we got more than that for a time (just like Gary did for Greyhawk, Bruce Heard for Mystara, Keith Baker for Eberron, etc. etc.). But as with all such things, once those individuals lost their voice in the game, the setting they championed fell away.
But the Realms remains. I know that because I have a book shelf and hard drive full of Realms material. More importantly, I have a scattering of grey matter that thinks about the Realms every day - and a bunch of scribbled in notebooks to attest to that also (yesterday I scribbled in one of them "the Ioulamic Codex". I don't know what that is yet, but I might one day). So enjoy the Realms. It remains important to gaming, but only so long as people champion it in large ways and small. I'm looking forward to the Candlekeep Seminar and Gen Con in general to chat about my favourite campaign world with like-minded folk. Such an opportunity is an eternal blessing.
-- George Krashos |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 04:40:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's part of why Pathfinder was so successful as an RPG, right from the start -- they held the open beta and involved the players, giving people a real stake in their hobby. Plus that open beta was a brilliant maneuver from a playtesting standpoint, because they go way, way more playtesters than any other RPG has ever had -- and they did it for free.
Did you miss the two years of development D&D: Next had with thousands of playtesters? I wish I had my old packets from the early days - back around 2014 or so - which was very interesting to be a part of to say the least. Its one of the reasons why I think its popularity has soared higher than any previous edition in the game's history |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 02 Jun 2018 : 01:29:07
paizo is having a playtest for pathfinder 2.0 |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jun 2018 : 23:36:01
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
True but to been counters if something is free then it is worthless plus the closure of their own forums shows how much they valued the opinions of their customers.
I'm not talking about bean counters or WotC soliciting opinions.
Though my suggestion would help both -- a free resource would please the bean counters who look only at the bottom line, and enlisting customer support makes the customers feel involved and thus more favorable about the end result.
That's part of why Pathfinder was so successful as an RPG, right from the start -- they held the open beta and involved the players, giving people a real stake in their hobby. Plus that open beta was a brilliant maneuver from a playtesting standpoint, because they go way, way more playtesters than any other RPG has ever had -- and they did it for free.
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 01 Jun 2018 : 21:34:10
True but to been counters if something is free then it is worthless plus the closure of their own forums shows how much they valued the opinions of their customers. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jun 2018 : 21:19:28
They never had to do that. All they had to do is approach the fan community, and we'd happily help them out for free.
Case in point: Steven Schend once came in here, asking for a detail on a character that only saw print on a couple of pages of a comic book. And he got that info, freely offered, and used it in a novel.
This forum -- and the WotC forums, when they were active -- were and always have been potential resources for WotC. But these resources have remained untapped.
And it's not even something they have to do openly... We've had countless cases of NewRando#6 coming in just to ask a couple of lore questions and then never coming back. Any author or designer could use that same approach. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 01 Jun 2018 : 19:25:46
It means they don't have to pay for expert realmsian consultants on their "FR" products. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Jun 2018 : 19:07:34
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
So I think that many of the designers prefer Greyhawk, which is fine, but not awesome if FR is a better seller. They are capable smart folks, but if the love and lore isn't quite there, they are likely to make some notably gaffes with the setting we love.
That said, if I had to guess, I think the more likely issue is that FR is so big that it became an impediment to playing the game (much like the implicit requirement for minis in 3.5 and especially 4E caused some to not play or even start playing) for some (probably a lot, especially more casual players) who felt they needed to know all the lore so they don't want to overproduce. I think this is partially why they got out of novels. In the beginning it was a great selling, ahem, novelty, but over time saturated the setting with so much lore (and again became another impediment to new players) you needed the PhD in Realmslore that we all have to get it right. I mean one of the reasons we have these forums is so we can all geek out on the lore and remind each other of bits we've forgotten, but not everybody, probably most people (which is fine, but, you know, their loss), aren't like that. So the setting stays, but in smaller, more digestible chunks with enough distance from what was that small errors in lore can easily explained away.
That was part of their justification for the time jump: kind of acting as a reset so people could jump in without worrying about everything that came before.
My thinking of why they did that is less charitable: I think it was to make things easier on the writers and designers. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 01 Jun 2018 : 17:54:49
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta
So I think that many of the designers prefer Greyhawk, which is fine, but not awesome if FR is a better seller. They are capable smart folks, but if the love and lore isn't quite there, they are likely to make some notably gaffes with the setting we love.
That said, if I had to guess, I think the more likely issue is that FR is so big that it became an impediment to playing the game (much like the implicit requirement for minis in 3.5 and especially 4E caused some to not play or even start playing) for some (probably a lot, especially more casual players) who felt they needed to know all the lore so they don't want to overproduce. I think this is partially why they got out of novels. In the beginning it was a great selling, ahem, novelty, but over time saturated the setting with so much lore (and again became another impediment to new players) you needed the PhD in Realmslore that we all have to get it right. I mean one of the reasons we have these forums is so we can all geek out on the lore and remind each other of bits we've forgotten, but not everybody, probably most people (which is fine, but, you know, their loss), aren't like that. So the setting stays, but in smaller, more digestible chunks with enough distance from what was that small errors in lore can easily explained away.
This could also be why they are going with the "multiversal" approach with the MToF. They are trying to lump all the settings together with one "canon" story in order to simplify things. In my mind, they would make more money if they focused on products for each setting--and I think they would appease more fans--but hey, maybe they're trying to save on printing costs. I don't like it, and I hope I'm wrong, but that's how it seems to me.
I started out as a casual Realms fan, reading a few of the novels recommended to me by my best friend (yes, they were the Drizzt novels). Then I started reading more FR novels, and I started buying sourcebooks, especially once I got involved in forums like this one. I became invested in the setting (in more ways than one). I realize fans like are secondary concern to hardcore gamers (or even casual gamers), but it still sucks to have what you love butchered or ignored in favor of "profit". |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 01 Jun 2018 : 14:02:52
So I think that many of the designers prefer Greyhawk, which is fine, but not awesome if FR is a better seller. They are capable smart folks, but if the love and lore isn't quite there, they are likely to make some notably gaffes with the setting we love.
That said, if I had to guess, I think the more likely issue is that FR is so big that it became an impediment to playing the game (much like the implicit requirement for minis in 3.5 and especially 4E caused some to not play or even start playing) for some (probably a lot, especially more casual players) who felt they needed to know all the lore so they don't want to overproduce. I think this is partially why they got out of novels. In the beginning it was a great selling, ahem, novelty, but over time saturated the setting with so much lore (and again became another impediment to new players) you needed the PhD in Realmslore that we all have to get it right. I mean one of the reasons we have these forums is so we can all geek out on the lore and remind each other of bits we've forgotten, but not everybody, probably most people (which is fine, but, you know, their loss), aren't like that. So the setting stays, but in smaller, more digestible chunks with enough distance from what was that small errors in lore can easily explained away. |
|
|
