| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Returnip |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 18:59:13
Hello. I've been browsing this website and the forums for many years and finally decided to make an account. I've mainly played and DM'd 3 and 3.5 ed and I'm absolutely enamored with Forgotten Realms. One of the biggest issues I've had is the time wasted traveling from place to place in the realms for longer campaigns, and while teleport is nice and all the portals of Faerūn is so flavourful, which leads me to my question.
How would you rule the detection and analysis of the end point of a one-way portal would work? I see three possible scenarios:
1. It doesn't work.
2. It only works while the portal is active.
3. It works all the time just like the detection and analysis of the entry point of the portal.
Using analyze portal the last function is a glimpse of the portal's destination. Would you be able to glimpse the origin of a one-way portal assuming you managed to use analyze portal on it?
Looking forward to reading your thoughts and opinions on this.
EDIT: Oh, and if any of you know of any source book ruling I'm obviously interested in that too! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 02:58:34
Seeker Returnip,
quote:
O find it tricky to keep magic mysterious if the players have access to and control over it. Then it's just "oh, so that's how the rules handle it". It's a lot easier to keep it mysterious by making it vague.
I get what you mean here. It sounds like you and I have a similarly extensive background in mathematics and physics (though, I think yours is beyond mine, as I only have a a 3/4 degree in mathematics and a minor in physics). However, I implement magic mystery through a different knowledge system that I've created that severely restricts knowledge of the magic system. I also change things in between campaigns for "f*ck all" reasons, and they are subtle but impactful in the long run. The argument I use is that some wizard, priest, etc. found a way to affect the Weave, and things changed. It keeps people guessing.
Best regards,
|
| Returnip |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 18:15:25
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I personally utilize very mysterious magic in my Realms
I find it tricky to keep magic mysterious if the players have access to and control over it. Then it's just "oh, so that's how the rules handle it". It's a lot easier to keep it mysterious by making it vague.
- "I want my enemy dead".
- "Ok, then pray to your god".
- *prays*
- "The next day you read in the newspaper that a bus rolled of a hill side and burst into flames. Miraculously only one person was killed and two suffered second degree burns but are otherwise alright. The rest of the passengers escaped without a scratch". |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 06:37:26
Master Krashos,
That is really interesting. I didn't realize that was a thing as you mentioned with the initial turnover.
Your point about the game mechanics and dissatisfaction is a very good one. I myself just enjoy the discussion and all that. I personally utilize very mysterious magic in my Realms (as I think was sort of the point earlier on).
Best regards,
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 06:34:54
Seeker Returnip,
Good catch on Anticipate Teleport. I had meant to post that a while back, and got sidetracked. It did raise questions similarly in my mind as well.
Best regards,
|
| Returnip |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 15:24:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Ok, so I found the anticipate teleportation and greater anticipate teleportation spells in Complete Arcane (p 97) and they're interesting. They suggest that some sort of traceable energy is created when teleportation occurs.
In Pathfinder there's a spell that does almost exactly what I asked for in my original post. It's called trace teleport and gives you an idea of the origin if you trace from a terminus and vice versa.
Does anyone know how different Pathfinder magic is from realms magic? If I were to adapt that spell as a niche, researchable-only spell for D&D 3.5, what should I take into consideration? I've never played Pathfinder, nor read the rules.
The Pathfinder 1E ruleset was built on the D&D 3.5E ruleset (for a while, they called it 3.75!), so mechanics-wise, they should be fairly similar.
Good to know. I'm thinking I'll restrict it's usability a little to make it more niche. That way I can make sure it's not too good. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 15:01:48
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Ok, so I found the anticipate teleportation and greater anticipate teleportation spells in Complete Arcane (p 97) and they're interesting. They suggest that some sort of traceable energy is created when teleportation occurs.
In Pathfinder there's a spell that does almost exactly what I asked for in my original post. It's called trace teleport and gives you an idea of the origin if you trace from a terminus and vice versa.
Does anyone know how different Pathfinder magic is from realms magic? If I were to adapt that spell as a niche, researchable-only spell for D&D 3.5, what should I take into consideration? I've never played Pathfinder, nor read the rules.
The Pathfinder 1E ruleset was built on the D&D 3.5E ruleset (for a while, they called it 3.75!), so mechanics-wise, they should be fairly similar. |
| Returnip |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 13:22:10
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
..if you are dissatisfied with an aspect of the Realms because you are viewing that aspect through the oily lens of game mechanics and rules, you deserve what you get.
-- George Krashos
 True words. And indeed there's the implication that it is unique:
"The mad archmage of Undermountain long ago devised a number of unique properties for the portals he created in his terrible dungeon, including the odd drifting portals."
However, the sidebar (City of Splendors - Waterdeep, p 154) goes on to specify the rules for creating such drifting portals which turn out to be a pretty low requirement and suddenly they're not so unique anymore. Of course, as DM I can just ignore it, and the argument "it's in the rules" becomes moot. I just brought it up because it is in the rules how to build them which is interesting if they were meant to be a unique one-off. All of this is interesting in the unspoken meta discussion of this thread that is "what laws govern magic in the Forgotten Realms?". |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 13:08:11
Just so you all know, the original turnover for CoS:W had a specific 9th-level spell called Hilather's Drifting Portal - which needed to be cast at the time a portal was created in 3E (because portals are magic items ...) to create that effect. That spell was edited out and the sidebar that exists now was put in. But the spell, like the sidebar, make it clear that this is indeed a specific phenomenon to both Halaster Blackcloak and Undermountain. For what it's worth, I consider the example to be a poor one in terms of saying anything about portals in the Realms generally, design intent, and the people who wrote the material in the first place. Lastly, and I've said this a gazillion times but I will say it again: for what it's worth and from my very specific personal perspective, if you are dissatisfied with an aspect of the Realms because you are viewing that aspect through the oily lens of game mechanics and rules, you deserve what you get.
-- George Krashos |
| Returnip |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 12:28:40
Ok, so I found the anticipate teleportation and greater anticipate teleportation spells in Complete Arcane (p 97) and they're interesting. They suggest that some sort of traceable energy is created when teleportation occurs.
In Pathfinder there's a spell that does almost exactly what I asked for in my original post. It's called trace teleport and gives you an idea of the origin if you trace from a terminus and vice versa.
Does anyone know how different Pathfinder magic is from realms magic? If I were to adapt that spell as a niche, researchable-only spell for D&D 3.5, what should I take into consideration? I've never played Pathfinder, nor read the rules. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 03:57:42
Master Rupert,
A pleasant evening to you as always good sir!
quote:
Wrong, all the way around.
All around? A bold claim indeed. Let me see if I can put some thought to that notion of yours! :)
quote:
Second, you don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That statement appears to be couched in a bifurcation "...you don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it." Not necessarily untrue, but true if a third, fourth, fifth, etc. option can be shown. That third, fourth, fifth option being something someone can articulate through research that other potential customers would want. Like it or not, there exists a market segment now that is pushing support for what WotC is doing. Such is the nature of business. Now that being said, I will likely never purchase the current version of D&D and the Realms. It is unworthy of my dollars.
As to TSR: TSR may not be the right company to conjure up for success. The same TSR that got trounced like the 15th rate business company they were. Their managerial expertise is the trash heap that you saw WotC purchase it for at pennies on the dollar. Probably not the best example of a company to emulate. TSR quite literally redefined the word vacuous when it came to business expertise. In the accounting world, that's why they would be referred to as not being a going concern..... awkward.
quote:
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any explanation or thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
No disagreements there: a valid point in my opinion.
quote:
Again, no one -- not a single person -- has complained because things were changed. We've complained because changes didn't make sense -- like Ras Nsi, a human, suddenly becoming a yuan-ti necromancer -- or because there was no explanation at all, like sorcerers suddenly being a thing, in setting, or the NPC who went from good to evil because a designer thought more evil NPCs were needed but didn't feel like actually adding one.
I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon fallacy, but I do understand your point. WotC made enormous changes when they wrecked lore in the Realms moving from 3e to 4e/5e.
quote:
Wanting to maintain the continuity of a setting is NOT hating change.
Agreed. I feel that is a good point.
Best regards,
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 02:48:10
Seeker Returnip,
quote:
Sounds like we're coming from a similar background. I used to be able to quote a lot of the realms by heart. I consider myself knowledgable but there's always more to learn. And that's why I came here, because I know this is the place to find those who know more.
Quite possibly. I am a business consultant by day (economics and marketing mostly), so I read a lot of relevant material there, and that of course takes away from my ability to dig into the Realms as much as I would like.
I've read so much though of the Realms though, that sometimes I think I've forgotten as much as I've read, haha.
quote:
The day you stop expanding your knowledge you're dead. At least that's what I try to live by.
No lie there, good sir, no lie there!
Best regards,
|
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 22:39:47
Good talk. 
I've also heard that they seem to have to some extent learned from the mistakes they made with 4th.
I'm hesitant about the Forgotten Realms in Magic the Gathering. It would make sense since the planeswalkers travel different planes, and as long as WotC use it to introduce the Forgotten Realms to Magic the Gathering players it could work. But I'm curious if they're gonna stop there, or try and introduce Magic the Gathering into the realms as well.  Personally I think some crossovers can work and I think it can be fun to make a character or NPC that's a pastiche of some famous fantasy hero from a different universe, as long as you make it fit into the lore. Not sure how that's gonna pan out in this case though. I guess we'll see next summer. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 22:12:35
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
So we agree even on this point. I never even touched 4th because of the poor reviews I heard from my friends. I didn't play 1st so I don't know how it changed carrying over to 2nd. The changes between 2nd and 3.x weren't big enough to repel me, and in those few cases where I didn't like a change I simply rolled it back.
I think we agree overall; it's just finer points we disagree on. But that's fine.
I didn't touch the 4E rules because everything I read about them was enough to push me away.
I felt obligated to read the 4E Realmslore, though; so that I could speak on it with an informed opinion. I did not, however, give WotC a dime, aside from the price of two novels -- all of the source material, I bought on eBay. I didn't want to pay full price for something I anticipated disliking, and I very much wanted to vote with my wallet and not give WotC the money. I understand that they still got paid for the content, but they got well less than the MSRP and what they did get, didn't come from me.
As for 5E... I'm willing to try the rules; I've heard mostly good things about them. And I do have the books -- found a deal on the set with the fancy black box. My current group hasn't decided to go 5E, though, so I've not tried it. And I'm happy that they've rolled back most of the changes, in-setting (and explained rolling them back!), though I'm unhappy with the current design approach of cherry-picking from everywhere and offering minimal lore in the process. |
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 19:29:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not addressing the numbers. I'm just saying you don't have to reinvent everything to keep growing.
Well, the administration in those companies seem to disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
I didn't say that kind of change was necessary though, did I?
quote:
"To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product."
Ah yes. And I stand by that. I claim that the numbers they're forced to reach require these drastic decisions. But I also think that level of drastic change is not necessary to retain a living, evolving setting. Necessary for one thing, not necessary for another. Sorry for being unclear on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Oh, come on now. Changing someone's past is the same thing as saying what they previously said about his past is no longer true. And the retcon of Weapon X was definitely not well explained in my opinion. It was simply done so the comic would follow the same history as the movies.
quote:
But as I said, every time they changed his past, they at least offered some explanation for why the previous past wasn't true. That's different from what we got with the Realms, which was either no explanation at all or "It's always been this way, but no one knew!"
I disagree on the subject of Wolverine. But let's forget that and focus on the realms, and on that point I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
However, I don't feel that the changes done between 2nd and 3.x was that overwhelming. There were some contradictory stuff (but I'd be damned if there isn't some small contradictory stuff in every book released), but also a lot of established stuff that carried over. My world is a mix of 2nd and 3.x as I've previously stated because I like some things better from 2nd and vice versa. Do you feel that they ruined the realms with 3rd edition?
quote:
The changes between 2E and 3E weren't as radical as the ones between 3E and 4E, but there were some that would have a big impact in-setting, even though they were ignored in the fiction. The entire planar structure became something different, for example. Dwarves, previously unable to even use magic devices reliably, suddenly had the same facility for magic as everyone else. And that one particularly irks me, because they gave themselves a way to explain it with just one sentence or two -- and then didn't bother to do so.
I wasn't as enthusiastic about the 3E Realms as I was about the 1E/2E; the unexplained changes and constant RSEs were not selling points for me. That said, while I did have some minor complaints, it was still the same setting I'd gotten into. It was the changes of 4E that really, really bugged me; it felt post-apocalyptic and unrecognizable to me. I still read the 4E source material, and there was some material I liked about it, but that material was a very small percentage.
So we agree even on this point. I never even touched 4th because of the poor reviews I heard from my friends. I didn't play 1st so I don't know how it changed carrying over to 2nd. The changes between 2nd and 3.x weren't big enough to repel me, and in those few cases where I didn't like a change I simply rolled it back. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 19:17:53
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Are you saying that the big companies with insane expected yearly overturn growth can reach those numbers without expanding their consumer base? Because that's what I'm talking about. That's what's driving them to make such radical change. That's why they end up in situations where they completely retcon stuff that's been established prior.
I'm not addressing the numbers. I'm just saying you don't have to reinvent everything to keep growing.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
I didn't say that kind of change was necessary though, did I?
"To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product."
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Oh, come on now. Changing someone's past is the same thing as saying what they previously said about his past is no longer true. And the retcon of Weapon X was definitely not well explained in my opinion. It was simply done so the comic would follow the same history as the movies.
But as I said, every time they changed his past, they at least offered some explanation for why the previous past wasn't true. That's different from what we got with the Realms, which was either no explanation at all or "It's always been this way, but no one knew!"
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
However, I don't feel that the changes done between 2nd and 3.x was that overwhelming. There were some contradictory stuff (but I'd be damned if there isn't some small contradictory stuff in every book released), but also a lot of established stuff that carried over. My world is a mix of 2nd and 3.x as I've previously stated because I like some things better from 2nd and vice versa. Do you feel that they ruined the realms with 3rd edition?
The changes between 2E and 3E weren't as radical as the ones between 3E and 4E, but there were some that would have a big impact in-setting, even though they were ignored in the fiction. The entire planar structure became something different, for example. Dwarves, previously unable to even use magic devices reliably, suddenly had the same facility for magic as everyone else. And that one particularly irks me, because they gave themselves a way to explain it with just one sentence or two -- and then didn't bother to do so.
I wasn't as enthusiastic about the 3E Realms as I was about the 1E/2E; the unexplained changes and constant RSEs were not selling points for me. That said, while I did have some minor complaints, it was still the same setting I'd gotten into. It was the changes of 4E that really, really bugged me; it felt post-apocalyptic and unrecognizable to me. I still read the 4E source material, and there was some material I liked about it, but that material was a very small percentage. |
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 17:41:55
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a need for change. I've stated more than once I accept in-setting changes, so long as they are explained and make sense.
My previous post was disagreeing with your statement that the new had to be incompatible with the old.
Are you saying that the big companies with insane expected yearly overturn growth can reach those numbers without expanding their consumer base? Because that's what I'm talking about. That's what's driving them to make such radical change. That's why they end up in situations where they completely retcon stuff that's been established prior.
quote:
Yeah, they've changed him, but they've not turned him into something else entirely, as you said was necessary in your prior post.
I didn't say that kind of change was necessary though, did I? I said change is necessary once you've depleted your fan base's purchasing power. At that point you need a bigger fan base and to attract those you haven't already attracted you need to target them specifically. That means you need to change some things. Is the change necessary? Yes, to reach the target numbers. Does it have to be radical? Not at all, and here's where I agree with you. Radical changes are mostly poor design decisions. Then again, if a change is too radical is individual. One person might consider a certain design decision alright, while another might find it unacceptable. And like I previously said a certain loss of the original fan base is calculated in the risk assessment they make when they decide on those changes.
quote:
They've added to his powers and changed them, but they keep the character himself the same, and aside from the bounding thing becoming flight, they've generally gone back to what he was before.
Like shooting laser from his eyes? Kissing people to make them lose their memories? Here's an article on how he's changed through the years:
https://superman.fandom.com/wiki/Superman%27s_Powers_and_Abilities
quote:
Yeah, but those retcons have been explained away as psychic manipulation and things like that. They've changed his past, but they've never done a "yeah, this thing that we said was true before -- not only was it never actually true, we're otherwise going to ignore it and pretend it never happened."
Oh, come on now. Changing someone's past is the same thing as saying what they previously said about his past is no longer true. And the retcon of Weapon X was definitely not well explained in my opinion. It was simply done so the comic would follow the same history as the movies.
quote:
Again, the issue has never been making changes -- it's all been in how they handled them. One of the things that attracted me to the Realms, lo these many moons ago, was the fact that things were happening (changes!) in the setting and that there was a strong continuity.
Changes made on designer whim, without explanation, regard to prior continuity, or even consideration of implications -- these destroy continuity.
When even the basic facts about a setting are subject to change with no explanation, where can anyone begin to tell their own stories there?
You'll find no argument from me here. I fully agree with this statement. Small changes and strong continuity is nice. Big retcons done with a wave of the hand without respect for the established lore not so much. But the latter happen. All I have been saying is just that they happen and why they happen. Do I like it? Not really. But I can also choose to vote with my wallet.
However, I don't feel that the changes done between 2nd and 3.x was that overwhelming. There were some contradictory stuff (but I'd be damned if there isn't some small contradictory stuff in every book released), but also a lot of established stuff that carried over. My world is a mix of 2nd and 3.x as I've previously stated because I like some things better from 2nd and vice versa. Do you feel that they ruined the realms with 3rd edition? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 17:12:31
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Your words are true for physical products like video game consoles or cars, but not for purely intellectual properties, like video game franchises or any works of fiction. Any setting -- whether it's a movie setting or a video game setting or a comic setting does not need to make new content incompatible with old content. They just need to make new content that is different.
I think the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, and that might cause confusion, is "need".
I agree that they don't need to change it up a lot to continue selling to the fans, but if they want to expand their customer base there is a lot that "needs" to be changed. The reason for this is that after a certain time the current incarnation of the product can be considered to have reached its maximum number of fans. To appeal to new fans change is needed. And unfortunately for fans the amount of sales a limited group can result in is limited, and the number seldom equates to the expected yearly growth percentage of the bigger companies. Take for example the aggressive policies of Games Workshop. For some time they had an expected growth rate of 20% per year. That's an insane number, and it also resulted in some really insane business practices, all to please the shareholders. Eventually they alienated enough fans for it to be unsustainable and they went back a bit on it trying to regain some of what they lost.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a need for change. I've stated more than once I accept in-setting changes, so long as they are explained and make sense.
My previous post was disagreeing with your statement that the new had to be incompatible with the old.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertYou don't sell more Superman comics by suddenly making him a little old Peruvian lady whose only unusual ability is being a crack sniper... You sell more Superman comics by giving him new friends and enemies and new challenges to overcome -- whether those challenges are keeping up with the Daily Planet becoming online-only, or a new bad guy that threatens Metropolis, or marital problems with Lois. You build on what you had before, while adding more to it.
Yet they changed Superman quite a lot over the years. They've changed his powers from being able to jump incredibly high to being able to fly. They've killed him and brought him back. They've removed his powers, given him new powers and so on. They even cancelled the comic and then brought it back.
Yeah, they've changed him, but they've not turned him into something else entirely, as you said was necessary in your prior post.
They've added to his powers and changed them, but they keep the character himself the same, and aside from the bounding thing becoming flight, they've generally gone back to what he was before.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertYou don't ignore what came before or make drastic changes that contradict earlier material, and when you make some change, that change needs to be explained.
This happens all the time though. Look at Wolverine in the Marvel Universe. It's been retconned several times.
Yeah, but those retcons have been explained away as psychic manipulation and things like that. They've changed his past, but they've never done a "yeah, this thing that we said was true before -- not only was it never actually true, we're otherwise going to ignore it and pretend it never happened."
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
I don't have an opinion on whether that's a good thing or not. I am simply stating that is how it's done. They have plenty of reasons for doing it, but it's mostly because they want to make more money. Not because they want to appeal to fans. It's a risk taking for sure. Sometimes you alienate the whole fan base. But as long as you retain enough fans to spread the word you're in the positive. Positive here meaning making money. However if you do manage to alienate the whole fan base it will be a lot harder to sell your product to a new demographic, and when that happens you either blame the fans or you suck it up and return to something closer to the previous product. Both approaches are often seen in several businesses.
Again, the issue has never been making changes -- it's all been in how they handled them. One of the things that attracted me to the Realms, lo these many moons ago, was the fact that things were happening (changes!) in the setting and that there was a strong continuity.
Changes made on designer whim, without explanation, regard to prior continuity, or even consideration of implications -- these destroy continuity.
When even the basic facts about a setting are subject to change with no explanation, where can anyone begin to tell their own stories there? |
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 16:04:03
Sleyvas
That was some good reading for sure. Nice work on that idea. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 15:50:00
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Discussion about moving portals is necessarily inclusive of standardization in order to determine whether or not there is something to indicate that such a spell is a one-off like spell, or if it can be replicated, and if it can be replicated, how so? I believe the was the intent. Acolyte Retunrip, is that correct, or have I gone off base here in my analysis?
Well, to be fair the thread did expand to include other aspects of portals than what was my original query, but that is as it should be in my opinion. All those aspects inform the answer (or opinion) on the original question in one way or another. Like you point out, understanding how it works is the subject here. I'm a science nerd and as such I like my escapist worlds to follow a rule set, physics if you will. In a world where magic exist, what rules govern those magics? Is it physics different from ours? Is it the whim of a god or gods? Is it pure chaos and if so, is that chaos truly random or does it have a higher order?
On the subject of magic in 2nd vs 3rd ed I looked up this little snippet in the FRCS that I feel sets it apart from 2nd ed, for better or worse:
"Magic items
Magic is not technology. Wizards and clerics do not manufacture levitating elevators or mass-produce magic portals for simple convenience or crude commerce. These things do exist, but they are almost always built somewhere for a very good reason, since they take a great deal of time and money for a highly skilled and uncommonly gifted spellcaster to create."
(Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, p 94)
The text goes on to describe what is basically the level of magic in the world. Now I have not read a similar statement in 2nd ed (if anyone can quote it I'd be happy to read it however) so my feeling on the level of magic in 2nd ed is only based on the few sources I have on hand. And the feeling might be wrong, but that's where I'm coming from with my view. I'm happy to have my opinion changed by more facts. In the end it seems to me it's a matter of taste, and you wouldn't tell someone they're wrong or stupid for liking blueberry icecream anyway. 
On this particular topic of portals, one thing I've not noticed written, but that I had a strong feel would exist are portals at any Thayan trade enclave. These would be specific portals allowing only non-living materials to transfer through (so some of them might be able to transport undead or constructs in a pinch). The idea was that red wizards/Kossuth priests trade minor potions or scrolls for quantities of raw materials that take up lots of space. Somewhat similar to our world, I then picture that these portals then connect back to a handful of hub locations (which may be isolated, or may be at another trade enclave that is larger and is known for selling all kinds of things). Thus, lumber might be collected, and then all this lumber is sent to one place where there's a constantly working saw mill operated in part by very clean skeletons. They might buy dead goblins, gnolls, etc.. and send the bodies somewhere where they used magic to separate the bones from the flesh, and feed pigs, chickens or somesuch the flesh... and use the skeletons as replacements at the sawmill for those that accidentally get crushed, lose a hand, etc.... The same basic concept works for ores of metals, wherein priests of Kossuth would be more than happy to operate a foundry around the clock to smelt down ores and make metal trade bars out of precious and non-precious metals (gold, silver, copper, but also iron, tin, nickel, etc...), and they could use the bark from the sawmill to fuel the foundry fires.
In this way, you could be just travelling in the wilderness and suddenly find yourself at a Thayan warehouse/factory that's outside of any particular realm's influence. To note, these warehouses might be in extremely odd and hard to reach areas. For instance, they could be in the underdark, in an undersea cave system, or even in wildspace.
One of the concepts I had as well involves a canon Netherese enclave called "Doubloon" that went missing during the times of Netheril. This was a "rogue" enclave that was criminal, committed forgery of coins, and was rumored to be able to "turn invisible" per the Netherese campaign setting. The storyline I would use with it is that it had multiple MINOR mythallars with different power sources (for instance shadow energy for one, drawing on elemental radiance <star power> for another, and the weave for another), and that it was used following Karsus' Folly to transport Netherese citizens to Halruaa. When the exodus of Leirans happened, this enclave was stolen from Halruaa and transported many Leirans under cloak of invisibility to Nimbral.
For a time, the Nimbraii invaded the old Netherese facility known as Yeoman's Loft. They recovered a few helms and spelljamming ships, but they also recovered a lot of its library (including books about helm design concepts). They eventually build a small fleet of spelljamming vessels, and in coordination with the elves of Nimbral, they explore the moon (note, in my personal realms, the moon already has shadow elves (i.e. the Arak of Ravenloft, only a different group of them not tied to Ravenloft) on it when they get there). The Nimbraii eventually study a dwarven forge helm focused around using "creating mundane objects" to fuel the movement of a large dwarven citadel. With their own knowledge of flying enclaves already, combined with knowledge of helm crafting, they make a helm that can bring the flying enclave of Doubloon into the Tears of Selune using the efforts of alchemists and potion makers where the dwarves used forging. This new helm is incredibly inefficient, so the enclave moves exceptionally slowly, but it established a secret colony for spelljammers that wasn't on the moon, but which could trade with traders who came there.
Eventually, the inhabitants of this colony break away from Nimbral over some falling out, and new inhabitants are incorporated into the citizenry over time. Hundreds of years later, the enclave is discovered by Zulkir Mythrell'aa, who also discovers the concept of spelljamming in her research of the enclave. She eventually takes over the enclave, renames it "Luneira", and helps found the Guild of Foreign Trade. With profits from the guild, she begins research on helm creation with the head of the Guild of Foreign Trade to design the "Quad of Thay".... an exceptionally fast vehicle, but one which can't exit the crystal sphere. The Zulkir of Illusion fits these vehicles with "cloaking devices", enabling them to land at known Thayan warehouses and transport goods onto Quads. The Quads could then transport large amounts of goods to Luneira, where she built even more huge warehouses to store these goods, sawmills, foundries, paper mills, etc... WITHIN the interior of the flying enclave. Though this was inefficient compared to simply establishing a portal from the surface to Luneira, it allowed Luneira to still periodically move its location under invisibility, and made it much harder to "track down" by use of magics to track portal endpoints. When Mythrell'aa "Died" just before the spellplague, she had actually cast a spell making everyone think her name was Mythrellan, and had allowed a false version of herself to be destroyed, and she'd hidden herself away in Luneira. When the spellplague hits, Luneira goes to Abeir, and with its warehouses full of resources, its able to help some other trade enclaves setup in the Maztica/Anchorome/Lopango area by delivering emergency supplies via their quads. I may post a lot of the timeline I've created in the brainstorming anchorome thread now that I think about it.
|
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 13:10:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Your words are true for physical products like video game consoles or cars, but not for purely intellectual properties, like video game franchises or any works of fiction. Any setting -- whether it's a movie setting or a video game setting or a comic setting does not need to make new content incompatible with old content. They just need to make new content that is different.
I think the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, and that might cause confusion, is "need".
I agree that they don't need to change it up a lot to continue selling to the fans, but if they want to expand their customer base there is a lot that "needs" to be changed. The reason for this is that after a certain time the current incarnation of the product can be considered to have reached its maximum number of fans. To appeal to new fans change is needed. And unfortunately for fans the amount of sales a limited group can result in is limited, and the number seldom equates to the expected yearly growth percentage of the bigger companies. Take for example the aggressive policies of Games Workshop. For some time they had an expected growth rate of 20% per year. That's an insane number, and it also resulted in some really insane business practices, all to please the shareholders. Eventually they alienated enough fans for it to be unsustainable and they went back a bit on it trying to regain some of what they lost.
quote:
You don't sell more Superman comics by suddenly making him a little old Peruvian lady whose only unusual ability is being a crack sniper... You sell more Superman comics by giving him new friends and enemies and new challenges to overcome -- whether those challenges are keeping up with the Daily Planet becoming online-only, or a new bad guy that threatens Metropolis, or marital problems with Lois. You build on what you had before, while adding more to it.
Yet they changed Superman quite a lot over the years. They've changed his powers from being able to jump incredibly high to being able to fly. They've killed him and brought him back. They've removed his powers, given him new powers and so on. They even cancelled the comic and then brought it back.
quote:
You don't ignore what came before or make drastic changes that contradict earlier material, and when you make some change, that change needs to be explained.
This happens all the time though. Look at Wolverine in the Marvel Universe. It's been retconned several times.
I don't have an opinion on whether that's a good thing or not. I am simply stating that is how it's done. They have plenty of reasons for doing it, but it's mostly because they want to make more money. Not because they want to appeal to fans. It's a risk taking for sure. Sometimes you alienate the whole fan base. But as long as you retain enough fans to spread the word you're in the positive. Positive here meaning making money. However if you do manage to alienate the whole fan base it will be a lot harder to sell your product to a new demographic, and when that happens you either blame the fans or you suck it up and return to something closer to the previous product. Both approaches are often seen in several businesses. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 12:43:27
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wrong, all the way around.
You don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
I respectfully disagree. To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product. While you might be able to sell a bit more while still having it compatible with an old product it's not what most big companies are going for. They want to maximize their sales. And they exploit the fact that the fans will either opt out or open their wallets combined with the new customers they gain through marketing the product which make up for the fans that opt out. At least in theory. They don't ask "how do we get the fans to buy more?". They ask "how do we get more people to buy our product?"
Neither of that has anything to do with the things that are changed and why. That is just design. And I certainly understand your opinion on the design decisions. I'm just saying that it's common business practice, like it or not. Fans are never valuable enough to not be thrown under the bus if it's somehow possible to sell more in total by directing the product to a new demographic.
Your words are true for physical products like video game consoles or cars, but not for purely intellectual properties, like video game franchises or any works of fiction. Any setting -- whether it's a movie setting or a video game setting or a comic setting does not need to make new content incompatible with old content. They just need to make new content that is different.
You don't sell more Superman comics by suddenly making him a little old Peruvian lady whose only unusual ability is being a crack sniper... You sell more Superman comics by giving him new friends and enemies and new challenges to overcome -- whether those challenges are keeping up with the Daily Planet becoming online-only, or a new bad guy that threatens Metropolis, or marital problems with Lois. You build on what you had before, while adding more to it. You don't ignore what came before or make drastic changes that contradict earlier material, and when you make some change, that change needs to be explained. |
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 12:31:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wrong, all the way around.
You don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
I respectfully disagree. To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product. While you might be able to sell a bit more while still having it compatible with an old product it's not what most big companies are going for. They want to maximize their sales. And they exploit the fact that the fans will either opt out or open their wallets combined with the new customers they gain through marketing the product which make up for the fans that opt out. At least in theory. They don't ask "how do we get the fans to buy more?". They ask "how do we get more people to buy our product?"
Neither of that has anything to do with the things that are changed and why. That is just design. And I certainly understand your opinion on the design decisions. I'm just saying that it's common business practice, like it or not. Fans are never valuable enough to not be thrown under the bus if it's somehow possible to sell more in total by directing the product to a new demographic.
EDIT: I'm not saying I like it. Or that WotC are doing it right. I'm just saying that is the strategy that most big companies use. They drop enough fan service in there to put a smile on the long time fans' faces, like a cameo in a movie. They generally don't care about those fans if they can find a new fan base that is larger. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 11:54:58
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not the changing rulesets (though 4E seemed to have as many detractors as fervent supporters), it's the changes that they make to the setting because of the changing rulesets. I don't mind changes, I just want those changes to make sense and to be explained. A lot of the things they changed from 2E to 3E, they just handwaved away with "it's always been like this, just no one knew about it." And then some of the changes to 4E were flat-out nonsensical -- like the sea level of the Sea of Fallen Stars dropping by 50 feet, without coastlines changing, and in the process revealing to air a city that was at least 300 feet below the surface at its tallest point.
Hey, if you want to sell a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree, and I'm sure you know that they don't sell core books by selling the realms, but rather the other way around.
But I'm starting to get the idea here. This is not a realms community. This is a 2nd edition realms community, and if someone don't think 2nd edition realms is the bomb and every other edition is crap they're not a realms fan and should be derided. Duly noted.
Wrong, all the way around.
And you're doing what you accuse others of: casting people as haters because there's a difference of opinion.
First, we have plenty of people here who like the 4E Realms, the 5E Realms, or earlier editions. We are most certainly not a 2E Realms community.
Second, you don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any explanation or thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
Again, no one -- not a single person -- has complained because things were changed. We've complained because changes didn't make sense -- like Ras Nsi, a human, suddenly becoming a yuan-ti necromancer -- or because there was no explanation at all, like sorcerers suddenly being a thing, in setting, or the NPC who went from good to evil because a designer thought more evil NPCs were needed but didn't feel like actually adding one.
Wanting to maintain the continuity of a setting is NOT hating change. |
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 10:07:57
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I like to think myself relatively well-versed in the Realms, but heck, there is so much to know it is easy to either a) forget some, b) not have read it yet, or c) be misinterpreting it.
Sounds like we're coming from a similar background. I used to be able to quote a lot of the realms by heart. I consider myself knowledgable but there's always more to learn. And that's why I came here, because I know this is the place to find those who know more.
The day you stop expanding your knowledge you're dead. At least that's what I try to live by. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:44:33
Seeker Returnip,
Fantastic to have your quick reply as always good sir! :)
quote:
As have I appreciated your happy little inquisitive posts all over the place.
I appreciate the kind words. I like to think myself relatively well-versed in the Realms, but heck, there is so much to know it is easy to either a) forget some, b) not have read it yet, or c) be misinterpreting it.
Hubris is the very enemy of deep learning. I learned years ago that if I cannot laugh at my own mistakes, accept other people's correct statements, etc., then I'm just making the whole learning thing a lot harder on one person: me. So, to the best of my ability, I try to approach things that way at least. Also, I love Candlekeep. I want to see the community grow here, so I think adding some good ole fashioned politeness to the mix (not implying anyone is not polite here: just speaking for myself only!), can help. At least, I hope it does! :)
quote:
It's nice to be able to have adult conversations like this.
I agree. I love having robust, challenging, and learning kinds of conversations, debates, etc.
quote:
EDIT: I can't speak for any of the changes they've made since and including 4th ed, and personally I'm stuck back in time using 2nd and 3rd/3.5 source material for "my" world. However I see people being really upset by business decisions all over the world (and like you say their decisions may be problematic, but it's their decision to make unfortunately.
Well, my view on this has been that knowing the origin of fan, being fanatic, helps me understand better the rather robust response from some people (to be clear, not all, but some indeed). I was pretty dang upset at the lore destruction (my view as a customer) and that is why I stopped giving them my money. Others like it, and went with it: cool. Good on them to do what they like, minus illegal stuff. :)
quote:
Are you going to be mad about it for the rest of your life, or are you going to make the best out of it and move on and be happy in your life?.
Mad about it for the rest of my life? Nah. Not buy their products unless they start doing a better job of production? Yeah, for sure. However, that is fine, I've got it all up through 2006 at this point. :)
quote:
This is business. As the customer you are not always right. That's a myth. All you are is welcome to partake of the product for a fee. That is all. Don't like it? Too bad.
That's a fact on the customer is always right belief. haha That's what competitors are for, if it is really that bad. :) Competition is good!
Best regards,
|
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:23:56
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Seeker Returnip,
Well, I can and only will speak for myself here: I loved 2e and 3e Realms.
As a business consultant (marketing and economics in my foci), the idea you mention regarding selling "a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree,..." is true; however, if the reinvention effectively destroys the connection between an entire market segment in an effort to gain another market segment, that's a big problem. In fact, it was such a big problem, that 4e got smoked like a piece of salmon waiting for the hungry-hungry hippo to come by for a snack. 5e hasn't faired well either, and that is largely because the amount of lore they've released is very minimal. These kinds of products, when they are setting specific, are psychographically dominated, i.e. lifestyle, values, culture, and more.
I didn't mind the jump from 2e to 3e, in terms of lore, or mechanics. In fact, I loved the mechanical change. The lore was perfectly fine for me. That (100) year gap though that came along was just getting crapped on by WotC for many people, and that's why I haven't purchased a single thing from them since 2006. They've frankly produced not very good lore products, hence at least my decision not to purchase since then.
So, to be clear at least from my perspective anyhow, I'm good with any edition, as long as good story develops, and the story hasn't been good thus far.
I'd love to hear more from you though, truly. I've really enjoyed your posts here at the 'Keep quite a lot, and I think it really helps the community to have different viewpoints and robust discussion! :)
Best regards,
As have I appreciated your happy little inquisitive posts all over the place. It's nice to be able to have adult conversations like this. That's why I was surprised to be called a rules lawyer and a realms hater in quick succession and told things I like are silly.
That felt like kindergarten all over again.
EDIT: I can't speak for any of the changes they've made since and including 4th ed, and personally I'm stuck back in time using 2nd and 3rd/3.5 source material for "my" world. However I see people being really upset by business decisions all over the world (and like you say their decisions may be problematic, but it's their decision to make unfortunately. Are you going to be mad about it for the rest of your life, or are you going to make the best out of it and move on and be happy in your life?). People being upset that Games Workshop releases new editions of their games making it unbalanced, the scale creep in their models making old miniatures not fit in with newer ones. People being upset over the remake of a movie not being exactly as the original, or the adaptation of a book into a movie or series not being exactly like the original (despite them being two distinctively different ways to tell stories). Or the eternal lamentations over how videogame movies are so bad.
This is business. As the customer you are not always right. That's a myth. All you are is welcome to partake of the product for a fee. That is all. Don't like it? Too bad.
EDIT 2: On the upside, in the information age with the internet being widespread and basically a human right in many countries it's so easy for people to join forces and make their own product. Finding likeminded, or close to, individuals all over the globe and create the product you want. Sometimes these projects even include the original creators of an IP for example. And there are crowdfunding if one wants to go big. So there's really no point in lamenting the decisions others makes no matter how bad one might think they are. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:16:30
Seeker Returnip,
Well, I can and only will speak for myself here: I loved 2e and 3e Realms.
As a business consultant (marketing and economics in my foci), the idea you mention regarding selling "a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree,..." is true; however, if the reinvention effectively destroys the connection between an entire market segment in an effort to gain another market segment, that's a big problem. In fact, it was such a big problem, that 4e got smoked like a piece of salmon waiting for the hungry-hungry hippo to come by for a snack. 5e hasn't faired well either, and that is largely because the amount of lore they've released is very minimal. These kinds of products, when they are setting specific, are psychographically dominated, i.e. lifestyle, values, culture, and more.
I didn't mind the jump from 2e to 3e, in terms of lore, or mechanics. In fact, I loved the mechanical change. The lore was perfectly fine for me. That (100) year gap though that came along was just getting crapped on by WotC for many people, and that's why I haven't purchased a single thing from them since 2006. They've frankly produced not very good lore products, hence at least my decision not to purchase since then.
So, to be clear at least from my perspective anyhow, I'm good with any edition, as long as good story develops, and the story hasn't been good thus far.
I'd love to hear more from you though, truly. I've really enjoyed your posts here at the 'Keep quite a lot, and I think it really helps the community to have different viewpoints and robust discussion! :)
Best regards,
|
| Returnip |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:02:40
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not the changing rulesets (though 4E seemed to have as many detractors as fervent supporters), it's the changes that they make to the setting because of the changing rulesets. I don't mind changes, I just want those changes to make sense and to be explained. A lot of the things they changed from 2E to 3E, they just handwaved away with "it's always been like this, just no one knew about it." And then some of the changes to 4E were flat-out nonsensical -- like the sea level of the Sea of Fallen Stars dropping by 50 feet, without coastlines changing, and in the process revealing to air a city that was at least 300 feet below the surface at its tallest point.
Hey, if you want to sell a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree, and I'm sure you know that they don't sell core books by selling the realms, but rather the other way around.
But I'm starting to get the idea here. This is not a realms community. This is a 2nd edition realms community, and if someone don't think 2nd edition realms is the bomb and every other edition is crap they're not a realms fan and should be derided. Duly noted. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 05:40:39
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red and Master Rupert,
Thanks again for pointing that out. I just read both Dragons 206 and 219, as well as the small blurb from Lands of Intrigue. Funny, I do not recall the Tashara of the Seven Skulls at all. I for sure had not read the Dragon articles though.
Disintegrating an entire island: that is pretty dang powerful. Geez.
Best regards,
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 02:51:13
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red,
It very well could be I am missing some lore there. I am going to go look those up and see if it is even something that I've read before. I just don't recall at this point.
Best regards,
EDIT: So, I checked out the Tashara of the Seven Skulls. I'm surprised I don't recall that from the Lands of Intrigue, but alas: I do not. I've even read that several times. Very weird.
As to Shaan of the Serpent Queen, I've definitely not read Spellstorm (and I won't as it is post-Spellplague), and I've not read the article from Dragon #219.
I'm definitely going to go back and reread Lands of Intrigue for that part, and also read that article in Dragon #219 though.
So, thank you and to Master Rupert for pointing that out. :) |
|
|
