| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 17:25:32
Is there anyone more talented than I who would be willing to do detailed analyses of these books and compare them. I think that it would be insightful. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 17:14:26
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I’m one of those people too. ;)
But I’m also confused. Why would people who like Realms books for the sake of lore alone distance themselves (or rather, feel not served by) the 4E FRCG?
It’s full of lore, most of it new. It’s not hyper-detailed, nor is it printed in painfully small font, but the lore is there and that’s undeniable.
It just seems to me that anyone who enjoys lore for its own sake would be doing themselves a disservice by not picking up basically the one source of new information on the Realms and reading it.
Uggghhh. Yes it is full of new lore. However that new lore is the equivalent of finding out that the spider man you ahve been reading for the last 10 years is a clone. That book alone made me distance myself from 4e. I advanced my timeline to 1400DR, and wanted to use the 4e campaign guide to get a feel for the "future". I can't do that because everything is in relation to the spellplague which is creatively bankrupt.
I thought it was more along the lines of reading a Spider Man comic and realizing that he died quite some time ago and another person came along with better abilities and took over Spider Man's role and heroics. Yet everything the old Spider Man did was just as valid and heroic as the new just set in a different time.
And with using the FRCG, it's easy to use what parts appeal to you and leave the rest. If you don't want the Spellplague in your Realms, you don't have to include that aspect of the setting. If you like the Escape from N.Y. feel that Wheloon has, then that's fine because of all the Sharran cultists that could've arrived after adventurer's wiped out the Sharran cell in Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave. I incorporated the Spellplague in my Realms but it's rather subtle and not a big part of the backdrop that is Faerun
If you liked Lantan, for example, keep it around as I have. I had Lantan survive (well mostly) because the Simbul had a vision of the destruction to come from the Spellplague. She knew she would need Warforged soldiers to help her battle Thay's undead forces so she went to Lantan and helped them create a sort of bubble around the city (much like a Mythal, but with some technologial advances) and now it's much like Atlantis.
I also kept Nimbral around, as they sorta Plane-shifted the entire Island (not sure where yet) to safety. But they returned and are attempting to find out just how destructive the Spell Plague but are pretty much unchanged from the whole disaster. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 01:39:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Is there a DDI article that explains what happened to Halruaa?
Nothing definitive.
The extent of Halruaa-based lore in DDI remains this little tidbit from "The Ecology of the Sharn" article by Brian James in DRAGON #373:-
quote:
Halruaa: Much of the lore and traditions of Halruaa lives on within the few souls assimilated by the sharns before, during, and after that nation’s destruction. Sharns are actively exploring the ruined capital of Halarahh in search of the Zalathorm’s Clockwork Sceptre.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 00:03:24
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Did you really need to drown Var the Golden?
That's the first time I have heard about that one. Another thing I don't like. What happened to the other countries in the region?
YEs it collapsed 'beneath the waves in the year of blue fire!" Another convenient arbitrary change. Now you can adventure in the sunken ruined cities of Myrmyr and Zelpir.
The lore in the FRCG4e is very sparse. They don't give alot of explanation for things other than Blue fire did it, spellplague did it etc.
Most of the holes are filled in by DND insider. Maybe because they know they did such a poor job explaining it in the book, they needed to add articles to DDI?
Is there a DDI article that explains what happened to Halruaa? We had a web article that said the nation blew up with enough force to submerge land on the other side of a mountain range, but then the book talks about how there are still buildings standing in Halruaa! I really don't get how an explosion can cause such great damage on the other side of a rather prominent barrier, without leaving a massive crater at ground zero... |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 19:19:30
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Did you really need to drown Var the Golden?
That's the first time I have heard about that one. Another thing I don't like. What happened to the other countries in the region?
YEs it collapsed 'beneath the waves in the year of blue fire!" Another convenient arbitrary change. Now you can adventure in the sunken ruined cities of Myrmyr and Zelpir.
The lore in the FRCG4e is very sparse. They don't give alot of explanation for things other than Blue fire did it, spellplague did it etc.
Most of the holes are filled in by DND insider. Maybe because they know they did such a poor job explaining it in the book, they needed to add articles to DDI?
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 10:09:35
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Did you really need to drown Var the Golden?
That's the first time I have heard about that one. Another thing I don't like. What happened to the other countries in the region? |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 05:59:39
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Hello Ashe,
Suppose they (the designers) were to have given us a Realms 100 years in the future with virtually no changes, I think you’d have to admit they’d have done us all (and the Realms) a disservice.
This is because they’d have given us an unbelievable setting that wouldn’t make sense, as the Realms are too dynamic a place to not change over time.
One can’t expect that after one hundred years things would not have changed significantly in the Realms (Spellplague or no Spellplague).
To me, a prison city in Cormyr owing to the dire influence of Shar and the Shadovar makes perfect sense: that -or something else like it- is just what I'd expect to see in Cormyr after a century went by in the Realms (again, Spellplague or no).
What I’m getting at is that if you take an honest look at the Realms as it is now, many of the changes (“changes” isn’t even the right word) are explained by the simple passage of time and not by the Spellplague.
After 100 years, things should be different (that’s a better word).
Even for real changes resulting from the Spellplague, such can still be explained away by RSEs.
Were there no Spellplague, I’d be awfully surprised to discover a Realms that managed to stay miraculously free of one or two RSEs after a century of time.
So if you tell me there's no Spellplague, but still put a huge crater at the heart of the Inner Sea and tell me a race of Drabonborn have come through a bunch of portals from another world to invade Unther, I’d think “Yeah, that’s something I’d expect to see.”
--------
I grant that if you take all the changes together it can seem “too much” for some.
I agree that WotC went way the hell over the top with their changes, often implementing ideas in less than the best way possible (inserting the Dragonborn into the Realms as they did, and not using all the setups written in by the 3E designers just made me shake my head and wonder aloud "What the #%&? Why do it this way?").
But I think if you are really interested in the lore of the setting, then you owe it to yourself to take an honest, thorough look at each of the changes, assessing them each on their own.
If you do, I think you’ll see that they are not really changes, just differences in lore owing to the natural passage of time.
Time flows, things change. Ed made this point at GenCon and it makes perfect sense.
I believe that differences in lore owing to the passage of time are natural in the Realms and are to be expected. Thus they deserve to be appreciated, thought about and understood as much as any other piece of lore from any other era of the setting.
SO why not just continue the realms and NOT advance it 100 years at all. Did you really need to drown Var the Golden? Did you really need to wreck the greatest port in the realms?
There are plenty of changes that could occur in 100 years, even a prison city in cormyr. Maybe even the outlook of cormyr. I can see some changes, but not laughable changes that the developers needed to make for their new rules set.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 05:54:53
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I’m one of those people too. ;)
But I’m also confused. Why would people who like Realms books for the sake of lore alone distance themselves (or rather, feel not served by) the 4E FRCG?
It’s full of lore, most of it new. It’s not hyper-detailed, nor is it printed in painfully small font, but the lore is there and that’s undeniable.
It just seems to me that anyone who enjoys lore for its own sake would be doing themselves a disservice by not picking up basically the one source of new information on the Realms and reading it.
Uggghhh. Yes it is full of new lore. However that new lore is the equivalent of finding out that the spider man you ahve been reading for the last 10 years is a clone. That book alone made me distance myself from 4e. I advanced my timeline to 1400DR, and wanted to use the 4e campaign guide to get a feel for the "future". I can't do that because everything is in relation to the spellplague which is creatively bankrupt. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Jul 2010 : 16:50:06
quote:
Originally posted by SuperGnome
I was all over 3e FR material as it was actually good. It actually was an extension and continuation of something that meant a lot to me. Much like how 4e isn't the same game as all those that proceeded, neither is the 4e Realms. It is pretty much COMPLETELY different. It's the same in brand alone, and having to say that makes me ill. It really did break my heart when I looked at the CG. *slumps in chair*
I dunno, I think large parts of the setting are pretty much the same. Sure, things do change after a century but much (I dare use the word most) of Faerun are much the same or similar. Famous locations such as Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, the nation of Cormyr, almost all of the Western Heartlands, Icewind Dale, Silverymoon/Lurar, the Moonsea, Damara, Impiltur, and Vassa underwent very little in changes geographically and only minimally in other ways.
As far as the edition goes, there are great changes from 2e/AD&D to 3e and minor changes from 3 to 3.5. And additional changes from 3.5 to 4e but only the same in name alone? I don't believe so. The mechanics changed away from a total vancian system to a modified vancian system. You still lose certain powers/spells after casting or using them and only a long rest can replenish those powers. Wizards still draw spells and rituals from their spellbooks but it's just not the biggest focal point for a wizard to have anymore. And the games core structure (characters advancing by level through adventures) is still the same. D&D is way more than just mechanics used IMO. |
| SuperGnome |
Posted - 02 Jul 2010 : 21:25:03
I was all over 3e FR material as it was actually good. It actually was an extension and continuation of something that meant a lot to me. Much like how 4e isn't the same game as all those that proceeded, neither is the 4e Realms. It is pretty much COMPLETELY different. It's the same in brand alone, and having to say that makes me ill. It really did break my heart when I looked at the CG. *slumps in chair* |
| arry |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 12:10:20
Speaking only for myself (indeed, who else can I speak for), I find the changes introduced by 4eFR shatter my willing suspension of disbelief. So I don't use them. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 18:13:32
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
@Diffan - Did you just ignore my last posts? I want to accept the lore, it is just to full of holes for me to be able to. Literally. The dots of the newest edition and the current one do not connect in my brain. For me, the changes were illogical and ill-explained.
There were lots of holes in the setting prior to 4E as well (just note the retcon 1e-2e-3e-4e thread). And I did read over your posts about trying to accept the changes. My point was, that whether or not the changes were good or well-developed doesn't change the fact that they are lore regardless. I hated (loathed actually) Unther, Mulhorand, and Maztica yet I accepted their existance because they were apart of FR. Their lore uninterested me so completly that I'd never run a campaign in that area at all. Egyptians? Seriously? But that is neither here nor there. Lore is lore.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
And until somebody (and at this point I do not care who) does a better job of connecting the dots and explaining the changes in a logical fashion ("puts a better spin on it" if you wish), I can't accept it.
Well if your looking to a designer or offical word from WotC, I doubt you'll get it. More info might be forthcoming in additional novels and I think thats where you'll get most (if any) of your explainations. But, if your not adverse to taking player/DM ideas, then there could be a whole thread (if one isn't already made around here somewhere) to connect the dots. I'd be first to say the Dragonborn were already on FR before the spell-plague and say they're direct descendents from Dragon-kin. Even warforged can be explained from previous canon or you could claim they're a Lantanese(sp?) invention from a century past who have learned the art of making Life-forges and creating more. Hell, I could see a lot of Warforged made in Aglarond to combat the undead forces of Thay.
As for the elf/eladrin division, I think the reasons WotC gave us for their differences work fine and are probably the best bet we've got so far.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
You can make fun of me or tell me that I am just biased. But that is the simple truth of it. I want to accept them, but I cannot. That is the underlying problem I have had since the first hints of these changes (the last couple pages of the GHotR). And yes, I know that in a fantasy world there is supposed to be "suspension of disbelief." But for me, with the 4e Realms, WotC went too far for me to suspend my disbelief.
It wasn't my intent to make fun of anyone and if you feel i've done so, my apologies. I was conveying my own opinion that the lore given in the FRCG is as valid as in the FRCS whether or not it's well-written. As far as the changes themselves, I have accepted them for what they are. To me, if I can accept Spelljammer ships on Faerun, Gods walking the planet in avatars, and a mortal killing a god with 1 spell and almost ascending into Godhood, I can accept these changes as well. Just a difference of opinion is all.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
I have finally come to the point where I can try to find ways to accept the 4e Realms instead of just rejecting them outright, and I am just hearing the same old song and dance of just telling me to move on and accept it; which is just what I have been hearing for the last 2 and 1/2 to 3 year from the "4e Camp."
I'm not saying to anyone to accept the changes. Take them or leave them. The fact is, the changes aren't going away and I doubt we'll get much more info from WotC about the decisions they made and why. Authors and Designers will try to help out (hopefully) to make things more clear but I think it's pretty much up to the community to do the work if we want more. But the decision ultimately is up to the individual to gauge if they work is worth the effort. I can only answer that question for myself but I'd say it was.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
If you were sincere in wanting me to accept the 4e Realms, you should be willing to give a little as well. At least Mr_Miscellany is willing to agree that the changes were to many and too extreme (pardon my paraphrasing if that is not what you meant Mr_Miscellany).
As I said above, I'm not in the habit of making anyone do or accept anything they don't want to. I can give advice as to whether or not something can be used, changed, or spun differently to help a person's campaign or gaming experience involving FR4e but that person should also help push aside the things they don't like in lieu of things they do regarding the setting. As far as the amount and frequency of the changes to FR, I like most (i'd say at least 80%) of them and have adapted to the 1480's Faerun farily well. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 16:40:15
@Diffan - Did you just ignore my last posts? I want to accept the lore, it is just to full of holes for me to be able to. Literally. The dots of the newest edition and the current one do not connect in my brain. For me, the changes were illogical and ill-explained. And until somebody (and at this point I do not care who) does a better job of connecting the dots and explaining the changes in a logical fashion ("puts a better spin on it" if you wish), I can't accept it. You can make fun of me or tell me that I am just biased. But that is the simple truth of it. I want to accept them, but I cannot. That is the underlying problem I have had since the first hints of these changes (the last couple pages of the GHotR). And yes, I know that in a fantasy world there is supposed to be "suspension of disbelief." But for me, with the 4e Realms, WotC went too far for me to suspend my disbelief. I have finally come to the point where I can try to find ways to accept the 4e Realms instead of just rejecting them outright, and I am just hearing the same old song and dance of just telling me to move on and accept it; which is just what I have been hearing for the last 2 and 1/2 to 3 year from the "4e Camp." If you were sincere in wanting me to accept the 4e Realms, you should be willing to give a little as well. At least Mr_Miscellany is willing to agree that the changes were to many and too extreme (pardon my paraphrasing if that is not what you meant Mr_Miscellany). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 15:55:31
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
It is filled with lore, but it's lore that doesn't interest us. Like turning Wheloon into Escape from NY or the floating islands, or the huge crater that the inner sea is flowing into (but never filling up, which would seem to lead to a flooding of the Underdark and a serious drop in surface water, IMO).
It's not that there isn't any lore, or even that it's poorly written. It's the fact that they changed the face of Faerûn so much that I no longer recognize it, so it doesn't interest me.
Well that's pretty darn selective if you ask me. I don't think someone can make a blanket statement of "i love the lore of FR" but then pick and choose which parts of it appeal to them. It'd be better to say "I love some or most of the lore of FR". And of course using the term "well-developed" is just as selective since it's an opinion, which even though I don't agree with, I can respect.
And the FRCG is full of lore, whether people agree about it's value or not. There was very little in the way of mechanics or "Crunch" in the book save for some ways to make Shades and Dread warriors and enemy's stats.
As I can only speak for myself, I think a comparison isn't really necessary for the two volumes since I believe the FRCS greatly compliments the FRCG (and possibly vice versa).
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 25 Jun 2010 : 00:44:56
Wizards current model does suck. A book a year would be nice. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 Jun 2010 : 00:36:37
It was definitely "too much" for me. I can take changes, but large sweeping changes like the Spellplague and time jump (or the Jihad/Dark Age and time jump) and it just overloads my senses.
Take a look at what they are doing over in BattleTech. With the Classic Battletech line, they went back to where the history left off before Clicky-Tech and now they are proceeding forward at a decent pace, explaining how this or that happened with lots of sourcebooks and such. Now, over the last five years, they've moved the story forward from 3065 to 3075 and published 18 sourcebooks dealing with the Jihad (and more than that that didn't deal with it). In the process, I can say they are turning me back into a fan simply because I'm getting explanations on things instead of "the universe go boom".
My biggest gripe is that they are afraid to publish more material (and I don't mean DDI articles, I mean sourcebooks) because they don't want to run into the same problems as before. And I can understand that. BUT, if you are paying attention to the industry, you'll see that there are a TON of people willing to shell out $5-$10 for a PDF on DriveThru RPG for a pdf that is 20-30 pages long, or even subscribe to an Adventure Path like Paizo's for $19 a month to get a monthly adventure & lore book with the PDF and Discount bonuses attached. Hell, I've dropped more money to Paizo and Catalyst Game Labs in the last two years on PDFs alone then I had on 3E Forgotten Realms books in the previous 5 years. My point is, those two business models (PDF/Subscription based Sourcebooks) are a pretty safe bet for selling your product. On the PDF side, you create one file, then cut the distributor in one the sales (or sell it directly on your site) and you don't have to worry about back-log in your warehouses. If a books isn't selling in PDF format, you're not worried about the money wasted on printed books, because there isn't any. And if you're doing what Paizo is doing, then you have a guarantee on X Books sold through subscription, so you can figure out we only need to print Y extra books for non-subscribers.
Like I said, either way, and WotC/Hasbro could be publishing a FR mini-book a month and not worry as much about the overhead. (Yes, I realize they still have to pay writers for the books & such, but with how the electronic industry is going, it's a lot easier to see what is selling and what isn't.) |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 22:39:24
Hello Ashe,
Suppose they (the designers) were to have given us a Realms 100 years in the future with virtually no changes, I think you’d have to admit they’d have done us all (and the Realms) a disservice.
This is because they’d have given us an unbelievable setting that wouldn’t make sense, as the Realms are too dynamic a place to not change over time.
One can’t expect that after one hundred years things would not have changed significantly in the Realms (Spellplague or no Spellplague).
To me, a prison city in Cormyr owing to the dire influence of Shar and the Shadovar makes perfect sense: that -or something else like it- is just what I'd expect to see in Cormyr after a century went by in the Realms (again, Spellplague or no).
What I’m getting at is that if you take an honest look at the Realms as it is now, many of the changes (“changes” isn’t even the right word) are explained by the simple passage of time and not by the Spellplague.
After 100 years, things should be different (that’s a better word).
Even for real changes resulting from the Spellplague, such can still be explained away by RSEs.
Were there no Spellplague, I’d be awfully surprised to discover a Realms that managed to stay miraculously free of one or two RSEs after a century of time.
So if you tell me there's no Spellplague, but still put a huge crater at the heart of the Inner Sea and tell me a race of Drabonborn have come through a bunch of portals from another world to invade Unther, I’d think “Yeah, that’s something I’d expect to see.”
--------
I grant that if you take all the changes together it can seem “too much” for some.
I agree that WotC went way the hell over the top with their changes, often implementing ideas in less than the best way possible (inserting the Dragonborn into the Realms as they did, and not using all the setups written in by the 3E designers just made me shake my head and wonder aloud "What the #%&? Why do it this way?").
But I think if you are really interested in the lore of the setting, then you owe it to yourself to take an honest, thorough look at each of the changes, assessing them each on their own.
If you do, I think you’ll see that they are not really changes, just differences in lore owing to the natural passage of time.
Time flows, things change. Ed made this point at GenCon and it makes perfect sense.
I believe that differences in lore owing to the passage of time are natural in the Realms and are to be expected. Thus they deserve to be appreciated, thought about and understood as much as any other piece of lore from any other era of the setting.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 22:14:10
A good example of well-developed lore is in Dragons of Faerûn and Eytan's "Class Chronicles" articles. In both cases he explains what the change is, and why they decided to make it. With as little friction as possible.
The FRCG was full of friction. There was no attempt to smooth things over in a positive and logical way. It just was.
I have just now come to a point where I am willing to accept the changes made if someone is willing to take the time to make them make sense. That is how angry I was about the changes made. I diligently read every "Countdown to the Realms" article, practically begging Rich on the Wizards boards to give me reasons to stick with it to be told that all (or at least the most glaring parts) would be explained in said articles.
I WANTED to accept these changes, but without being given rational reasons to do so, I wasn't able to. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 22:03:10
IMO, it was poorly developed lore (the bits I have read). Not poorly written. The lore in the 3.x books felt like expansion upon what I was introduced to in the books. The FRCG lore just served to remind me how much they changed with the advent of 4e. If they had put more time into how and whys of the changes, and less time into what they were changing, I would have been much more satisfied. Simple ret-conned "it has just always been that way" explanations just piss me off, not soothe my feelings of hurt.
Why just ignore that 3e Dragonborn instead of coming up with a story as to how they became the 4e Dragonborn? -- That is just one example.
Honestly, with changes as big as they made, I want detailed reasons why they are that way now. And the one of the very vehicles that they created to help do that (Countdown to the Realms), they cancelled. Also, I like small print. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 21:48:08
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I’m one of those people too. ;)
But I’m also confused. Why would people who like Realms books for the sake of lore alone distance themselves (or rather, feel not served by) the 4E FRCG?
It’s full of lore, most of it new. It’s not hyper-detailed, nor is it printed in painfully small font, but the lore is there and that’s undeniable.
It just seems to me that anyone who enjoys lore for its own sake would be doing themselves a disservice by not picking up basically the one source of new information on the Realms and reading it.
It is filled with lore, but it's lore that doesn't interest us. Like turning Wheloon into Escape from NY or the floating islands, or the huge crater that the inner sea is flowing into (but never filling up, which would seem to lead to a flooding of the Underdark and a serious drop in surface water, IMO).
It's not that there isn't any lore, or even that it's poorly written. It's the fact that they changed the face of Faerûn so much that I no longer recognize it, so it doesn't interest me. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 21:06:30
I’m one of those people too. ;)
But I’m also confused. Why would people who like Realms books for the sake of lore alone distance themselves (or rather, feel not served by) the 4E FRCG?
It’s full of lore, most of it new. It’s not hyper-detailed, nor is it printed in painfully small font, but the lore is there and that’s undeniable.
It just seems to me that anyone who enjoys lore for its own sake would be doing themselves a disservice by not picking up basically the one source of new information on the Realms and reading it.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 20:31:36
Mr. Miscellany, I think you are missing the whole group of us (of which I think there are a lot) who while enjoyed the extra details as a DM, what we really loved was lore for lore's sake alone. Even if I had never participated as a DM, I would still have wanted to buy all the books I did in 3.x for every ounce of lore I could squeeze out of them (I have read almost every one cover-to-cover). And from what I hear, the books from the previous editions of the Realms are even more lore-filled. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 20:20:53
Actually, the 4E FRCG is loaded with fluff. Page after page of it.
Thing is, it was a lot of broad, sweeping kind of fluff that, I admit, looks rather bland when taken as a whole.
WotC did try adding lots of spices (i.e. adventure ideas) on every page, but if you're the kind of Realms DM who prefers (or was brought up on) nice, crisp salads (i.e., uber-detailed Realmslore books) for every meal, it must suck having to switch to tofu with sugar on it.
Though for us really old school grognards, being a DM is about taking a nice base and cooking up something awesome around it.
Some of us older types don't care to have all the work already done for us, because we can do just as good a job —if not better— all by ourselves.
Which is to say I don't have to cook for everyone, just a party of four at the only table in the joint. ;) |
| Zireael |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 18:37:03
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
I could use my Volo Guides wholecloth in a 4e game, and my players would be none the wiser.
That's a great idea in itself. The 4e FRCS is quite lacking in fluff (or was it crunch?), oh, you know, the non-mechanical information that appeals to most of DMs and players. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 14:37:26
I photocopied a recipe for Stag Sausage in one of the guides and gave that as a player handout in a 4E game. Now they want to find more recipes. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 04:05:11
I could use my Volo Guides wholecloth in a 4e game, and my players would be none the wiser.
|
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 23 Jun 2010 : 23:22:10
Jumping in for a moment: quote:
Originally posted by Lirdolin
Take Volos Guides, they are almost useless now, because it's not even sure that all landmarks or cities still remain!
How is this even remotely close to being true?
If a Dungeon Master running a 4E REalms game is not sure a city or landmark exists in the post-Spellplague Realms, what is to stop him or her from just using it anyway?
Dungeon Masters using all editions of the game have regularly added in extra cities, landmarks, NPCs, towns, magic items, monsters, etc...to their Forgotten Realms games, because that's what Dungeon Masters do.
They also borrow from other gaming sources, other gaming worlds, etc...and use this material in their Realms games.
No intention of causing a thread-ambush. And I apologize if my remarks sound critical (that's not my intent).
I'm just really confused as to why a Dungeon Master would think it necessary to discard a perfectly useable source of gaming material, just because it dealt with an older era of the Realms.
EDIT: I suppose if a DM were running a game that was designed to follow canon source material absolutely, then the issue of trying to do this kind of game in the 4E Realms would be a real problem since exact source material (like Volo’s Guides) wouldn’t help.
But then by that logic you’d have the exact same “things have changed too much” problem with Volo’s Guide to Cormyr right after the War with Nalavarra ended and half the Forrest Kingdom and its major NPCs were engulfed in flames and killed off.
It’s true to say that the immediate utility/usefulness of the Volo’s Guides has diminished, but only in the sense that they’re out of date (yet that’s debatable; after all, if you run a game set in the exact era of time those books were written for, you have no problem at all).
In my opinion, Volo’s Guides are still veritable Realmslore goldmines of lore, names, ideas, places, magic items, plots and descriptions.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Jun 2010 : 04:50:14
quote:
Originally posted by Lirdolin
I think that the main difference between 4th Ed. and all the previous incarnations is that it devalues the books of it's forerunners on a scale not seen before.
This concerns Lore and Mechanics.
I would say mechanics, yes. But not lore. All the stuff that has come before is still valid. It still happened and is still FR's history. And as far as devaluing previous material, I don't feel the same way. I've been able to convert A LOT of information and material from previous editions to 4th edition. From monster stats, prestige classes to paragon paths, organizations, feats, etc... and all with relative balance. Sure, it took some work and I don't expect WotC to do it for me, but it's something I love to do and I'm willing to share with anyone with a like interest. It's sorta the reason why we should have a strong community.
quote:
Originally posted by Lirdolin
Where I could use my AD&D books almost without problems in 3rd Ed.(just making some NSC older or let their heirs show up)it's almost impossible with 4th Ed. 
As I've said previously, I've been able to convert much of 3/3.5 to 4th but as I don't own much (if any at all) AD&D supplements, I can't say I can convert them to 4th. But as far as NPC and what-not, they're not that hard to convert and because they don't follow construction rules as PCs do, it makes them much easier to stat IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Lirdolin
Take Volos Guides, they are almost useless now, because it's not even sure that all landmarks or cities still remain! Not to mention that probably most NSC mentioned are dead, no, probably even their heirs heirs are dead by now.
And worse: No replacement in Sight because of Wizard's "All are One -no setting specific rulebooks after the Campaign/Players Guide and Adventure" philosophie.
I downloaded alot of Volo's Guides from the WotC site and I use them pretty requrarly for info, names, town size, and campaign Ideas. I like the fact that not everything is handed to me on a silver platter and I like creating stuff that works with both the older settings and my own ideas without much conflict.
EDIT: Sorry if this came off as a "I'm better than you" sort of response. That's not what i'm going for here. I'm just trying to convey a different perspective I had with the transisition between editions. I don't expect people (espically on these forums) to really go the lengths I had in trying to bridge the gap between pre- and post-spellplague Realms and try to convert many of the unique pieces that make up the Realms (mostly from a mechanical stand-point). And I agree that the new design/format of D&D is very much different than previous editions and it's time consuming to change over previous info from a campaign.
|
| froglegg |
Posted - 12 Jun 2010 : 17:50:31
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Bah, you young whippersnappers with your 3E vs 4E. I don't need a comparison to know the 1st-Edition Gray Box setting is better than anything which followed.
+1 
John |
| Lirdolin |
Posted - 22 May 2010 : 09:58:09
I think that the main difference between 4th Ed. and all the previous incarnations is that it devalues the books of it's forerunners on a scale not seen before.
This concerns Lore and Mechanics.
Where I could use my AD&D books almost without problems in 3rd Ed.(just making some NSC older or let their heirs show up)it's almost impossible with 4th Ed.
Take Volos Guides, they are almost useless now, because it's not even sure that all landmarks or cities still remain! Not to mention that probably most NSC mentioned are dead, no, probably even their heirs heirs are dead by now.
And worse: No replacement in Sight because of Wizard's "All are One -no setting specific rulebooks after the Campaign/Players Guide and Adventure" philosophie.
Taking my old PC's from AD&D to 3rd.Ed was relativly simple. Thanks to the timejump and rules I sometimes doesn't even recognize as remotely related to the game I play sofar it's next to impossible to convert the PC's to 4th ed.(which by the way is intended by the creators, but hey they graciously gave us ten realmsian years to finish our campaigns - after which the world our heros fought so hard for to preserve goes boom and the goddess they rescued in the last three great adventures is killed - did anyone at wizards consider the possibility that my current campaign would take way longer than 10 years or that I didn't want to destroy all the works of my players characters?) |
| dragonfriend |
Posted - 21 May 2010 : 11:38:49
After reading 4e CG I can say that the difference with the 3e CS is that, as a realms player, I can play without the 4e book (that is good by the way) but a can't without the 3e CS. It is the definitive guide, even more than the 2e boxed set. |
|
|
