| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sousinne |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 13:29:30
We're now in a situation where WotC has three products made for FR 4th edition. We're all mad about the spellplague and the time jump.
So, what would you have liked to see instead? I am not saying "do better or shut up", I am asking this because I would like to see your answers. I am sure many of them will be lots better than what we got. =)
The situation was:
They needed to make the setting more accessible to newcomers.
They needed to somehow adapt FR to 4th edition rules.
They needed to provide an in-game reason for that rules change.
They needed to make sure the setting provided income.
They needed to get away from the novels problem RSE of the week.
My own take would be that they found some place with less massive amounts of lore, and added that place as a "newbie" region. They should have taken the time to think about suddenly adding new deities and races that had never been much part of the setting before. While people seem most mad at the spellplague, I find that less objectionable than the time jump, which was badly handled. Every single village is in the same place, a century later. As for income, perhaps the problem is that hardbound books cost too much to make? There was nothing wrong with for example the Silver Marches format, which would have given them the chance to publish more content. The RSE of the week is merely a question of weaning people off RSEs, through new writer's guidelines. In-game, a politically more stable situation, such as the consolidation of the Moonsea lands, would be a good explanation for less RSE times.
Anyone else? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Aug 2009 : 13:34:29
quote:
Originally posted by Uriens_The_Gray
How's my writing, i am german.
Your writing is fine. Better, in fact, than some of us who speak English as our native tongue.  |
| Uriens_The_Gray |
Posted - 21 Aug 2009 : 12:12:30
Hello everyone,
This is my first Posting here in the sacred halls of Candle Keep.
I came across this Thread, because i was wondering why WotC lay waste to the Forgotten Realms.
Two reasons, i think, must have led to this terrible decision:
1. Money !! As always... WotC has to earn Money. There is no holy cow.
2. The FR have to suit to the new Ruleset. 4E in this case. But this could have been done far less painfully and slower.
So, whats left? Within a year, WotC transformed the best known Campaign World into a post-nuclear graveyard. My hope is "a real re-boot, starting in 1357 DR, with all the mistakes by TSR and WotC edited out." as Quale said.
How's my writing, i am german. |
| Quale |
Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 15:13:12
I'm late to the thread. If change was needed, I agree with MT, a real re-boot, starting in 1357 DR, with all the mistakes by TSR and WotC edited out. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 01:00:36
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Does anyone (*koff* Brian? *koff*) have any idea when and where the information on Neverwinter will be available?
As far as I know, Neverwinter is off limits to designers. I have no inside info on this, but I'd say smart money is on a future "Neverwinter Nights" game being set there. The text in the FRCG is confusing, I admit. The city's state of "utter ruin" was supposed to be during the events of the Spellplague (nearly a century ago); not the state of things in the present (1479 DR).
Thank you, Brian. Much appreciated.
I have to admit that declaring Neverwinter 'off limits' makes sense in terms of long-range development, much as I'd like to see something made for it (even if we are just engaging in speculation here).
I might even buy the next NWN game produced, provided it doesn't lean on the Smellplague and the time jump as focal points for its storyline. But we'd not see any game material released for the region, anyways, as what we have now is all we get.
I admit, though...it would be nice if IP reversion took place counting down from the day after Scepter Tower of Spellgard was released. But I'm willing to bet there's some infernal little proviso that lets them stave that off with DDI material and so on, rather than letting EG get his 'baby' back (and finding someone who can help him resuscitate it). |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 20:37:59
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Does anyone (*koff* Brian? *koff*) have any idea when and where the information on Neverwinter will be available?
As far as I know, Neverwinter is off limits to designers. I have no inside info on this, but I'd say smart money is on a future "Neverwinter Nights" game being set there. The text in the FRCG is confusing, I admit. The city's state of "utter ruin" was supposed to be during the events of the Spellplague (nearly a century ago); not the state of things in the present (1479 DR).
Just curious, but do you know anything about the other areas that where covered by old restrictions (I think Elturel and some others were among them), are these still of-limit in the 2ed.? |
| Teneck |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 20:33:29
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Does anyone (*koff* Brian? *koff*) have any idea when and where the information on Neverwinter will be available?
As far as I know, Neverwinter is off limits to designers. I have no inside info on this, but I'd say smart money is on a future "Neverwinter Nights" game being set there. The text in the FRCG is confusing, I admit. The city's state of "utter ruin" was supposed to be during the events of the Spellplague (nearly a century ago); not the state of things in the present (1479 DR).
Luskin was trashed as well ...correct? I wonder if there will be a consolidated community/rule there now. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 20:29:54
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Does anyone (*koff* Brian? *koff*) have any idea when and where the information on Neverwinter will be available?
As far as I know, Neverwinter is off limits to designers. I have no inside info on this, but I'd say smart money is on a future "Neverwinter Nights" game being set there. The text in the FRCG is confusing, I admit. The city's state of "utter ruin" was supposed to be during the events of the Spellplague (nearly a century ago); not the state of things in the present (1479 DR). |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 16:37:55
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The Neverwinter thing always makes me laugh hysterically, I might add. The Realms in Name Only redefines a lot of things, but if they are able to redefine 'utter destruction', that'll be impressive. 
<snip>
Hey... they were able to redefine Abeir, the entire planar structure of the cosmos, the fundamental nature of magic in the Realms, and almost every inch of coastline in Toril... or at least in Faerun. Redefining "utter destruction" to mean "slight discombobulation" should be a piece of cake.
Only if by "redefine" you mean "change without any real logical in-game explanation."  I think that that is still my biggest dislike of the post-Spellplague Realms, it doesn't feel like they even tried to use any finesse at all when they made the changes they made. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 01:32:58
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The Simbul is the only one confirmed as alive and well.
Bleah...doesn't that jolly well figure. Qilue and Laeral were my favorites. 
Does anyone (*koff* Brian? *koff*) have any idea when and where the information on Neverwinter will be available? Having players starting out there seems like a decent idea - I believe I could "easily" get them to level 30 over the period of years without ever leaving the lands between the Spine of the World and the Cloud Peak Mountains (i.e. those lands that are still 'the Realms', for the most part). |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 05 Aug 2009 : 14:29:44
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
And now, where are they? Alustriel may still be ruling Silverymoon, and the Simbul is hanging out with the Old Sage (or thereabouts), but it sounds like Qilue isn't the only one who died. Sylune, Laeral, Dove, and Storm all seem to have taken the Big Dirtnap - I guess they were slacking off in selling books. 
Alustriel and Laeral passed away from old age (at least that's the story so far) and Syluné passed to the other side in the Anauroch adventure. No word on Dove or Storm. The Simbul is the only one confirmed as alive and well. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 05 Aug 2009 : 13:05:57
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Uzzy - Who's introduction to the Realms at large was, infact, Neverwinter Nights, and still wants Lady Aribeth de Tylmarande to be canon.
Wait...that's it...that's why the Realms is in the shape it's in! Just getting revenge on Neverwinter wasn't enough for her! It's her fault! She did it!!   |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 05 Aug 2009 : 12:58:45
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I'll consider a DnDi subscription when Halaster is back in the canon Realms again. I can't say I miss him, or Khelben, or any of the Dead Sisters, because in my Realms, they're all still around... except Qilue, who never existed in my Realms to begin with; I had my own Seventh Sister employing a completely different take on the phrase "dark disaster". I just think that killing Halaster off was almost as colossal an error in judgment as nuking Halruaa and messing with the geography. 
I never understood why they sandblasted Halruaa, either...and I imagine we'll never find out. I get this image of a Realms dartboard, and a big red dart skewering Halruaa, and an unidentified voice saying "Burn it".
The Sisters, believe it or not, were among some of the NPC's that I actually liked. On one of the rare occasions I got to play (way back when), the DM was running a 'Villains' campaign (and what's more, he made it work - no small feat). The wizard/psion I was playing ended up cursed by none other than Laeral herself. His games were...a tad hazardous.
And now, where are they? Alustriel may still be ruling Silverymoon, and the Simbul is hanging out with the Old Sage (or thereabouts), but it sounds like Qilue isn't the only one who died. Sylune, Laeral, Dove, and Storm all seem to have taken the Big Dirtnap - I guess they were slacking off in selling books. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 05 Aug 2009 : 04:55:12
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
The Neverwinter thing always makes me laugh hysterically, I might add. The Realms in Name Only redefines a lot of things, but if they are able to redefine 'utter destruction', that'll be impressive.
<snip>
Hey... they were able to redefine Abeir, the entire planar structure of the cosmos, the fundamental nature of magic in the Realms, and almost every inch of coastline in Toril... or at least in Faerun. Redefining "utter destruction" to mean "slight discombobulation" should be a piece of cake. |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 05 Aug 2009 : 04:22:48
The Neverwinter thing always makes me laugh hysterically, I might add. The Realms in Name Only redefines a lot of things, but if they are able to redefine 'utter destruction', that'll be impressive.
Uzzy - Who's introduction to the Realms at large was, infact, Neverwinter Nights, and still wants Lady Aribeth de Tylmarande to be canon. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 05 Aug 2009 : 01:39:27
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
<snip>
You make a very good point.
Saving face and stubborn pride will be the things that trump profit motive in this instance. Who'da thunk?
<chop>
I would love to see a 'Realms Reimagined' tome...one that can bring Faerun into 4th Edition (or Pathfinder, or whatnot) while...well, leaving the Realms the Realms, and not, as my son likes to say, FRITO (Forgotten Realms In Title Only).
Many apologies to the snack food of the same name.
[edit] Original response voluntarily removed; I thought it was a touch over the PG-13 boundary I try to maintain in my posts. For those who saw it, you know why.  [/edit]
[edit] Okay, I have something to make this post useful. I'm curious now as to whether we'll see more of these local retcons in future 4E Realms updates... but I must say that "we" still doesn't include me... I'll consider a DnDi subscription when Halaster is back in the canon Realms again. I can't say I miss him, or Khelben, or any of the Dead Sisters, because in my Realms, they're all still around... except Qilue, who never existed in my Realms to begin with; I had my own Seventh Sister employing a completely different take on the phrase "dark disaster". I just think that killing Halaster off was almost as colossal an error in judgment as nuking Halruaa and messing with the geography. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Aug 2009 : 00:29:38
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Most companies -- regardless of their business -- specify that anything you create while working for them belongs entirely to them. With a game company, that would be even more likely.
So the lack of mention of Zakhara is more because it wasn't important enough to mention, and has nothing to do with someone who is no longer even with the company.
Bleah...I hate it when I can't argue a point.  Old geezer -1.
But then again, that being the case, if Zakhara has already been established as an integral part of Toril (as the map on p.231 of 3rd Edition FR indicates), what might that portend if WotC does indeed abandon the Realms, causing the properties to revert to EG? Would he then have legal rights to the 'bolt-on' additions to his intellectual properties?
One could assume so, since it was all branded as being part of the Realms. That said, I don't know the terms of the original agreement, so it's also possible that areas not created by Ed would not revert to him. He might be able to answer this one better himself, but I don't know -- with lawyers involved, Lurue only knows what he can and can't say. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 21:20:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Most companies -- regardless of their business -- specify that anything you create while working for them belongs entirely to them. With a game company, that would be even more likely.
So the lack of mention of Zakhara is more because it wasn't important enough to mention, and has nothing to do with someone who is no longer even with the company.
Bleah...I hate it when I can't argue a point. Old geezer -1.
But then again, that being the case, if Zakhara has already been established as an integral part of Toril (as the map on p.231 of 3rd Edition FR indicates), what might that portend if WotC does indeed abandon the Realms, causing the properties to revert to EG? Would he then have legal rights to the 'bolt-on' additions to his intellectual properties?
I have never before found myself fervently hoping that a game company never again produces something for a setting that I so dearly love - it is not exactly the kind of feeling I enjoy. But I would like to see what another company could do with the Realms, and hopefully 'un-NGE' it so that it was...well...once again the Realms.
And thank you, BRJ, for confirming that I did not screw up in my interpretation of the Neverwinter situation. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 20:51:00
Your explanation of the Neverwinter situation is exactly right Old Man Harpell.
Regarding Zakhara: I tried to provide some integration between Zakhara and Faerūn through my Grand History vignette on the Utter East. But then again, the Utter East was largely ignored as well. /sigh |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 20:12:16
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
(and did you notice - hardly a peep about Zakhara - seeming to at least imply that Mr. Grubb had a bit more control over his creations.
Nope. Zakhara, more than perhaps any of the other subsettings, was a bolt-on to the Realms proper. Admittedly, I've not read everything, but I only recall one character from there, and most references to it in FR stuff were passing references, at most. Kara-Tur and Maztica both had more involvement in the main setting, by being involved in stories that were part of the main setting (the Tuigan invasion) or by having main setting characters involved in the subsetting (the settling and trade with Maztica).
So Zakhara was always just kinda there... And I'm pretty sure it never had anything to do with any of the novels (save for the backstory of one character), until the other subsettings.
Most companies -- regardless of their business -- specify that anything you create while working for them belongs entirely to them. With a game company, that would be even more likely.
So the lack of mention of Zakhara is more because it wasn't important enough to mention, and has nothing to do with someone who is no longer even with the company. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 19:40:10
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
And there are rumors (and they are just that, rumors) that WotC is going to do a 'half-backpedal' on Neverwinter, finding a way to explain how it's always been there and is now a part of the continuity - if true, I will be very interested in seeing how that is accomplished.
Would you mind extrapolating on what exactly you mean here? Do you meant that there are rumors that they are going to "un-destroy" Neverwinter? (Which was really stupid considering the number of people who were introduced to the Realms and D&D in NW1).
I will do my best.
I am not a subscriber to DDI, but that does not stop me from going to the WotC site and perusing the forums.
From what I read, and the way I understood it (and it is entirely possible I misinterpreted this, but I am inclined to doubt that), they are leaning toward saying that Neverwinter was not destroyed as you would classically define 'destruction', but rather in a fashion similar to the Plague that was the fulcrum of NWN, which 'destroyed' Neverwinter until the player character solved the mysteries of the malady, confronted Aribeth, and so on and so forth, allowing the city to recover from it's 'destruction'.
In other words, Neverwinter the city as a physical entity has never gone away - it simply ceased to have any significance following the Smellplague due to <horrible disaster inserted here>, and is only now emerging to re-take its place in the Realms.
This is how I interpreted what I read. I hope beyond all hope that I didn't misinterpret what was said - because then at least the majority of the Sword Coast would still feel like the Realms of old. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 19:23:54
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Old Man Harpell, I agree with just about every word you've typed. My only disagreement is with your assessment of what WotC could do. I'll agree, they very well *could* do that... but to do so would be to admit that the 4E Realms are a failure (whether this is true or not)... which is precisely why they *won't* do that. The biggest deviation from the Sellplague that I expect to see from Wizbro is to abandon the Realms entirely... which only works for me if they sell it off on the cheap to Paizo, who subsequently hire Mr. Schend and Mr. Krashos (I believe SKR is already there). 
You make a very good point.
Saving face and stubborn pride will be the things that trump profit motive in this instance. Who'da thunk?
In truth, I would not weep if WotC abandoned the Realms, and someone like Paizo picked it up. I would be willing to bet that at least some of the folks at Paizo (and other game companies) are paying attention to debates such as this one, and hoping for exactly the same thing...as well as figuring out how it could be done better (imagine a Realms timeline done by someone who actually cares about the Realms! <dreams>).
Your concerns about reversion copyright is also well-taken...but Ed Greenwood and Jeff Grubb (amongst others) are thoughtful and rational souls. I don't actually see much problem taking the 'Classic Realms' and giving it to a company who will do it justice (and did you notice - hardly a peep about Zakhara - seeming to at least imply that Mr. Grubb had a bit more control over his creations.
I would love to see a 'Realms Reimagined' tome...one that can bring Faerun into 4th Edition (or Pathfinder, or whatnot) while...well, leaving the Realms the Realms, and not, as my son likes to say, FRITO (Forgotten Realms In Title Only).
Many apologies to the snack food of the same name.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 18:50:34
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
And there are rumors (and they are just that, rumors) that WotC is going to do a 'half-backpedal' on Neverwinter, finding a way to explain how it's always been there and is now a part of the continuity - if true, I will be very interested in seeing how that is accomplished.
Would you mind extrapolating on what exactly you mean here? Do you meant that there are rumors that they are going to "un-destroy" Neverwinter? (Which was really stupid considering the number of people who were introduced to the Realms and D&D in NW1). |
| Jakk |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 07:00:36
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Right.
<chop>
One last Point...
One of the early points they made after the 4e announcement was that they wanted players to "think D&D, NOT Forgotten Realms" (or Greyhawk, or Dragonlance, etc...). The new design paradigm seems to work toward that end, not allowing people to become too deeply immersed in each setting (I also understand tthat reasoning - FR fans buy FR books, D&D fans buy ALL the books).
<snip>
Regarding that last point... Wizbro's logic as described above doesn't work for me. I consider myself an FR fan, yet my 1E/2E library also includes the 1E Greyhawk boxed set (2 copies, books in mint condition, but only one copy of the maps, and no boxes) and the 2E Dark Sun, Birthright, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Greyhawk settings and accessories (except some adventures for Greyhawk that I'm sorry I missed). I didn't get into AD&D early enough to get the original WG adventure series, but I got the orange-spine rulebooks new (then sold them when 2E came out, then re-acquired other copies later on) and managed to track down the original Deities and Demigods and Fiend Folio through my local game store at the time. So no, the "setting-specific fan" argument doesn't wash with me... but then, I'm a D&D fan first and a Realms fan also first... and a D&D in the Realms fan second. That is why I can't abide the changes; for me, the new rules just don't feel like D&D any more, and the new setting doesn't feel like the Realms. I know many of you feel the same way, and many others don't; I'm not here to throw accelerant on the fire, just to state my position. The new Realms simply don't fit what I have currently happening or planned for the future in my FR campaign, and the DM of the FR game I play in feels likewise. [/rant] |
| Jakk |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 06:39:13
Old Man Harpell, I agree with just about every word you've typed. My only disagreement is with your assessment of what WotC could do. I'll agree, they very well *could* do that... but to do so would be to admit that the 4E Realms are a failure (whether this is true or not)... which is precisely why they *won't* do that. The biggest deviation from the Sellplague that I expect to see from Wizbro is to abandon the Realms entirely... which only works for me if they sell it off on the cheap to Paizo, who subsequently hire Mr. Schend and Mr. Krashos (I believe SKR is already there).
Edit: Yes, I know that abandoning the Realms entirely for a calendar year causes the rights to revert back to Ed. But that creates the thorny issues of which parts of the IP go back to Ed, and what happens to the other parts (Zeb Cook's Kara-Tur, Jeff Grubb's Zakhara, the other work Jeff Grubb has contributed to Toril (including that name), etc.); Ed and THO have commented on this in his 2009 scroll, and this is part of why Ed's deepest wish is for the Realms to continue in the status quo, whatever that may be, simply because that is what's best for the players. (Of course, as I understand it, this same motive is why Ed argued so vehemently against a time jump and setting blowup.) [/edit]
Just my two coppers. I, too, could have written much, much more, but most of it I've already said elsewhere in these scrolls, and I've already repeated myself too often here.  |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 06:24:45
Hello, all...this is but my second post within these halls, and my mind is off in a dozen directions as I type, so please forgive me if my words seem disjointed somehow. And please forgive the length - I can be quite wordy, especially when I have a strong opinion.
As I understand it, Rich Baker stated that killing Mystra and the resulting Spellplague were WotC's way of bringing the Realms into 'magical continuity' (paraphrasing) with the 4th Edition ruleset - as well trying to make it fit into the 'P.C.'s are the stars' paradigm - aka 'Points of Light' (thus their justification for slaughtering many of the Big Names of the Realms - those that didn't sell books, anyways).
I cannot help but feel that they could have taken several disparate elements of magic (such as the warping energies of the Far Realm, perhaps to the level of threat that Mystra couldn't ignore it or simply send someone to deal with it. Send Cyric off to try to assassinate her (again  ), have his attempt distract her at a crucial moment, and have the resulting effects be what brings the magic system into line, whether it is a Spellplague or something else entirely. He shouldn't actually succeed, mind you - perhaps Azuth, Savras, and Velsharoon manage to beat on him long enough for Mystra to recover, with the attempt earning him his thousand-year house arrest as per the FRCG, which I always considered waaaaaay too lenient for what he did. A thousand years - big deal. Only 900 to go. Do you actually believe they're going to let him go when the time's up? I wouldn't.
Many of their attempts to shoehorn the Realms into the Core Rules Applied Paradigm didn't go off as intended - the destruction of Luiren, for example. While having it sink was something that didn't actually bother me much, halflings haven't changed all that much...and now there's one less slice of the Realms we all remember and love. And that is but one example of something that occurs again and again.
Returned Abeir is not bad...but they could have likely avoided some controversy by putting it somewhere else. In the Campaign Guide for 3rd edition, there is a complete map of the planet Toril on page 231 - and you will see, in the far southeastern corner of the planet, a landmass under the moniker 'Unknown Lands'. I cannot help but feel that it would have better served them to place it there, rather than invalidate the works that several authors had done when they created Maztica (regardless of how one feels about Maztica itself).
Granted, there are a (very) few things that the FRCG has that I like - High Imaskar, Netheril, and the 're-greening' of Anauroch (which never made much sense to me as a desert that far north). And there are rumors (and they are just that, rumors) that WotC is going to do a 'half-backpedal' on Neverwinter, finding a way to explain how it's always been there and is now a part of the continuity - if true, I will be very interested in seeing how that is accomplished.
It seems to me that WotC has a golden opportunity to fix their mistake, which approaches Sony Online's 'NGE' for their Star Wars Galaxies online MMO for ignoring the loyal fanbase and half-baked excuses as to why things were done the way they were...and to make a pile of money in the process. To explain:
How many people remember (or know of) the season of the TV drama Dallas where multiple popular characters were killed off, the storyline became disjointed, and their Nielsen ratings completely tanked? They resolved the problem by having one of the characters wake up and discover that everything that had happened that season had been a dream. A horrible, horrible dream.
While I do not suggest that it all 'be a dream', WotC could put out a new hardbound, with much of the controversial things that detracted from the FRCG either removed or changed completely, in the spirit of the Old Grey Box (maybe have a grey cover with some of the less-known canon souls, like Liriel Baenre, Sememmon, and so forth). Change the period to just after the Spellplague, or just before. Or explain it as a divergent timeline that better reflects what the Realms should have been like.
I'd buy it.
Anyways, my apologies for the length. I am sure I could have written much more, but this was likely plenty for being among my initial posts. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 00:16:50
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
One last Point...
One of the early points they made after the 4e announcement was that they wanted players to "think D&D, NOT Forgotten Realms" (or Greyhawk, or Dragonlance, etc...). The new design paradigm seems to work toward that end, not allowing people to become too deeply immersed in each setting (I also understand tthat reasoning - FR fans buy FR books, D&D fans buy ALL the books).
Regardless of the efficacy of this strategy towards the Realms, they're doing a good job of it overall for 4e. Making the FRPG the stop for drow statistics and including Swordmages in Arcane Power went a long way towards making things quite consistent and progressive.
The FRPG expands to Forgotten Realms Players' Guide. It does, IMHO; not expand to something like - "we give you two more races plus rules to go with them and other stuff galore", for as a player I'd rather see not half of the book dedicated to primarily DM lore, but background info on my setting. Worse still, the drow as a race are actually described (including the powers et al) as evil creatures all over the place, but no remark whatsoever for the player or the DM that playing a drow in the Realms is far from the norm, or rather, people tend to kill oyu first and look for your intentions / alignment / you name it second. You get all the nasty drow stuff, poison and all, but still no word that this is not exactly in the spirit of the game. On the contrary, they present the drow warlock as a sample choice (in the Players' Guide!) and introduce it with:
Spells of darkness, poison, madness, and spite fill your mind.
Dunno, but comparing that book with the one of the Old Grey box or the PGtF, I know which of those I would recommend tp my players and in what order. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 18:15:36
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
One last Point...
One of the early points they made after the 4e announcement was that they wanted players to "think D&D, NOT Forgotten Realms" (or Greyhawk, or Dragonlance, etc...). The new design paradigm seems to work toward that end, not allowing people to become too deeply immersed in each setting (I also understand tthat reasoning - FR fans buy FR books, D&D fans buy ALL the books).
Regardless of the efficacy of this strategy towards the Realms, they're doing a good job of it overall for 4e. Making the FRPG the stop for drow statistics and including Swordmages in Arcane Power went a long way towards making things quite consistent and progressive. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 17:53:28
quote:
Originally posted by SeeDiGi
What do you mean 'entitlement'? I think that people who like the world should feel entitled to having info about it (if WOTC is going to put it out on it to begin with). Did I maybe misunderstand your meaning?
I think that entitlement refers to a lot of people that seem to be of the opinion that WotC should have taken them into consideration when making these changes.
I'm one of those folks.
Not that I think the WotC execs should have asked me specifically what I wanted, but I do think that the concerns and interests of existing fans -- particularly longtime fans, like myself -- of the setting should have been taken into account. Instead, I have the feeling that the existing fans were only an afterthought, if even that much. |
| SeeDiGi |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 17:19:29
What do you mean 'entitlement'? I think that people who like the world should feel entitled to having info about it (if WOTC is going to put it out on it to begin with). Did I maybe misunderstand your meaning? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 12:58:56
Right.
Newer DMs need to borrow from older edition books to flesh-out their campaigns. That has always been the case.
The problem now is that those NPCs are canonically dead. No big to some folks (I could care less), but a lot of FR DMs like to keep their games as close to canon as possible.
Which brings us right back to those "feelings of entitlement" and whole 'nother reason that 4eFR got 're-imagined' - to clear the slate.
So although both arguments have merit (high-level NPCs overshadowed the PCs & 'elitisat attitude' amongst FR fans), the solutions provided for the two problems are not mutually conducive. A lack of new material forces new players to read old material, thus recreating the problems of 'entitlement'.
As I've been saying for awhile now - I understand ALL of their arguments, and even agree with them on many levels... its the solutions that I think suck eggs.
Edit: I just realized that there is a third problem here with the solution to a lack of detail (reading old sourcebooks) - WotC has recently made all of their older sourcebooks unavailable on pdf, which now leaves new DMs with these options - make it all up themselves, or sign-up for the DDi and hope they will actually cover something you will use.
At the same time they are not planing to release any other sourcebooks about FR, they also limited the availability of information about FR. So while I hear the argument all the time from 4e DMs that you can still use the older sourcebooks, that simply isn't true for anyone now getting into FR for the first time.
And if we think back to which books 'hooked us' into this great setting in the first place, I think most of us will agree it wasn't the Campaign or player's guides - it was all the extraneous material (like the Volo's Guides). One could argue it was the 1e/2e boxed sets, but those were so much more then setting guides.
One last Point...
One of the early points they made after the 4e announcement was that they wanted players to "think D&D, NOT Forgotten Realms" (or Greyhawk, or Dragonlance, etc...). The new design paradigm seems to work toward that end, not allowing people to become too deeply immersed in each setting (I also understand tthat reasoning - FR fans buy FR books, D&D fans buy ALL the books).
So while I 'know' what they are trying to achieve (and the reasoning behind it), I get the feeling that they really don't understand the hobby. "Feelings of entitlement" (which I used to call 'setting love') is PART OF THE HOBBY. I find the long discussions about minutia just as important as actually playing the game... and they just don't 'get that'. |
|
|
