| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mazrim_Taim
Learned Scribe
341 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Jan 2008 : 17:32:57
|
I'd even welcome some of the change. It's just that most of it is too drastic as you said and doesn't make sense otherwise. I'm still scratching my head and looking for a logical reason as to why they're killing Mystra. The only one I've come up with is that they're listening to the misinformed but very vocal minority who felt she and the Chosen were too powerful. And I'm sure everyone is confused on the Tyr/Tymora/Helm love triangle. 
|
And if the PCs DO win their ways through all the liches to Larloch, “he” will almost certainly be just another lich (loaded with explosive spells) set up as a decoy, with dozens of hidden liches waiting to pounce on any surviving PCs who ‘celebrate’ after they take Larloch down. As the REAL Larloch watches (magical scrying) from afar. Myself, as DM, I’d be wondering: “Such a glorious game, so many opportunities laid out before your PCs to devote your time to, and THIS fixation is the best you can come up with? Are you SURE you’re adventurers?” -Ed Greenwood
|
 |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2008 : 20:49:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
I'm excited to see how the drow will be regarded in the new FR. Since they're now very much a people divided between two primary gods, I like the idea of more and more drow/surface elf interaction (not just outright warfare). With the death of Vhaeraun, many surface drow would've been in quite the religious predicament...turn to Lolth whom they despise but at least she's evil, or turn to Eilistraee who urges drow to return to the surface but she's good. So I'm looking forward to some mixed elf parties and the idea of drow being more welcome in surface cities
Do you have inside information that Eilistraee survives, after all they are in a contest of death for one of them?
As for the Drow preview that will be in the FRCG the Drow evil gene reappears. In 3.X it was nurture that lead to evil Drow, in 4th (at least the way I read it) Evil Drow are Evil because of Nature (Just some can resist it), much like 1st and 2nd Edition Drow were. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
Edited by - Kentinal on 17 Jan 2008 20:50:40 |
|
|
|
TwigB
Acolyte
South Africa
46 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 13:20:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Also, when noting the "Say 'yes to change!'" portion of the scroll title, I just had to comment. Most of us who are not happy with the changes so far implemented (in their entirety or in part) to the 4e Realms, are not adverse to change. Change is good, and with our favorite campaign setting, we realize that it is needed. However, in my experience with real-life people all around, people in general react better to gradual change rather than drastic change. The Spellplague, the 104 year time jump, and the rather cold way in which the 4e Realms design team has killed off heroes, countries, and gods that we know and love does not count as gradual change. It is a very drastic change, and as I stated above, people generally react adversely to drastic change.
This is true. The changes came at quite an alarming rate, I suppose in some sense you can say the FR is now a new campaign setting. I've walked with the realms since the waning days of 2nd Ed and the beginnings of 3rd Ed, as many in this forum have, some even longer. The realms is changing, drastically, and I'm not prepared to give it up, so I'm making the best of these changes regardless of how extreme they are. The Realms, no matter what shape, will always be my world. |
|
|
|
TwigB
Acolyte
South Africa
46 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 13:26:49
|
P.S
As for whats happening with the drow, those are just my speculations based on a few threads here and there, mostly on the WotC forums. I would imagine they would like to divide the drow between two gods, but If one comes out on top, it'll make things just as interesting. I seem to recall The Orc King prologue mentioning something along the lines of Eilistraee's failure, so maybe Lolth is the new King of the Castle. Either which way, I'll play. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 14:31:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
The realms is changing, drastically, and I'm not prepared to give it up, so I'm making the best of these changes regardless of how extreme they are.
Are you saying you think that if one does not embrace the changes as you are, that means they are "giving the Realms up?"
I can't say how many times I've said that I'm still using the Realms, just not the official, WotC version. Not worrying about what's "canon", and not accepting everything that's put on your plate, is very liberating. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 17:11:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
P.S
As for whats happening with the drow, those are just my speculations based on a few threads here and there, mostly on the WotC forums. I would imagine they would like to divide the drow between two gods, but If one comes out on top, it'll make things just as interesting. I seem to recall The Orc King prologue mentioning something along the lines of Eilistraee's failure, so maybe Lolth is the new King of the Castle. Either which way, I'll play.
IIRC, the specific phrasology used in the GHotR confirms that the drow now have only two specifically drow deities to choose from: Lloth or Eilistraee. I may remeber incorrectly though. I keep meaning to check this out when I am at home, but then I forget. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 17:15:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
The realms is changing, drastically, and I'm not prepared to give it up, so I'm making the best of these changes regardless of how extreme they are.
Are you saying you think that if one does not embrace the changes as you are, that means they are "giving the Realms up?"
I can't say how many times I've said that I'm still using the Realms, just not the official, WotC version. Not worrying about what's "canon", and not accepting everything that's put on your plate, is very liberating.
Also, I think that it is inflammatory to accuse us of abandoning the Realms if we choose not to move onto the 4e Realms. Considering that Ed himself plays an older edition of the Realms, that would mean that he has abandoned them as well; which I can assure you he has not, or he would not be working so hard to make sure that we have the best chance of finding the 4e Realms a satisfactory (if not overly happy) new playground to play in. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 18:40:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
[IIRC, the specific phrasology used in the GHotR confirms that the drow now have only two specifically drow deities to choose from: Lloth or Eilistraee. I may remeber incorrectly though. I keep meaning to check this out when I am at home, but then I forget.
But remember:
--The Grand History of the Realms purposely doesn't tell us everything.
--The Grand History of the Realms only goes up to the year 1385 DR. The 4E Realms campaign officially begins in 1479 DR, so that's almost 100 years later--anything could have happened during that time period. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 18:41:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
[Also, I think that it is inflammatory to accuse us of abandoning the Realms if we choose not to move onto the 4e Realms. Considering that Ed himself plays an older edition of the Realms, that would mean that he has abandoned them as well; which I can assure you he has not, or he would not be working so hard to make sure that we have the best chance of finding the 4e Realms a satisfactory (if not overly happy) new playground to play in.
Indeed, that's a very good point. Ed doesn't even use the Time of Troubles event in his Realms. And it's not that his Realms hasn't gotten to that point yet...it's that he's specifically ignored it. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 19:26:25
|
I am not abandoning the Realms either! I am ignoring the changes introduced for 4E Realms, but I am just starting a new campaign in the Realms; I too will NOT abandon the Realms.
@Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Re your sig: I hope not, not with the dreams I have  |
Edited by - arry on 18 Jan 2008 19:28:41 |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 19:30:13
|
Er, not quite Ed "specifically ignored," R-F.
Ed believes the players and DM are equals in a campaign, so we all vote on RSEs, editions and classes used, rules or variant rules.
We voted against the ToT, so . . . no ToT.
love,
THO |
|
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 20:18:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Er, not quite Ed "specifically ignored," R-F.
Ed believes the players and DM are equals in a campaign, so we all vote on RSEs, editions and classes used, rules or variant rules.
We voted against the ToT, so . . . no ToT.
love,
THO
That leaves you no choice of weather to implement the RSE of the 'spell plague' or not!
No ToT - no Cyric. And without Cyric there is noone to finish off (old) Mystra! |
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 20:59:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by arry
@Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Re your sig: I hope not, not with the dreams I have
THO: Okay, thanks for the clarification. My apologies for speaking without adequate knowledge. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 18 Jan 2008 21:00:31 |
|
|
|
TwigB
Acolyte
South Africa
46 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 22:09:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
The realms is changing, drastically, and I'm not prepared to give it up, so I'm making the best of these changes regardless of how extreme they are.
Are you saying you think that if one does not embrace the changes as you are, that means they are "giving the Realms up?"
I can't say how many times I've said that I'm still using the Realms, just not the official, WotC version. Not worrying about what's "canon", and not accepting everything that's put on your plate, is very liberating.
Also, I think that it is inflammatory to accuse us of abandoning the Realms if we choose not to move onto the 4e Realms. Considering that Ed himself plays an older edition of the Realms, that would mean that he has abandoned them as well; which I can assure you he has not, or he would not be working so hard to make sure that we have the best chance of finding the 4e Realms a satisfactory (if not overly happy) new playground to play in.
For me, the canon lore is THE lore. So for ME, changing the realms to fit my preferences would be abandoning the realms. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, thats just how I've always approached the events in the Realms. I don't like changing FR too much without an "official" go-ahead. If Salvatore decides that Drizzt should now wear a Tutu, fight with his trusty fork and butterknife whilst riding his spectral dire sloth into battle or Ed decides that the mighty Gibberling empire of Eaaaargh! destroys Waterdeep I would change my campaign in accordance with these events (and then cry in my sleep)
Thats how I've always approached the realms, playing in this fashion always made me feel that my campaign is just a small part of a greater whole, like the world around my characters was alive and constantly changing despite what I do and say.
|
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 22:20:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
The realms is changing, drastically, and I'm not prepared to give it up, so I'm making the best of these changes regardless of how extreme they are.
Are you saying you think that if one does not embrace the changes as you are, that means they are "giving the Realms up?"
I can't say how many times I've said that I'm still using the Realms, just not the official, WotC version. Not worrying about what's "canon", and not accepting everything that's put on your plate, is very liberating.
Also, I think that it is inflammatory to accuse us of abandoning the Realms if we choose not to move onto the 4e Realms. Considering that Ed himself plays an older edition of the Realms, that would mean that he has abandoned them as well; which I can assure you he has not, or he would not be working so hard to make sure that we have the best chance of finding the 4e Realms a satisfactory (if not overly happy) new playground to play in.
For me, the canon lore is THE lore. So for ME, changing the realms to fit my preferences would be abandoning the realms. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, thats just how I've always approached the events in the Realms. I don't like changing FR too much without an "official" go-ahead. If Salvatore decides that Drizzt should now wear a Tutu, fight with his trusty fork and butterknife whilst riding his spectral dire sloth into battle or Ed decides that the mighty Gibberling empire of Eaaaargh! destroys Waterdeep I would change my campaign in accordance with these events (and then cry in my sleep)
Thats how I've always approached the realms, playing in this fashion always made me feel that my campaign is just a small part of a greater whole, like the world around my characters was alive and constantly changing despite what I do and say.
So...um...if you GM a Realms game... do you check every date of the people mentioned in the sources to know whether character A can actually meet Khelben on Mirtul 23. in Dockward?
The moment you run a game in any setting/universe you alter the "canon" lore...because Storm, Mirt or whoever did never ever mention meeting your PCs in any of the sources...
Or, for example, if your characters managed to destroy the Starym Moonblade and it appears in a short story AFTER in DR the blade was destroyed, would you negate the PCs' accomplishments? |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 22:46:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
So...um...if you GM a Realms game... do you check every date of the people mentioned in the sources to know whether character A can actually meet Khelben on Mirtul 23. in Dockward?
The moment you run a game in any setting/universe you alter the "canon" lore...because Storm, Mirt or whoever did never ever mention meeting your PCs in any of the sources...
I disagree. I think it's possible to run a campaign in the Realms without deviating in the slightest from written canon.
To use your example... What if it is never stated what Khelben was doing on Mirtul 23? In the absence of contradictory information, there is no reason to assume such a meeting can't or didn't happen. We don't have a hourly schedule for every single prominent NPC in the setting.
And it goes beyond that, too. Just because some wizard's scheme, or cabal's plans, or even deity's action never saw print, it doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. As I've said more than once, there are thousands of untold stories in the Realms. And a lot of them happen in the blank spaces on the timelines.
So, so long as nothing you do is later invalidated, you can play in the blank spaces all day long and still be sticking to canon. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
SiCK_Boy
Acolyte
Canada
40 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 23:14:22
|
| Pretty ironic that Ed wrote some of the adventure modules for the Avatar trilogy, yet they aren't used in his own campaign :) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 23:25:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
For me, the canon lore is THE lore. So for ME, changing the realms to fit my preferences would be abandoning the realms.
OK, that's fine. Just remember your own words--that way of using the setting doesn't apply to everyone. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Mazrim_Taim
Learned Scribe
341 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2008 : 23:49:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by TwigB
For me, the canon lore is THE lore. So for ME, changing the realms to fit my preferences would be abandoning the realms.
But canon can be so contradictory at times. 
This is just a curious question, but, do you play any roleplaying games with the Realms? I'm asking because for me, it's hard to keep up with the changes with each subsequent book and rewrite of previous canon. So that's why I typically don't follow canon to the word.
If I just a novel reader like when I first started on FR I can see how it'd be easier to follow canon. But I find that when you run games it's a hard thing to do at least absolutely as events in your game sometimes surpass the official canon.
|
And if the PCs DO win their ways through all the liches to Larloch, “he” will almost certainly be just another lich (loaded with explosive spells) set up as a decoy, with dozens of hidden liches waiting to pounce on any surviving PCs who ‘celebrate’ after they take Larloch down. As the REAL Larloch watches (magical scrying) from afar. Myself, as DM, I’d be wondering: “Such a glorious game, so many opportunities laid out before your PCs to devote your time to, and THIS fixation is the best you can come up with? Are you SURE you’re adventurers?” -Ed Greenwood
|
Edited by - Mazrim_Taim on 18 Jan 2008 23:53:53 |
|
|
|
Spree Thunderheart
Acolyte
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 01:41:55
|
| I must agree with Twig on this one. I too am excited to see what fourth edition will bring. I do find it curious however that some people said that they would be interested in gaming the new FR if it was a new campaign setting. To me, it is a new setting. It just has some familiar elements to Eds FR. If it sounds interesting why not try it out. I don't believe they are ruining Eds FR. Eds FR is still there and always will be, just in a different time. Its not like you can't go back there. To me I am excited to try the new FR to see what it has to offer. I can always go back if I miss gaming Eds FR, or maybe I will game both at the same time. I love traveling in the Realms and I am excited to travel in the new Realms. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 02:43:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Pretty ironic that Ed wrote some of the adventure modules for the Avatar trilogy, yet they aren't used in his own campaign :)
And the real irony is that those are actually *very* good modules... lots of juicy details and interesting minor plots and NPCs. In fact, I've stolen whole adventures from them. I *did* run 'Shadowdale' "as is" for my players originally, but as it happened after the novels had come out, everyone knew that it was more or less about the NPCs (Midnight, Adon, Kelemvor and Cyric) and not them. Besides, the felt being railroaded into events with little actual choice. Still, I heartily recommend buying them for lore and ideas, if for nothing else. For example, they contain some truly great city maps (e.g. Tantras and Scardale) with more locations given than anywhere. I'm even guessing that the Scardale map is Ed's "original", which has been "simplified" for other products? At least I think I've seen Ed comment that his map had more buildings than the version published in 'Dalelands', for example. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2008 : 09:49:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by SiCK_Boy
Pretty ironic that Ed wrote some of the adventure modules for the Avatar trilogy, yet they aren't used in his own campaign :)
And the real irony is that those are actually *very* good modules... lots of juicy details and interesting minor plots and NPCs. In fact, I've stolen whole adventures from them. I *did* run 'Shadowdale' "as is" for my players originally, but as it happened after the novels had come out, everyone knew that it was more or less about the NPCs (Midnight, Adon, Kelemvor and Cyric) and not them. Besides, the felt being railroaded into events with little actual choice. Still, I heartily recommend buying them for lore and ideas, if for nothing else. For example, they contain some truly great city maps (e.g. Tantras and Scardale) with more locations given than anywhere. I'm even guessing that the Scardale map is Ed's "original", which has been "simplified" for other products? At least I think I've seen Ed comment that his map had more buildings than the version published in 'Dalelands', for example.
Plus there are some great encounters spread out through the modules. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 00:43:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spree Thunderheart
I do find it curious however that some people said that they would be interested in gaming the new FR if it was a new campaign setting. To me, it is a new setting. It just has some familiar elements to Eds FR. If it sounds interesting why not try it out.
I would really only be interested in this new setting if it didn't try to pass itself off as the Realms. At all. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Spree Thunderheart
Acolyte
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 06:03:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Spree Thunderheart
I do find it curious however that some people said that they would be interested in gaming the new FR if it was a new campaign setting. To me, it is a new setting. It just has some familiar elements to Eds FR. If it sounds interesting why not try it out.
I would really only be interested in this new setting if it didn't try to pass itself off as the Realms. At all.
Why? |
|
|
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 17:27:56
|
Here I thought I was going to read about some of the interesting, new, maybe even positive changes that people are excited about with 4e. I thought the rants and comments about why people DON'T want change were being posted on several other threads. I guess I was wrong.
I look forward to reading about the changes and the new Realms. The changes will surely pain and infuriate many, including me on some levels, however I look at some of the positives:
-Advancing the timeline introduces new concepts, ideas, and characters into the Forgotten Realms. If you are pro 4e changes then this allows players and DM's new to the Realms a place to start, or restart their campaigns. New ideas that writers and develpers wanted to use and thought would be great in the setting, but unusable for various reasons, can now feel to explore and develop them.
-When I read about the pre-ToT Realms I often wonder what the story was behind those legendary figures. Now we can make some of the post-ToT characters into legends. 100+- years of history is open to be explored, and the 4e timeline yet to be made.
-It sounds like the setting is less meta and more open for the little guy to make his mark.
It is interesting, Brian, that you really did put the 'current' years into your timeline making it now part of the Grand History of the Realms. Almost poetic that the timeline book more or less ends the 3.5e Forgotten Realms source books. |
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 18:55:45
|
| The only reason I responded was because of the characterization of those that didn't like the changes. As I said in my first post, I'm happy for anyone that likes the changes, but I am not a "hater," i.e. someone that automatically dislikes any change in the Realms or anything that WOTC puts out. |
|
|
|
TwigB
Acolyte
South Africa
46 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 21:49:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
Here I thought I was going to read about some of the interesting, new, maybe even positive changes that people are excited about with 4e. I thought the rants and comments about why people DON'T want change were being posted on several other threads. I guess I was wrong.
I look forward to reading about the changes and the new Realms. The changes will surely pain and infuriate many, including me on some levels, however I look at some of the positives:
-Advancing the timeline introduces new concepts, ideas, and characters into the Forgotten Realms. If you are pro 4e changes then this allows players and DM's new to the Realms a place to start, or restart their campaigns. New ideas that writers and develpers wanted to use and thought would be great in the setting, but unusable for various reasons, can now feel to explore and develop them.
-When I read about the pre-ToT Realms I often wonder what the story was behind those legendary figures. Now we can make some of the post-ToT characters into legends. 100+- years of history is open to be explored, and the 4e timeline yet to be made.
-It sounds like the setting is less meta and more open for the little guy to make his mark.
It is interesting, Brian, that you really did put the 'current' years into your timeline making it now part of the Grand History of the Realms. Almost poetic that the timeline book more or less ends the 3.5e Forgotten Realms source books.
That is the purpose of this thread, but it got a little side tracked. If you're excited about 4ed feel free to post your ideas and thoughts concerning the recent events. I'd prefer it if we could stick to the official WotC events, such as the Spellplague, Baldurs Gate as a super city, Shade/Sembia takeover etc. and any other official information regarding the coming realms. I posted some of my own ideas regarding the changes earlier in this thread for those who are interested in discussing them |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 22:57:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spree Thunderheart
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Spree Thunderheart
I do find it curious however that some people said that they would be interested in gaming the new FR if it was a new campaign setting. To me, it is a new setting. It just has some familiar elements to Eds FR. If it sounds interesting why not try it out.
I would really only be interested in this new setting if it didn't try to pass itself off as the Realms. At all.
Why?
Because I like a wide variety of settings. For example, I'm interested in many of the 4E "core" ideas. But that doesn't mean I appreciate it when a setting I know and love is totally changed around into something it's not (and you can't argue that the design principles for the Realms haven't changed, either). |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 20 Jan 2008 22:58:07 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 22:59:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The only reason I responded was because of the characterization of those that didn't like the changes. As I said in my first post, I'm happy for anyone that likes the changes, but I am not a "hater," i.e. someone that automatically dislikes any change in the Realms or anything that WOTC puts out.
Ditto. I don't really care if people love the new Realms. But it'd be nice if, for once, a thread that purports to be positive actually WAS positive and refrained from attacking "the other side". |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
TwigB
Acolyte
South Africa
46 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 23:31:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The only reason I responded was because of the characterization of those that didn't like the changes. As I said in my first post, I'm happy for anyone that likes the changes, but I am not a "hater," i.e. someone that automatically dislikes any change in the Realms or anything that WOTC puts out.
Ditto. I don't really care if people love the new Realms. But it'd be nice if, for once, a thread that purports to be positive actually WAS positive and refrained from attacking "the other side".
Thats this thread right here
My initial post may have appeared a little to gung-ho but hopefully any misinterpretations where cleared out in my successive posts.
This thread is designed to be 100 percent positive and it's not at all meant to attack "the other side". I just want to hear some other forum browsers positive input regarding FR 4th ed, such as adventure ideas etc. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Say "yes to change!"-- The anti-rant!
Topic Locked
