| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 19:09:03
|
Rin, Dag and Pat say it best. I've read a bit of the novels, but I don't go out and read every single one published. Some I skip all together. For instance, I read Halls of Stormweather and then skipped all the Sembia books because I didn't like the setting of Sembia (I'm a die-hard Dales boy). I'm reading the Twilight War trilogy, but I also think that, even though Mr. Kemp is a terrific writer, I'm going to put the books on a shelf and not go back again and again.*
But the sourcebooks are different. They are where I escape and think up what my characters are doing now. They give me the ideas for my own campaign based on a snippet here or there of a bar in Waterdeep. The novels never defined the Realms for me, it was the maps, the NPCs, the items and spells listed. It was seeing the Roll of Years for the first time and learning everything I could about the Undermountain. It was figuring out how long it would take a caravan to travel from Kara-Tur to Baldur's Gate so my samurai would be part of the group. It was learning about the fall of Myth Drannor and the paths to find the hidden secrets buried there.
By turning the Sellplague lose and jumping a hundred years, it's killed the wonder I used to feel as I wept for all those things I just spoke about and realized that they were gone in the new setting. Physically, they are present, but change has come and left it's footprint. I was at GenCon 2007 (for the first time ever) when they announced 4th Edition. I remember feeling the hurt that they had lied (for three years!) that there was a new edition, but I chose to 'wait and see' before I decided. I remember getting GHotR and reading the last page. Seeing gods die like that broke my heart, but I figured that I would 'wait and see' before I decided. Then as more news came out for 4th Edition and the Realms, 'wait and see' grew harder and harder as I realized that this was not part of the game I've loved since I was an 10-year-old squirt cracking open the red box, coloring my dice and creating characters that I'd force my little brother to play.
Don't get me wrong, 4th Edition is a fine gaming system. I thoroughly enjoy how it (as Saga) works in Star Wars. As a longtime BattleTech fan, I appreciate the ease of combat and tactics for the miniatures. But in my humble opinion, the game has changed too much from what it was to still be considered D&D.
(* As an aside, it is VERY rare for me to go back to books more than one read through. Tolkien, Ed, RAS and Elaine are on the list, as well as some other novels. And Tolkien is still the only one I crack open more than once every five years.) |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
 |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 19:14:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Once again I hope that makes sense and explains where I'm coming from.
'Lyrna, you always make sense and I will never stop respecting or valuing your opinion. 
I also want to make it clear that I am not trying to sway anyone either way--I'm only presenting *my* opinion. If you (the general you) find it persuasive or not, that's entirely up to you, and I for one fully respect whatever decision you make regarding the setting.
I want to make a couple notes clear here:
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
Should we really have to wait for X amount of novels to be published for us to get a better feel for the new Forgotten Realms? Because, campaign setting books (As in the FRCS, the ECS, and so on) are supposed to do that, to begin with- that is, provide a broad-yet-specific-enough overview of the setting to get the general feel for what it is like.
Certainly not! I was only warning that a "feel" based only on one or two sourcebooks cannot be expected to be necessarily accurate.
You're going to make your own decision and assumptions about the setting, and that's fine--you should do that.
I just don't want people without the full picture to deprecate people who *do* like 4e FR on the basis of it being "bleak" or "hopeless." Knowing what I know about the state of the 4e Realms, it is IMO far from bleak or hopeless, and contains exactly the same range that the previous editions had. More material will only make this more apparent (I hope!).
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
If the FRCS was the only thing published for FR3.0, it would have still been a pretty good update. Just compare FRCS3.0 to FRCS4E back to back. Mr de Bie, I greatly enjoy your stories. Like Ed, you're being a good team player here. I don't think much about your team, though.
Heh. Thank you RodOdom, and I understand exactly what you mean.
Personally, I prefer the 3.0 FRCS to the 4.0 FRCG*--but that doesn't mean that the one is better than the other.
(*Well, to be honest, I like and dislike a number of things about both. 3e is just more comfortable for me at the moment, for obvious reasons--like the wealth of lore I've spent the last 8 years collecting.)
We may share this opinion about the FRCS vs. FRCG . . . but there may well be people who prefer 4e or like both editions equally (I know a number personally). And who are we to argue that one is inherently superior to the other? If people like the 4e FR sourcebooks and want to adventure there, more power to 'em. If they want to stick with 3e and not make the transition, that's fine too.
IMO, there are two ways to look at the FRCG:
1) In a vaccuum: For those who have never played in the Realms before, it offers a series of mostly blank slates that you can use to run adventures and explore. It tells you what you need to know about the various countries and peoples (Szass Tam = evil necromancer lich, Thay = evil necropolis mordor) so that you can get a campaign going. It's just strict, cut-and-dry, not requiring your involvement in the Realms of days past.
2) NOT in a vaccuum: For those who *have* played in the Realms before, it builds off previous editions, taking the lore/cultural build from before and revamping/updating it for a new era. The FRCG under this paradigm is more like an expanded "Campaign Update" section from the 3.5 PGtF. You know who Szass Tam is, and you're well aware of what he's like--the FRCG couldn't capture all of that knowledge if it devoted 50 pages to Tam and Thay.
In a very real sense, you loremasters and master sages are perfectly placed to develop and run games in the new Realms, because you can draw on the themes and stories from before, and look at them through a new lens. And if you don't want to be bound by the past, you can reinvent the Realms however you want.
The 4e FRCG is about freeing your hands--or at least letting you choose your own level of bondage.
(Ahem. That came off a little kinkier than I intended.)
About not making the jump at all:
As a Realms writer, I don't expect to be headed back to 3e for the foreseeable future (though I intend to use story threads that link the two . . . and some characters may make the transition), so I won't be writing new stuff for the 3e-only crowd. And while I am saddened not to be on the same page with all of you (general), I respect your opinion and commitment.
I intend to write stuff that appeals to any Realms fan (and people who've never heard of the Realms as well), so if you don't want to come near to gaming in 4e, you should still be able to read my future stuff (if you want) and enjoy it just as much as any of my 3e material.
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I'd like to comment on that. With all the respect for Mr. de Bie, i don't agree with that. What gave the feeling of the realms to me was the gray box, the FR series of source books, the Volo's guides, the religion books, the adventure modules of the 1 and 2e era. That is to me when the the world shaped in my mind.
Well said, Patrakis (and your English was very well formed).
I didn't meant to imply that the novels were somehow necessary for a full understanding of the world, though I can see how it came across that way (my bad!). You can certainly learn plenty about the Realms, particularly from 1e and 2e, without ever cracking one of the novels. The novels took on a more prominent role with the advent of 3e, but even then, you didn't *really* need to read the novels to *get* the Realms. (Unless you wanted that perspective!)
All I *meant* to say was that, sans more sourcebooks about the Realms in the planned future, we only have two avenues to look for more official lore: novels and DDI.
For now, it will fall to these to articulate the setting into the sort of thing we know and love from previous editions. And if that's the direction people want WotC to go (and it sounds like it is), then they need to KNOW that.
Write them letters. Tell them what you want. Point to specific examples (take a look at Brian James and Garen Thal's lore work here on Candlekeep and on DDI for a start) of things that you want.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3762 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 20:00:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
Should we really have to wait for X amount of novels to be published for us to get a better feel for the new Forgotten Realms? Because, campaign setting books (As in the FRCS, the ECS, and so on) are supposed to do that, to begin with- that is, provide a broad-yet-specific-enough overview of the setting to get the general feel for what it is like.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Certainly not! I was only warning that a "feel" based only on one or two sourcebooks cannot be expected to be necessarily accurate.
-Yes, this is where I disagreed. You SHOULD get an accurate feel of what the setting is like based on one or two sourcebooks. After all, that's the point of the two current sourcebooks (The FRCG and the FRPG). The campaign setting is supposed to be a mostly setting-encompassing guide, that touches on the setting as a whole, while highlighting specific things of interest (places, people, whatever). The player's guide augments this, to a degree. If a person isn't able to form an accurate picture of what the world is like from the campaign setting (in this case, the campaign setting and the player's guide), there is a problem.
-Basing things off of my own observations and experience, the two 4e books fail in this respect, in that they do not provide an accurate enough depiction of 4e Forgotten Realms. The FRCS, the only other campaign guide I have access to was much more successful in this aspect. Concerning the two 4e era books, there is so much confusion and dissatisfaction on interpretations of things (ie, Tyr died defending the 'upper realms' from Demonic incursions. 'Upper realms', as in Celestia, or northern Faerūn), depictions of things (ie, Athkatla's shops, along with what they do) and the general lack of pertinent information concerning certain things (ie, the lack of a coherent timeline leading to 1,479 DR). My introduction into the setting, via the FRCS was accompanied by none of this, whereas my (and everyone else's) introduction into the 'new' Forgotten Realms comes with all of the aforementioned baggage/problems. I think I've rambled a bit, but I hope that the general gist I was trying to get across actually got across.  |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Neil
Learned Scribe
Canada
107 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 20:48:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
'Upper realms', as in Celestia, or northern Faerūn)
Maybe 'Upper Realms' as in high elevation. That could mean the Plateau of Thay. That'd be a good place to defend from demons. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 21:00:08
|
Sure, that makes sense, Dagnirion, and I value your perspective.
I just want to point out that the FRCG and two other official publications may not give *you* a full sense of the FR as a setting . . . because they aren't meant to, really (IMO--not speaking for anyone at WotC. This is just my interpretation). You are a long-standing Realms devotee . . . 2 sourcebooks and an adventure is not going to make you understand 4e the way all those books from 3e made you understand 3e.
And, IMO, that's not the intention.
Like I said before, the FRCG reads more to me (as a long, longtime Realms fan) like an expanded "Campaign Log/Update" than a totally new setting. For an existing FR fan, they're more of an expansion pack of the existing setting.
If you'd never heard of the FR before you picked the book up, then in theory you could play in this new world using the very general guidelines established. You wouldn't have any preconceived notions about major players or characters, and you'd be absolutely free to put in what you wanted (see option 1 from my previous post). You make it your own based on the very general info that's there.
On the other hand, if you were an existing long-time fan (like you or I), then it isn't a new incarnation of the Realms so much as an expansion of the Realms in a new direction (see option 2). The heritage and culture is still there, and you come to the table with certain preconceived notions about the way it all works. Some of the work is done for you, but mostly it's your background in the setting that shapes the way you run 4e FR at your table.
And 4e works for that purpose if you let it. It gives you enough of a hint about where 4e is going without bothering to articulate everything about the setting (which 3e has already done). It focuses on the changes, but the firm center is still there.
Again, this is all my opinion. The Realms as a world is different for everyone, and in a sense, it is SUPPOSED TO be different for everyone. It's just that the 4e FRCG has that sort of enforced variation built in. You *have to* make it your own, because that's your only choice--even if you chose not to do 4e at all (which is perfectly valid).
And on that note, I think I've said all I might say in this thread. Any more, and I'll probably sound repetitive. I'm going to retire from this thread for now--if anyone has more questions for me, you're always welcome in my personal thread (over in the Chamber) or to PM me.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 23:00:24
|
If none of us had any experience with FR, then I would agree with E.S.de Bie that we could look at the FRCG as a 'Brave New World', ripe to possibilities. However, nearly everyone here is looking at that book through the (VERY) Rose-colored glasses of earlier editions of FR, and for all intense and purposes, OUR FR is gone.
Its kinda hard to like the replacement.
If an alien race landed on earth and told us that they were going to create a paradise on our world, but first they had to wipe it clean and change the atmopsphere and OH! Get rid of alll the current lifeforms...
Well.. that would be just dandy for them, now wouldn't it?
I doubt we would like it, though, no matter how great it turned out. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Oct 2008 06:36:30 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 23:59:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
'Lyrna, you always make sense and I will never stop respecting or valuing your opinion.
Thanks, I'm happy to hear that.
quote:
I also want to make it clear that I am not trying to sway anyone either way--I'm only presenting *my* opinion. If you (the general you) find it persuasive or not, that's entirely up to you, and I for one fully respect whatever decision you make regarding the setting.
Again, thanks, and I respect your opinion too. I see where you're coming from and I think you're making some perfectly fair points. |
"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 17 Oct 2008 00:00:35 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3762 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 02:38:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neil
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
'Upper realms', as in Celestia, or northern Faerūn)
Maybe 'Upper Realms' as in high elevation. That could mean the Plateau of Thay. That'd be a good place to defend from demons.
-Could be. Northern Faerūn, and obviously, Celestia, are places that either would be targets of Demonic hordes, or have associations with Demons, in the past. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3762 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 02:40:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Sure, that makes sense, Dagnirion, and I value your perspective.
I just want to point out that the FRCG and two other official publications may not give *you* a full sense of the FR as a setting . . . because they aren't meant to, really (IMO--not speaking for anyone at WotC. This is just my interpretation). You are a long-standing Realms devotee . . . 2 sourcebooks and an adventure is not going to make you understand 4e the way all those books from 3e made you understand 3e.
And, IMO, that's not the intention.
-Understood. Personally, though, I just feel that this is a flawed way of doing things. That's me, though. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 06:42:18
|
Agreed - two barely adequate sourcebooks and an adventure doesn't really accomplish what the designers set out to do with it - they wiped the slate clean, but metaphorically speaking, they filled-it in again with a 'squiggly-line'.
What I mean to say is that perhaps it would have been better if they released an FRCG that only detailed the North, or the Heartlands. By trying to cover EVERYTHING, and provide a brand-new setting as well (Returned Abeir), it just seems like they went for quantity over quality. One VERY detailed kingdom can provide years of game-play enjoyment, whereas a book that glosses over an entire planet doesn't accomplish that.
There really was very little pont in 'nuking' the setting, if all of these new players have to come back to the old players (thats us  ) and ask questions.
Aren't we RIGHT back where we strarted?  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Oct 2008 06:45:06 |
|
|
|
Kamuraki
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 06:47:16
|
| I swear to God though, if they introduce a "life-day" for any race, I'm burning my sourcebooks. |
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 10:02:42
|
yeah and id buy ddi if they would sell it by the article instead of by the month.
if all that is in it by the time something looks interesting is trash then i wasted money and would by far cancel subscribing to ddi.
so more is coming huh Erik.
to quote my favorite FR character who is now dead.
Indeed -Khelben Arunson |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
glitter
Acolyte
France
45 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 10:50:31
|
quote:
I liked that sense of hopefulness in 3e. It made me enjoy the campaign setting more than any other D&D world. Now, it feels like the realm is permanently stuck in late November before the snow falls and there's no leaves or colors anywhere.
That was what the authors looked for in fact.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070829a
Most of the world is monster-haunted wilderness. The centers of civilization are few and far between, and the world isnt carved up between nation-states that jealously enforce their borders. A few difficult and dangerous roads tenuously link neighboring cities together, but if you stray from them you quickly find yourself immersed in goblin-infested forests, haunted barrowfields, desolate hills and marshes, and monster-hunted badlands.
Since it's a delibarate choice of WIZARDS, either you live with it, either you refuse it.
My choice is clear since I can hardly find a single element that please me. |
-The black knight is invincible!
- Youre a looney. |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 10:56:04
|
quote:
I think the novels, as they emerge, will start to fill in the missing flavor, like in previous editions. For instance, I don't think you can nearly get a universal sense of the Realms in 1-3e without the novels, so why should 4e be any different?
Because one of the common complaints about the Realms was that one needed to read so much before being able to understand the Realms, or even run a game within it. Complete nonsense, of course, but that was a perception many people had. The fact that the rest of the Realms 'flavour' will be contained within novels will do nothing whatsoever to lessen that perception.
quote:
Judging the 4e Realms based on the three books is like judging 3e based only upon the FRCS, the PGtF, and Mysteries of the Moonsea (for a hard-cover adventure). Sure, you'll get a sense of how to play in the Realms, but there's so much more out there for 3e. That sort of stuff is coming for 4e, but it hasn't all appeared YET. It'll be in the novels and on DDI, but it takes time.
Judging the Realms on just the FRCS would mean a very favourable judgement. The FRCS is one of the best setting books I have ever read, for any setting, any game system, any edition. If I had just that and nothing else for the Realms ever, I'd be satisfied.
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 20:31:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Not to insert myself in the griping about the 4e plan forward, but . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
First, Tanalasta was resurrected.
I'm curious as to how do you get around Cormyrean law on this point (namely, that resurrecting a noble is illegal and tantamount to treason for the whole family)?
I mean, it's not like your campaign has to have all the same laws--I'm just curious if an exception was made, or there was some subterfuge, etc. Like for instance, Filfaeril had Tanalasta brought back without Alusair/Caladnei/Cormyr's knowledge (or replaced with a doppelganger), and put it about that the rumors of her death were greatly exaggerated . . . leaving openings for some big intrigue.
Apologies for taking so long to respond to this point. I was unaware of the law against resurrecting nobility, and I'd rather adhere to prior canon as much as possible. (Just another reason why we needed that 3e Cormyr sourcebook.) I have a revised theory here for your consideration. It runs contrary to events in Death of the Dragon, so is clearly non-canon, assuming that we hold the novels as canon. Tanalasta, on the brink of death, is brought with the infant Azoun V to where Vangerdahast is tending to the dying Azoun IV. Vangerdahast is about to use the relic finger-bone of Amedahast on the king when they arrive, and Azoun orders his wizard to save his daughter instead, claiming the life of the mother of the heir to the realm as more important than the life of an aging monarch. Vangey knows better than to disobey his king, particularly when said disobedience will keep the king around to punish him for it, and heals Tanalasta.
I love the intrigue ideas present in the doppelganger scenario... but I'm filling Impiltur with my intrigues and subversions, which raises another thing I dislike about 4e: the fact that they did away with Soneillon. I've done some positively nasty things to Impiltur in my Realms, and doppelgangers of a sort are involved... so I didn't want to do the same thing to two kingdoms. The one thing I like about the 4e Realms apart from the return of Netheril is the stability of Cormyr. With the Archwizards on their doorstep, the region needs a stable force for good.
Anyway, I should get back to my own Realmslore... this is giving me more ideas.  |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 17 Oct 2008 20:32:39 |
|
|
|
Nerfed2Hell
Senior Scribe
USA
387 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 21:46:29
|
Ya know, maybe if WotC had given us a Cormyr sourcebook that gave us a lot more info about the Realms, laws and customs like that would be a bit more well known... as it is, we have to get what we know of Cormyr from scattered info from novels, bits and pieces from non-Cormyr specific sourcebooks, Realmslore articles posted at WotC, Realms-L posts, accumulated knowledge here at Candlekeep, and so on.
|
Some people are like a slinky... not good for much, but when you push them down the stairs, it makes you smile. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 22:02:06
|
Ed probably could have done an entire encyclopedia set on Cormyr alone.
Even a magazine called Cormyr Monthly. 
But the suits have to worry about sales numbers, so thats why we won't see any niche products anymore. Everything is being geared toward this 'universal fit' mentality, and a lot of flavor gets lost along the way. 
However, if anyone has seen my post on Lands of the Jade Oath, there is a new business-model out there that seems like it might be the way to go with future niche RPG products.
First have the customers pay for the product (via 'patronage'), and then write it.
Its a little strange way to work things, but I think that might be the future of quality RPG materials down the road.
Can you imagine if Ed could get permission to write specific sourcebooks for FR? I'm sure he could get hundreds (thousands?) of people to pre-pay for his words.
Might be something for WotC to consider - instead of them developing stuff for FR, they could take a royalty off the top of anything Ed produces. Not exactly the million-dollar scheme they are hoping for, but it would net them additional income from an otherwise-untapped business model. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Oct 2008 22:03:21 |
|
|
|
Kamuraki
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2008 : 22:10:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Ed probably could have done an entire encyclopedia set on Cormyr alone.
Even a magazine called Cormyr Monthly.
That'd be more of a tabloid I imagine. Covering what royal is sleeping with what noble, etc.
Anyway, I'm in agreement that more sourcebooks NEED to come out and give us a bit more to work with. Personally, I want a new Sword Coast sourcebook. Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate seem to still be two of the best cities for launching campaigns or novels. So more info on the region would be really helpful. |
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2008 : 02:01:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
IMO, there are two ways to look at the FRCG:
And Realms-2008 read by a complete newcomer and with your latter understanding in mind are starkly different places. It is -- by the designers' statements and the new text itself -- a boutique mini-setting sharing proper names, superficial geography and history and not a lot else with the Realms, breaking thoroughly with the Realms' underlying principles, working and assumptions. Crucial things that the virgin FRCG reader would be quite surprised to learn. I've tried and failed to read the new material as if it's the same world so burningly, shiningly conjured by "The Realms Wait for Thee" in The Best of the Realms, Book II. Maybe I could by a major effort of creative phantasy and selective blindness.
Years of post hoc, against-the-grain 'it may look like this, but really this is going on' backwriting would change the situation, but they haven't happened.quote:
The 4e FRCG is about freeing your hands--or at least letting you choose your own level of bondage.
That argument is quite specious: no one's hands were ever tied at all.quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Some people would favor going all the way back to the Old Grey Box. I think of 2E as the "Golden Age" of Realmslore, so that's why I don't go back further.
I'd distinguish between the fulfilment and filling-in that happened in the 1990s -- a lot of catching up, some good new development, some missteps -- from the events between the late 1350s and mid-1370s DR, which as I reckon sorely depleted and wore down the Realms as a roleplaying world. |
Edited by - Faraer on 18 Oct 2008 02:13:21 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2008 : 05:57:13
|
I think my main pessimism about the new realms is that there is WAY too much NDA going on here. I understand not talking about lore because it will be revealed in a future sourcebook or novel. However, I think the NDA is being extremely abused here by Hasbro such that anyone that knows even a little bit about the Realms can't say a word without clearing it with their lawyers, Hasbro's lawyers and that guy that sells the donuts to the CEO.
I understand the purpose of an NDA. We live in an age where the smallest detail that gets leaked can be disastrous to a company. But in the case of the Realms, there is a LOT of stuff still uncovered even pre-Spellplague. Now, the designers have trashed the world and said 'We're starting over from scratch.' But still they keep stuff under NDA lock-and-key, even though they aren't going to use it or talk about it. Really, why can't Ed or Steven or anybody talk about Laeral and Khelben's children? They are mortal and and we know at least one has been dead for decades. The official line is that they aren't going to write ANYTHING about what happened during the Spellplague, so why keep it locked up? (except for that one quote I remember seeing where Cordell said he might... )
I say, unless they explicitly have a novel or article in the works, there shouldn't be an NDA on the information. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2008 : 14:27:41
|
Keeping an NDA in place costs WotC nothing. Looking at an NDA to see if it can be dropped takes someone's time, and that costs money.
Next question? |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2008 : 21:24:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by arry
Keeping an NDA in place costs WotC nothing. Looking at an NDA to see if it can be dropped takes someone's time, and that costs money.
Next question?
Indeed |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2008 : 05:59:01
|
I know it costs nothing. I also know that the main purpose in corporations this day is to lock up stuff that they might want to maybe think about again in another year or two. Kind of like the speculators online that buy up web addresses because someone might want them later on.
Let's just chalk this into my pet peeves column and how I feel it makes the world lesser instead of better. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2008 : 06:17:54
|
Ashe,
I you want to get involved in a shared world where the authors and designers are not kept under lock and chains at night, go on the Paizo boards.
The guys come regularly and often take suggestions from the board participants... and [gasp!] they give their REAL opinion on Pathfinder stuff they like or do NOT like... (there's a healthy camaraderie and competition going on there, where each designer will poke fun at each other on points they disagree... ) |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3252 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2008 : 06:19:31
|
Oh, don't worry about *that* PDK, I've been a subscriber for months now.
Just wish Corporations wouldn't get involved with my HOBBY. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2008 : 09:44:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I think my main pessimism about the new realms is that there is WAY too much NDA going on here. I understand not talking about lore because it will be revealed in a future sourcebook or novel. However, I think the NDA is being extremely abused here by Hasbro such that anyone that knows even a little bit about the Realms can't say a word without clearing it with their lawyers, Hasbro's lawyers and that guy that sells the donuts to the CEO.
I understand the purpose of an NDA. We live in an age where the smallest detail that gets leaked can be disastrous to a company. But in the case of the Realms, there is a LOT of stuff still uncovered even pre-Spellplague. Now, the designers have trashed the world and said 'We're starting over from scratch.' But still they keep stuff under NDA lock-and-key, even though they aren't going to use it or talk about it. Really, why can't Ed or Steven or anybody talk about Laeral and Khelben's children? They are mortal and and we know at least one has been dead for decades. The official line is that they aren't going to write ANYTHING about what happened during the Spellplague, so why keep it locked up? (except for that one quote I remember seeing where Cordell said he might...)
I say, unless they explicitly have a novel or article in the works, there shouldn't be an NDA on the information.
Hear, hear! Have you copied this to Brian James' scroll, or are you worried about Wooly's response?
quote:
Originally posted by arry
Keeping an NDA in place costs WotC nothing. Looking at an NDA to see if it can be dropped takes someone's time, and that costs money.
Next question?
So don't bother looking the hard way. Do a computer search, and if the NDA was put in place on a non-4e product, or at a time when 4e was not in development, drop it. That takes seconds. If a company can't take a few seconds to allow its customers to get what they want, then they belong in the frames of "Dilbert"... which most large companies already do. @#%*$! Okay, so I defeated my own argument. Hrm... maybe *I* should be making executive decisions at Wizbro... I've certainly demonstrated my qualifications... 
Hrm... Maybe I'll add this to Brian James' scroll myself...
Sorry, Sage; I know I'm slipping off topic... or maybe not... "Dilbert" is certainly a cause for loss of cautious optimism... just not on Toril. Can someone get this scroll back on track, please? I'll make an attempt... |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 19 Oct 2008 09:47:23 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2008 : 09:58:15
|
Okay... on-topic post...
For me, I lost my last shreds of optimism for the Realms with two events: the end of the Lady Penitent trilogy and the beginning of the Campaign Guide. What's happened to the drow from 1E to 4E is like starting with Neanderthals, evolving them into humans over the course of 2E and 3E, then having the next generation all give birth to orangutans. The drow are exactly the same as they were in 1E... except that now, it's nothing new... at least to those of us who have played 1E. The drow have been this way before, so why bother making them this way again? The only thing that 4E drow have that 1E drow didn't have is a system of game mechanics completely unsuited to fantasy gaming, and I fail to see how that's an improvement.
Just a thought. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2008 : 18:21:47
|
Just a quick comment -
They aren't giving us every single detail of the 'Lost Century' because that would create the same situation that lead up to 4e all over again. The lore kept getting in the way of them wrting the stories they wanted to write, because so much was already set in stone. Now, they can write 4e novels with near-abandon because they have a whole century of 'facts' we know nothing about.
I'm sure the timeline will slowly be back-filled in, by the novels, but it would be completely counter-productive for them to give us specific dates in source material.
That just ties their hands all over again. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2008 : 20:24:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Just a quick comment -
They aren't giving us every single detail of the 'Lost Century' because that would create the same situation that lead up to 4e all over again. The lore kept getting in the way of them wrting the stories they wanted to write, because so much was already set in stone. Now, they can write 4e novels with near-abandon because they have a whole century of 'facts' we know nothing about.
I'm sure the timeline will slowly be back-filled in, by the novels, but it would be completely counter-productive for them to give us specific dates in source material.
That just ties their hands all over again.
Agreed... but was there something in particular you were responding to with that well-reasoned argument (even if the actions taken by others that inspired it were not well-reasoned)?
NBD... but here's a thought that other regulars have already touched on in various scrolls (including Wooly Rupert in this one): When Ed was the only one telling stories set in it, it worked fine as a game setting. I'm not saying that we should go back to those days. I think Wooly has the right idea: split the setting. I was thinking, one for gaming and the other for fiction, but that won't work; I would want the Classic Realms for gaming, and that's what caused all the new gamers' entirely unfounded outrage in the first place. Let the designers who prefer the Classic Realms continue to develop products and stories there, and the designers who like the new L337 R34lmz can continue working there. They're two completely different worlds anyway; let them continue as such. When the Classic Realms hits 1385, maybe something happens as in my campaign, which I've described elsewhere. The big reason for the 4e blowup was too many people telling too many stories in the same place, and none of the ones whose voices were heard being willing to move to a new continent to tell new stories. Ed had the right idea for 4E Realms, and it wasn't the Smellplague, no matter how Wizbro tries to spin it. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 19 Oct 2008 20:27:37 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The loss of the cautious optimism feeling in 4e
