| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 22:14:10
|
A good example of well-developed lore is in Dragons of Faerûn and Eytan's "Class Chronicles" articles. In both cases he explains what the change is, and why they decided to make it. With as little friction as possible.
The FRCG was full of friction. There was no attempt to smooth things over in a positive and logical way. It just was.
I have just now come to a point where I am willing to accept the changes made if someone is willing to take the time to make them make sense. That is how angry I was about the changes made. I diligently read every "Countdown to the Realms" article, practically begging Rich on the Wizards boards to give me reasons to stick with it to be told that all (or at least the most glaring parts) would be explained in said articles.
I WANTED to accept these changes, but without being given rational reasons to do so, I wasn't able to. |
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)
|
 |
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2010 : 22:39:24
|
Hello Ashe,
Suppose they (the designers) were to have given us a Realms 100 years in the future with virtually no changes, I think you’d have to admit they’d have done us all (and the Realms) a disservice.
This is because they’d have given us an unbelievable setting that wouldn’t make sense, as the Realms are too dynamic a place to not change over time.
One can’t expect that after one hundred years things would not have changed significantly in the Realms (Spellplague or no Spellplague).
To me, a prison city in Cormyr owing to the dire influence of Shar and the Shadovar makes perfect sense: that -or something else like it- is just what I'd expect to see in Cormyr after a century went by in the Realms (again, Spellplague or no).
What I’m getting at is that if you take an honest look at the Realms as it is now, many of the changes (“changes” isn’t even the right word) are explained by the simple passage of time and not by the Spellplague.
After 100 years, things should be different (that’s a better word).
Even for real changes resulting from the Spellplague, such can still be explained away by RSEs.
Were there no Spellplague, I’d be awfully surprised to discover a Realms that managed to stay miraculously free of one or two RSEs after a century of time.
So if you tell me there's no Spellplague, but still put a huge crater at the heart of the Inner Sea and tell me a race of Drabonborn have come through a bunch of portals from another world to invade Unther, I’d think “Yeah, that’s something I’d expect to see.”
--------
I grant that if you take all the changes together it can seem “too much” for some.
I agree that WotC went way the hell over the top with their changes, often implementing ideas in less than the best way possible (inserting the Dragonborn into the Realms as they did, and not using all the setups written in by the 3E designers just made me shake my head and wonder aloud "What the #%&? Why do it this way?").
But I think if you are really interested in the lore of the setting, then you owe it to yourself to take an honest, thorough look at each of the changes, assessing them each on their own.
If you do, I think you’ll see that they are not really changes, just differences in lore owing to the natural passage of time.
Time flows, things change. Ed made this point at GenCon and it makes perfect sense.
I believe that differences in lore owing to the passage of time are natural in the Realms and are to be expected. Thus they deserve to be appreciated, thought about and understood as much as any other piece of lore from any other era of the setting.
|
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 24 Jun 2010 22:50:26 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2010 : 00:36:37
|
It was definitely "too much" for me. I can take changes, but large sweeping changes like the Spellplague and time jump (or the Jihad/Dark Age and time jump) and it just overloads my senses.
Take a look at what they are doing over in BattleTech. With the Classic Battletech line, they went back to where the history left off before Clicky-Tech and now they are proceeding forward at a decent pace, explaining how this or that happened with lots of sourcebooks and such. Now, over the last five years, they've moved the story forward from 3065 to 3075 and published 18 sourcebooks dealing with the Jihad (and more than that that didn't deal with it). In the process, I can say they are turning me back into a fan simply because I'm getting explanations on things instead of "the universe go boom".
My biggest gripe is that they are afraid to publish more material (and I don't mean DDI articles, I mean sourcebooks) because they don't want to run into the same problems as before. And I can understand that. BUT, if you are paying attention to the industry, you'll see that there are a TON of people willing to shell out $5-$10 for a PDF on DriveThru RPG for a pdf that is 20-30 pages long, or even subscribe to an Adventure Path like Paizo's for $19 a month to get a monthly adventure & lore book with the PDF and Discount bonuses attached. Hell, I've dropped more money to Paizo and Catalyst Game Labs in the last two years on PDFs alone then I had on 3E Forgotten Realms books in the previous 5 years. My point is, those two business models (PDF/Subscription based Sourcebooks) are a pretty safe bet for selling your product. On the PDF side, you create one file, then cut the distributor in one the sales (or sell it directly on your site) and you don't have to worry about back-log in your warehouses. If a books isn't selling in PDF format, you're not worried about the money wasted on printed books, because there isn't any. And if you're doing what Paizo is doing, then you have a guarantee on X Books sold through subscription, so you can figure out we only need to print Y extra books for non-subscribers.
Like I said, either way, and WotC/Hasbro could be publishing a FR mini-book a month and not worry as much about the overhead. (Yes, I realize they still have to pay writers for the books & such, but with how the electronic industry is going, it's a lot easier to see what is selling and what isn't.) |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2010 : 00:44:56
|
Wizards current model does suck. A book a year would be nice. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 15:55:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
It is filled with lore, but it's lore that doesn't interest us. Like turning Wheloon into Escape from NY or the floating islands, or the huge crater that the inner sea is flowing into (but never filling up, which would seem to lead to a flooding of the Underdark and a serious drop in surface water, IMO).
It's not that there isn't any lore, or even that it's poorly written. It's the fact that they changed the face of Faerûn so much that I no longer recognize it, so it doesn't interest me.
Well that's pretty darn selective if you ask me. I don't think someone can make a blanket statement of "i love the lore of FR" but then pick and choose which parts of it appeal to them. It'd be better to say "I love some or most of the lore of FR". And of course using the term "well-developed" is just as selective since it's an opinion, which even though I don't agree with, I can respect.
And the FRCG is full of lore, whether people agree about it's value or not. There was very little in the way of mechanics or "Crunch" in the book save for some ways to make Shades and Dread warriors and enemy's stats.
As I can only speak for myself, I think a comparison isn't really necessary for the two volumes since I believe the FRCS greatly compliments the FRCG (and possibly vice versa).
|
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 16:40:15
|
| @Diffan - Did you just ignore my last posts? I want to accept the lore, it is just to full of holes for me to be able to. Literally. The dots of the newest edition and the current one do not connect in my brain. For me, the changes were illogical and ill-explained. And until somebody (and at this point I do not care who) does a better job of connecting the dots and explaining the changes in a logical fashion ("puts a better spin on it" if you wish), I can't accept it. You can make fun of me or tell me that I am just biased. But that is the simple truth of it. I want to accept them, but I cannot. That is the underlying problem I have had since the first hints of these changes (the last couple pages of the GHotR). And yes, I know that in a fantasy world there is supposed to be "suspension of disbelief." But for me, with the 4e Realms, WotC went too far for me to suspend my disbelief. I have finally come to the point where I can try to find ways to accept the 4e Realms instead of just rejecting them outright, and I am just hearing the same old song and dance of just telling me to move on and accept it; which is just what I have been hearing for the last 2 and 1/2 to 3 year from the "4e Camp." If you were sincere in wanting me to accept the 4e Realms, you should be willing to give a little as well. At least Mr_Miscellany is willing to agree that the changes were to many and too extreme (pardon my paraphrasing if that is not what you meant Mr_Miscellany). |
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)
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 18:13:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
@Diffan - Did you just ignore my last posts? I want to accept the lore, it is just to full of holes for me to be able to. Literally. The dots of the newest edition and the current one do not connect in my brain. For me, the changes were illogical and ill-explained.
There were lots of holes in the setting prior to 4E as well (just note the retcon 1e-2e-3e-4e thread). And I did read over your posts about trying to accept the changes. My point was, that whether or not the changes were good or well-developed doesn't change the fact that they are lore regardless. I hated (loathed actually) Unther, Mulhorand, and Maztica yet I accepted their existance because they were apart of FR. Their lore uninterested me so completly that I'd never run a campaign in that area at all. Egyptians? Seriously? But that is neither here nor there. Lore is lore.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
And until somebody (and at this point I do not care who) does a better job of connecting the dots and explaining the changes in a logical fashion ("puts a better spin on it" if you wish), I can't accept it.
Well if your looking to a designer or offical word from WotC, I doubt you'll get it. More info might be forthcoming in additional novels and I think thats where you'll get most (if any) of your explainations. But, if your not adverse to taking player/DM ideas, then there could be a whole thread (if one isn't already made around here somewhere) to connect the dots. I'd be first to say the Dragonborn were already on FR before the spell-plague and say they're direct descendents from Dragon-kin. Even warforged can be explained from previous canon or you could claim they're a Lantanese(sp?) invention from a century past who have learned the art of making Life-forges and creating more. Hell, I could see a lot of Warforged made in Aglarond to combat the undead forces of Thay.
As for the elf/eladrin division, I think the reasons WotC gave us for their differences work fine and are probably the best bet we've got so far.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
You can make fun of me or tell me that I am just biased. But that is the simple truth of it. I want to accept them, but I cannot. That is the underlying problem I have had since the first hints of these changes (the last couple pages of the GHotR). And yes, I know that in a fantasy world there is supposed to be "suspension of disbelief." But for me, with the 4e Realms, WotC went too far for me to suspend my disbelief.
It wasn't my intent to make fun of anyone and if you feel i've done so, my apologies. I was conveying my own opinion that the lore given in the FRCG is as valid as in the FRCS whether or not it's well-written. As far as the changes themselves, I have accepted them for what they are. To me, if I can accept Spelljammer ships on Faerun, Gods walking the planet in avatars, and a mortal killing a god with 1 spell and almost ascending into Godhood, I can accept these changes as well. Just a difference of opinion is all.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
I have finally come to the point where I can try to find ways to accept the 4e Realms instead of just rejecting them outright, and I am just hearing the same old song and dance of just telling me to move on and accept it; which is just what I have been hearing for the last 2 and 1/2 to 3 year from the "4e Camp."
I'm not saying to anyone to accept the changes. Take them or leave them. The fact is, the changes aren't going away and I doubt we'll get much more info from WotC about the decisions they made and why. Authors and Designers will try to help out (hopefully) to make things more clear but I think it's pretty much up to the community to do the work if we want more. But the decision ultimately is up to the individual to gauge if they work is worth the effort. I can only answer that question for myself but I'd say it was.
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
If you were sincere in wanting me to accept the 4e Realms, you should be willing to give a little as well. At least Mr_Miscellany is willing to agree that the changes were to many and too extreme (pardon my paraphrasing if that is not what you meant Mr_Miscellany).
As I said above, I'm not in the habit of making anyone do or accept anything they don't want to. I can give advice as to whether or not something can be used, changed, or spun differently to help a person's campaign or gaming experience involving FR4e but that person should also help push aside the things they don't like in lieu of things they do regarding the setting. As far as the amount and frequency of the changes to FR, I like most (i'd say at least 80%) of them and have adapted to the 1480's Faerun farily well. |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 12:10:20
|
| Speaking only for myself (indeed, who else can I speak for), I find the changes introduced by 4eFR shatter my willing suspension of disbelief. So I don't use them. |
|
|
|
SuperGnome
Acolyte
1 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2010 : 21:25:03
|
| I was all over 3e FR material as it was actually good. It actually was an extension and continuation of something that meant a lot to me. Much like how 4e isn't the same game as all those that proceeded, neither is the 4e Realms. It is pretty much COMPLETELY different. It's the same in brand alone, and having to say that makes me ill. It really did break my heart when I looked at the CG. *slumps in chair* |
I miss my Realms! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2010 : 16:50:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by SuperGnome
I was all over 3e FR material as it was actually good. It actually was an extension and continuation of something that meant a lot to me. Much like how 4e isn't the same game as all those that proceeded, neither is the 4e Realms. It is pretty much COMPLETELY different. It's the same in brand alone, and having to say that makes me ill. It really did break my heart when I looked at the CG. *slumps in chair*
I dunno, I think large parts of the setting are pretty much the same. Sure, things do change after a century but much (I dare use the word most) of Faerun are much the same or similar. Famous locations such as Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, the nation of Cormyr, almost all of the Western Heartlands, Icewind Dale, Silverymoon/Lurar, the Moonsea, Damara, Impiltur, and Vassa underwent very little in changes geographically and only minimally in other ways.
As far as the edition goes, there are great changes from 2e/AD&D to 3e and minor changes from 3 to 3.5. And additional changes from 3.5 to 4e but only the same in name alone? I don't believe so. The mechanics changed away from a total vancian system to a modified vancian system. You still lose certain powers/spells after casting or using them and only a long rest can replenish those powers. Wizards still draw spells and rituals from their spellbooks but it's just not the biggest focal point for a wizard to have anymore. And the games core structure (characters advancing by level through adventures) is still the same. D&D is way more than just mechanics used IMO. |
Edited by - Diffan on 03 Jul 2010 16:53:52 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 05:54:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I’m one of those people too. ;)
But I’m also confused. Why would people who like Realms books for the sake of lore alone distance themselves (or rather, feel not served by) the 4E FRCG?
It’s full of lore, most of it new. It’s not hyper-detailed, nor is it printed in painfully small font, but the lore is there and that’s undeniable.
It just seems to me that anyone who enjoys lore for its own sake would be doing themselves a disservice by not picking up basically the one source of new information on the Realms and reading it.
Uggghhh. Yes it is full of new lore. However that new lore is the equivalent of finding out that the spider man you ahve been reading for the last 10 years is a clone. That book alone made me distance myself from 4e. I advanced my timeline to 1400DR, and wanted to use the 4e campaign guide to get a feel for the "future". I can't do that because everything is in relation to the spellplague which is creatively bankrupt. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 05:59:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Hello Ashe,
Suppose they (the designers) were to have given us a Realms 100 years in the future with virtually no changes, I think you’d have to admit they’d have done us all (and the Realms) a disservice.
This is because they’d have given us an unbelievable setting that wouldn’t make sense, as the Realms are too dynamic a place to not change over time.
One can’t expect that after one hundred years things would not have changed significantly in the Realms (Spellplague or no Spellplague).
To me, a prison city in Cormyr owing to the dire influence of Shar and the Shadovar makes perfect sense: that -or something else like it- is just what I'd expect to see in Cormyr after a century went by in the Realms (again, Spellplague or no).
What I’m getting at is that if you take an honest look at the Realms as it is now, many of the changes (“changes” isn’t even the right word) are explained by the simple passage of time and not by the Spellplague.
After 100 years, things should be different (that’s a better word).
Even for real changes resulting from the Spellplague, such can still be explained away by RSEs.
Were there no Spellplague, I’d be awfully surprised to discover a Realms that managed to stay miraculously free of one or two RSEs after a century of time.
So if you tell me there's no Spellplague, but still put a huge crater at the heart of the Inner Sea and tell me a race of Drabonborn have come through a bunch of portals from another world to invade Unther, I’d think “Yeah, that’s something I’d expect to see.”
--------
I grant that if you take all the changes together it can seem “too much” for some.
I agree that WotC went way the hell over the top with their changes, often implementing ideas in less than the best way possible (inserting the Dragonborn into the Realms as they did, and not using all the setups written in by the 3E designers just made me shake my head and wonder aloud "What the #%&? Why do it this way?").
But I think if you are really interested in the lore of the setting, then you owe it to yourself to take an honest, thorough look at each of the changes, assessing them each on their own.
If you do, I think you’ll see that they are not really changes, just differences in lore owing to the natural passage of time.
Time flows, things change. Ed made this point at GenCon and it makes perfect sense.
I believe that differences in lore owing to the passage of time are natural in the Realms and are to be expected. Thus they deserve to be appreciated, thought about and understood as much as any other piece of lore from any other era of the setting.
SO why not just continue the realms and NOT advance it 100 years at all. Did you really need to drown Var the Golden? Did you really need to wreck the greatest port in the realms?
There are plenty of changes that could occur in 100 years, even a prison city in cormyr. Maybe even the outlook of cormyr. I can see some changes, but not laughable changes that the developers needed to make for their new rules set.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 10:09:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Did you really need to drown Var the Golden?
That's the first time I have heard about that one. Another thing I don't like. What happened to the other countries in the region? |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 19:19:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Did you really need to drown Var the Golden?
That's the first time I have heard about that one. Another thing I don't like. What happened to the other countries in the region?
YEs it collapsed 'beneath the waves in the year of blue fire!" Another convenient arbitrary change. Now you can adventure in the sunken ruined cities of Myrmyr and Zelpir.
The lore in the FRCG4e is very sparse. They don't give alot of explanation for things other than Blue fire did it, spellplague did it etc.
Most of the holes are filled in by DND insider. Maybe because they know they did such a poor job explaining it in the book, they needed to add articles to DDI?
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 00:03:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Did you really need to drown Var the Golden?
That's the first time I have heard about that one. Another thing I don't like. What happened to the other countries in the region?
YEs it collapsed 'beneath the waves in the year of blue fire!" Another convenient arbitrary change. Now you can adventure in the sunken ruined cities of Myrmyr and Zelpir.
The lore in the FRCG4e is very sparse. They don't give alot of explanation for things other than Blue fire did it, spellplague did it etc.
Most of the holes are filled in by DND insider. Maybe because they know they did such a poor job explaining it in the book, they needed to add articles to DDI?
Is there a DDI article that explains what happened to Halruaa? We had a web article that said the nation blew up with enough force to submerge land on the other side of a mountain range, but then the book talks about how there are still buildings standing in Halruaa! I really don't get how an explosion can cause such great damage on the other side of a rather prominent barrier, without leaving a massive crater at ground zero... |
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!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 30 Jul 2010 00:04:08 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 01:39:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Is there a DDI article that explains what happened to Halruaa?
Nothing definitive.
The extent of Halruaa-based lore in DDI remains this little tidbit from "The Ecology of the Sharn" article by Brian James in DRAGON #373:-
quote:
Halruaa: Much of the lore and traditions of Halruaa lives on within the few souls assimilated by the sharns before, during, and after that nation’s destruction. Sharns are actively exploring the ruined capital of Halarahh in search of the Zalathorm’s Clockwork Sceptre.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 17:14:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I’m one of those people too. ;)
But I’m also confused. Why would people who like Realms books for the sake of lore alone distance themselves (or rather, feel not served by) the 4E FRCG?
It’s full of lore, most of it new. It’s not hyper-detailed, nor is it printed in painfully small font, but the lore is there and that’s undeniable.
It just seems to me that anyone who enjoys lore for its own sake would be doing themselves a disservice by not picking up basically the one source of new information on the Realms and reading it.
Uggghhh. Yes it is full of new lore. However that new lore is the equivalent of finding out that the spider man you ahve been reading for the last 10 years is a clone. That book alone made me distance myself from 4e. I advanced my timeline to 1400DR, and wanted to use the 4e campaign guide to get a feel for the "future". I can't do that because everything is in relation to the spellplague which is creatively bankrupt.
I thought it was more along the lines of reading a Spider Man comic and realizing that he died quite some time ago and another person came along with better abilities and took over Spider Man's role and heroics. Yet everything the old Spider Man did was just as valid and heroic as the new just set in a different time.
And with using the FRCG, it's easy to use what parts appeal to you and leave the rest. If you don't want the Spellplague in your Realms, you don't have to include that aspect of the setting. If you like the Escape from N.Y. feel that Wheloon has, then that's fine because of all the Sharran cultists that could've arrived after adventurer's wiped out the Sharran cell in Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave. I incorporated the Spellplague in my Realms but it's rather subtle and not a big part of the backdrop that is Faerun
If you liked Lantan, for example, keep it around as I have. I had Lantan survive (well mostly) because the Simbul had a vision of the destruction to come from the Spellplague. She knew she would need Warforged soldiers to help her battle Thay's undead forces so she went to Lantan and helped them create a sort of bubble around the city (much like a Mythal, but with some technologial advances) and now it's much like Atlantis.
I also kept Nimbral around, as they sorta Plane-shifted the entire Island (not sure where yet) to safety. But they returned and are attempting to find out just how destructive the Spell Plague but are pretty much unchanged from the whole disaster. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
3e FRCS vs 4e FRCG
