| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sousinne
Acolyte
11 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 13:29:30
|
We're now in a situation where WotC has three products made for FR 4th edition. We're all mad about the spellplague and the time jump.
So, what would you have liked to see instead? I am not saying "do better or shut up", I am asking this because I would like to see your answers. I am sure many of them will be lots better than what we got. =)
The situation was:
They needed to make the setting more accessible to newcomers.
They needed to somehow adapt FR to 4th edition rules.
They needed to provide an in-game reason for that rules change.
They needed to make sure the setting provided income.
They needed to get away from the novels problem RSE of the week.
My own take would be that they found some place with less massive amounts of lore, and added that place as a "newbie" region. They should have taken the time to think about suddenly adding new deities and races that had never been much part of the setting before. While people seem most mad at the spellplague, I find that less objectionable than the time jump, which was badly handled. Every single village is in the same place, a century later. As for income, perhaps the problem is that hardbound books cost too much to make? There was nothing wrong with for example the Silver Marches format, which would have given them the chance to publish more content. The RSE of the week is merely a question of weaning people off RSEs, through new writer's guidelines. In-game, a politically more stable situation, such as the consolidation of the Moonsea lands, would be a good explanation for less RSE times.
Anyone else?
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 14:14:49
|
I'd love to be able to say "they should have done this instead", but I'm firmly in the camp that nothing was broken to begin with, so they didn't need to do anything at all.
I can understand the business necessity of 4th Edition, but the rules they created do not speak to me or my gaming friends as an improvement over 3rd Edition (this is NOT saying 4th Edition is not good, but I don't see it as better than 3rd).
quote:
Originally posted by Sousinne
The situation was:
They needed to make the setting more accessible to newcomers.
They needed to somehow adapt FR to 4th edition rules.
They needed to provide an in-game reason for that rules change.
They needed to make sure the setting provided income.
They needed to get away from the novels problem RSE of the week.
1) I don't believe it's the job of the designers to make the setting more accessible, it's the job of the DM. If you want to run a game in the Realms, you're probably already a fan, so you can set the game whereever, whenever and however you want. Yes, I understand the argument of new DMs not wanting to get into the Realms because they feel that "it's too much homework". However, most DMs I know aren't the kind to just read for rote what's in the book, so they do "homework" anyway.
2) As I stated before, I didn't think the new edition was needed. But in answer to this, FR has been adapted to other editions without destroying and remaking the entire world, so there's no reason that they needed to be either.
3) Yes, the rules change were huge enough that it needed an in-game explaination. Or it didn't. Bottom line, this is a fictional world. Prime example is that Drizzt has been Drizzt no matter what the rules say he can and can't do. With each edition, we conformed the NPC Drizzt to the rules, regardless of the Story Drizzt; and with each edition it took a look at the previous edition and pretty much said "He's always been like this".
4) The setting always provided income. It was one of the best-selling of all settings ever produced, so I'm not sure why they thought a change would generate more sales. The fact that they chose it to be the FIRST new setting produced for 4th Edition shows that it is the most popular/most in-demand setting.
5) I don't believe they have gotten rid of the RSE of the week.
Please don't take this post as being argumentative. I'm not looking to start fights, just giving my opinion on the matter. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 15:27:28
|
Well, the idea is that if you play using 4e rules, you have the options of paying for the DDi, and/or being an LFR player/DM - both of which will provide you with more lore about the 4e setting.
If you are merely a fan of the setting and do not play D&D, or at least not in the Realms, then the setting no longer caters to those types of fans and it has effectively become a 'dead' setting for most of us.
Novels are yet another option for obtaining new FR lore, but most are lore-lite, or pertain specifically to the 4e setting, and not the original setting most folks fell in love with.
What could they have done?
I'm now of the opinion that they were correct that something needed to be done to revitalize the setting, but I feel they went completely in the wrong direction. IMHO, they should have re-booted the continuity in 1357 DR, put Ed in charge of the setting itself, and then re-envision the whole thing using the 4e rules.
Rebuild the setting from the ground up, using Ed's original as a template, eliminating all the weirdness and 'glitches' that have crept in over the years (and RW derivations), and re-inroduce new players to the Realms the way we were - back to basics, as it were.
Instead, we got a massive patch-job over hundreds of smaller patch-jobs, and this ship is leaking like crazy and sinking fast. 
They would have accomplished ALL of their goals (except, perhaps, any personal ones), eliminated those feelings of 'entitlement' that older fans have (literally, the playing-field will have been leveled), and had a setting designed for use with the 4e rules, rather then deconstructing the existing setting and creating new glitches.
Folks could have used the older source material if they wanted, since anything that hasn't been specifically changed by the re-boot could still theoretically exist, or just ignore the older material and work with whatever new stuff came out. WotC could have had their cake and eat it too. Sure, older fans would have still been disgruntled, but not nerely as much as this new, ill-conceived setting has made them.
You can only patch things so many times before it looks like Frankanstein - the only way to do it right would have been to start from scratch, and have designers who actually care about the setting work on it (Ed, Steven, Elaine, Krash, Eric, etc...).
FR could have entered a glorious new era, but instead we got Cthulhu, Draconians, and Warforgred.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Jul 2009 17:21:42 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 16:58:22
|
I'm going to pretty much agree with the prior two posts... But I will say that there are folks who like and embrace the timejump and the Sellplague. I can't stand it, myself, and a lot of others don't, but I don't think there's been any non-biased study done comparing the two groups and seeing which one is larger.
Particular comments:
Prior campaign setting books made the setting accessible to newcomers, and they did so without blowing anything up.
FR was adapted to two prior rulesets without catastrophic change; it could have been done again.
They didn't bother to give us an in-game explanation for the many changes of 3E. I'm not convinced that blowing up the setting -- using sometimes illogical or contradictory events -- had anything at all to do with giving us an in-game explanation. I think it was all about changing things and making a new setting, while keeping some things in place to retain the existing fanbase.
Giving us what we wanted would be a good way to provide income. They've never tried that. Paizo is trying it, and seems to be doing pretty well for it.
They created the RSE-of-the-week problem. I think blowing up the setting was just clearing the way for more RSEs. Really, why can't a particular locale host more than one story? One of the reasons they claimed they needed the timejump and all that rot was because there was no place left to tell a story, because all the places had been used. So their logic is that only one interesting thing can happen in any one spot, no matter how many people live there (unless it's Waterdeep). Why can't a place be used more than once? Well, if you're blowing up every spot you put a story in, then you need more places to blow up. So I don't think they're done publishing RSEs. I'm done reading them, though. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:26:57
|
Any opinion of my idea of a REAL re-boot?
A completely new continuity, a'la DC comics Crisis series?
If done right, I think that could have been awesome, and we would have had the opprotunity to eliminate a lot of the 'craptastic' stuff that has crept into the Realms over the years.
I posted this idea over at the WotC forums awhile back, and it went over very well - it seems that both 4e lovers and haters agreed with me, for the most part. I was just wondering what the 'die-hard' fans here at the Keep thought of it.
One of the things I really like about Eberron is that the entire world was built from the ground up with consistency and logic in mind. You may not like the setting itself, but you really have to appreciate the beauty of design.
2e was a wonderful but extremely chaotic era, and we got some truly awful material (Lichlings?  ) alongside stuff that was golden... if we could pick-and-choose what to keep and what to toss, just imagine how great FR might have been. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Jul 2009 17:32:39 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:31:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Any opinion of my idea a REAL re-boot?
A completely new continuity, a'la DC comics Crisis series?
If done right, I think that could have been awesome, and we would have had the opprotunity to eliminate a lot of the 'craptastic' stuff that has crept into the Realms over the years.
I posted this idea over at the WotC forums awhile back, and it went over very well - it seems that both 4e lovers and haters agreed with me, for the most part. I was just wondering what the 'die-hard' fans here at the Keep thought of it.
Well, it has to be handled just right. I mean, looking at DC Comics, they originally used Crisis of Infinite Earths to do a hard reboot of the entire line and get all the stories straightened out and on the same page. And it was good. However, some 20 years later, you're all of a sudden awash in these new crisises that originated from CoIE and have made me cringe with the changes. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 17:41:59
|
Well... yeah... the "Do it Right" part is the most important part of the equation.
I would even go so far as to take polls over at WotC during the conception-process of what to keep and what to toss, since everyone probably has different opinions, it would be wise for the designers to ask the public what they wanted, rather then go with their own limited pool of ideas.
For instance, should the ToT happen again? Should it take place in the past, just before the setting 'starts', or perhaps even in the distant past (a century?)?
What about 'The Chosen'? Keep them? make them weaker, or just don't bother stating them, or even focusing on them at all? Or should they just be gotten rid of altogether?
Those are the types of questions I think WotC needs to take polls for, rather then just deciding them on their own. If they didn't want to use the internet (which is far from reliable), they could even hand-out questioneers at Gencon and other conventions. If they were somehow able to achieve the same amount of interaction that Paizo has with it's fanbase, I think WotC could turn this ship around and have a real winner.
I think the Realms is THE most facinating and intricate setting ever developed, but I think everyone can agree that there is quite a bit of 'badness' that could be cut-out of the published setting (derivations like Maztica's history). A re-boot would give WotC a chance to actually improve the realms, rather then deconstruct it.
But just one... no 'twenty year' thing like DC did... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Jul 2009 17:44:10 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2009 : 20:58:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sousinne
They needed to make the setting more accessible to newcomers.
They needed to somehow adapt FR to 4th edition rules.
They needed to provide an in-game reason for that rules change.
They needed to make sure the setting provided income.
They needed to get away from the novels problem RSE of the week.
Despite the hellish heat in my computer den I try to answer this... sorta ... beware the grumpy dwarf!
Accessibility to newcomers... first thing they should have done is to not deliver the spellplague, the spellplague splintered the Realms-fandom, not only storywise but also backgroundwise. A newbie who asks a question regarding this and that will probably come to older fans if he has a question, and (judging only for myself) the reply will go along the lines of "I'm still stuck in pre 1375 Realms and haven't bothered with that spellplague crap."
I agree with Ashe when he says it's the DM's job to give info, when needed or requested. Many players don't really bother with history unless it concerns their PCs. Newcomers will most likely be DMs, and if any of those newbs are like me back in the 90s (yea I am not a long time fan), they're dissatisfied with some other less detailed setting (DragonLance for me.)
GHotR does help to answer questions, but the appeal of the Realms was never the "ease", there are enough simple settings out there, why turn the Realms into one of those?
The easiest way to introduce newcomers to the Realms would probably have been a bunch of adventures that gradually reveal the world to both players and DM.
Adaption to the rules, yea, Drizzt has been himself for three editions with the stats changing every now and then, so that's no problem. But Drizzt is no mage, so yea there had to be a change... storywise, for the players of a new campaign set in 4e Realms it doesn't make one iota of difference. Sure, the DM might have a shipload of trouble converting old modules, but releasing setting specific monster books and updating old sourcers would have been a cheap source of income, hell even if they would just present adaptions of the now-defunct PDF-sales might have worked.
In game reason for the rules change... is only needed if you decide to convert characters, if not...who cares.
The problem with income is relative, I dare say. We do not know what the beancounters' desired sale goal for any given book is. This, however, does not mean that a book didn't sell well if said goal wasn't achieved. The managers at Wizbro realized that rules and feats and such made more money than lore-dominated books, out went the lore. So, if Lords of Darkness sold, say, 30.000 units that is an impressive amount and was profitable, but the beancounters wouldn't blow their load over that one, since they demand a total sale of 60k units or more. And 30k would have been for only a short amount of time after release and not the total sales until the book went OOP. I daresay the Realms prior the beancounters' demands to produce more crunch were profitable, but not profitable enough...at least for their statistics and the shareholders and all the others...
RSEs... well, they sold. Quality sucks, quantity rules. That is not to say that those novels were crap, it's just showing that short-term planning is doing to novels what it does to the supplements.
OK, written enough...back to the colder part of the appartment. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6662 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 00:51:52
|
In my view the biggest drawback of the 4E Realms is neither the Spellplague nor the 100 year jump, but simply the lack of products to come.
If I'd had to keep the two design parameters above, I would have revamped the setting much as WotC did, but provided a 350 page book of close text, with a ton of broad detail on the new Realms (in terms of organisations, people and places ala the Ol' Grey Box) and given gamers real info on the "new" Realms, not rehashed the old. Sidebars would have got people excited: currencies, bits of language, names, customs, mage sigils, details on religions, trade, legends and myths etc, etc.
I would have also provided a timeline for the hundred year gap and this wouldn't have an impact on gaming and fiction products for reasons outlined below.
I would have also done a Ptolus-type product on a 'somewhere' not really detailed before such as Neverwinter or Suzail or even Waterdeep (I know, I know - again) and in the core book above would have given detail to a nearby village /town as a starting point for adventurers before they hit the big smoke. Included would have been a CD-Rom with a Paizo-like adventure path using that small starting point and bridging across to the big town (to obviously give people incentive to buy the Ptolus-product). There would be a large amount of 'current clack' for both the city and surrounding region provided to generate adventure ideas.
The Players Guide would have game mechanics information as the current one does but more information on how an adventurer looks, talks and thinks from the various regions of the Realms. There would be sections on unique weapons, armour, spells, magic items etc. that can be found in different parts of Faerûn and more attempt to reduce the chance of cookie cutter PC groups. This would extend also to different races and the boom would provide things like a sample dwarven clan background, elven family backgorund, human noble background, halfling mercantile background etc to give PCs inspiration direction for a cohesive back-story.
If that approach had been successful I would have continued putting out Ptolus products on different cities around the Realms all with an accompanying CD-Rom adventure path and 'starting point' small village. The idea would be that you would have a significant but narrow in focus information-heavy city surrounded by a broad information surrounding region which a DM could develop at their leisure to complement that product. All would include broad but useful further information on the surrounding region in terms of trade, active organisations, movers and shakers etc.
All gaming products would be set in the same year (1485 DR or whatever) and novels would be set after that year (i.e 1486 DR onwards) with a clear disclaimer that novel events no longer affect the gaming continuity and can be used at a DMs discretion in their own campaigns but will never be acknowledged in published gaming products. That way, 'novel events' would not have to be included in any gaming material, whenever it was written. The aim would be to generate 2 x Ptolus products a year with accompanying DDI material to flesh out further lore as required. Oh, and just like the "old" Realms I would advise that there are 2 or 3 cities in the Realms that will never be given the Ptolus-treatment and actually stick to that.
Lastly, I would appoint a "Realms traffic cop" to vet all DDI and gaming products before publishing. If they asked me nicely, I'd do it for free!
Anyway, I've rambled on enough. Thanks for reading.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 01:34:32
|
Oh, George, George, if you weren't happily married I'd do more than kiss you!
Perfect!
love,
THO |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 01:45:52
|
Ah, Krash. You're definitely an Australian treasure! 
And I'd happily offer my own services to such an endeavour, also for free, if it meant ensuring both a continued level of quality and consistency from previous editions, and that we've all been very much expecting to see with the new material.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 03:22:50
|
We could split the duties. I'll keep track of the geographic locations and ethno-cultural stuff (as in, "where the heck did these people come from, and who are they related to?")
I still think a fresh re-boot was the way to go, with a precise and logical plan like Krash's... and then stick to it!
Definately a traffic cop.. no more runaway freight train...  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 03:36:38
|
The only thing needed to do would be to limit the number of RSE's. Or rather, just stop having novels deal with them. If an RSE does need to come along, then have a huge thing about it. A supplement, some adventures, novels etc. Just think how much fun a Last Mythal supplement and set of adventures would have been. Lead the Elven Crusade yourselves and re-establish Myth Drannor.
Anyway, limit the number of RSE's and you limit the amount of reading new players have to do to get up to date. Create a good campaign guide and players guide, then make it clear that everything else builds ontop of that and is optional. |
|
|
|
gomez
Learned Scribe
Netherlands
254 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 09:03:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Any opinion of my idea of a REAL re-boot?
Well, as a 4th ed writer/editor... there are some elements that I was allowed to introduce in 4th ed that I think were quite fun. I would need to rewrite them for a new continuity...
In lieu of that though, I think the best we can do is take George's idea and try to strive as much as we can to that lofty goal.
I don't think we will see CD-enhanced products, and i epcxect the timeline to move forward (I expect next year we will advance a year in the Realms, following LFR).
But I do think we can make products and publish lore., The one restructions is, as Markustay says, that it needs to be either LFR or D&DI (mostly the latter, as there some resistance against adding realsmore in LFR adventures, though I do manage on occassion).
But we can try to work within that.
I agree on RSE's being kept out of novels. I would prefer for a big event to be more akin to one of the paizo like adventure paths: A long string of adventures, interconnected in various ways, leading up to an epic event. Preferably strewn with tidbits of realsmlore.
I thought about this a lot: if you want epic events, you really have to start heralding it starting at heroic tier and (level 1-10) onwards.
I am working on it (no idea if it will fly though). If you think you can/wish to write for 4th ed (in LFR, but I am considering other avenues as well), let me know.
Btw, I think the "Realms traffic cops" are Bruce Cordell and Susan Morris.
Gomez,
Once the Ravenloft "continuity constable". It's a fun job, but you really need to know *everything*.
|
|
|
|
Amarel Derakanor
Seeker
97 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 10:44:17
|
| This clearly has to be one of the best threads in the entire forum.... |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 13:23:00
|
I had a response to a small portion of what Gomez wrote... but I'll just let it go for now. No need beating that dead horse anymore...
George Krashos would have made the perfect Traffic Cop...
AS for his comment that WotC is 'resistant' to Realmslore being done by LFR DMs... I'm on the fence with that one. Some really bad stuff made it into the setting because of the RPGA (like aircraft carriers), so I can understand WotC being hesitant. On the other hand, I can't help but get the gut feeling it's more along the lines of dogs marking their territory (I'm not talking about the LFR judges).
Whats that old saying? Those that control information wield the power? <smirk>
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
gomez
Learned Scribe
Netherlands
254 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 15:03:13
|
I think it is a mix of trying to control what's out there, and not wanting to publish lore exclusively for what is essentially a small group (RPGA players).
In general, lore can make it into LFR if it related directly to the adventure. If it related indirectly, they prefer to remove it or to have it summarized. |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 15:06:13
|
| Cordell as the Realms Traffic Cop? Isn't that like the fox watching the emaciated hen house just after said fox has gone on a rampage through it? |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2009 : 15:45:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Cordell as the Realms Traffic Cop? Isn't that like the fox watching the emaciated hen house just after said fox has gone on a rampage through it?
That there, is the quote of the year!
Apart from that, I have to say that Wooly´s post sums up everything I would have to say 100%.
|
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2009 : 03:26:37
|
Well... I guess I wasn't the only one who wanted to comment on that one. 
Anyhow, don't feel bad Gomez - even Ed gets 'editted' when the people in-charge think some of the text is "irrelevant" to the subject matter.
As you well know, one of the 'selling points' of 4e is "neat and simple"... extraneous material need not apply.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2009 : 12:20:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Any opinion of my idea of a REAL re-boot?
I would love to see Ed's original Realms published, but I am probably in a minority there. A re-boot to the Grey box (or even earlier)would be great in my opinion, but it would probably upset as many people as it would please.
The problem is that no matter what edition of the game one would use, the setting would be changed to fit the rules. Unless a system was used/created that based the rules on the Realms and not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2009 : 20:49:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Any opinion of my idea of a REAL re-boot?
I would love to see Ed's original Realms published, but I am probably in a minority there. A re-boot to the Grey box (or even earlier)would be great in my opinion, but it would probably upset as many people as it would please.
The problem is that no matter what edition of the game one would use, the setting would be changed to fit the rules. Unless a system was used/created that based the rules on the Realms and not the other way around.
As I see it, the best way to present Ed's original Realms would be to make it edition-less and pretty much lore-only. Considering preconceptions of beancounters and management, I can't see said produce ever being made. However, I think that if they ever did consider said product, they would then find out that it outsold the shoddy crap they call gaming accessories in 4e. |
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)
|
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 01:16:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Any opinion of my idea of a REAL re-boot?
That, to me, would meet the first out of two conditions for me to come back to the Realms. The second condition is that the Realms are turned over to Paizo and all future Realms products published with the PRPG rules.
Come on. You all know I'm right.
If still in doubt, check this out:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lae9
|
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 01:26:39
|
I hope this won't come off too controversial... but hey. Elaine Cunningham told me I should be expressing my feelings more than I usually do (read: a lot), so here we go:
Krash and THO: I really, really disagree with you both on the fact that the 100 year jump and 4E "were not the problem." This, to me, smells heavily of two veteran Realms-folks who have abandoned gaming a long, long time ago, perhaps to settle exclusively on the fiction side of the Realms (i.e. perhaps you are both using 2E rules or even an older set of rules). Nothing wrong with a different ruleset, but the minute you stop "caring" about the Realms as a GAME setting, you've lost. Go ask the Dragonlance or Greyhawk folks how they're doing if you don't believe me.
You are both bringing a sad tear to my eye... this is a sad state of affair when the Realms old guard is throwing statements like the Spellplague "wasn't really a problem."
|
Edited by - Purple Dragon Knight on 15 Jul 2009 01:27:39 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 01:31:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Nothing wrong with a different ruleset, but the minute you stop "caring" about the Realms as a GAME setting, you've lost. Go ask the Dragonlance or Greyhawk folks how they're doing if you don't believe me.
I'm not quite sure I can agree with you here, PDK. I've been a DL fan since its earliest days, and I've never really experienced anything like this. |
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 |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 05:51:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Nothing wrong with a different ruleset, but the minute you stop "caring" about the Realms as a GAME setting, you've lost. Go ask the Dragonlance or Greyhawk folks how they're doing if you don't believe me.
I'm not quite sure I can agree with you here, PDK. I've been a DL fan since its earliest days, and I've never really experienced anything like this.
Oh, so you're "that" guy hey?
You say "fan". Define "fan".
Are you actively gaming in Krynn or just reading novels? ...or re-reading the novels, if they are not making new ones...
I mean, can you still buy DL products and if you can, do you? (the fact that I have no idea on their status is probably not good either way right?) |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 06:10:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Are you actively gaming in Krynn or just reading novels? ...or re-reading the novels, if they are not making new ones...
I run campaigns in DL, and I read the novels. And yes, they're releasing new books too.
quote:
I mean, can you still buy DL products and if you can, do you? (the fact that I have no idea on their status is probably not good either way right?)
Aye.
And yes, I've bought and will continue to buy each and every DL release -- whether it be a gaming book or a novel. And a Campaign Guide, Player's Guide and 'Adventure Module,' are planned for DL too, so new gaming resources are coming. |
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 |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 06:32:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Any opinion of my idea of a REAL re-boot?
That, to me, would meet the first out of two conditions for me to come back to the Realms. The second condition is that the Realms are turned over to Paizo and all future Realms products published with the PRPG rules.
Come on. You all know I'm right.
If still in doubt, check this out:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lae9
Rules prescriptivism does none of us any good. Despite any possible issues with 4e that you might have, the effects of the 100-year jump and the Spellplague are something else entirely. We've all lived through parts of the Realms being changed for rules reasons (lest we forget the Avatar Crisis or some of 3e's growing pains), and a switch to Pathfinder or any other new system does little to resolve the issues at hand. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 06:39:47
|
| It would do much good in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 09:31:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Any opinion of my idea of a REAL re-boot?
That, to me, would meet the first out of two conditions for me to come back to the Realms. The second condition is that the Realms are turned over to Paizo and all future Realms products published with the PRPG rules.
Come on. You all know I'm right.
If still in doubt, check this out:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lae9
And that would just result in the same problems one had with the 3ed. hodgepodge. The setting would have to be pressured into a frame made by the rules, a rule system based on another one that didn't work that well with the Realms in the first place in my opinion.
quote:
Krash and THO: I really, really disagree with you both on the fact that the 100 year jump and 4E "were not the problem." This, to me, smells heavily of two veteran Realms-folks who have abandoned gaming a long, long time ago, perhaps to settle exclusively on the fiction side of the Realms (i.e. perhaps you are both using 2E rules or even an older set of rules). Nothing wrong with a different ruleset, but the minute you stop "caring" about the Realms as a GAME setting, you've lost. Go ask the Dragonlance or Greyhawk folks how they're doing if you don't believe me.
You are both bringing a sad tear to my eye... this is a sad state of affair when the Realms old guard is throwing statements like the Spellplague "wasn't really a problem."
And who defines who cares about the GAME setting, as you put it? Are you saying that using the TSR editions is a sign of not caring? And how is this tied to the settings receiving little attention from the main publisher? Most Greyhawk fans seems to be quite happy to see WotC ignore them and Dragonlance has had great products come out the later years.
I dont know how this "smells" to you but I stopped caring about Dungeons and Dragons evolution with 3ed. and couldn't care less about canon in the first place, so it seems like I am firmly within the "lost" category you talk about here. That does not mean that I stopped caring about, or using, the Realms as a setting.
And PS. to anyone with computer skills better than mine (which are more or less on the level of a gopher), why do the bottom part of the post come out in blue and the text vary in size? I have tried to fix it, but no good.
Mod edit: Fixed the issue that made the text funky and blue. A "[" was missing, throwing the quote coding off and causing much skewiness.
|
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 15 Jul 2009 12:06:54 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2009 : 17:09:40
|
AS much as I'd like to take your side here, PDK, I would have to also say the Spellplague wasn't the problem.
In fact, it is the 'all-purpose-fix', and I've learned to embrace it. Everyone has a list of things they don't like about FR (and everyone's is different), and the Spellplague gives you a canon reason for changing everything in your game to how you envision it should be.
Think of it this way - the Spellplague is like the anti-Crisis - it managed to split-off everyone's campaigns into a million new, divergent realities. I've said it before, and I'll say it again (because it is worth repeating): The day after the Spellplague hit is/was probably THE most interesting point in history to play in... and everything is up to YOU (the DM).
The Spellplague (obviously) doesn't bother me, nor do the cosmological or deific changes (I've always ignored canon in those areas anyway).
Its the hundred year time-leap that "jumped the Aboleth" for me.
That and that alone makes all of my older gaming materials 95% useless... and I won't have any of it!
As for Pathfinder - that is a great set of rules, and a big improvement over 3.5, IMHO. In fact, I took your link and posted it immediately over at WotC, PDK (thought the Wizbro guys would like to see what a real sourcebook looks like ). However, the rules don't matter - I could care less is you use 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, or used a time machine and are now running 7e! As long as you play in the late 1300's (or earlier), then you are gaming in the Realms - the rules matter not a wit. The only 'perfect' set of rules are those you create for yourself, and your group. I been trying to create that elusive 'perfect' set of rules for thirty years, and I still don't have it quite right.
So I'm not really a 4e hater, but rather a 4e Realms hater - it just doesnt feel like the Realms I've grown to love. Its like Bizzaro to me - it looks sort-of like an ugly version of the original, and it has a lot of the same abilites... but on the other hand its completely different (and non-sensical).
The only thing I 'may' be in agreement on PDK is that certain folks do seem to have 'sold out'. I won't point any fingers, but anyone who has any sort of official capacity with the Realms (past or present) who thinks that the 1479 version is "just peachy" is just looking for a little 'job security' as far as I'm concerned.
Where I come form, people don't try to improve crap, they flush it down the toilet. You'll note that out of all the game designers and authors in this industry, the only ones who have anything nice to say about WotC's rules and settings changes are all people who do not have any monetary connections to them - only folks who stands a chance of making money off 4e (like Goodman Games) is defending it (and most of the time they seem to be dancing on eggshells when trying to defend it).
I've yet to see one 'independent' (as in someone who has nothing to gain by supporting 4e) person in the industry defend that mess. How many awards did the 3e ruleset win? Hmmmmm?
Thats telling. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What paths could they have taken?
