| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 14:54:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Free and open debate, well there are oh so many variables that come in here and we pretty early asked for a flagging of threads going on about AD&D, 3E or more specifically 4E lore. I for one do not exactly make a great difference between the post-Spellplague Realms and 4E, for IMHO (sic!) the latter caused the former. Because of that, many of the "old school" will most likely have sincere reservations about 4E too, whether or not it is seen as a kind of WoW-at-the-table (which I tend to agree to as well).
I guess I'm apart of the few who doesn't feel the mechanics play that way (like WoW). Honestly, and I've said multipul times, the mechanics shouldn't drive RP in any sense of the word. I've never seen the reason for DC checks to make a sword, please a crowed with my voice, or do anything that involves role-playing. Leave the dice to battle and skill challenges IMO. A good analogy I heard was "I need a book, recipe, and instructions to make a cake for a party but I dont need a book to tell me how to have fun with my guests."
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
To me, the 4E Realms constitute deicide, mass-genocide, selective oblitteration and annihilation of the world plus handing incentives for megalomania to the PC. On top of that, previous half-No-No's seem to have become the norm, a norm to please the gamers (i.e. players), not the lorekeepers.
So a role-playing game shouldn't first and foremost please and cater to gamers/players? That concept I find strange and alien due to the fact that most RPGs are handled the same way. As for the megalomania, yea Epic levels and spells of previous editions didn't drive people to delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. It's been that way since I can remember playing AD&D.
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Taking anything privately produced and e.g. made public on here out of the gamers hands (GLC) just adds to the alienation of the previous generation, not mentioning the DDI "lore" stuff, which essentially cuts off the old school folk wanting to read books on the train or carry them to the next gaming session. (And I don't want to bolster the printer industry's profits either.)
I can agree that I wish there were more book copies of the DDI content. And I've stated that they should put out a FR annual Dragon/Dungeon style book like they did with the Dragon Annual. But I'm just as happy to use a lap-top for any source material I might need on the go. The DDI Compendium basically has everything I would need to know about playing. Not to mention the Character Builder and Adventure Builder make creating anything I want easy and quick.
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
As always, you can play any system in any age of the Realms, pre- or post-ToT, or pre- or post-Spellplague. I wanted Myrkul for my 3RE Night Below campaign and hence placed it at 1200 D.R., no problem. I have lorebooks and material here to spent the rest of my days happily playing AD&D or 3RE in the Realms pre-Spellplague. Still, there is that lingering thought that by canon (and I am a traditionalist that accepts canon*) nigh everything that I have played or nigh all characters and deities I used will be gone come 1380 and for any greater reason than IMHO "just because". There was no reason whatsoever to do what WotC did to the Realms, not even for all the strangenesses of 4E.
There were plenty of reasons that I'll really not go into right now, but I for one felt that if the setting had remained exactly the same, it would've shared the same fate as Greyhawk. IMO, better to change the face than let the setting die and fade into obscurity.
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
*That said, some of the "forced"-canon (drow and Mystra deicide) includes so much garbage, that this old feeling about "new canon beats old and holds true" essentially went out of the window at the end of 3RE.
It saddens me that someone with your knowledge, experiences, and insight to this *still* great setting won't be adding to the community. Even if it were Pathfinder conversions, which I'd love to see. I've always been one to promote creation, conversion, and that homebrew style and anything you do share with us will be prized highly.
I know the changes to the setting have shaken up a lot of things, but I for one don't feel that it needs to disrupt a community so bent on providing anything Realmsian. Yes, people will talk about 4E and Post-Spellplague events but none of that diminishes FR's elaboate and detailed history. In so many humble words: "Can't we get along?"  |
 |
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 15:03:58
|
| Diffan, this has nothing to do with not getting along with you or anyone else who likes 4e Realms, it has more to do with that we can talk about the good old Realms, but since most discussions focus more and more (understandably so) on the latest (per)version, we have nothing more to say. It's like trying to convince a person who loves Black Sabbath with Ozzy of the fact that Black Sabbath was still Black Sabbath with Dio or Tony Martin. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 15:20:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Diffan, this has nothing to do with not getting along with you or anyone else who likes 4e Realms, it has more to do with that we can talk about the good old Realms, but since most discussions focus more and more (understandably so) on the latest (per)version, we have nothing more to say. It's like trying to convince a person who loves Black Sabbath with Ozzy of the fact that Black Sabbath was still Black Sabbath with Dio or Tony Martin.
Or that Van Halen remained the same after David Lee Roth. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 16:32:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Diffan, this has nothing to do with not getting along with you or anyone else who likes 4e Realms, it has more to do with that we can talk about the good old Realms, but since most discussions focus more and more (understandably so) on the latest (per)version, we have nothing more to say. It's like trying to convince a person who loves Black Sabbath with Ozzy of the fact that Black Sabbath was still Black Sabbath with Dio or Tony Martin.
You know the weren't. Now, with Ian Gillan, that's another story; a monster line-up.
To be honest, I think we have to take some of the blame for the discussions focusing around 4ed. (which I am not sure is really the case)ourselves. Most of the oldtimers are either to shell-shocked or disillusioned to start any subject or feels that they don't have anything to contribute. I'm as guilty of that as anybody.
|
|
|
|
Gambit
Learned Scribe
110 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 16:42:32
|
| Unfortunately except for a smattering of novels, FR just doesnt get much publicity anymore. Gone are the 2E days of sourcebook after sourcebook of lore or even the 3E crunch/lore combo, also around turn of the century we had BG to give FR as a whole a big boost in interest. Just imagine that instead of being its own IP, Dragon Age had been Baldurs Gate 3 or even a brand new story set in FR, that game has been hugely successful and would have generated many new fans and much renewed interest in the realms. The ball has been dropped time and time again for our beloved setting, and it saddens me. |
Edited by - Gambit on 18 Mar 2010 17:51:23 |
|
|
|
skychrome
Senior Scribe
713 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 16:51:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
To be honest, I think we have to take some of the blame for the discussions focusing around 4ed. (which I am not sure is really the case)ourselves. Most of the oldtimers are either to shell-shocked or disillusioned to start any subject or feels that they don't have anything to contribute. I'm as guilty of that as anybody.
...although I would defend the "oldtimers" in so far that I feel their problem is not 4e but 4e FR. Which is not the same as those people who have problems with changes in general.
Though being no oldie on this, I have absolutely no problem with 4e as such in terms of game mechanics etc. But I got a serious problem with my favorite setting having been nuked in that edition.
@Gambit: you make a good point with the BG games. That is actually how I got involved with the realms and I am sure I am not the only one. |
"You make an intriguing offer, one that is very tempting. It would seem that I have little alternative than to answer thusly: DISINTEGRATE!" Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick 625 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 17:09:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
To be honest, I think we have to take some of the blame for the discussions focusing around 4ed. (which I am not sure is really the case)ourselves. Most of the oldtimers are either to shell-shocked or disillusioned to start any subject or feels that they don't have anything to contribute. I'm as guilty of that as anybody.
...although I would defend the "oldtimers" in so far that I feel their problem is not 4e but 4e FR. Which is not the same as those people who have problems with changes in general.
Though being no oldie on this, I have absolutely no problem with 4e as such in terms of game mechanics etc. But I got a serious problem with my favorite setting having been nuked in that edition.
@Gambit: you make a good point with the BG games. That is actually how I got involved with the realms and I am sure I am not the only one.
Hell, I hate change in any form and am not ashamed to admit it. I could go into a rant here, but I will try to stay my usual, cheerful self.
Of course the problem is with 4ed. That doesn't change the fact that there are thousands of pages of Realms material here to discuss, dissect and change. I am of course talking as a Realms RPG'er here, if ones interest in the Realms is as much in seeing it develop or change, especially through the novels, then hats another story. But to me the 3ed felt like a daily tactical bombing of the setting and world I liked and used, so I am glad it is over quite frankly.
And Diffan, using Greyhawk as an example of a world not changing is a little off. The various attempts at doing just that was the main problem and something that split the fans of that setting almost as much as the 4ed. has done here. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 17:19:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So a role-playing game shouldn't first and foremost please and cater to gamers/players? That concept I find strange and alien due to the fact that most RPGs are handled the same way. As for the megalomania, yea Epic levels and spells of previous editions didn't drive people to delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. It's been that way since I can remember playing AD&D.
It would be more accurate to say 4E is tooled to appeal to a particular group or groups of players. Wizards openly acknowledges and supports powergaming more than ever before (see recent 'min/max your min/maxing' ad, the 'character optimization' board, etc.). I find most of the comparisons to World of Warcraft pointlessly vague, but the cultural strand reflected in Rob Pardo's statement that 'Every unit, every class should feel unstoppable, overpowered and epic -- because it's just more fun that way' is one that recent D&D, with its emphasis on powers and egomaniacal class quotes, certainly partakes in. This approach is particularly discordant with the Realms, where such powermongery is characteristic of villains and blowhards, not heroes -- and it makes me more sympathetic to Gabor Lux's 'tyranny of fun' thinking.quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
... since most discussions focus more and more (understandably so) on the latest (per)version, we have nothing more to say.
I hadn't noticed that they particularly do.quote:
Originally posted by Gambit
The ball has been dropped time and time again for our beloved setting, and it saddens me.
Of course the difference is that the downplaying of worlds is now on purpose. That's why criticism of Realms-2008 is hard to target: on one level you can hardly blame managers or designers for following their own business plan, much as I think they're complicit in sad cultural waste and sabotage, and they shouldn't think for a minute that posterity will be kind to them. The Realms is now with the only company in the industry for which a line of Realms sourcebooks wouldn't be one of their most profitable projects. |
Edited by - Faraer on 18 Mar 2010 19:56:07 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 18:19:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And Diffan, using Greyhawk as an example of a world not changing is a little off. The various attempts at doing just that was the main problem and something that split the fans of that setting almost as much as the 4ed. has done here.
The word 'change' keeps being used to describe two completely different phenomena: a system proceeding organically according to its own internal forces and dynamics, and one being made into a different thing from without, either through deliberate decision-making (Realms-2008) or through designers and creative directors drifting from a setting's original nature (lots of post-Gygax Greyhawk authors at TSR, and scattered authors through the publishing history of the Realms). The first may contribute to a world's long-term popularity, the second doesn't unless the new version finds sympathy with a larger group of fans than the original. Let's not conflate them. |
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 19:03:06
|
| Just to make that plain, i.e. that WoW-feeling. It is not that 4E appears to me as an exact tabletop-WoW-clone. It is more like everything has been revamped in a way that there is not that great a difference between a wizard casting a spell dealing damage, a fighter uses whatever 4E offers to deal damage, with the cleric and the rogue follow suit. Sure, there are still differences between the classes, but to me it looks like Sacred, where a fighter can use a set number of attacks for a combo of strikes, while the Warmage can use a set number of spells in a combo of strikes. In the end, it does not matter whether it is a sword or a dagger or a spell that strikes, the end result are 235 +/- 35 points of damage. The 4E fighter gets 35 goodies (powers), the wizard gets 35 goodies (still called spells), same with the cleric (now called prayers), and so it goes on. I look into the MM and see lurkers, soldiers, brutes, artillery, controllers and know that I'm in the wrong movie, as we say over here. It is still just my impression (and I know that in the end, much of D&D is about dealing damage to a creeper) and I have long since stopped explaining my antipathy for 4E. It is not my game and it ain't my Realms any longer. Which is not to say that I won't write something for the Old Realms. |
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerûn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
Edited by - Zanan on 18 Mar 2010 19:04:24 |
|
|
|
Gambit
Learned Scribe
110 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 20:03:23
|
I would also like to address another point. The most current indirect opposition to the realms isnt even coming from anything WotC is doing, but rather the world of Golarion. Paizo has created a more or less "classic fantasy" setting rich with lore which is actively supported and shares many simularities to FR.
As a world with many different nations, some of which drawn from real world inspiration, a nation which feels like Barovia, a group of humans based off of the Cimmerians from Conan, a LE nation closely aligned with the Hells, a Mordor like nation of orcs, plus the classic elven forest nation, and dwarven mountain kingdom, and many more, all of these are drawn together into one cohesive unit that just works and doesnt feel contrived.
Even some of the notable realms designers are now working for Paizo at least in freelance form, even Ed himself has contributed to Pathfinder and Golarion, and I'm pretty sure Elaine has a Golarion novel in the works. Not to mention a few heavily FR favored forums members, such as MerrickCale, Purple Dragon Knight, and KnightErrantJR are regulars on the Paizo forums now.
So there it lies my friends, now I'm not saying that Golarion is going to be the Forgotten Realms death knell, but it has definately had an impact, the biggest of which I will reiterate is that it is actively supported, something FR is not.
I am curious as to how many of you have turned to Golarion in this, FR's darkest times? I know that FR will always be my favorite setting and I will continue to have games here in the years to come, but I myself have enjoyed Golarion and am really looking forward to the Kingmaker adventure path Paizo has just released. |
Edited by - Gambit on 18 Mar 2010 20:08:22 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 21:01:43
|
I like Golarion, have the first four APs at home and a bunch of other stuff, but I think that the setting is actively supported, in print no less, is one of the deciding factors, but the pre last few pages of GHotR Realms is still my favorite. Wizards pissed off a lot of people when withdrawing Dragon and Dungeon from the print-market, pissed off some more folks with the GSL, and their withdrawal of PDFs of old game lines from places like DrivethruRPG etc is the mother of all piss-offs. And that is on top of what they did to the Realms.
Now, if they were to offer the old stuff as POD via Lulu or similar venue, I am quite sure they would make a good deal of money with the old stuff... but that would be a common sense decision, when everything they have done in recent years spits in the face of common sense. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 22:22:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
It would be more accurate to say 4E is tooled to appeal to a particular group or groups of players. Wizards openly acknowledges and supports powergaming more than ever before (see recent 'min/max your min/maxing' ad, the 'character optimization' board, etc.). I find most of the comparisons to World of Warcraft pointlessly vague, but the cultural strand reflected in Rob Pardo's statement that 'Every unit, every class should feel unstoppable, overpowered and epic -- because it's just more fun that way' is one that recent D&D, with its emphasis on powers and egomaniacal class quotes, certainly partakes in. This approach is particularly discordant with the Realms, where such powermongery is characteristic of villains and blowhards, not heroes -- and it makes me more sympathetic to Gabor Lux's 'tyranny of fun' thinking.
I'll agree that 4E is more geared towards combat in the way the books are presented. Each class getting a selection of powers (mostly for attacks) and many of the feats designed to enhance combative effectivness but I've yet to see how this negates role-play more-so than previous editions.
As for the Character Optimization boards, they were there for 3.5 too and have helped many people break that system. This is nothing new. And I actually didn't read the article of min/maxing, but now that you mention it, I think i'll give it a once over.
In reguards to game design, I feel that not every class is "uber-kewl" and/or overpowered (trust me, they're not) but there is also a sense of usefulness over the span of a character's leveling. A 1st level fighter is just as needed in a group as a 20th level fighter of the same group. But in 3.5, I've felt that unless you have a very specific build and get spells from some PrC, well a 20th level figher isn't going to amount to much on the combat side of the game. Yes, balance is an issue that 4E is focused on, but that's only because of the huge gaps that previous editions made when it came to balance.
The reference that the mechanics of 4E is discordant with the Realms is, I feel, a bit over the top. The feel of the Realms is what a group makes it out to be. If you run a low-magic, low-level campaign set in the Realms, then yes, it will feel less "power-gamey" than those who chalk up the high-magic, high-fantasy style of the setting. I'm not saying either is wrong or right, just that they're different and can be supported by any edition of D&D. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 23:09:15
|
| Diffan, I didn't say and don't think the 4E rules negate roleplay, and of course it didn't start the powergaming trend. By recent D&D I don't mean just the last few years. One's campaign it what one makes it, but the wide gap between Ed's design philosophy and 4E's is quite plain; its designers trumpeted some of those differences in the promotion of Realms-2008. This discord also isn't abruptly new, but rather a matter of the game's drift and imposition of a much more consistent central design ethic than in the 1990s. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 00:41:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
To me, the 4E Realms constitute deicide, mass-genocide, selective oblitteration and annihilation of the world plus handing incentives for megalomania to the PC. On top of that, previous half-No-No's seem to have become the norm, a norm to please the gamers (i.e. players), not the lorekeepers.
So a role-playing game shouldn't first and foremost please and cater to gamers/players? That concept I find strange and alien due to the fact that most RPGs are handled the same way. As for the megalomania, yea Epic levels and spells of previous editions didn't drive people to delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. It's been that way since I can remember playing AD&D.
I'm in complete agreement with both of you (!?) on this point. The big problem I have with the Spellplague and the discontinuity in the Realmslore was that it was done essentially to please the people who didn't play in the Realms to begin with. Something tells me that even something as drastic as the Spellplague won't change that situation much. If you don't like all the lore for the world, it's simple: Ignore it! Build your Realms the way you want it. The Spellplague has forced me, and many others, to do exactly that. I also agree that 4E caters to the fragile-ego types with its power scaling and new rules like healing surges. "You don't like it when your PC dies? Now (s)he doesn't ever have to!" The way I (and other DMs I've played with) have handled this is simple: If you and your PC don't do anything stupid, your PC won't die. There is always that risk of a lucky crit getting you, but without risk, why bother playing the game in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Taking anything privately produced and e.g. made public on here out of the gamers hands (GLC) just adds to the alienation of the previous generation, not mentioning the DDI "lore" stuff, which essentially cuts off the old school folk wanting to read books on the train or carry them to the next gaming session. (And I don't want to bolster the printer industry's profits either.)
I can agree that I wish there were more book copies of the DDI content. And I've stated that they should put out a FR annual Dragon/Dungeon style book like they did with the Dragon Annual. But I'm just as happy to use a lap-top for any source material I might need on the go. The DDI Compendium basically has everything I would need to know about playing. Not to mention the Character Builder and Adventure Builder make creating anything I want easy and quick.
The DDI is completely missing the boat where I'm concerned. To me, the whole point of moving to an electronic format from print is so that people can pick and choose the articles they want to pay for, not subscribe blindly to a publication that they can't even browse through before buying. That was why I never had a subscription to the printed magazines either; my FLGS always had them in stock, and kept a copy of each for me, as they knew I would be in on my next pay day. Now, with 4E coming out more or less simultaneously with my last inter-urban move, I don't even know the owners of my new FLGS, as I never go there except to check out the dice once in a while, and my visits have nothing like the energy and excitement that was present in the days of 3.5 and earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
As always, you can play any system in any age of the Realms, pre- or post-ToT, or pre- or post-Spellplague. I wanted Myrkul for my 3RE Night Below campaign and hence placed it at 1200 D.R., no problem. I have lorebooks and material here to spent the rest of my days happily playing AD&D or 3RE in the Realms pre-Spellplague. Still, there is that lingering thought that by canon (and I am a traditionalist that accepts canon*) nigh everything that I have played or nigh all characters and deities I used will be gone come 1380 and for any greater reason than IMHO "just because". There was no reason whatsoever to do what WotC did to the Realms, not even for all the strangenesses of 4E.
There were plenty of reasons that I'll really not go into right now, but I for one felt that if the setting had remained exactly the same, it would've shared the same fate as Greyhawk. IMO, better to change the face than let the setting die and fade into obscurity.
I agree with this, but there were plenty of ways to add to the setting without taking anything away from it. Remember the world map outline in the 3E FRCS and all those continents labelled "Unknown Lands"? They could have easily taken 4E to one of those places and left Faerun for a time; I've heard that this was the option that Ed himself fought hard for. Bob Salvatore could have continued writing Drizzt novels just as he's doing now anyway, and Ed could have continued writing novels about Elminster, the Seven Sisters, and the Knights of Myth Drannor, and other authors (not to mention the players and DMs) would have had a new sandbox to play in. As I have said before elsewhere in these scrolls, if you don't like the powerful NPCs, IGNORE THEM! Just because they're in a sourcebook doesn't mean they have to be in your campaign. [/rant]
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
*That said, some of the "forced"-canon (drow and Mystra deicide) includes so much garbage, that this old feeling about "new canon beats old and holds true" essentially went out of the window at the end of 3RE.
It saddens me that someone with your knowledge, experiences, and insight to this *still* great setting won't be adding to the community. Even if it were Pathfinder conversions, which I'd love to see. I've always been one to promote creation, conversion, and that homebrew style and anything you do share with us will be prized highly.
I know the changes to the setting have shaken up a lot of things, but I for one don't feel that it needs to disrupt a community so bent on providing anything Realmsian. Yes, people will talk about 4E and Post-Spellplague events but none of that diminishes FR's elaboate and detailed history. In so many humble words: "Can't we get along?"
Again, I agree with you both here. Zanan, I'm in the process of reworking the events of 1385 to make sense (a big job, I know), and my willingness to throw the canonballs out the window along with the canon (motivated by the time jump, geographical changes, and NPC deaths far more than the Spellplague itself) is the best thing to ever happen to me as a Realms DM. I agree with Diffan entirely regarding your value to the community, and Realmslore contributions are just that, regardless of their position relative to canon. Many of us are reimagining the Spellplague or ignoring it altogether (which I had planned to do, but then I came up with a number of very cool ideas to make it accomplish changes that I wanted for the Realms), and the larger a body of alternative lore we have to draw from, the richer all of our campaigns will be for 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 Mar 2010 00:44:55 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 00:51:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gambit
I would also like to address another point. The most current indirect opposition to the realms isnt even coming from anything WotC is doing, but rather the world of Golarion. Paizo has created a more or less "classic fantasy" setting rich with lore which is actively supported and shares many simularities to FR.
As a world with many different nations, some of which drawn from real world inspiration, a nation which feels like Barovia, a group of humans based off of the Cimmerians from Conan, a LE nation closely aligned with the Hells, a Mordor like nation of orcs, plus the classic elven forest nation, and dwarven mountain kingdom, and many more, all of these are drawn together into one cohesive unit that just works and doesnt feel contrived.
Even some of the notable realms designers are now working for Paizo at least in freelance form, even Ed himself has contributed to Pathfinder and Golarion, and I'm pretty sure Elaine has a Golarion novel in the works. Not to mention a few heavily FR favored forums members, such as MerrickCale, Purple Dragon Knight, and KnightErrantJR are regulars on the Paizo forums now.
So there it lies my friends, now I'm not saying that Golarion is going to be the Forgotten Realms death knell, but it has definately had an impact, the biggest of which I will reiterate is that it is actively supported, something FR is not.
I am curious as to how many of you have turned to Golarion in this, FR's darkest times? I know that FR will always be my favorite setting and I will continue to have games here in the years to come, but I myself have enjoyed Golarion and am really looking forward to the Kingmaker adventure path Paizo has just released.
Golarion is brilliant... so much so that I'm making the non-4E-canon Toril bigger for it. The whole Abeir-Toril conjunction nonsense? I'm employing the same basic idea, but pulling in Golarion instead of mucking about with Faerun and (by implication) the rest of Toril. I have other ideas too, but I need to do some planet-size assessment first.  |
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. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 01:35:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Diffan, I didn't say and don't think the 4E rules negate roleplay, and of course it didn't start the powergaming trend. By recent D&D I don't mean just the last few years. One's campaign it what one makes it, but the wide gap between Ed's design philosophy and 4E's is quite plain; its designers trumpeted some of those differences in the promotion of Realms-2008. This discord also isn't abruptly new, but rather a matter of the game's drift and imposition of a much more consistent central design ethic than in the 1990s.
Ok, sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Generally, when people compare 4E to earlier editions, it usually means all combat, no story-line and very little if any role-play. And I'll definitly agree WotC really went the way of organized play in the form of RPGA and Living Forgotten Realms. And that has driven the combat-rules centric ideal rather than character development of previous editions.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I'm in complete agreement with both of you (!?) on this point. The big problem I have with the Spellplague and the discontinuity in the Realmslore was that it was done essentially to please the people who didn't play in the Realms to begin with. Something tells me that even something as drastic as the Spellplague won't change that situation much. If you don't like all the lore for the world, it's simple: Ignore it! Build your Realms the way you want it.
I think this is one of those 2-sided coin arguments. True, if a player didn't like the Epic NPCs, Egyptian themed nations, the "New World" feel of Maztica, etc.. they could just ignore them. But the same is true of Dragonborn, Spellplague, the death of deities, etc.. One can just incorporate what they want into their Realms game and exclude the rest. I've been a firm believer that the edition does not rule the setting. You can use 4E rules in pre-spellplague Realms, 2nd rules in the post-spellplague Realms, or any other strange combo you like. Any which way you look at it, someone's stuck going against Canon.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
The Spellplague has forced me, and many others, to do exactly that. I also agree that 4E caters to the fragile-ego types with its power scaling and new rules like healing surges. "You don't like it when your PC dies? Now (s)he doesn't ever have to!" The way I (and other DMs I've played with) have handled this is simple: If you and your PC don't do anything stupid, your PC won't die. There is always that risk of a lucky crit getting you, but without risk, why bother playing the game in the first place?
I've successfully had 2 PC killed in my first couple of 4E campaigns. I risked making an attack when I probably should've used my Second Wind. This resulted in my character dropping into the negative hit points and then I failed my death saving throws. Our healer was out of healing prayes. I find it funny because I've only had less than 5 PCs die using 3.5, lol. Just giving you a player's perspective of death in 4E. The reason I like healing in 4E more so is because the cleric or leader of a party doesn't have to be a total heal-bot for half his character's career.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I agree with this, but there were plenty of ways to add to the setting without taking anything away from it. Remember the world map outline in the 3E FRCS and all those continents labelled "Unknown Lands"? They could have easily taken 4E to one of those places and left Faerun for a time; I've heard that this was the option that Ed himself fought hard for. Bob Salvatore could have continued writing Drizzt novels just as he's doing now anyway, and Ed could have continued writing novels about Elminster, the Seven Sisters, and the Knights of Myth Drannor, and other authors (not to mention the players and DMs) would have had a new sandbox to play in. As I have said before elsewhere in these scrolls, if you don't like the powerful NPCs, IGNORE THEM! Just because they're in a sourcebook doesn't mean they have to be in your campaign.
Honestly, why would they bother with that? I mean, your going to have to do a campaign from scratch in that sense. So the boundaries and the possibility of a few or more Gods are there. The only thing that would be in common was the name on the cover. Plus, it still wouldn't address the problems that FR was facing. I'll be the first to say I cared nothing for Maztica, Mulhorand, or Unther. I thought the plethora of Gods FR had was over-lapping and unoriginal. So I feel that the 4E Realms are more catered to my needs, likes, and wants. I think we're back to the 2-sided coin debate, lol.
|
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 04:55:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gambit
I would also like to address another point. The most current indirect opposition to the realms isnt even coming from anything WotC is doing, but rather the world of Golarion. Paizo has created a more or less "classic fantasy" setting rich with lore which is actively supported and shares many simularities to FR.
As a world with many different nations, some of which drawn from real world inspiration, a nation which feels like Barovia, a group of humans based off of the Cimmerians from Conan, a LE nation closely aligned with the Hells, a Mordor like nation of orcs, plus the classic elven forest nation, and dwarven mountain kingdom, and many more, all of these are drawn together into one cohesive unit that just works and doesnt feel contrived.
Even some of the notable realms designers are now working for Paizo at least in freelance form, even Ed himself has contributed to Pathfinder and Golarion, and I'm pretty sure Elaine has a Golarion novel in the works. Not to mention a few heavily FR favored forums members, such as MerrickCale, Purple Dragon Knight, and KnightErrantJR are regulars on the Paizo forums now.
So there it lies my friends, now I'm not saying that Golarion is going to be the Forgotten Realms death knell, but it has definately had an impact, the biggest of which I will reiterate is that it is actively supported, something FR is not.
I am curious as to how many of you have turned to Golarion in this, FR's darkest times? I know that FR will always be my favorite setting and I will continue to have games here in the years to come, but I myself have enjoyed Golarion and am really looking forward to the Kingmaker adventure path Paizo has just released.
Gambit, what you posted here got me to thinking about something. And that is that Ed is an absolute creative genius in every sense of the word. There isn't one area of creativity that he's lacking, and he does it all at a high level, and given from THO's writings over the years, he's had this talent since the late 70s/early 80s. If we were to quantify Ed's talent and production, it'd be comparible to Stephen King.
If we were to quantify his ability in way a North American sports enthusiast would be able to relate to, it'd be that Ed's talent is that of a franchise player; someone who doesn't just make perennial all-star games, but is a perennial Most Valuable Player candidate, as he keeps his team winning (As in, Forgotten Realms was the dominant fantasy setting from 1992 till 2007, as far as I know).
All this high level talent and high level production, and yet according to something I read of THO, he lives on a farm, is overworked, and is underpaid to the point that he can barely afford high-speed internet. This is equivalent to having (for North American sports enthusiasts) Chris Bosh and Kobe Bryant playing for peanuts, despite being absolutely dominant, the reasons why EVERYTHING about thier teams work and have been able to work even in their occasional absence. Basically playing for peanuts despite meaning EVERYTHING to the franchises that employ them.
I'm saying all this to say that while 4E created a major divide amongst FR enthusiasts, I reckon that Ed was hoodwinked right from the jump when he sold his work to TSR in 1986 or 1987, and has thus been hoodwinked from money which should rightfully be his (but Ed kept on going, as the way he writes juss outright shows that he's got a fire in his bones that spurs him on, knowing that yes he's being cheated, but he wrote lore anyways b/c he knew of the impact it'd have on folk who'd grow up on his stuff), enabling so much of his work to be Spellplagued so many years later.
And of course, we hear none of this b/c of lawyer gag orders and such like, but given what I know of various arts and entertainment industries and everything we see Ed do and his standard of living, I reckon its a good thing to speculate what exactly a potential gag order is hiding. And yes I feel fully justified writing this here, in the Open, Free, and Spirited Debate thread. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 10:00:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And Diffan, using Greyhawk as an example of a world not changing is a little off. The various attempts at doing just that was the main problem and something that split the fans of that setting almost as much as the 4ed. has done here.
The word 'change' keeps being used to describe two completely different phenomena: a system proceeding organically according to its own internal forces and dynamics, and one being made into a different thing from without, either through deliberate decision-making (Realms-2008) or through designers and creative directors drifting from a setting's original nature (lots of post-Gygax Greyhawk authors at TSR, and scattered authors through the publishing history of the Realms). The first may contribute to a world's long-term popularity, the second doesn't unless the new version finds sympathy with a larger group of fans than the original. Let's not conflate them.
Which is my point. All settings develop in both published form and in use. This is not a bad thing and is what, in my opinion, makes for a "living" setting. But the various facelifts and major upheavals done to the various old TSR settings (Greyhawk wars, 5th age and the Realms at several occasions) have not been that successful and often not needed exept for reasons that have to do with sales and profile. This is not necessarily a sign of a lesser quality by the products in question, few people I have heard has called Carl Sargents version of Greyhawk bad in its own right, but it is a breach of the "feel" and natural development that leads to the settings being parted up in publishing periods more than historical periods, where the lore is concerned. And he same goes for its fanbase, which at all of the upheavals have been fragmented to a grater or lesser degree.
Some people would say that Greyhawk is dead, but I would not be surprised if the setting did survive the Realms in one form or another. And I am not saying that as a fan of the setting, which I never got that heavily into.
OK, so that became a bit of a rambling, and I am not sure if I really got my point through clearly. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 12:50:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
quote:
Originally posted by Gambit
I would also like to address another point. The most current indirect opposition to the realms isnt even coming from anything WotC is doing, but rather the world of Golarion. Paizo has created a more or less "classic fantasy" setting rich with lore which is actively supported and shares many simularities to FR.
As a world with many different nations, some of which drawn from real world inspiration, a nation which feels like Barovia, a group of humans based off of the Cimmerians from Conan, a LE nation closely aligned with the Hells, a Mordor like nation of orcs, plus the classic elven forest nation, and dwarven mountain kingdom, and many more, all of these are drawn together into one cohesive unit that just works and doesnt feel contrived.
Even some of the notable realms designers are now working for Paizo at least in freelance form, even Ed himself has contributed to Pathfinder and Golarion, and I'm pretty sure Elaine has a Golarion novel in the works. Not to mention a few heavily FR favored forums members, such as MerrickCale, Purple Dragon Knight, and KnightErrantJR are regulars on the Paizo forums now.
So there it lies my friends, now I'm not saying that Golarion is going to be the Forgotten Realms death knell, but it has definately had an impact, the biggest of which I will reiterate is that it is actively supported, something FR is not.
I am curious as to how many of you have turned to Golarion in this, FR's darkest times? I know that FR will always be my favorite setting and I will continue to have games here in the years to come, but I myself have enjoyed Golarion and am really looking forward to the Kingmaker adventure path Paizo has just released.
Gambit, what you posted here got me to thinking about something. And that is that Ed is an absolute creative genius in every sense of the word. There isn't one area of creativity that he's lacking, and he does it all at a high level, and given from THO's writings over the years, he's had this talent since the late 70s/early 80s. If we were to quantify Ed's talent and production, it'd be comparible to Stephen King.
If we were to quantify his ability in way a North American sports enthusiast would be able to relate to, it'd be that Ed's talent is that of a franchise player; someone who doesn't just make perennial all-star games, but is a perennial Most Valuable Player candidate, as he keeps his team winning (As in, Forgotten Realms was the dominant fantasy setting from 1992 till 2007, as far as I know).
All this high level talent and high level production, and yet according to something I read of THO, he lives on a farm, is overworked, and is underpaid to the point that he can barely afford high-speed internet. This is equivalent to having (for North American sports enthusiasts) Chris Bosh and Kobe Bryant playing for peanuts, despite being absolutely dominant, the reasons why EVERYTHING about thier teams work and have been able to work even in their occasional absence. Basically playing for peanuts despite meaning EVERYTHING to the franchises that employ them.
I'm saying all this to say that while 4E created a major divide amongst FR enthusiasts, I reckon that Ed was hoodwinked right from the jump when he sold his work to TSR in 1986 or 1987, and has thus been hoodwinked from money which should rightfully be his (but Ed kept on going, as the way he writes juss outright shows that he's got a fire in his bones that spurs him on, knowing that yes he's being cheated, but he wrote lore anyways b/c he knew of the impact it'd have on folk who'd grow up on his stuff), enabling so much of his work to be Spellplagued so many years later.
And of course, we hear none of this b/c of lawyer gag orders and such like, but given what I know of various arts and entertainment industries and everything we see Ed do and his standard of living, I reckon its a good thing to speculate what exactly a potential gag order is hiding. And yes I feel fully justified writing this here, in the Open, Free, and Spirited Debate thread.
Actually, I don't believe there are any gag orders, I don't believe that Ed could be hoodwinked by anyone and I don't think that he's being cheated. He has plenty of other projects outside of the Realms (the Falconfar Saga, the Band of Four series, Castlemourn and a bazillion other projects, RPG-related and not). He signed over the Realms willingly and whole-hearted and, in every discussion regarding the sign-off, has expressed no regrets and, instead, says he enjoys to see what other people can add to the world he's created. He also loves where he lives and his job as a librarian. Nothing I know of the man (both from anecdotal stories and my personal meetings with him) has ever given me the impression that he has ever felt taken advantage of in this situation or that he would change anything about it. |
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 - 19 Mar 2010 : 13:27:25
|
Didn't Ed start developing the Realms in 1967 with stories about Mirt.
I plan on running a 3E or a 4E Realms game set in 225DR.
I got tired of all of the personal attacks on the Current batch of Authors and Designers. I have been guilty of it myself. That behavior should not be tolerated here.
I remember having an Ephiany around the middle of July 2008 on the Wizards Boards. I realized that what WotC did was going to happen one day or another, so lets get any reboots over with now. Give it a few years and the current crew will go on to other endeavers, and we will have a new batch of creative talent at Wizards.
Lets be honest the Golden age of the Realms ended when Steven Schend and the other Realmslore Greats left WotC. Do you really think that the Spellplague would have happened if the were still working on the Realms on a full-time basis?
Give it time, the Lore is starting to come out. The 4E Novels are great. The ones that I have read(almost all of them) are pretty good. I feel that the authors have a level of freedom to write new stories in the Realms and not worry about having to read up on 20 years worth of material if they don't want to.
Pretty soon "people" will be griping about the spellscared characters from the novels. They wont be griping about Elminster and the "FR Justice League" anymore. So let people gripe about WotC's bright ideas, and not what Ed created. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 16:01:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ok, sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Generally, when people compare 4E to earlier editions, it usually means all combat, no story-line and very little if any role-play. Another example of polarization is where discussions of system's effect on play become a staw-man impasse between 'no effect' and 'determines all'.
The Red Walker's opening post talks about two sides. To some extent there's bound to be, but isn't it a much more interesting discussion when people engage with the details of individual viewpoints, rather than bellicose line dancing?quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
But the various facelifts and major upheavals done to the various old TSR settings (Greyhawk wars, 5th age and the Realms at several occasions) have not been that successful and often not needed exept for reasons that have to do with sales and profile.
I remember on the AOL Greyhawk folder in the 90s, where Erik Mona of Paizo posted as Iquander, a few posters greeted Rob Kuntz's appearance and suggestion that Greyhawk might be something other than or more than TSR published after 1986 with plain disbelief. Who does this guy think he is questioning Rary the Traitor? And he wasn't arrogant at all; he went out of way to accommodate even what had been published about his own player character. (Have you read Living Fantasy? Probably the most underappreciated of Gary's later writing.)
In many ways TSR and Wizards have made poor use of Ed's nonesuch talents, it's true. If he has no regrets at all, I'd be amazed. But that deal for a crazy (small) amount of money and a computer brought Ed many friends, talented collaborators, contacts, and a longer publishing run than anyone predicted in 1987. |
Edited by - Faraer on 19 Mar 2010 20:23:36 |
|
|
|
wintermute27
Learned Scribe
USA
179 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 03:50:45
|
After a recent move left me computerless for about a month, I spent some time getting caught up here at the Keep and ran across this wonderful post.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Hi again, all.
One thing I'm moved to say after reading some recent threads here at the Keep: scribes who still have their campaigns set in the mid-1300s, and don't (yet or ever) want to uproot everything and jump ahead into the late 1400s (the time-setting for the 4e Realms) should feel free to quiz Ed about 1350s, 1360s, and 1370s Realmslore. (Ed is working with various LFR and other freelance designers - - and editors, writers, and designers working for Wizards, too - - on 4e-era Realmslore, but is much less free to share details of that "more modern" lore.) Candlekeep can still function just fine as it always has, at the level of providing lore for individual campaigns humming along.
In short, "edition wars" shouldn't matter. DMs have always been able to pick and choose what they want to use of the lore provided, twist and modify it, and listen to what others have done either as entertainment or to inform themselves of alternatives, possibilities, and object lessons.
Ed has always portrayed Candlekeep in his Realms fiction ("The Endless Chants of Alaundo" is just one of the unpublished pieces that concern the Keep) as a community of scribes that live and work together, yet often hold fiercely opposed opinions, from scribe to scribe. "Of one accord but not one mind," as he put it.
We can all still do that.
Or, instead, speculate about what I'm not wearing.
love to all,
THO
I'm a relative newcomer to the Realms (started in just after 3.5 came out) and about a year ago I decided to go out and buy myself the main campaign box sets/books for all 4 editions of D&D. I guess it was because I wanted to know more about the Realms and their history. After reading through them (especially the wonderful Old Grey Box) it hit me. For me, the Realms isn't what is in the books, it's what happens at the table.
Interestingly it was around the time of this epiphany that I became more active here at Candlekeep, because I suddenly wanted to learn about your Realms. In fact, the game I'm planning right now is set in Cormyr during The Year of the Worm, right where the 1st edition boxed set starts off, and I'm using the Pathfinder RPG rules to run it. As has been said before, the rules system you use is far less important that the story that you tell with it. I personally don't see anything wrong with someone taking a 1st edition Magic-User on a trek into the Plaguewrought Lands to hunt down Spellscarred cultists or playing an Eladrin Warlord leading a squad of troops during the elven Crown Wars.
I have noticed, though, that in the last year at least, activity seems to have dropped off a bit. I tend to lurk about these halls and often I find that on most scrolls I read, any points I'd like to make have been made already, but I guess that is no excuse. I know that after reading this scroll, I'm going to try and be better about posting here, and do my part in participating in open, free, and spirited debate....
Right after I finish speculating on The Hooded One's frequent lack of clothing.  |
My Current Campaign: The Adventures of the Stonelanders |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 04:43:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by wintermute27
Right after I finish speculating on The Hooded One's frequent lack of clothing.
I put money on socks |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 05:20:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Alaundo and co. have enough on their plates with the CK2 project and the collation of "So Saith Ed" that needs to be caught up on.
Actually, I've have the compiled '09 replies ready for months. It's just that Alaundo hasn't had the chance to properly update the "So Saith Ed" archive on the main site. And I'm up-to-date with Ed's 2010 replies also, so I'll be sending the first quarter batch to Big Al soon.
quote:
Edit: CK2 should be our #1 focus right now as a community; the last half-dozen posts I've made have timed out and resulted in either double-posts or my post count not incrementing. Strangely, it's either one or the other... any ideas, Sage? 
It's likely a result of the bizarre nature of the ASP scripting errors, I'd imagine. |
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 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 13:59:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Edit: CK2 should be our #1 focus right now as a community; the last half-dozen posts I've made have timed out and resulted in either double-posts or my post count not incrementing. Strangely, it's either one or the other... any ideas, Sage?
It's likely a result of the bizarre nature of the ASP scripting errors, I'd imagine.
Yeah, it has nothing at all to do with Sage's gremlins... |
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! |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 15:34:12
|
For me, it's simple. I knew there would be a huge divide. I knew there wouldn't be anymore proper Realms lore being introduced to the setting from 4E and up. I knew there'd be a few here that actually enjoy 4e Realms and it contradicts heavily of what I believe the Realms should've been, or at least been handled in preparation for 4E. The forums, to me, has now been a place to gather lore quickly when I ask for references to a particular place or event, I get very good replies. But with the number of sages here decreasing, that's becoming harder, too.
Also, I personally cannot reply in a discussion involving any topic that likes to sneak "4E lore" into it. I personally do not believe 4E Realms is the "real Realms" and I do not enjoy speculating on topics that involve contrived additions from 4E Lore digging its claws into the topic. I just don't believe it has its place.
I think many fail to see the truth of the matter. The Realms is not anything at all what it used to be, and every contradiction is simply a "Spellplague" issue makes things not only severely muddled and chaotic, but also insults all Realms designers and authors that came before along with insulting the loyal fanbase. The current Realms is a mere shadow of its former self. Clinging to it feels icky, to me anyway.
Therefore, to me, relevance to the Realms only comes from 3E and previous edition material. It's hard for me to accept, or twist, whatever 4E says because it wasn't ever originally intended to be Realmslore. It will always be something that is made to "shove" into the Realms and make it work, no matter what. One major point of the reset is so authors don't have to research a ton of FR material to write a book or novel. So why, then, would they continue that trend when writing 4E Realmslore? They don't have to. This is why I know for a fact the Realms we've come to know for a couple of decades is dead.
One thing would bring more alive back to these boards other than research is this:
Why doesn't Ed and other Realms authors that frequent here discuss the current and future of the Realms as if the Spellplague never happened? As if 4E never came? What lore would we have received if 3E was still going right now? What could we expect, say, in 1380 D.R. of 3E Realms? I am sure they had plans before 4E topic ever arose. That is the stuff I think should also be discussed here by them, not just keeping it in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but also the official "What if?" (like the Marvel Comics, yes) from these same authors. I highly doubt WotC would care, because it's not 4E material and it could never contradict 4e material either.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 15:34:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
[(Have you read Living Fantasy? Probably the most underappreciated of Gary's later writing.)
Thanks, I have been wondering about this book and the other books in the Troll Lords Gygax-series, but the D20 tag has kept me away. How much use are they for anyone using older editions (or other systems for that matter)? I would guess that the book in question is usable as its be Gygax, but how are the others? |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 16:13:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Edit: CK2 should be our #1 focus right now as a community; the last half-dozen posts I've made have timed out and resulted in either double-posts or my post count not incrementing. Strangely, it's either one or the other... any ideas, Sage?
It's likely a result of the bizarre nature of the ASP scripting errors, I'd imagine.
Yeah, it has nothing at all to do with Sage's gremlins...
"I will love them and hold them and pet them... ... "
|
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 |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 17:13:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gambit
I would also like to address another point. The most current indirect opposition to the realms isnt even coming from anything WotC is doing, but rather the world of Golarion. Paizo has created a more or less "classic fantasy" setting rich with lore which is actively supported and shares many simularities to FR.
As a world with many different nations, some of which drawn from real world inspiration, a nation which feels like Barovia, a group of humans based off of the Cimmerians from Conan, a LE nation closely aligned with the Hells, a Mordor like nation of orcs, plus the classic elven forest nation, and dwarven mountain kingdom, and many more, all of these are drawn together into one cohesive unit that just works and doesnt feel contrived.
Even some of the notable realms designers are now working for Paizo at least in freelance form, even Ed himself has contributed to Pathfinder and Golarion, and I'm pretty sure Elaine has a Golarion novel in the works. Not to mention a few heavily FR favored forums members, such as MerrickCale, Purple Dragon Knight, and KnightErrantJR are regulars on the Paizo forums now.
So there it lies my friends, now I'm not saying that Golarion is going to be the Forgotten Realms death knell, but it has definately had an impact, the biggest of which I will reiterate is that it is actively supported, something FR is not.
I am curious as to how many of you have turned to Golarion in this, FR's darkest times? I know that FR will always be my favorite setting and I will continue to have games here in the years to come, but I myself have enjoyed Golarion and am really looking forward to the Kingmaker adventure path Paizo has just released.
Umm... Feeling snarky this morning.
Confirming: Elaine has a Golarion novel for the Pathfinder Fiction line. As does Paul Kemp and Dave Gross.
I know KnightErrantJR personally, and yes, he has pretty well gone completely to Golarion. I wish he hadn't, but such is the path of the lore. The designers seem to actually care what the fans think, as well as are active on their forums. I can't say the same for the WotC designers, as they got quieted the last I visited their forums (although that was over 2 years ago).
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What happened to Open ,Free and Spirited Debate?
