| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jan 2012 : 05:19:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Aside from their particular planar origins and that they're something of a diametrically opposed "pantheon" - is there any real functional difference between primordials and gods?
I'd assume there is some difference when attempting comparisons in terms of power levels between primordials and deities.
And I've seen instances of primordials described as "god-like," suggesting that they aren't always wholly considered as "gods" in the traditional conception of the term for the Realms.
However the relationship between worship and the overall power level of a primordial works, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it functions in the same way as that between a mortal and a deity on Toril.
...
Of course, this doesn't necessarily discount the possibility that the saurials might have worshipped the primordials... as per your theory about the saurial race originating on Abeir.
But, as I said above, I don't think the relationship between a worshipper and a primordial works in the same fashion on Abeir, as that of a worshipper and a deity on Toril.
Do primordials have portfolios? Are they able to grant a portion of their near god-like power to worshippers?
Judging from what little we know of the Order of the Dawn and their collective worship of the Dawn Titans, any and all possibilities could be realised.
However, we do know that the saurials converted to the worship of equivalent deities in Faerûn. And so far as I've seen, there aren't many equivalent relationships between deities of Toril and primordials of Abeir that would allow the saurials to convert their faith from one to the other. |
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 |
 |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2012 : 07:42:27
|
Haha, my "theory" was little more than idle speculation anyhow. I was hardly thinking about saurials anymore, Primordials had captured my interest. 
I'm surprised that Primordials and Abeir have been left so vague for so long, even when 4E begins to approach end-of-life. I would hope that they'll receive a proper treatment in 5E. It seems that right now a DM is faced with two worlds, one richly detailed with people and history and maps and gods and known quantities, the other just a sketchy scary place where the ugly natives worship mighty bad skookum juju white devils ... not much of a contest, vibrant dynamic known world vs undeveloped uninteresting unworthy one. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2012 : 07:48:17
|
| Ah, now that you point it out, I'm not even sure if illucid is a proper word, Erik. I can't even blame that one on translation quirks. It's probably just one of my usual abolically promulent disabuses of the language. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2012 : 08:40:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My vote depends on when the reboot is. I personally would prefer rolling back to right after Cloak & Dagger and before the 3E FRCS. From that point, I'd go forward with some of the things done in 3E, change some others, and totally ignore some events.
I'm with Wooly on this one. My second choice would be simply to go back to the pre-Spellplague mega-trilogy and actually allow the PCs to prevent the Spellplague and be the uber-heroes that 4E wanted the PCs to be. If you want the PCs to be the focus of the game, you don't give them an opportunity to avert cataclysm, then make it meaningless. That, more than anything, was what ticked me off (politely put) about the Spellplague. The hundred-year time-jump was a close second. |
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. |
|
|
|
Bakra
Senior Scribe
628 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2012 : 21:27:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Haha, my "theory" was little more than idle speculation anyhow. I was hardly thinking about saurials anymore, Primordials had captured my interest.
I'm surprised that Primordials and Abeir have been left so vague for so long, even when 4E begins to approach end-of-life. I would hope that they'll receive a proper treatment in 5E. It seems that right now a DM is faced with two worlds, one richly detailed with people and history and maps and gods and known quantities, the other just a sketchy scary place where the ugly natives worship mighty bad skookum juju white devils ... not much of a contest, vibrant dynamic known world vs undeveloped uninteresting unworthy one.
On the wizards website is an excerpt from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos entitled Elemental Magic. Scroll down to see some information on Primordials of Abeir-Toril and click the PDF for a list of ones found on Toril. |
I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 21:57:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
See this scroll Markus
It might answer your questions, or leave you with more...
First you make me look at the WotC site...
I had something different here, but I just erased a mini-rant. I have been calling for a 'time for healing', and I realize now, I am part of the infection. I won't say why, but lets just say I didn't get past the second paragraph.
<snip>
I suspect this may have had to do with one of the names mentioned in that second paragraph, which also causes me to have doubts about the success of this endeavour. Still, I'm interested in seeing what WotC has in mind... if they plan to open up the entire timeline and support the Spellplague in addition to a possible future without the Spellplague, I'm completely on board with that plan. |
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 22:14:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
How is anything being forced down our throats?
If you don't like a book then don't buy it, don't read it, simply ignore it, or throw it away. Why force yourself to slavishly adhere to brand dogma when there are always alternatives?
I think it's more accurate for me to say it feels forced onto the setting, not forced on me. Of course I pick and choose what to buy, but when something feels forced I don't really want to buy it. In 1E-3E, some things felt like they stretched a little too far, but I was still happy to buy it.
I agree with Therise here. If we wanted to play without the Spellplague and wanted new material, we were essentially told to take a hike... and many of us did, over to Golarion or homebrew worlds, and that is why WotC is back at the drawing board. We need a Realms that accommodates everyone and provides new material for all eras of play, including (imho) a "future" (post-1375) in which the PCs succeed in preventing the Spellplague.
I fully agree with Ayrik that we don't have to use it if we don't like it, but we weren't being given any other options by WotC, and that's why people (including myself) left the Realms behind. If WotC is going to open up the timeline to all eras, they need to be prepared to re-release the product of past editions (and if I'm right about the proposed plan for D&D Next, stats may not even need to be converted), at the very least in PDF format. If the PDFs are reasonably priced, I'll happily buy them all, budget permitting, even though I've made my own PDFs of the older-edition titles I own. Anyway, that's my two coppers on this particular matter.  |
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 22:27:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In that, we are in agreement.
We can't erase incidents in our own pasts, as much as we'd like to, so it does make sense to use everything and move forward (not time-wise - I am talking philosophically ATM). I think moving the (4e) timeline forward at this point would just be the final nail in the coffin.
Start fresh, but use the canon and fix it as they go along (not change it - in most cases it only needs some tweaking to get back on-track). That means re-writing the bulk of old material, but re-writing should be a lot easier then starting from scratch.
I do like the idea of leaving 4e as the 'world that could happen', which wouldn't necessarily discard it... just put it on a shelf where it won't hurt anybody. 
That would give the designers (in the future) the choice of either 'correcting' the future of the Realms, or moving forward with it as presented; the beauty of that will be that they won't have to make that decision at the out-set. They will be able to feel-out the fanbase for quite awhile first, and know what sort of climate any changes will weather.
Consider it a military operation - move along slowly, and keep your heads down. If someone takes a shot at you, you stop, and re-access. Theres no need to leap blindly forward (especially a century!!!) By taking baby-steps, the designers will be able to better judge the reception new or differing lore receives, incrementally.
So by 'total reboot', I mean an erasure of everything that comes after the OGB (or whatever year they set 5e at), and THAT is what I would be against. A 'soft' reboot is more in-order, which just means a re-release of older lore, within the new rules-structure, with only minor continuity changes (just details). It would not invalidate anything, except where minor corrections are made.
<snip>
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Yes. Absolutely. Precisely. This is what needs to be done. This way, the people who like the 4E Realms can have their Spellplague, and the people who like the Realms without the Spellplague can have that too. Anyone who disagrees with that idea is, in my mind, simply trying to force their "ideal" FR on others, and this is clearly not what the new effort is directed at, from everything I've read so far. Here's hoping it gets done right this time. |
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 22:35:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I love the Realms but I have never been a fan of Elminster (Sorry Ed).
Would I would like to see done is have Elminster wake up after his vision of the Spellplague and Mystra instructing him on how to prevent it but would end up costing him his life.
They don't have the stones to do that!
John
From what I've heard, and I may be entirely off the mark on this, the death of Elminster is one of the conditions that would revert ownership of the Realms back to Ed. Again, I don't know this for certain, it's something I've heard... I believe somewhere else in Candlekeep, which gives it somewhat more weight than other similar suppositions, but certainly not the status of absolute truth without confirmation... and I don't know that Ed is able or willing to confirm such things. |
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 22:50:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I shall hesitantly (though happily) concede my error on the question of 5E modularity.quote:
Old Man Harpell
Of course (as I have said), I don't miss Khelben. That's the one exception.
Khelben was a rather cool personality whom I will miss. But I do happen to agree on this principle; there's far too many meddling Chosen who are in effect immortal epic munchkins capable of manipulating worldly events with little regard for the rules which apply to everyone else. True, they must apparently abide by their own special rules, but that doesn't forgive the fact that they are still unstoppable cheaters. Six down, eight to go.
Killing them off just gives us fewer options as DMs. If you don't want them in your game, don't use them. (Nothing personal intended toward anybody on this site with my next comment, but I've known people like this...) If a DM can't figure that out, they should be playing Snakes and Ladders, not Dungeons and Dragons. I, for one, can count on one hand the number of times any Chosen has appeared in a game I was DMing (see my sig for how long that's been happening), and combat was never involved. That is how they are meant to be used. The fact that there are munchkins out there whose sole purpose is to hunt down and kill powerful NPCs of whatever world they happen to be playing in, doesn't mean the powerful NPCs need to go; it means the munchkins need to stop playing D&D and go back to WoW. IMHO, at least.
Oh, and they're not cheaters; they're entirely within the rules, and if they were unstoppable, there wouldn't be six dead, would there?  And apart from the "unstoppable cheaters" comment and the "munchkin" label (which belongs to players more properly than characters, IMHO), your description of the Chosen is exactly on target... that's their purpose, is to meddle for the benefit of magic in the world. The simple fact is, the DM shouldn't have them meddling directly in his own campaign except as a plot hook to get the PCs to accomplish something useful. At least, that's how I see it, and I'm pretty sure it's how Ed intended it, from what I've read.
(Edited to add disclaimer re: appropriate game type for DM X.) |
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 20 Jan 2012 23:01:16 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 02:22:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I shall hesitantly (though happily) concede my error on the question of 5E modularity.quote:
Old Man Harpell
Of course (as I have said), I don't miss Khelben. That's the one exception.
Khelben was a rather cool personality whom I will miss. But I do happen to agree on this principle; there's far too many meddling Chosen who are in effect immortal epic munchkins capable of manipulating worldly events with little regard for the rules which apply to everyone else. True, they must apparently abide by their own special rules, but that doesn't forgive the fact that they are still unstoppable cheaters. Six down, eight to go.
Killing them off just gives us fewer options as DMs. If you don't want them in your game, don't use them. (Nothing personal intended toward anybody on this site with my next comment, but I've known people like this...) If a DM can't figure that out, they should be playing Snakes and Ladders, not Dungeons and Dragons. I, for one, can count on one hand the number of times any Chosen has appeared in a game I was DMing (see my sig for how long that's been happening), and combat was never involved. That is how they are meant to be used. The fact that there are munchkins out there whose sole purpose is to hunt down and kill powerful NPCs of whatever world they happen to be playing in, doesn't mean the powerful NPCs need to go; it means the munchkins need to stop playing D&D and go back to WoW. IMHO, at least.
Oh, and they're not cheaters; they're entirely within the rules, and if they were unstoppable, there wouldn't be six dead, would there? And apart from the "unstoppable cheaters" comment and the "munchkin" label (which belongs to players more properly than characters, IMHO), your description of the Chosen is exactly on target... that's their purpose, is to meddle for the benefit of magic in the world. The simple fact is, the DM shouldn't have them meddling directly in his own campaign except as a plot hook to get the PCs to accomplish something useful. At least, that's how I see it, and I'm pretty sure it's how Ed intended it, from what I've read.
(Edited to add disclaimer re: appropriate game type for DM X.)
I agree. I would not have expended the mental energy required to kill the Blackstaff off, I simply didn't use him in any way, shape, or form. Granted, pre-4th Edition Realms was structured enough that the Chosen (as 'mega-NPCs) weren't needed to begin with, so I never bothered with any of them, but Khelben simply not being there isn't something that bothers me, particularly. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 11:38:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Would you like to see a complete reboot of the Forgotten Realms for 5th edition D&D?
I no longer care what WotC do to the Realms. I still care about the Realms but I take 3rd Edition as my foundation, and I've moved off in my own direction. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 12:43:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Yes. Absolutely. Precisely. This is what needs to be done. This way, the people who like the 4E Realms can have their Spellplague, and the people who like the Realms without the Spellplague can have that too. Anyone who disagrees with that idea is, in my mind, simply trying to force their "ideal" FR on others, and this is clearly not what the new effort is directed at, from everything I've read so far. Here's hoping it gets done right this time.
I honestly don't like this approach. There are parts of Faerûn's history that I'm not totally enamored with, or don't agree with, or think is rather un-original or just plain old "bad". But I deal with it because, like it or not, it's a part of the Realms. What I do is NOT use that part or change things in my own setting that deal with those dislikes differently. Producing Alternate Time-Lines or what is likly called a "Star Trek reboot" is not the best answer. For one, I don't see it healing anything as authors put out supplements and info about different timelines. Why not just make lore and flesh-out the setting without focusing on one aspect, yet keeping the continunity there? |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 16:44:00
|
Diffan, I don't think this is so much about the differences in what we would like to see done, but about how to go about the re-presentation of lore already established. What you want, and what I and Jakk would lke to see, is really just a matter of 'how much' - its just splitting hairs.
We are getting old material re-released. They've already begun this process (and if you want to see it succeed, we should start scarfing-up as much of that as possible). No-one (except a few who are of the 'my way or the highway' club) wants to see them simply obliterate all previous lore - thats precisely what we don't want.
And 4e, no matter how we feel about it, IS established canon. If they reboot to a 1e/2e/3e setting - and we are still unsure of what, if any, time-period will be the main focus - the 'dark future' will still be there. Its like what others have said here about the SW games/setting - pick an era and run with that; it doesn't invalidate the other eras.
Now, what I would personally (as in, not what I expect them to do, or others to agree with), is to backwards -engineer older lore - WITH A LIGHT TOUCH! - so that we have a bit of 'forshadowing' of 4e on the horizon. A LOT of lore was made-up as they went along to accommodate current story-lines, and in some cases that lore was immediately dropped after that storyline played-out. Thats just poor design - Ed never worked that way. He specifically told them "For every plot-hook you use-up, create three new ones". If you leave ambiguous 'hooks' all over the place, future plots can be connected to them, and it will look like it was some sort of genius 'grand design' on their part.
True genius isn't being smart - true genius is making everyone else believe in your genius. A DM (and designers/authors) who can pull that off are looked at with awe (for example, the way J.K. Rawling writes).
Anyhow, my point is that we wouldn't be invalidating 4e FR at all (thats a choice they can make later, if they wish, with some sort of split-continuity thingy) - we would be reinforcing it. This is why I am against simple reprints - I WANT newer lore sprinkled into the older material, to smooth out all the rough-edges (and a lot of stuff was very jarring, not the least of which was some of the 4e lore).
For instance, in some older source - probably a Cormyr one - make mention of the fact that "something strange has been sighted off the coast... something HUGE". Make it that simple - NO details. Then when we run into the Aboleths in 4e, its not such a shock - its more of a "so thats what that was!"
Had they continued with the 'inaccurate 3rd person reporting" style of presentation, with all the plot-hooks, rumors, and 'current clack', they could have easily tied older stuff to newer lore, and it would have looked like that 'brilliant master-plan' I mentioned above. I even tried this in a thread awhile ago - looking for old hints about the new lore, and I ran smack-into a 'wall of Grognardise;'; folks telling me that such-and-such an event was never meant to be related to such-and-such newer lore. Welllll... u-Duh! Of course it wasn't - but thats the brilliance of leaving these 'red herrings' (red slippers) all over the place - so future designers/authors/DMs can pick them up and run with them.
But what happened was they stopped the 'inaccurate reporting' (because it is harder to write then bland facts), and they used up a great many older plothooks in novels, and stopped creating new ones, forcing them to then fabricate new plothooks out of thin-air for the story they were trying to write (rather then tying it to older stuff, which makes it seem more 'natural'), and what we got was a whole bunch of disjointed, jarring 'episodes' of FR, instead of one, seamless history.
DON'T change things - smooth them out. Will it really matter that much if we read a timeline entry in a 2e source about "A Red Wizard Zachran-thym (Recovery team) discovers an ancient Ilythiir tome. The title is translated as Primordial Necrotic Secrets and Summonings - Szass Tam is quick to take ownership of the book, and sequesters himself while studying its contents". How will that interfere with anything? It wouldn't - and then when we see the Dread Rings later on, we could have a "Ah-Ha!" moment (rather then the WTH? moment we got).
Thats the kind of new material I want - the OLD material, sprinkled with little tidbits to tie it to the newer lore. Simply reprinting everything (as-is) will just recreate the situation we already have, and accomplish nothing. If you gave a military General a chance to re-fight a battle he lost, wouldn't he be a complete fool to fight it the precise same way all over again? He should take into account his new knowledge of the situation, and make changes accordingly. How often in-life do we get this sort of chance? Almost never - lets use it wisely.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Jan 2012 16:51:54 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 17:38:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Yes. Absolutely. Precisely. This is what needs to be done. This way, the people who like the 4E Realms can have their Spellplague, and the people who like the Realms without the Spellplague can have that too. Anyone who disagrees with that idea is, in my mind, simply trying to force their "ideal" FR on others, and this is clearly not what the new effort is directed at, from everything I've read so far. Here's hoping it gets done right this time.
I honestly don't like this approach. There are parts of Faerûn's history that I'm not totally enamored with, or don't agree with, or think is rather un-original or just plain old "bad". But I deal with it because, like it or not, it's a part of the Realms. What I do is NOT use that part or change things in my own setting that deal with those dislikes differently. Producing Alternate Time-Lines or what is likly called a "Star Trek reboot" is not the best answer. For one, I don't see it healing anything as authors put out supplements and info about different timelines. Why not just make lore and flesh-out the setting without focusing on one aspect, yet keeping the continuity there?
I think what people who have suggested the "Star Trek reboot" method are saying (it is what I am saying) is not that 4th Edition Realms cannot be salvaged (because it can be), it is that they simply do not trust Wizbro to actually do that.
Ignoring certain aspects of 4th Edition is like trying to avoid the lunatic who has just broken into your home and started chopping up your furniture with a splitting maul. Even after he leaves, your house is in a shambles, and it's going to take some major effort to get it back to a semblance of what it once was. The ToT, by comparison, was like Cousin Abelard hosing down your living room with Grandma's deodorant - it's still identifiably your living room, but slightly different, and not everyone is going to appreciate Grandma's taste in deodorant scents .
For people like me, that's what the issue is - is Wizbro actually willing to make the call and start bringing back those lost elements that defined a major portion of the essence of the Realms? ESdB's 'One Realms' scroll is, at a minimum, the sort of effort they should be undertaking (and then actually implementing. They caused a lot of damage, a whole lot of it pointless and unnecessary.
Those of us who suggest a "reboot" are not setting out to deprive the 4th Edition fans of their preferred Realms iteration - we just don't think Wizbro is going to start fixing that iteration to where it is a setting we can all happily call 'the Forgotten Realms'. We don't trust them to do that.
For me, that is what is so baffling about people resisting the idea of a reboot. A reboot (as suggested) into an alternate timeline provides those of us who just don't think Wizbro has what it takes to make the needed repairs to the extant timeline a future Realms where all the things we believe made the Realms 'the Realms'. We aren't asking Wizbro to yank the rug out from under 4th Edition fans - we just want a rug of our own we can be happy with.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 22 Jan 2012 17:40:01 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 17:40:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If you gave a military General a chance to re-fight a battle he lost, wouldn't he be a complete fool to fight it the precise same way all over again? He should take into account his new knowledge of the situation, and make changes accordingly. How often in-life do we get this sort of chance? Almost never - lets use it wisely.
I'm not sure that's the best analogy... Your General would take his new knowledge into account and apply it, creating an entirely different end result -- such as an alternate timeline.
Me, I favor the alternate timelines thing because I simply don't think its possible to smooth over the divide between the 3E Realms and the 4E Realms (talking about publishing eras, not rulesets, obviously). No matter how much new lore we get, there are still NPCs and lands that are changed or gone, plotlines ended abruptly, and aspects of the 4E Realms that some find objectionable, such as the Points of Light idea.
If I'm running a campaign set in the 3E timeframe, no matter how much additional lore you publish for that timeframe, I know that it's going to hit those three super-modules where the PCs save the world just to have it blow up offstage.
To state it another way, no matter how far down the road it is, that road still ends at a steep canyon with no bridge over it. I don't want to travel that road if I know it's eventually going to go over a cliff.
Instead, I'm going to choose an alternate route, one that takes me around that canyon.
Putting a bridge across the canyon, even putting a themepark on the other side, doesn't change the fact that the canyon is there.
I've no objections to the construction of the bridge or the themepark. Just give me that alternate route so I can continue down the road, and not have to worry about the canyon.
And don't tell me to build my own road. If I build my own road, I know every single stop along that road, and I'm the only one travelling it. I want a road that will continually show me new vistas, one where other travellers will shape my route and one where every turn is a surprise. Building my own road denies me that, takes a lot more time and isn't nearly as smooth a ride. Like Ed himself said about selling the Realms to TSR, he couldn't be surprised by anything in the setting until other hands were working on it. I'm not saying this to imply Ed supports the alternate timeline idea, I'm saying this to all the people that say "take all canon or just make your own." |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 22 Jan 2012 17:48:35 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 17:50:25
|
| I hear what your saying Markustay but if they're going to support all eras (meaning no reset) then they should just do so for ALL eras of play. With so many 5E/Re-boot/Realm-change threads going on, I get confused but in one of them or this one, they talked about supporting multiple eras in the same tome. I could get behind something that is more akin to that. In the same book, give me reasons for playing in the age of Netheril or during the Time of Troubles or even in 1479 DR. Don't force the fans to pick and choose all different kinds of supplements that only support specific times. I had feared that it was going to happen and I hope they go with an all inclusive era approach. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 19:39:36
|
But I fear doing everything exactly the same will just keep the eras - and players - separate. It could actually foster a furthering of the split in the fanbase.
Instead of an era, we should just have a setting. SW is a setting that is era-independent; why can't FR somehow accomplish that?
And I understand your point Wooly, but even if we did just ignore 4e and pretend it didn't happen (stick it in an alternate timeline), then that would mean keeping everything precisely the same between the other editions. Granted, those edition changes didn't turn into edition-wars, but there was still enough differences for folks to take sides.
Different lore for each era makes each era its own setting - I think thats probably the worst thing that could happen. FR would be further fragmented down at least 4 different, alternate timelines. And if we are willing to make allowances for 1e/2e/3e to blend it all together better, then doesn't that make (many of) us hypocrites? Thats like saying "I'm wiling to compromise with persons A & b, but not C - I HATE C".
*meh* - at the end of the day, we will get what we will get. I just hope its good, whatever it is. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Jan 2012 19:40:09 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 23:01:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But I fear doing everything exactly the same will just keep the eras - and players - separate. It could actually foster a furthering of the split in the fanbase.
Instead of an era, we should just have a setting. SW is a setting that is era-independent; why can't FR somehow accomplish that?
And I understand your point Wooly, but even if we did just ignore 4e and pretend it didn't happen (stick it in an alternate timeline), then that would mean keeping everything precisely the same between the other editions. Granted, those edition changes didn't turn into edition-wars, but there was still enough differences for folks to take sides.
Different lore for each era makes each era its own setting - I think thats probably the worst thing that could happen. FR would be further fragmented down at least 4 different, alternate timelines. And if we are willing to make allowances for 1e/2e/3e to blend it all together better, then doesn't that make (many of) us hypocrites? Thats like saying "I'm wiling to compromise with persons A & b, but not C - I HATE C".
*meh* - at the end of the day, we will get what we will get. I just hope its good, whatever it is.
Where do 4 timelines come into this? I'm saying one split, at the end of 3E -- where we already have the fan base split.
And I fail to see the hypocrisy in saying "A is minor and not that big a deal, B is minor and not that big a deal, but C is huge, orders of magnitude bigger than A&B put together, and that's too much for me."
It's like getting a ding in the side of your car from someone else's door, and then maybe a crease in the fender from backing into a pole -- or having the car get totalled. Some things you can fix, some things you can't.
I'm not saying the Realms can't be fixed, I'm just saying it's not hypocrisy to say there's a difference between the Time of Troubles and the Spellplague. |
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! |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 23:24:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
<chop>
For me, that is what is so baffling about people resisting the idea of a reboot. A reboot (as suggested) into an alternate timeline provides those of us who just don't think Wizbro has what it takes to make the needed repairs to the extant timeline a future Realms where all the things we believe made the Realms 'the Realms'. We aren't asking Wizbro to yank the rug out from under 4th Edition fans - we just want a rug of our own we can be happy with.
- OMH
And this is why I think a timeline split (Spellplague versus Spellplague prevented) is the way to go. Sure, one could argue that the Time of Troubles need not have happened, but there was no official publication that made it possible (at least in theory) for the PCs to prevent the ToT, and this is why the Spellplague is a better point of divergence. I would love a Realms ca. 1400 in which neither the ToT nor the Spellplague has happened, largely because I like Bhaal and Myrkul far more than Cyric and Kelemvor, but I already have other ways to bring Bhaal and Myrkul back in my Realms. And for those who say "well, then you can carry on with a non-Spellplagued future yourself too," that defeats the purpose of using a published campaign setting versus creating a whole new setting yourself. With an opened past timeline and a single divergence point which published canon products have given us, this would give all Realms authors plenty of spacetime to tell any story they want... assuming that WotC will give the authors and product designers some room to make these choices. I, for one, would love for Ed to be able to tell some stories of the Seven Sisters after his current Elminster contract wraps up, and I know (from things he's said in his scroll over the past few years) they're stories that Ed wants to tell too.
So, to come back to the OP's question: a complete reboot would only work if they went right back to Ed's Realms as written, not even back to the OGB as published... but I think we could make a case for Ed's RAW ("Realms As Written") to be published even without this kind of reboot.
I agree with Markustay to a point; different lore for each era does make each era its own setting, and I'm against that as a general policy, but the Spellplague *is* different, and not just because people either loved it or hated it. It's different because WotC gave us all the means to prevent it, then rammed it down our throats offstage anyway. There was no mega-adventure to prevent Bane and Myrkul from stealing the Tablets of Fate; if there had been, I'd be on board with making 1358 no different from 1385 in terms of its status as a legitimate timeline splitting point, but there wasn't. Let's have 4E succeed with its own mantra of "making the PCs the stars" and allow them to prevent the Spellplague in one possible future. Yes, I'm saying that the real hypocrites are the 4E fans who preach that mantra and yet don't want the Spellplague prevented. I'm not trying to take anything away; the 4E fans will still have their Realms, and those of us who don't like the Spellplague will be allowed to have our Realms continue forward as its own entity as well. Anyway, hopefully I've explained myself clearly here, and I've made the idea of a timeline split more palatable... as far as I'm concerned, it's win-win; the Spellplague fans get to keep what they like, and the rest of us get to keep what we like too. And FR would still be as era-independent as SW; in SW, after all, you still have to pick an era to play in... and the fact that Spellplague FR lore will be different from non-Spellplague FR lore is a necessary evil, if we want to keep as many people as possible happy. At least, that's how I see it; if others see it differently, that's fine, as long as there are reasons behind the perceptions. Any more thoughts?
Edit: The thought also occurs that much of the post-Spellplague lore, particularly that which involves Cormyr, is not invalidated by a timeline split; Azoun IV died years before the Spellplague, so significant dates in the succession in terms of the Lineage won't be affected at all, and even the Shadow War isn't Spellplague-dependent. It really wouldn't be as difficult as some might think, and it gives rise to a new field of magic... spells that allow travel between the two timelines, without going forward or backward in time. How's that for more, not less? |
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 22 Jan 2012 23:51:27 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 23:27:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
<chop>
Where do 4 timelines come into this? I'm saying one split, at the end of 3E -- where we already have the fan base split.
And I fail to see the hypocrisy in saying "A is minor and not that big a deal, B is minor and not that big a deal, but C is huge, orders of magnitude bigger than A&B put together, and that's too much for me."
It's like getting a ding in the side of your car from someone else's door, and then maybe a crease in the fender from backing into a pole -- or having the car get totalled. Some things you can fix, some things you can't.
I'm not saying the Realms can't be fixed, I'm just saying it's not hypocrisy to say there's a difference between the Time of Troubles and the Spellplague.
I got scooped. Wooly's less verbose than I am, is all... |
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 23:31:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
<chop>
If I'm running a campaign set in the 3E timeframe, no matter how much additional lore you publish for that timeframe, I know that it's going to hit those three super-modules where the PCs save the world just to have it blow up offstage.
To state it another way, no matter how far down the road it is, that road still ends at a steep canyon with no bridge over it. I don't want to travel that road if I know it's eventually going to go over a cliff.
Instead, I'm going to choose an alternate route, one that takes me around that canyon.
Putting a bridge across the canyon, even putting a themepark on the other side, doesn't change the fact that the canyon is there.
I've no objections to the construction of the bridge or the themepark. Just give me that alternate route so I can continue down the road, and not have to worry about the canyon.
And don't tell me to build my own road. If I build my own road, I know every single stop along that road, and I'm the only one travelling it. I want a road that will continually show me new vistas, one where other travellers will shape my route and one where every turn is a surprise. Building my own road denies me that, takes a lot more time and isn't nearly as smooth a ride. Like Ed himself said about selling the Realms to TSR, he couldn't be surprised by anything in the setting until other hands were working on it. I'm not saying this to imply Ed supports the alternate timeline idea, I'm saying this to all the people that say "take all canon or just make your own."
I love the canyon metaphor here... and it's exactly what I've been trying to say too. Now, how do we get WotC to see things our way? (Assuming they don't already, that might not be possible, I admit.) |
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. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 23:50:11
|
I really don't see myself making a purchase unless there is a reset or timeline break. For me, the offensive 4E timeline MUST go or it's no sale. I don't want a 4E with a "softening" or a billion little repairs. Sorry, that's just the way it is if they want my money.
I'd be happiest with a reboot to 1E, but a reboot to 3E would be acceptable if the timeline then diverges from 4E (a la Star Trek '09) into something new and non-apocalyptic. Right now, it feels like a burden trying to get interested in 4E novels; I slogged through the ones I have read, irritated and slightly bored. I read for pleasure and entertainment, not to support a cause.
I can, and have done, my own alternate Realms. But I have little to no interest in sticking with the post-cataclysm Realms either in game or novels. It just holds very little allure for me. Same reason I don't follow Eberron.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 23:59:46
|
Therise, that's exactly how I feel on the matter; I don't mind the 4E timeline staying around as "one possible future" (as I've said several times already), but I want that big "end-of-3E" adventure trilogy to mean something in the grand scheme of things. I nearly reached the point of manually shredding all three books and using them for firestarter when I learned the nature of the 4E Realms, but fortunately I do possess some measure of self-control.
As far as the 4E-era novels are concerned, the only ones I've read are those by Ed and the Erevis Cale novels by Paul Kemp, and they still feel like the Realms to me, but I think that's largely because the Spellplague is a non-issue in all of them, apart from the current condition of the Simbul in the early 4E Elminster novels... and I won't say anything more, as to do so would be a spoiler, but let's just say that I'm VERY excited about Ed's next Elminster book.
Edit: I wouldn't object strenuously to a reboot to 1E, but only if they use Ed's Realms as written. Honestly, getting rid of Unther and Mulhorand was the thing I actually liked about the 4E Realms. Personally, my reboot point would be to the end of 2E, so we could get some details on the Manshoon Clone Wars... and I think the Harper Schism was happening around this time too, and it could use some more coverage. But I'd be just as happy if they took us back to the end of 3E and allowed the PCs to prevent the bloody Spellplague. That alone would make suffering through the past three and a half years worthwhile.
Dear Gods, I've had a lot to say on this page. I think I'll shut up for a while on this matter and let other scribes respond. |
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 23 Jan 2012 00:14:40 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2012 : 00:10:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Therise, that's exactly how I feel on the matter; I don't mind the 4E timeline staying around as "one possible future" (as I've said several times already), but I want that big "end-of-3E" adventure trilogy to mean something in the grand scheme of things. I nearly reached the point of manually shredding all three books and using them for firestarter when I learned the nature of the 4E Realms, but fortunately I do possess some measure of self-control.
As far as the 4E-era novels are concerned, the only ones I've read are those by Ed and the Erevis Cale novels by Paul Kemp, and they still feel like the Realms to me, but I think that's largely because the Spellplague is a non-issue in all of them, apart from the current condition of the Simbul in the early 4E Elminster novels... and I won't say anything more, as to do so would be a spoiler, but let's just say that I'm VERY excited about Ed's next Elminster book.
I hear what you're saying. Kemp in particular is an excellent and enjoyable author. I haven't been disappointed in the least with his work. Greenwood gets a pass for his attempt at righting the ship. But truthfully, my interest in finding out what happens in this post-spellplague era is rapidly drying up. Fast. I can't see myself spending more money on future Realms novels unless they boot the 4E era and come up with something less dark and ruined.
It really is just a matter of enjoyment and preference for me at this point. I'm no longer angry about the 4E Realms, I'm just dead-bored with them and irritated that they get in the way of what I do like. Plenty of other novelists and worlds to explore, other happy fish in the sea of fantasy writing. What WotC does next will either keep me around, which I'd be happy to do, or I'll march off for greener fields.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2012 : 00:15:52
|
I can't see myself supporting only supplements that support one specific timeline in their content, espically if that time line excludes events detailing the Spellplague. If they put out a sourcebook about Cormyr and only describe it's nation from YYY DR to 1372 DR then I really have no need for it. Really, anything prior to 4E I really don't have a need for because.....well there's already stuff out for that and I don't need re-hashed material, even if that material is re-printed or some how "smooths" out previous lore to that.
Making source books of different timelines is just going to keep people in their camps. If a post Spellplague novel or sourcebook is relesed, we'll hear complains about it. If we see a pre-Time of Troubles source book, people will complain about it. If we get a sourcebook detailing Unther in 1283 DR, and no one really cares then we'll hear complaining about it.
Then not only are we arguing about that time is getting more info/fluff but then we're arguing about alternatie timelines (if that is a route they go) and it just start looking like a mess.
The idea is to bring EVERYONE together and you don't do that buy multiple supplements detailing times AND areas of just one aspect. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2012 : 00:20:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
It really is just a matter of enjoyment and preference for me at this point. I'm no longer angry about the 4E Realms, I'm just dead-bored with them and irritated that they get in the way of what I do like. Plenty of other novelists and worlds to explore, other happy fish in the sea of fantasy writing. What WotC does next will either keep me around, which I'd be happy to do, or I'll march off for greener fields.
That's pretty much what happened to me... I was playing Pathfinder shortly after the alpha was released, and I've been buying *all* the books since the final release of the original campaign setting... and I've loved playing in Golarion, it really is reminiscent of the OGB Realms. But for that reason, if we do get a complete reboot of the Realms, I'd prefer to go right back to Ed's original product; no RW-analogy cultures shoehorned in, no f***ing about with the maps, and by all the gods, no more bloody RSEs!!! [/rant] |
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2012 : 00:35:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I can't see myself supporting only supplements that support one specific timeline in their content, espically if that time line excludes events detailing the Spellplague. If they put out a sourcebook about Cormyr and only describe it's nation from YYY DR to 1372 DR then I really have no need for it. Really, anything prior to 4E I really don't have a need for because.....well there's already stuff out for that and I don't need re-hashed material, even if that material is re-printed or some how "smooths" out previous lore to that.
Making source books of different timelines is just going to keep people in their camps. If a post Spellplague novel or sourcebook is relesed, we'll hear complains about it. If we see a pre-Time of Troubles source book, people will complain about it. If we get a sourcebook detailing Unther in 1283 DR, and no one really cares then we'll hear complaining about it.
Then not only are we arguing about that time is getting more info/fluff but then we're arguing about alternatie timelines (if that is a route they go) and it just start looking like a mess.
The idea is to bring EVERYONE together and you don't do that buy multiple supplements detailing times AND areas of just one aspect.
I appreciate the goal, but I don't think it's possible as you describe it; you can't put Schroedinger's cat back in the box and make it neither alive nor dead again. The fact is, if the Spellplague remains, with no alternative, they'll lose people. Yes, that can be said about any reset to any earlier time as well, but at least with the alternate timelines, both fans and foes of the Spellplague get a Realms they can be happy playing in, and I think that's all we can expect. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it should be "stop publishing any and all FR product, because somebody somewhere isn't going to like it." The fact is, you can support the split timeline with a single product (as I think you suggest in the first sentence of your post), and while gaming material set in the past may not be something everyone wants (Arcane Age wasn't anything spectacular except in the lore treasure-trove department), I'd love more novels set in the 1300s or even earlier. |
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. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2012 : 00:46:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
It really is just a matter of enjoyment and preference for me at this point. I'm no longer angry about the 4E Realms, I'm just dead-bored with them and irritated that they get in the way of what I do like. Plenty of other novelists and worlds to explore, other happy fish in the sea of fantasy writing. What WotC does next will either keep me around, which I'd be happy to do, or I'll march off for greener fields.
That's pretty much what happened to me... I was playing Pathfinder shortly after the alpha was released, and I've been buying *all* the books since the final release of the original campaign setting... and I've loved playing in Golarion, it really is reminiscent of the OGB Realms. But for that reason, if we do get a complete reboot of the Realms, I'd prefer to go right back to Ed's original product; no RW-analogy cultures shoehorned in, no f***ing about with the maps, and by all the gods, no more bloody RSEs!!! [/rant]
I have heard that about Pathfinder. I have yet to take the plunge in Golarion. But I may, considering that they have quite a few Realms authors now writing novels and material for Golarion.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2012 : 01:53:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I appreciate the goal, but I don't think it's possible as you describe it; you can't put Schroedinger's cat back in the box and make it neither alive nor dead again. The fact is, if the Spellplague remains, with no alternative, they'll lose people.
A fact? Really? Why would they lose people now? Are you upset that I haven't given you the $5 that you neither expect nor have any real reason to believe I will randomly give you? Likewise, will fans leave over not getting a reboot they have no real reason to expect to happen? They stuck it out this far only to leave for not getting something they weren't told they would get and that they shouldn't realistically expect? That's kind of odd behavior if you ask me.
quote:
Yes, that can be said about any reset to any earlier time as well,
That was one of my first clues it's probably a bad idea.
quote:
If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it should be "stop publishing any and all FR product, because somebody somewhere isn't going to like it."
I personally don't see how that is the conclusion at this stage of the game. They are quite obviously going to keep producing material so logical or no, that is reality.
quote:
The fact is, you can support the split timeline with a single product (as I think you suggest in the first sentence of your post)
How? "Here's the past, here's timeline A, here's timeline B" Good luck. So, once you go down this road, how do you split the authors? And since we're appealing to nostalgia, how do we get old authors back to write about a world where no fan favorites ever die and nothing ever happens for fear of needing another reset to appease people? Or do we use the new authors? The ones who apparently aren't capable of writing with the Realms "feel" enough to get people to read what they are writing right now. How's that going to go down? Bruce Cordell seems to catch a lot of flak for 4E, do you think he won't be writing in the alternate time line? What about Drizzt? He's the money machine and he's in the Post Spellplague. Does Salvatore get two novel lines or do we get to watch as the sales of his books tip the scales towards 4E FR and see 3E FR blown up to increase sales. Again. And which is the prime and which is the alternate? The naming alone will show obvious favoritism well before one gets more attention than the other (which will happen).
I honestly don't believe many advocating two timelines have really thought this through to it's probable end (much less the more technical matters like diving limited reasources not the least of which are the people that make the Realms go or having WotC compete against itself, while competing against it's former self in the form of Pathfinder), one of the two timelines won't pull it's weight and get cancelled and piss off a good chunk of the fanbase. If it's 4th, older fans will be hated for demanding this bad idea in the first place. If it's 3rd, older fans get the pleasure of getting burned by WotC. Again.
quote:
and while gaming material set in the past may not be something everyone wants (Arcane Age wasn't anything spectacular except in the lore treasure-trove department), I'd love more novels set in the 1300s or even earlier.
How does supporting ALL eras not meet that goal? |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Reboot of the Realms for 5th edition.
