| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 19:40:48
|
|
That is the year the first Forgotten Realms Novel (Darkwalker of Moonshae) took place. How would you do it? What (if any) reason would you give? Would all the now "future lore" still be canon or would it be a total reset? How fast would you move the timeline forward once you reset? What/whose stories would you want to hear about that were "skipped" the first time? Let's skip the debate on whether you would like this or not and what ruleset gets used.
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 20:42:24
|
NO total reset. What I like to call a 'soft reset', or just 'reboot'.
That means, all canon previously written is still canon, UNLESS otherwise over-written by newer material (which I expect, and look forward to). This is nothing new - this is precisely how it has always been between editions.
Blend the newer lore back into the old lore, and re-issue the old sources with a new flare - perhaps some new artwork (the old stuff really is dated), and new details about things that haven't been given enough attention (or even discussed) previously.
In other words, don't throw anything away wholesale - examine it, weigh it against other lore, and re-shape it so its a better fit (if necessary). A lot of lore since the OGB was like square-pegs hammered into round holes. Don't throw those pegs away - whittle them down until they fit right.
Thats the kind of reboot that I think would have the widest appeal, IMHO. They've done 'heavy handed' already, and it didn't work. A 'light touch' is what is called for this time out. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Jan 2012 20:43:15 |
 |
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 22:34:38
|
| To answer my own thread. I wouldn't invalidate anything initially and would encourage authors to fill in the blanks from the past and put a cap of 6 months of Realms time = 1 year of Earth time on timeline advances (this would give us until 2038 before we even had to think about the Time of Troubles again). I don't think I would give any reason per se, just a reset of the default time to earlier (since nothing in canon now would disappear anyways). Personally, I would love for some of the events on the FR timeline to be fleshed out in full novelization and specifically would love to hear the full tale of Lashan Aumersair and his attempted empire in Scardale. |
|
|
|
BARDOBARBAROS
Senior Scribe
Greece
581 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 22:49:40
|
| That's a good reset!!! |
BARDOBARBAROS DOES NOT KILL.
HE DECAPITATES!!!
"The city changes, but the fools within it remain always the same" (Edwin Odesseiron- Baldur's gate 2) |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 22:58:36
|
Markus, at least let us discuss it, please. I totally GET that you don't want a big reboot. I get it from multiple threads.
But please let us talk about the possible GOOD things that might result, ok?
---
I don't know if I'd even give a reason for a total reset, I'd just do it. Planting a big reason (e.g. crazy time travelers did it, Ao used his eraser pen, there's an ethereal third planet "Lirot" made of antimatter that imploded and reversed time, whatever...) would mean coming up with something that -probably- someone out there would take offense with. So no big reason, just reset it. Don't have a bloody RSE to start the thing, don't have some wackadoo god romance story that makes no sense, don't have the gods walk Faerun, just do it and explain it as a real-world business decision.
De-couple canon from the game-side Realms and shoot it in the head before it gets any ideas. Flatly state that we're re-booting at 1320 or whatever, and gamers should pick and choose at will from whatever they like as their own version of the Realms advances through game play. Return ownership of the Realms to the players. If some want to ignore the 4E era, let them. If some want to ignore the Time of Troubles, it never happened. If you liked all the events, keep them for your own world.
Release some new articles in DDI that teach DMs how to world-build. Have other articles encourage players to work with their DMs to insert story elements important to your character for roleplay/fluff. If you are dying to BE the cousin of Drizzt, show DMs and players how that can happen. Promote creative use of the possible future timeline events, and show people how to completely reframe and twist them into radically different things. In short, promote creativity and get DMs to engage in sampling of other settings. If you want a world without Drizzt, and want to have your players involved in an accident that leads to his sacrifice as a babe, SHOW the players and DMs how to creatively develop a campaign with believable subsequent events.
I've seen the argument again and again: survival of D&D depends on teaching and encouraging new players to take up the mantle of DMing. And I believe it's true. At least 1-2 columns in DDI should be dedicated to this education process. I'd gladly sacrifice the "confessions of a part time wizard" silliness for something meaty.
As for novels, let them keep one timeline for novels. Or better yet, come up with novelists who write in multiple eras and say that each era should be considered a separate canon unto itself. Maybe the novels of different eras connect and are part of one canon, but maybe not. I'd take the Star Wars approach here.
Allow the Neverwinter MMO to take on the mantle of the 4E post-apocalypse canon line. Let it be what it's gonna be, but again keep its canon separate from the game and from other novel canon lines.
As for time advancement, SLOW should be the rule. And put the kaibosh on RSEs and epic plotlines that affect half the globe. The Realms is a gigantic place, after all. We -should- have the impression that something happening in Rashemen might never, ever be known by someone in Neverwinter or Waterdeep.
|
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! |
Edited by - Therise on 15 Jan 2012 23:24:29 |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 10:50:35
|
| I think this would way to far in the past to be relevant to me. They would certainly lose me as a customer as i have no interest in the same old tired quests being dragged into the spotlight yet again. Forward not backwards, that the only way to go. |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 12:02:04
|
No particular preference, because I do not think it's going to happen in any event. However, for my last campaign, I set the start date at 1350 DR. I basically determined that all of the significant events were going to happen, albeit not at the exact same time (the starting event of the campaign was Khelben A. ridding Laeral S. of the Crown of Horns, so some timeline re-jigging was necessary). The plan is/was to keep the Time of Troubles at the same time (maybe shift it a month forward or back) in 1358 DR, and be more or less synchronised by the end of the ToT. After that, I was planning on using most events (Tuigan invasion, in particular), but not all (I'm still in two minds about the Maztica plot).
Most of the events will mostly serve as "background noise" anyway, and some of the background in the 1350 DR Realms has been changed (rulership and detailed history of Daggerford, for instance). However, the intent is still to be synchronised as of 1358 DR.
I picked 1350 DR for several reason. (A) it's a nice, round number; (b) the entries in Grand History of the Realms become thicker as of that time; and (c) it allows for about 8 years game time before the ToT hits, which allows for some foreshadowing.
Other than that, I just made some changes to the Realms as most DMs do (sprinkle a series of villages around, or change existing villages to suit particular adventues), and some "deep background" changes (the events still happen, but the reasons why they happen were either determined where they were not, or changed where they were). |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 13:28:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
De-couple canon from the game-side Realms and shoot it in the head before it gets any ideas. Flatly state that we're re-booting at 1320 or whatever, and gamers should pick and choose at will from whatever they like as their own version of the Realms advances through game play. Return ownership of the Realms to the players. If some want to ignore the 4E era, let them. If some want to ignore the Time of Troubles, it never happened. If you liked all the events, keep them for your own world.
First, I'd like to say that a Reset isn't what's best for the Realms (IMO). I thought it was horrible when Star Trek did it and I'd probably feel just the same if the Forgotten Realms were to do it.
But this one aspect of your post was the most intriguing. The game-side of things isn't the driving force behind the Realms, or even really the reasons for most of the RSEs. People think so because usually an edition change ushers in an RSE but lets be frank, the rules do not equate to a specific part of the Realms timeline, no way or no how. This has, in previous editions and the current one, caused retcons to a point and I agree on that notion. But how a fighter uses a power in 1480 DR (4E) does not invalidate how a fighter fought in 1358 DR (2E) nor the same with spellcasting. Does vancian magic system exist in the Realms canon via novels? Yes. Does vancian magic system exist (to some extent) in 4E? Yes. I feel that most of the changes to the Realms were due to what the designers thought would make the setting better, not to fit how 4E works with the Realms. Quite the contrary, I'd say 95% of 4E mechanics hardly touch anything that would remotely require a retcon or some in-story reason for being.
As for starting the reboot in some previous time, what's the point? What implications does this mean for designers and novelists? Does this "reboot" mean that they're restricted to that time or events therein? Would we still receive 1479 DR stories or comments about how the elves retook Myth Drannor? Would we hear about the Time of Troubles?
You also said "If some want to ignore the 4E era, let them." and I ask, what's stopping people from doing that now? The way I feel it should be done is supplements and stories that are pretty much editino free (with maybe some elements that fuel the next iteration of D&D's rules) but largely talk about FR's history, present, and future. This would mean that an author can write about whatever part of FR's history they like to tell a story in, so long as that story might not invalidate future content (with the setting). So an author that writes about....say the destruction of Waterdeep in 1370 DR would invalidate a TON of material that we know already exists. This would be "bad". Lets get back to the more basic adventures, stories, and ideas that drive FR. No more novels talking about HUGE implications across the continent (there is enough of that BS in Dragonlance) but keep things more localized. |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 13:55:37
|
Never been a fan of reset. Except of some movies, with justified ends. "Moving forward" is a phrase that should be applied in one's personal motto. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
_Jarlaxle_
Senior Scribe
Germany
584 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 14:13:34
|
At first I wanted to say that even thinking they would really reset the whole realms is just ridiculous.
But after
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I thought it was horrible when Star Trek did it and I'd probably feel just the same if the Forgotten Realms were to do it.
But after Diffan reminded me on the last Star Trek Movie I really just hope that they don't do such nonsense  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 14:39:18
|
I understand why Star Trek did it. It's no longer Paramount's baby. It's going in a new direction with new adventures with the same old people but it horribly invalidates pretty much everything Star Trek led up to for the last 40 years. No "Pon Farr" battle between Spock and Kirk ON VULCAN!. Vulcan people's pretty much being anniliated as a species. So many changes are going to happen (if they proceed with anything else) and it's all "OK" because of that one movie.
So just imagine a reset to 1345 DR. Midnight, Kelemvore, and Cyric are still mortal. No Time of Trouble. Mystryl can manipulate the Weave and do whatever she wants to spellcasters. Gods can grant or not grant spells as they seem fit and they're not reliant of people's devotion. Shades who? Every evil organization is super small. No real scary plots aside from what the Zhentarim can cough up. All rainbows and sunshine with the occasional scary monster lurking in the woods (err...I mean Myth Drannor). Chosen are everywhere! Khelban is alive and well. So....we need adventurers why?
I jest a bit, i know there are still "monsters" lurking occasionally in places that always have monsters. I'm sure the Stonelands of Cormyr have some orcs as well as the North. I'm sure there are some scary people in Luskan. I'm sure the Underdark didn't go anywhere and Drow are still a scary bunch. But there isn't enough realism to me in this. |
|
|
|
_Jarlaxle_
Senior Scribe
Germany
584 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 14:55:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I understand why Star Trek did it.
I don't. They had so many possibilities of doing something new without throwing away all the established history. If they continue this path they will have just some SciFi Stories but it wont be Star Trek anymore.
The same goes for the realms. They are all the history, stories, adventures and stuff we read in the last don't know how many years and if they throw this all away it wouldn't be the Realms anymore but some diffrent new setting.
But as said before I really doubt they would do this. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 15:08:47
|
1386 DR is looking better and better. 
No-one gets offended that way. Otherwise, any era they pick, they've 'taken sides'.
And Therise, I don't know if ever I've disagreed with you more strongly. You are asking D&D fans to 'think differently', and I seriously don't see that happening, EVER.
You can tweak canon, but if you change it wholesale (4e cosmology), most folks throw a hissy-fit. Thats just how it is. You're asking an industry built around 40-ish year old gamers to 'grow up'... NOT gonna happen. We hold onto the past with almost fanatical glee. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 15:17:46
|
I don't understand the whole cosmology change thing that happenes/happened? What's so wholesale different? Does it really matter that much if it's the great wheel or the silly tree or whatever planes and such that goes on? Taking it from a "character looking at the cosmos" I doubt they very much could tell the difference between the two.
An example, there is a difference between v3.5 and it's Plane of Shadow and Negative Plane....somehow and 4E. 4th Edition combined this....sorta (don't see where specifically) because it mentions one (aka Shadowfell) and not the other. Question is, if a player is going to the Negative Plane, what would radically change from that and the plane of shadow (besides mechanical stuff that's always changing via edition)? I mean, how would they know? Personally, I didn't see the big deal about the whole thing or the difference there of. |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 15:40:23
|
People want a reset so they can kick the 4E 1479 Realms to the curb. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 15:42:29
|
Please read the first post people. If you dont want a reset, fine no problem, but this is not the thread to discuss it. This is purely what if?
The problem with a reset is that there are actually too many possibilities. There are the pure Ed without any modifications done be/for TSR, there is more or less a reprint of the Grey box, there is the right before ToT era, which then includes such things as the Ancient Empires, Niles Moonshaes and Allyn/Jaquays Savage frontier, which differ from the original Realms. Then there is the early post ToT era, with the adition of the Horde Maztica etc. And then there is the late, Schend-era Realms which is the most loreheavy era. And then there are the early and late 3ed. in addition to early and late 4ed.
We all have our preferences and any reset will probably annoy more people than it pleases. I think the only way it can be done is by making the continuity (including the 4ed.) the main focus of the campaign setting. That means a full-blown 5ed. book up to date with the information from 4ed. Novels should be written to support this.
Now with that done I would write a sort of one volume The Realms of Ed Greenwood which would be an anniversary book of some sort. A one-of book that is not proclaimed to be the chosen direction, but more of a historic document that will fans of all eras the world that was the start of it all. This would make it pretty clear that the official idea is not to overwrite other peoples work or ideas or to spit in the face of those who have enjoyed the development of the setting. Game details and examples of how to use the new rules with the book can be published on-line.
If these books are a success they can do what was done in the 3ed. Dragonlance namely single volume books for different eras. I would try to stay near to the originals published here and take a chapter to discuss and show how to include elements found later. With that I mean dont write dragonborn and sorcerers or whatever into the time of trouble, but show how they can be included, dont be afraid to break the 4th wall.
Novels should be concentrated on the continuity at first, if one of the books on an earlier era turns out to be a big hit it could be supported, but I would try to get a feeling on what would really sell. The Realms of Ed Greenwood book I think should be unsupported by novels or to many other supplements as it shows what was, not an alternative restart to done by official sources.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 16:19:30
|
We ARE getting a reset - of that I am sure. They are here 'fishing' right now (if you look close, you can almost see them... out of the corner of your eye). 
If we don't, I will eat my hat. Actually, I don't own a hat. Hmmm.. I will eat my... ummm... crap... I don't actually own much anymore. But you get the idea.
The decision for a reset is 99% set in-stone, because they are coming out with 5e, and the 4e Realms didn't go over as well as they hoped. Ergo, a reset is a no-brainer.
What they don't know for sure is WHEN, and what to keep. Thats where we come in. How adverse is everyone here to doing what I (and others) have been proposing? A soft reset with only minor changes, and leaving the majority of canon events intact? (regardless of date, which probably don't matter, going by what little we know at this point).
Would people really want an exact duplicate of the OGB, with no changes what-so-ever? For nostalgia reasons I think that would be cool, but I can't think of anyone else on this site that really needs to replace their OGB with a new one (other then because their old one is getting ratty). If its for people who never owned the OGB, then wouldn't it make more sense to update the information? We know much more about all of those regions then we did when the OGB was released, so why not include some of it?
I'm really not getting what folks are arguing about - it seems to be splitting hairs.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Jan 2012 17:39:27 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 16:19:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And Therise, I don't know if ever I've disagreed with you more strongly.
It happens, no worries.
quote:
You are asking D&D fans to 'think differently', and I seriously don't see that happening, EVER.
That may be true. 
quote:
You're asking an industry built around 40-ish year old gamers to 'grow up'... NOT gonna happen. We hold onto the past with almost fanatical glee.
Apparently, heh! *shrug* Oh well.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 16:56:45
|
| Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth. |
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
Edited by - Brian R. James on 16 Jan 2012 17:02:09 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:20:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth.
Ah, this is a question one should never have to ask, but: What did I nail? |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:21:43
|
I don't think I understand the idea of a "reset". What is that even supposed to mean? Are we talking about resetting novels and gaming supplements that incorporate these areas in the time line? So if a author wanted to do a novel set in say...Lantan in 1371 DR it's perfectly acceptable where as another author makes a novel based in 1479 DR from say High Immaskar. Both are acceptable.
But if we're talking about going back to the starting point of 1357 DR and everything produced from that point on "didn't happen" or "happened to a different Faerūn" then I'm out. Simply put, I'm SOO out. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:35:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth.
Ah, this is a question one should never have to ask, but: What did I nail?
LOL 
And Brian, how is supporting earlier editions NOT a reset? If they produce a pre-plague supplement, even if they make no changes, I consider that a reset. Its not 4e, its not 'beyond' 4e - its a RESET to an earlier time.
I think we may be getting into different terminology definitions again. 
EDIT: Changing things is a 'reboot', setting the clock back (resetting it) is a 'reset', IMHO. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Jan 2012 17:40:52 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:37:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Jorkens pretty much nailed it. Prepare to eat your hat Markus. The whole point of the dndnext initiative is to be inclusive of ALL editions, including fourth.
I would love to see how they can come out with something that can both bring back the 1st/2nd edition crowd, please the lovers of crunch heavy 3.x, and still keep the 4th edition gamers. That would be some feat. Based on recent history, the safer bet is that they will peeve off everyone instead. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 17:55:38
|
Their idea, as I currently perceive it (they've been pretty open about it), is to release products in all eras. Its a nice idea, IN THEORY.
The first thing I say to myself is "why bother?" In the 3e era - we all know the world goes to s**t in 1385. If the Spellplague remains canon, then it is rather pointless to 'save the world' in 1384 DR.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here - I don't give a rats arse in my own games - they are all homebrew anyway. I only care about canon in regards to storylines, useable 'current clack', and the Realms in-general (which I suppose means the novels). However, there are people out there who adhere to canon, and complain every time something 'goes wonky' in regards to their own game (strange, I know). I used Khelben in my 1380's campaign - so what? I was annoyed, but fudged things amicably.
This is why I - and most folks - don't bother with 'past' campaigns. I understand there are folks who do enjoy them, but they are in the minority (IMO). They tried this before - I think the "Arcane Age' product line was a complete failure (gaming-wise; it did give us gobs of lore to build on). Seriously, how many people actually PLAYED in the Arcane Age, as opposed to just buying the products for the lore? They need to look at that, before they try this multi-era thingy. There is a feeling of 'futility' that goes with past-gaming.
All IMHO, of course. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Jan 2012 17:56:05 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 18:00:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT: Changing things is a 'reboot', setting the clock back (resetting it) is a 'reset', IMHO.
Soo...that doesn't answer what happens to people, authors, designers, and the like that which to produced supplements and novels based in later time of the setting. I'm one that completly feels rules =/= setting. So aside from any changes they make to the next D&D rules, how does "re-set" change anything aside from what supplements they put out? Is this a more of open source idea of producing anything they want or is it WotC ONLY focusing on 1357 DR time and nothing else?
NOTE: The time I chose was just to an example and in no way or shape is a time which anyone says is going to be placed. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 18:36:15
|
Okay, I need to go through this one more time, how I see it (and since we've already established that folks don't even agree on terminology, this may not be the way everyone else sees it).
Reset = Producing new products for an earlier (then the last official campaign date) time period. You have basically 'Reset' the clock.
Total Reset: See Hard Reboot below.
Reboot.. =
'Soft' - keep all continuity and canon, UNLESS over written by new official lore. This has actually been the exact policy with every edition thus-far (which is why I don't understand the hostility toward it - this is nothing new)
'Hard' - Total restart of the campaign setting, and everything can change (or remain the same, as they see fit), basically, its like going back to when the OGB was released, and starting from there. While this may appeal to many, it is also the chanciest (everyone working for WotC - including freelancers - will have an opportunity to change all the stuff they didn't like). This is what happened after the OGB was released, and we got towns named after stupid rock songs, and NPCs named after sports players. To me, this is the most frightening prospect of all, and completely impossible if they want to do the 'multi-era' thing.
Well... not impossible. If they enscapsulate each era into its own unique continuity, its possible. I'd hate to see THAT train-wreck.
All IMHO, of course.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Jan 2012 18:43:34 |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 18:45:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This is why I - and most folks - don't bother with 'past' campaigns. I understand there are folks who do enjoy them, but they are in the minority (IMO). They tried this before - I think the "Arcane Age' product line was a complete failure (gaming-wise; it did give us gobs of lore to build on). Seriously, how many people actually PLAYED in the Arcane Age, as opposed to just buying the products for the lore? They need to look at that, before they try this multi-era thingy. There is a feeling of 'futility' that goes with past-gaming.
All IMHO, of course.
There seem to be a few people who believe that a majority of Realms fans are either playing in a "past" campaign since they didn't make the time jump (or possibly didn't make earlier time jumps) or are just not playing in the Realms.
I do think that it could be viable. Consider it like this. You have a group that hates the Spellplague so in their campaign it was somehow stopped and time moves on. They need to know what else was happening in the world at that point. They may still want other plot hooks, NPCs, regional info, etc. The types of information that we will never have enough of. If they are going to go their own way, while still trying to make use of existing information, I assume they will have a use for products set in the past. Likewise with info from the immediate-post Spellplague world. Some events that played out were already in motion and it isn't a stretch that their resolution would be still be much the same with or without the Spellplague.
The assorted polls and posts around here have shown me that the number one desire presently being voiced is more lore and I believe that need can be met in a satisfactory way for the majority. Some people will still hate the Spellplague, but now they will potentially know even more about their preferred time period and can figure out how to deal with the Spellplague when they get to that point. Just because I know I will most likely be dead in 100 years doen't mean I give up on anything now. Everyone should've known these characters weren't going to last forever (barring any of the ways that they could achieve immortality, obviously). I didn't quit reading Star Wars books set in the movie or post movie era just because I know how things are going to go down 100 years later (which we do know from the Legacy comics). I don't enjoy Old Republic era material any less even though I know how the galaxy will be set up 5000 years later thanks to the movies. |
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 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 19:01:12
|
On longer era-spans, like AA* to OGB, or even 3e to 4e, there shouldn't be any problem, as I see it.
But what happens when your circa 1e era game hits the wall of the ToT? If you ignore it and continue past it, you've pretty much invalidated most of the 2e, 3e, and 4e product-lines. I'm not saying this won't work - I'm just asking precisely the kinds of questions the 5e designers must be asking themselves right now.
And the canon Realms MUST be established, because without a set canon, the novel continuity crumbles like a rope of sand. How will they divorce 'novel canon' (THE canon) from the game material? Will they {finally} say that novels are non-canon? I like that idea, but I also know most folks here don't (an it would probably ruin the IP - that concept never worked in GH, and I don't think its working for Eb).
*Arcane Age |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Jan 2012 19:01:59 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 19:10:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Okay, I need to go through this one more time, how I see it (and since we've already established that folks don't even agree on terminology, this may not be the way everyone else sees it).
Reset = Producing new products for an earlier (then the last official campaign date) time period. You have basically 'Reset' the clock.
Gotcha. Well I can work with this as it doesn't disrupt the future I'll still be playing in. I don't mind supplements that work in this era (meaning produced with the circa 1300's DR). But I hope that doesn't discourage other timelines of the Realms such as 1400's from getting lore and the like as well. Why not just support all times though, each supplement having a wide range of locale and events that take place through out FR's history?
I mean, they could put out a type of "Volo's Guide of the Western Heartlands" and do each era of events that happen there in, with famous people who've come and gone and a bunch of other lore-heavy aspects from 1350 to 1480 DR. They could add in "the next D&D" rules here and it'll work out well. |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 19:58:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
On longer era-spans, like AA* to OGB, or even 3e to 4e, there shouldn't be any problem, as I see it.
But what happens when your circa 1e era game hits the wall of the ToT? If you ignore it and continue past it, you've pretty much invalidated most of the 2e, 3e, and 4e product-lines. I'm not saying this won't work - I'm just asking precisely the kinds of questions the 5e designers must be asking themselves right now.
I think that for major events (ToT, Return of Shade, Spellplague) that the fanbase has to come to grips with the idea that if they choose to ignore these events they will have to wing it a little and that official products that deal with those events or affected areas will be less useful to them. There realy isn't an easy way around that without going down the train wreck alternate realities route. I think the best the designers could do for that problem is to make some notes and suggestions for how to keep on going. ToT? Certain gods never died and got replaced. Or, it never happened at all. Don't like the return of Shade, then they never came back, the Sharn Wall wasn't breached, and Sembia is still controlled by Sembians. Or, maybe make some web based articles that follow certain "what if?" type scenarios out a few steps. Similar to Marvel's "What If?" comic series they would likely be single "issues" that explore a limited range of possible impacts.
I agree that the designers need to ask these kinds of questions and if possible try to get a feel for how the buying public might receive their ideas.
quote:
And the canon Realms MUST be established, because without a set canon, the novel continuity crumbles like a rope of sand. How will they divorce 'novel canon' (THE canon) from the game material? Will they {finally} say that novels are non-canon? I like that idea, but I also know most folks here don't (an it would probably ruin the IP - that concept never worked in GH, and I don't think its working for Eb).
I agree that a singular canon needs to be set in stone. To a large extent they have done that with SW (with one man being the only thing that can really cause major headaches when he chooses to) and I think they need to look to their model. A large database of names, places, events, artifacts, etc needs to be established and made permanent. Then as new material comes about it needs to be crosschecked against this database and when it passes it is added to the database. As I understand it, this is what they do for SW (I could be wrong though). It would take some serious work, but if it is done then they can support past eras with little worry of stepping on the toes of future events.
I also believe the novels should remain canon. I think it's a bit late in the game to shift course on that one.
|
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31726 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2012 : 00:53:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
If these books are a success they can do what was done in the 3ed. Dragonlance namely single volume books for different eras.
That's a workable plan. Those various "Age" volumes of the 3e DRAGONLANCE setting were tremendously well received among the community. Though only several of these tomes were released, they each focused specifically on a certain period of Krynnish history.
I"d actually recommend one step further, as evidenced by the War of the Lance tome, and suggest that one singular Realms source also offer alternate realities/histories based on changes to particular historical events across the history of the Realms. The War of the Lance tome offered some intriguing alternate developments that were detailed as "mini-campaign settings" within the entirety of the DRAGONLANCE setting.
This, then, would help to satisfy those individuals who wish for the "alternate realities" scenario. I think Sovereign Press proved themselves to be rather innovative with this sourcebook format. |
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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Let's Assume a Reset to the 1345DR
