| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:06:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
I think brainstorming a way for Shar's plan to backfire and suddenly hit her in the head now is great poetic justice.
Hoar would be pleased. 
only if Lord Assuran can take all of her portfolios.... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
 |
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:36:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I've been thinking that if WotC want to keep the Realms as part of 5E and make it a successful part, then they are going to have to come up with a product that appeals to a broad section of the FR fan base, and ideally the D&D fan base as a whole.
What my 23 or so years in the Realms has shown is that no edition or iteration of the Realms has come up with a brilliant "FR Player's Guide". This is the product that will make or break the Realms. The big FR Campaign Guide will attract the DMs and world builders (and the FR junkies but they buy everything anyway) but it is the PG that is likely the key to a successful 5E Realms.
I've long thought that the PG should be an information-packed tool that allows many, many character customisations steeped in the lore of the setting. It should contain information on regions, races, customs, dress, speech, social mores, taboos, superstitions, myths and legends. Game mechanics should be integrated with the Realms, giving players the chance to use variant spell casting traditions, fighting styles, priestly details and add-ons - basically, a system whereby cookie cutter characters are the exception rather than the rule.
The game/rules stuff should be so cool that it attracts non-FR fans simply for the content - "I've always wanted to play a dwarven bard with a repertoire of unique/variant song abilities" etc. - while the FR fans can wallow in the nitty gritty of the setting through their character choices.
Previous editions have gone some way toward this, but never to the extent needed IMHO.
If the Campaign Guide is a 300 page book, then so too should be the Player's Guide. Oh, and bring back the small font. The more information the better. Compare the font used in the 3E CG as opposed to the 4E CG. In the D&D world, more is more. And usually better.
-- George Krashos
This is truth.
The 3.5e Players Guide to FR was a switch and bait, having the mechanics update but none of the player oriented lore (the rest was mostly tied to marginally useful info on the Great Tree and some timeline, novel-based meta-plot updates). In the various Setting vs Setting threads, Eberron fans rightly point to their 3e era players guide as the example to beat and why FR as a setting "doesn't get it".
I would take it a step further and point to Paizo's Pathfinder Player Companion line as good concise resources. They are organized by topic such as region (national, sometimes city), race (Elves, Dwarves), organization (Pathfinder society), or religious spectrum (Good, Evil). They are beautiful 32 page guides offering a sizable piece of lore on the topic, enough to sink your teeth into, but brief enough to digest and get to the point.
Instead of large tomes, the setting becomes modular and the choice of each group whether they want to include.
The large tomes still exist, particular in the massive Inner Sea World Guide and the previous setting book. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:36:28
|
I am all for rebuilding, but when some of your 'building blocks' are not something most FR fans want any part of, then continuing to use them doesn't fix a thing.
In other words, 4e wasn't built like any other setting I have ever heard of (except some post-apocalyptic renditions of our RW) - it was built with Atom Bombs. Thats the deconstruction I was talking about. Leaving those 'bombs' in-place just means that everything people didn't BUY in 4e will still be there. If we didn't buy that lore three years ago, why would people want it now?
I hate peas. I've always hated peas. I will always hate peas, to my dying breath. Three years from now peas won't taste any better, no matter what sort of casserole you put them in. I don't want no stinky peas.
Now, I am just playing 'Devil's advocate' again - I don't necessarily feel this way, but I am sure many will. How are they going to change the attitude that has persisted (and still gets people hot) three years later? I used to think moving forward was the solution (just a few short weeks ago), but after seeing people's knee-jerk reactions to some things, I no longer think this plan is optimal. If 5e is just "4e with more lore", it ain't gonna work. I truly hope that is not their plan - that means they haven't admitted they've made a mistake; they are making it seem like we did. I don't fall for all this political BS - I see right through it.
They are forcing another spoonful of yucky peas in my mouth and saying "here... its good... just swallow it.." 
Sources: They are going forward with 4e - they said "all editions will be supported". They pretend to be using Paizo's 'open design' approach, yet their polls are taken on a site frequented almost entirely by 4e fans, and only 'paying customers' may participate in the conversation (ALSO 4e CUSTOMERS).
They aren't listening to anyone - its all smoke and mirrors. They are going to produce precisely what they want to produce, just like they always have. 5e is probably already designed (note that the beta was ready right when the announcement came out). We are getting stroked - the only thing they are currently working on is their PR campaign.
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 09 Feb 2012 20:39:13 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:45:53
|
| To use your own analogy of peas, MT, I (who also hates peas) do not mind them when they are mixed with all sorts of other vegetables and rice and meat and sauce in a stir fry. So, if in your analogy the Spellplague represents peas, then I think that they minimize its impact (or as Erik puts it, make it a footnote) then they could successfully reintegrate Realms fans who were turned off by it. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 21:15:10
|
I also eat peas under certain circumstances - I put them in my homemade chicken soup. Its the only place where I feel 'they belong'.
Just like pre-3e fans may except the Spellplague and everything that came with 4e, but only under very specific circumstances (like shunting it off into an alternate timeline).
If I didn't feel like 1479 DR was the same setting as the one I was a fan of, how is 1485 DR going to make me feel any different?
Suppose I lived in the far future, on some utopian world. Then something bad happens and the world goes 'boom'. Then some helpful aliens with super-technology come along and rebuild my world, and excelerate the birth rate, etc... and 'put everything right'.
The planet is the same. Most of the geography is the same.
But its still not my world.
I don't know these people. I don't care about them. I want to 'go home'. But my world is gone, and now I am here with all these strangers. I may learn to get used to it, but it will never be 'my setting' ever again.
Sorry about my new-found bitterness, but I thought we were getting a reset to an earlier era - I still greatly hope for this. Then fans can decide whether the Spellplague happens, or if it was "all just a bad dream". Moving the timeline forward takes that decision out of our hands - how is that an 'open design'?
I am desperately trying to remain hopeful, but I'm just hearing too much double-talk. Apparently they already know precisely what they are going to do, and now they are just trying to feed it to us in a manner which is 'less jarring' then 4e was.
No matter what, I will continue to support D&D and hope it is a huge success, but I personally doubt (at this time) I will be buying any product that talks about any year beyond 1374 DR. To me, thats akin to buying a 'pea cookbook'.
And once again, I am breaking my own personal vow not to do this - we haven't seen 5e yet - settings or rules. It is very stupid for me to be complaining about something we haven't even seen yet.
Just ignore me - I have personal issues ATM. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Feb 2012 22:13:05 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 21:28:02
|
I think every edition has its losses. Each time owners of the D&D brand have changed the D&D game, the Realms has changed in some way too. This always results in lots of fan hyperbole (read: nerd rage) over changes to the game and to the campaign setting, and then a loss of some portion of the fan base.
This loss is comprised of two parts: one part diehards who won’t change how they play D&D and already have more than enough sourcebooks for their gaming needs and, with some overlap, one part Realms fans who have a set view of what the Realms “is” and don’t have any room in that view for any changes, minor or major, to the campaign setting.
The loss is mitigated by new players to the D&D game being brought into the fold, as well as a general migration of gamers from one edition of the D&D game to the next.
If the latest version of the rules is really good, even diehards can be made to switch over (or at least to buy the new edition’s core rulebooks and give it a try—Third Edition did this best in my view).
One can argue the latest edition changeover saw the largest migration of fans away from the Realms vs. how many were gained. And there’s some room for debate over how many of the former group still play D&D in some form, and of those how many still play in any era of the pre-Spellplague Realms.
I think the people who still play D&D in general as well as those who play D&D in the Realms are the group Wizards of the Coast should be looking to bring back to the fold.
Customers who still play D&D using versions of the rules older than 4th Edition generally still have an interest in the campaign setting and do purchase 4E products that focus on those parts of the Realms least changed after the Spellplague struck, such as Waterdeep and the North, Cormyr, Sembia, the Dalelands and the Western Heartlands, (not incidentally the parts of the setting most gamers set their campaigns in).
What WotC should not do is attempt to woo customers who view the latest incarnation of the Realms as something like an insufferable taint on the setting. Whatever interest these prior customers had in the Realms constituent parts is overshadowed by a preference for viewing the Realms as a single entity.
For these former customers there is generally no interest in purchasing anything Realms-related because this entails support for a version of the setting they actively dislike.
For this reason these former customers shouldn’t be counted on to make targeted purchases of new products set in previous Realms eras under the inclusive-to-all-eras 5E banner, even if those products are set in the more popular areas of the Realms. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 09 Feb 2012 21:38:35 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 22:11:26
|
had a reply here... looked at it, gave it the finger and typed this instead.
move along....
as for those former customers.... they will look and they may buy the 5e realms to not kid yourself. wotc cattered to the FR haters once already and alienated their fanbase for the trouble.
that is all
now is their a psycologist here?? I want to know why I keep reading this.. |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 22:13:26
|
Getting Started on Bridging the Gap
Whatever form the Forgotten Realms takes under the 5E Banner, the very first printed Realms product should have as its core message the idea that anyone who has ever purchased a Forgotten Realms product is a Forgotten Realms fan.
Whether it’s a D&D rulebook, a novel, a computer game, a comic book or a magazine article (printed or virtual) if you have spent your money on one of these products, you are a fan of the Forgotten Realms.
That first product, likely a Dungeon Master’s Guide to the Realms, should go on to thank the purchaser for becoming a part of the most written about—and adventured in—fantasy setting in history.
Then the introduction should talk about the Realms history and how each era (or age) of the Realms—the eras/ages the book itself will cover in detail in subsequent pages—offers opportunities for Dungeon Masters to use 5E’s (presumably, from what we’re hearing so far) highly customizable rules to create memorable campaigns of virtually any type and variety.
Follow up with examples of these eras and the kinds of campaigns one can make.
It should point out that the best of the Realms is all of the Realms, and for this reason a Dungeon Master has almost infinite room to tell any story he or she wants to.
This introduction should be written in the voice of Elminster, and thus by Ed Greenwood.
*****
I think this approach is a good start because it puts everyone under the same roof.
It also deemphasizes one of 4E’s design tenants (i.e. move the setting forward so DMs and novel writers have room to tell stories again) that stuck in a lot of people’s craws.
It also has the benefit of directing the reader to view the Realms not as a static thing set in one time period, but rather as a vibrant world that changes over time. This starts the process of mitigating some of the more jarring RSEs (Spellplague, I’m looking at you here) by showing Dungeon Masters how they have a whole timeline to move around in and work with.
Lastly, it makes any gaps in printed lore all look the same. What’s 100 years when in some cases you’re looking at millennia? |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 09 Feb 2012 22:45:01 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 22:20:45
|
I will leave my final judgement when I see what they produce.
EDIT: However, the official date of any setting is the last chronological date of any entry. You can attempt to create the impression 'all is one', but I don't think its going to work. If the date 1512 DR is thrown out there for ANY reason what-so-evcer, then at that moment the setting is 'set' at that date.
Just sayin'....
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
now is their a psycologist here?? I want to know why I keep reading this..
LOL
Basically, once again, the same exact attitude: "We will do what we want, and if the fans don't like it they can get lost".
{sigh}
I knew it was all BS. Nothing is going to change but the rules, and I really don't care about those. I am seriously considering deleting my account at this point (so I agree with your attitude sfdragon).
Perhaps I will take their (WotC) advice and 'move on'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 10 Feb 2012 15:01:07 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 22:42:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Novels force the advancment of the timeline.
i don't see this being true. am i just being thick? we could theoretically see a novel set in -2000 DR. publishing this novel doesn't require Wizards to rewind the official timeline to -2000 DR. it's merely a novel set in -2000 DR. other novels may follow that one, or not. exactly the same logic applies to writing a novel set in 1500 DR. novels do not, and should not, advance the timeline. novels are stories about something that happens and the people who are part of it. raindrops, not rivers.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I am all for rebuilding, but when some of your 'building blocks' are not something most FR fans want any part of, then continuing to use them doesn't fix a thing.
...together with...
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
"all editions will be supported"
i'm definitely not trying to put words in your mouth, because i sense that i'm way out in right field right now, but i think we're on the same page here, or at least the same chapter. you cannot support all versions of the Realms while advancing the timeline. anything that includes the Spellplague being part of history will alienate those of us who hate the way the Spellplague was done. the same is true for any other big cataclysm created in the Present, whatever year that happens to be. we need a way to support those events for those who like them, and present the Realms without those events for those who hate them. the solution to this is staring us right in the face: the official timeline stops at 1357 DR. the Time of Troubles may happen next year, or it may not; it's up to the individual DM. the info is already published, if he/she wants to explore it. since the year is, and will henceforth remain, 1357 DR, there is no worry about "going forward" officially speaking. the only going forward that happens is in home campaigns. alternate cataclysms can be published as part of an Arcane Age type of setting, without advancing the timeline. novels can be written about these events, or anything else, without advancing the timeline. "going forward" is not your friend.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
And people have ALWAYS HAD THE CHOICE to ignore things they don't like and skip over to things they do. And look how that's turned out.
my problem with this is that it's simultaneously true and not true, and that's more annoying than just not talking about a choice at all. i had the "choice" to ignore/skip/reject the Time of Troubles. but making that choice forces me to rewrite parts of many subsequent Realms products. the Spellplague is even worse. i cannot use any practical portion of 4e Realms products in my homebrew Mulhorand game, because i have plans for things coming after 1385 which do not include being squished under the materializing landscape of another planet, and the water level changing in the Inner Sea. Halruaa is part of my Realmscape... understandably, i'm not going to have it going poof until/unless i want it to go poof. the choice is a lie, because making that choice confronts me with either selectively rewriting a bunch of things or else opting out of the official Realms and just writing all of my own material without much regard to anything published. the latter choice involves less frustration, and saves me a bunch of money, so guess what happens most of the time. this is not in WotC's best interest, so the logical conclusion for them is to stop putting us in that position. and it's quite easy to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But its still not my world.
This. with or without bitterness, this is the crux of the problem with advancing the timeline, and the Powers That Be need to "get" this. inevitably, it seems, there's a drive to make things "exciting" with kabooms etc. this will always go in directions that a significant number of DMs and players do not like. that makes it a less-than-desirable way to develop.
why don't we change our approach to the way we produce campaign settings? why don't we stop using big cataclysmic events, since they're obviously not working as intended, and instead present stable and detailed foundations for game play? why don't we paint a portrait of a whole world (or solar system, or galaxy, or plane, because spelljammer and planescape were cool) and stop worrying about what happens next year or ten years from now in that world? authors will give us DMs plenty to work with, for advancing the timeline in our own games. novels can give us tons of ideas and leaping-off points for future/past campaigns. when Wizards advances the timeline, DMs and players always lose. please stop doing it. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 22:58:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Basically, once again, the same exact attitude: "We will do what we want, and if the fans don't like it they can get lost". :snip: Perhaps I will take their (WotC) advice and 'move on'.
Dude why are you being so dramatic?
Besides, you can't be said to be taking their advice when you put words in their mouth first.
How about if we follow Ed's advice and wait to see what they do first?
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 09 Feb 2012 22:59:24 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 23:41:43
|
An alternate timeline is outside the scope of this thread. I've already pointed out (in the OP and repeatedly throughout the thread) that we are talking about fixing the Realms in a way that does not involve a reboot or a reset or an alternate timeline or any fancy-schmancy retcon garbage, which is basically what got us into the 4e mess in the first place. Please stop talking about it.
We *are* talking about how to build a 5e Forgotten Realms that honors all that has come before and embraces all fans. Sure, there will be some who want nothing to do with it because of XXX or XXX, but how is that any different from any other edition of the setting? There will always be things that drive people away--our goal here is to find the way to minimize/avoid those things, and play up the things that draw people.
What the designers need to do is create something AWESOME. Something that honors the lore, ties together the story of the Realms, and appeals to everyone who has ever called him/herself a fan of the setting. Something that does not set out to break the setting to rebuild it. Something that takes the impure elements of the Realms we have, purify them, and use them to make the setting stronger.
I *know* this is possible. And I will not stop working toward that goal.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Sources: They are going forward with 4e - they said "all editions will be supported". They pretend to be using Paizo's 'open design' approach, yet their polls are taken on a site frequented almost entirely by 4e fans, and only 'paying customers' may participate in the conversation (ALSO 4e CUSTOMERS).
They aren't listening to anyone - its all smoke and mirrors. They are going to produce precisely what they want to produce, just like they always have. 5e is probably already designed (note that the beta was ready right when the announcement came out). We are getting stroked - the only thing they are currently working on is their PR campaign.
All IMHO, of course.
While I respect your "HO," it is based on logical fallacies. Wotc is openly playtesting 5e. Last I talked to my friends on the inside, they were processing over 10,000 applications for playtesting every DAY. It is simply way, WAY too early in the process to cry foul and say they aren't listening to isolated voices. There are LOTS of people working on this.
As for the beta being ready, yeah, that's how a playtest works. They come up with a rough draft of how they want the system to go, and then people playtest it like crazy and turn it into a new version. You don't think Paizo did this? I happen to know they did, because I PARTICIPATED IN THE PAIZO PLAYTEST. The beta showed up, people playtested it, Paizo received the playtest notes, the feedback affected how the final version turned out.
I happen to know (since many of the WotC designers are my friends that I talk to and game with on occasion) that 5e is being worked on HARD behind WotC's doors, and it is constantly in flux. I see brand new coolness every week. So yes, rest assured, they ARE listening to opinions.
And as for the source of those opinions? Yes, they take feedback from people who sign up to work in the playtest. I don't think they give all that much weight to the forums, and really they shouldn't, because any crank can get on the forums and say anything (we all know it happens). And why-oh-why would you WANT WotC to look elsewhere for opinions--to ENworld or Candlekeep or the Paizo boards, etc.? Isn't that exactly what the common derision of 4e alleges--that WotC put too much stock in the opinions of non-fans? I would much rather they listen to what their fans are telling them they want.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 02:29:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
And for the record, Krash, I would LOVE to see you on a Council of Realms Experts. My dream team would be you, the James Brothers, Steven Schend, Brian Cortijo, and Ed Greenwood, with Bruce Cordell as both a member and the in-house WotC liaison.
Cheers
Amen to this! 
For the record, if this was the case, I would bet there would be a lot less concern about what's going to happen to the Realms, because we would see names of people we trust to 'get it' in a position to point to X or Y and say "that works, but that doesn't". Wizbro would be wise to do exactly this. Which is another reason I admit I'm very worried, because I don't see it happening.
Despite my preferences (which I will not discuss further in this scroll, in the event I might have already), we must all realize (and accept) that what we have is what we get. We were handed lemons - so it's time to make lemonade and some lemon pound cake, as it is what I believe Erik is trying to accomplish here.
Here's a question, then. If we take the premise that we want the Shattered Realms to once again be the 'Forgotten Realms of yore and lore' while realizing that the Shattered Realms are the non-negotiable baseline, we have to:
(A) Figure out what cannot be changed. Seriously - this issue has to be addressed. Once this is done, we know what we can expect. As I see it:
* Old Empires: Unther is gone, and all that's left of Mulhorand is one city under the thumb of the Imaskari. The truth is, Akanul and Tymanther are here to stay, which absolutely precludes Unther and Mulhorand returning. To make it otherwise would require another RSE, which is the worst possible idea there is. They will not see the face of Faerun again. Period.
* Maztica: Gone, although possibly still existing elsewhere. Returned Abeir is where it used to be. Period. To change that would require another RSE. Bad idea. However, it is possible to still have Maztican civilization clinging on at the inner fringes of the two continents north and south of Returned Abeir. By this point, it possible, even likely, that there has been a degree of cultural divergence, with Anchorome's Mazticans having an 'Aztec' flavor, while the other group has a bit more of a 'Mayan' feel.
* The Shattered South: Luiren and Var are under water (though of all the consequences of the Sellplague, only Halruaa made less sense). To change this would require another RSE. You get the idea.
That concludes the list, as I see it, of 'Things that cannot be changed'. Because absolutely everything else can be (if gradually) changed back without requiring RSEs or more than a modicum of thought on Wizbro's part. Am I wrong? I don't think I am.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 10 Feb 2012 02:35:33 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 05:28:19
|
Akanul was in existance during 3e only the gnesai are new. Them I've no problem with.
and no the reurn of Halruaa would not need another rse.
how many of the old flying enclaves of ancient netheril are accounted for....
how much of netheril was even remembered when it fell and its surivivors fled and even the city states that became after the fact fell.
the rules could be altered to where a time travelling wizard or group of wizards changed a few tidbits around and or did things to palces after the fact.
namely hiding three or four netherese enclaves away into a long forgotten demiplane to be used by yhe halruuans in a distnat time.
the netherese KNEW that mystra and the weave were not required to cast spells.
they were a country lead by a diviner.... they would have had warning enough to know when to evacuate.
who is to say....
I do recall the arcane age netheril book even said that there was the one enclave that disappeared never to be seen again( not Shade, this one was ruled by a woman iirc) |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
Edited by - sfdragon on 10 Feb 2012 05:28:54 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 06:36:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
and no the reurn of Halruaa would not need another rse.
Nope, never said it would. I was just using it as an example of something that wasn't needed. In other words, no one can tell me there was a good reason to blow it up...because there wasn't...it seems to have been done strictly out of whimsy. Maztica and the Old Empires were trashed so they could bring in certain elements common to all of their game worlds, and because someone thought (mistakenly) the fans as a whole hated them, but Halruaa seems to have gotten the detonite stick simply because...well, I have no idea why, actually.
So yes, Halruaa can be brought back safe and whole without any sort of RSE. In fact, I maintain it would be among the simpler lands to bring back.
As to Akanul, I was merely going by what's been printed:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Akan%C3%BBl
...as an example. Wizbro isn't going to deep-six their New Genasi or their dragonborn, or the lands they inhabit. So the thing to do is work on other places where RSE's aren't needed - which, as I said, can be anything not enumerated in the list in my previous post.
As an addition, I would urge Wizbro to say "Faerun bore the brunt of the damage" - meaning that anything that did not appear in the FRCS should not be touched beyond perhaps Blue Fire pockets and some non-cataclysmic changes...in other words, apart from spellscars, and a pocket of plaguechanged here and there, no real differences exist in Kara-Tur, Zakhara, or anyplace else that did not appear in the previous published work.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 10 Feb 2012 06:38:37 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 06:51:44
|
| Luiren being flooded got me thinking. Did that realm get swept away in a flash with thousands dying and most likely the majority of the halfling population of Faerun dying? Or did the waters rise in a way that there was a mass exodus of them with thousands of survivors? And if this was the case, where did they go? I wouldn't mind the Dales having an area like the Shire being added to it. My guess would be Battledale or Essembra since that was depopulated. Mistledale would be a good fit too methinks. Or Corm Orp or in that area of the Western Heartlands. |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 06:54:00
|
oops my bad it was airspur that existed preplague.....
Akanul's capital |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 07:01:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
Luiren being flooded got me thinking. Did that realm get swept away in a flash with thousands dying and most likely the majority of the halfling population of Faerun dying? Or did the waters rise in a way that there was a mass exodus of them with thousands of survivors? And if this was the case, where did they go? I wouldn't mind the Dales having an area like the Shire being added to it. My guess would be Battledale or Essembra since that was depopulated. Mistledale would be a good fit too methinks. Or Corm Orp or in that area of the Western Heartlands.
there were halfling settlements preplague that existed that were not mentioned in the 4e campaign guide and as a few others have pointed out assume it exists until said otherwise.
only the luiren halfling population would have been effected by whatever flooded their homeland and no afair, nobody has ever said what did it I assumed it was hit by a tital wave... although having it rain enough to flood it would work too.
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 15:17:20
|
@xaeyruudh - we ARE on the same page. I just tend to ramble a lot. 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Basically, once again, the same exact attitude: "We will do what we want, and if the fans don't like it they can get lost". :snip: Perhaps I will take their (WotC) advice and 'move on'.
Dude why are you being so dramatic?
Besides, you can't be said to be taking their advice when you put words in their mouth first.
How about if we follow Ed's advice and wait to see what they do first?
This -
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
For these former customers there is generally no interest in purchasing anything Realms-related because this entails support for a version of the setting they actively dislike.
For this reason these former customers shouldn’t be counted on to make targeted purchases of new products set in previous Realms eras under the inclusive-to-all-eras 5E banner, even if those products are set in the more popular areas of the Realms.
You seem to be very active here SINCE the announcement.
Basically, you just said "we shouldn't cater to those people".
Or am I wrong?
And BTW, I have no problem with the 4e Realms - I just don't want them to continue pushing what amounts to a 'failed setting' - its just bad business. I am on their side, trust me. I just think this is a HUGE mistake.
The 10-year period from 1375-1385 DR would be IDEAL, because then people can choose which directions their campaigns are going. If they move the 1479 DR date forward, they've completely taken that decision out of our hands.
Sure we can run our games any way we want (you should see mine - its barely recognizable), but what I run at home and what I expect from the canon Realms are two completely different things.
I am actually finding it IMPOSSIBLE to finish reading Elminster Must Die - a situation I have only run into maybe a 2-3 times in my entire life (and I've managed to finish some pretty crappy stuff).
It isn't about quality at all - its because I have NO INTEREST in what I am reading. I do not recognize that world - its not the one I know and love. I think I ran smack into that wall when I saw Alusair as a ghost - I just can't get past that. Sorry, but I can't.
So if that is my attitude, then I am correct in my assumption that new Realms products are not going to be targeted at me, right?
Nor should they be, if I am in the minority. Trust me, I hope I am wrong and 5e D&D is a wild success - it is part of my childhood, and I have many a fond memory because of it. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 10 Feb 2012 15:20:57 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 17:18:28
|
I don't think we should advance the timeline at all--or maybe, to be more accurate, I think we should advance multiple eras a little bit.
To explain, I think we should release Realmslore set in 1375-1380, 1385-1390, 1479-1482, and wherever else in the timeline we can. The campaign you're playing is the REALMS--you should have lore to support whatever era you choose to play in.
And yes, I believe the Spellplague can be rendered a footnote in history and we can get back to the magic that made the Realms magical once again, whilst keeping all the new blood that signed on with 4e FR. And heck, if you want to play up the Spellplague in your game, great, more power to you--I just want us to move away from the perception (fostered by the 4e FR marketing push, mostly) that you HAVE TO play it that way.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 17:45:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Basically, you just said "we shouldn't cater to those people".
Not necessarily. What I said was this group of people shouldn’t be viewed as a potential revenue stream, for the reasons I gave.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The 10-year period from 1375-1385 DR would be IDEAL, because then people can choose which directions their campaigns are going. If they move the 1479 DR date forward, they've completely taken that decision out of our hands.
To me this reads as contradictory.
Either you can choose which time period to set your campaigns in or you can’t.
Personally, I feel the very best thing Wizards of the Coast can do is not give a single, fixed start date.
They should give multiple “start” dates.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So if that is my attitude, then I am correct in my assumption that new Realms products are not going to be targeted at me, right?
Well, they seem to be saying they’ll support all eras and overwrite nothing.
I think you just have to ask yourself: if Ed writes a novel set in the 1300s featuring Alusair, is it going to matter to you whether or not Alusair is fated to be a ghost?
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 17:48:41
|
DM’s Guide for the Realms
A DM’s Guide for the Realms for 5E can’t ignore the 5E game system. If this is a product for the Dungeons & Dragons game, it’s got to have 5E rules content to some degree.
Second, a DM’s Guide for the Realms must not give people what they already have wherever possible. There’s so many Realms sourcebooks out there that a DM’s Guide runs the risk of reprinting what someone already has in some other Realms sourcebook on their shelf.
Third, a DM's Guide for the Realms should have no single, fixed starting point.
The DM’s Guide for the Realms should focus on providing a setting overview in the Classic Era of the Realms that focuses on the mid-1200s. I don’t have my Grand History of the Realms in front of me, but I think this puts the book in an era when Waterdeep’s nobles are warring with each other in the streets, and Cormyr is experiencing civil war and strife (what was it called? The Red vs. Purple war?) as there are no War Wizard Order under Vangerdahast.
More importantly, the “focus point”, such that there is one, ought to be on the Border Kingdoms.
That is, just as the OGB gave us a detailed view of Shadowdale, the 5E DM’s Guide for the Realms should give us the Border Kingdoms in detail, as they were in mid-1200 DR.
For the Arcange Age, I’m thinking Raumathar and Narfell at the height of their conflict. No need to focus on Netheril or Cormanthor (‘thyr? I can never remember.)
The post-Spellplague era ought to be termed the Modern Age. It’s hard not to talk about the Spelllplague when it managed to accomplish such feats as slaying gods, reordering the heavens and comingling two whole planets, but the tone of this part of the 5E DM’s Guide for the Realms should be about the untapped future of the Realms.
It should in every way possible talk about the world growing and interacting. It should detail places like Cormyr and how it’s grown into an Empire of sorts; talk about far away Laerakond and name the other continents of the Realms and how each is slowly coming to be aware of the other through trade and commerce.
This should be the part of the book that discusses the wider world of Toril and not just Faerûn. Give us the names of the other continents. Tell us just a little about them. Wet people’s appetites for more, then point them to DDI and ask the James Brothers if they’ll write up these far off places.
All this, or they can just give us a world book on Abeir. ;)
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 10 Feb 2012 17:49:41 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 22:48:52
|
...and Jeremy brings me back to the thread. (just so you all know who to blame)
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
a DM's Guide for the Realms should have no single, fixed starting point.
I can dig this. I would point out that you're talking about three starting points, but that would just be argumentative.  ...And as long as one of the valid starting points, remaining constant through the length of the edition, is pre-1358 then I can be fine with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
More importantly, the “focus point”, such that there is one, ought to be on the Border Kingdoms.
This is pure brilliance. Far better than Cormyr, or the Dales. The Border Kingdoms are an ideal beginning adventuring environment.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
For the Arcange Age, I’m thinking Raumathar and Narfell at the height of their conflict.
Also, this. Another awesome place/time to "grow up" as an adventurer.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
This should be the part of the book that discusses the wider world of Toril and not just Faerûn. Give us the names of the other continents. Tell us just a little about them. Wet people’s appetites for more, then point them to DDI
Not quite as enthused about this, as I think the other continents deserve more development, but I'm okay with baby steps. Maybe 6e will finally get around to having several fully valid continents. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 02:24:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And BTW, I have no problem with the 4e Realms - I just don't want them to continue pushing what amounts to a 'failed setting' - its just bad business. I am on their side, trust me. I just think this is a HUGE mistake.
The 10-year period from 1375-1385 DR would be IDEAL, because then people can choose which directions their campaigns are going. If they move the 1479 DR date forward, they've completely taken that decision out of our hands.
Sure we can run our games any way we want (you should see mine - its barely recognizable), but what I run at home and what I expect from the canon Realms are two completely different things.
If the 4E Realms really was a financial loss for WotC, I could understand this... but I'm pretty sure that they broke even on the Spellplague thanks to the novels (Bob, Ed, Erik, and Paul in particular; I've enjoyed the new Elminster novels, I'm looking forward to Paul's new trilogy with great anticipation, and I stopped reading Drizzt novels 20 years ago, so the Spellplague has been largely irrelevant to my FR novel reading). See my next point...
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I am actually finding it IMPOSSIBLE to finish reading Elminster Must Die - a situation I have only run into maybe a 2-3 times in my entire life (and I've managed to finish some pretty crappy stuff).
It isn't about quality at all - its because I have NO INTEREST in what I am reading. I do not recognize that world - its not the one I know and love. I think I ran smack into that wall when I saw Alusair as a ghost - I just can't get past that. Sorry, but I can't.
That moment weirded me out too, Mark, but I kept reading... and so should you, if it's at all possible. I think it'll be worth it. Mind you, if it takes you until the next book comes out to finish EMD and BED, you'll probably be in a better position than myself, for instance... waiting for Elminster Enraged has been a "one day at a time" exercise.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So if that is my attitude, then I am correct in my assumption that new Realms products are not going to be targeted at me, right?
Nor should they be, if I am in the minority. Trust me, I hope I am wrong and 5e D&D is a wild success - it is part of my childhood, and I have many a fond memory because of it.
Truthfully, I don't think you (and I) are in the minority. If we were, I don't think we'd be looking at an open-timeline FR only four years after the Spellplague. But maybe Hasbro thinks they can sell new RPG editions the way they can sell video game sequels. If that's the case, they'll learn otherwise fairly quickly.
Regardless, I'm going to wait and see what 5e looks like; hopefully I get some playtest info soon.  |
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 11 Feb 2012 02:26:24 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 03:01:53
|
I know a lot of people are interested in the Border Kingdoms, so thats probably a good idea - I don't care about them, but I am also aware that I am in the minority on that one (being an old GH DM, I ran a 'Bandit Kingdoms' campaign - been there, done that).
So instead of my concept of separate setting books, each with a start area (one of the few things I loved about 4e, BTW - I thought that was great idea), they want to go for a 'no start area' approach? I think a fully detailed start-area should be mandatory for EVERY edition and setting - it helps the 1st-time DM (and Ive stated many times here, training new DMs/Players has always been a top priority of mine).
I still think they should dump Nentir Vale into the Realms - it is GOOD - and they should keep what was good. Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water - thats an ideal start-area (maybe instead of Delimbyr Vale, where I had it, they can stick it somewhere down there by the Border kingdoms?) It could also be stuck in the 'wood between the worlds' (mittlemarch, ethereal, etc), but I'd prefer it be more solidly anchored to FR.
Lastly - and then I'll be quite about it - one of the very few things ALL FR fans agree upon is the 'current' campaign date. Even the 4e detractors had to except 1479 DR as the 'now' of FR. Awhile back - just before 4e FR came out - we had been discussing just this, and we found that the new official date was somewhere in 1380's, because of some novel (it may have been the Myth Drannor series). because there was an event in the novel that took place on that date, we all excepted that as the 'current' Realms date. It is probably one of the very few things we ever reached a consensus on.
And tha's why I don't think the 'play in any era' thing will work. The moment Drizzt was 'in the future' in that prologue, we all knew that was the new campaign date. It is always the very last date detailed (in any way) in either source or novel. We can play in the era of our choice - we could always do that - but we will still be keenly aware of what the 'correct' date is.
Just my 2 cents is all. I hope I'm wrong. Regardless, I will buy the products that interest me, because both my rules and my setting are so homebrew it no longer matters. Just make the material really good, and people will buy it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
If the 4E Realms really was a financial loss for WotC, I could understand this... but I'm pretty sure that they broke even on the Spellplague thanks to the novels (Bob, Ed, Erik, and Paul in particular; I've enjoyed the new Elminster novels, I'm looking forward to Paul's new trilogy with great anticipation, and I stopped reading Drizzt novels 20 years ago, so the Spellplague has been largely irrelevant to my FR novel reading).
I never said the 4e Realms were a loss - I just meant it wasn't a 'phenomenal success' by Hasbro's standards (else, we wouldn't be looking at a new edition and different approach to FR just 3 years later). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 11 Feb 2012 19:26:42 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 03:04:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
]I appreciate the idea, but this thread is devoted to NOT cutting the Realms in half and dividing the fanbase. An alternate timeline is the same strategy as going into 4e, and it almost killed the Realms. Why would we want to do that again?
As I see it, your strategy is all about deconstruction, whereas what I'm talking about is repair and reconciliation.
And people have ALWAYS HAD THE CHOICE to ignore things they don't like and skip over to things they do. And look how that's turned out.
Sigh.
Cheers
+1
Really, I don't see how an alternative timelines would help anyone that enjoys post-Spellplague era. I had penned a long rant about how this further creates division amongst Realms fans, but I think that's been done enough in this thread. We're here to bridge gaps and find solutions to the changes created in the Realms via games supplements and novels alike (not all of which explicidly deal with the spellplague).
And as I go over a lot of this thread, I see we did quite a good job with some of the questions and areas of concern, and definitly things I'm going to use in my homebrew campaign. Excellent job so far. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 03:43:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I still think they should dump Nentir Vale into the Realms - it's good - and they should keep what was good. Don't throw the baby out with the bath-water - thats an ideal start-area (maybe instead of Delimbyr Vale, where I had it, they can stick it somewhere down there by the Border kingdoms?) It could also be stuck in the 'wood between the worlds' (mittlemarch, ethereal, etc), but I'd prefer it be more solidly anchored to FR.
I just did a really quick mock-up of this, trying to match the scales as close as possible (I think I'm off by a 1/3 of a mile, give or take).
Putting Nentir Vale down by the Border Kingdoms.
Not too shabby - might have to fudge a little. For 4e+, it shouldn't be any problem at all. Considering the total lack of canon for that spot, only the geography needs tweaking for earlier editions. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 11 Feb 2012 03:47:30 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 04:18:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And that why I don't think the 'play in any era' thing will work. The moment Drizzt was 'in the future' in that prologue, we all knew that was the new campaign date. It is always the very last date detailed (in any way) in either source or novel. We can play in the era of our choice - we could always do that - but we will still be keenly aware of what the 'correct' date is.
'We' don't all feel as you do. I've not felt any particular attachment to the latest Realms timeline since 1993 or so, when the biggest-ever jump happened before 2008 (for no reason that was ever discussed). For me, the Realms' centre of gravity is the mid-thirteenth century DR, because it's the most detailed, and -- I think -- real-seeming, coherent world, with the best DMing possibilities and most of the characters I like living the most interesting stories. Yes, there's a certain glamour to the furthest point of revealed time, but it's one appealing thing in the Realms' span and readers' imaginations among many. So I'm hopeful that the multi-era thing will work, and neither of us, I think, has strong reason to think it won't, or knows which of us is more typical. I do know that the very latest post-movie Star Wars timeline, the Fourth Age of Middle-earth, Arthurian Britain after Arthur's death, the latest point of the Thieves' World timeline, the post-Hero Wars Glorantha revealed in King of Sartar, and so on are far from overwhelmingly the most popular time frames in those milieux. And for me at least, the edge of the unknown works another way: there is more that's established about my preferred Realms that I don't know than will likely ever be created for any other time or, perhaps, any other secondary world. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 04:40:54
|
As much as I would love to see the Spellplague shoved off into footnote status, I don't believe WotC will go with such a drastic approach. They had so much riding on that event, it was their big "shot heard around the community" signalling "these aren't your father's Forgotten Realms anymore". I don't see them fading it so readily, they believed it was a necessary, and even a great, idea.
They will likely keep the same course as now, offer articles set in the post-Spellplague era the with a weightier historical component that can be adapted for pre-Spellplague eras, not unlike the recent articles.
It's still going to default to post-Spellplague era, but DMs can adapt the articles if they want to. Think about it, to cover all eras, you must include all eras, thus the automatic start date will be post-Spellplague for 5E. Groups can choose to start earlier, but the articles have to be written from a post-Spellplague standpoint in order for everyone to get the information from all eras. It's technically the most fair method given Wotc's stated approach. Therein lies the reason why this approach will always favor the post-Spellplague Realms. That's fine and expected.
Given this situation, I would like to see something like a single "What if" book like the Neverwinter book detailing a 1385 to 1480s Realms that didn't go through the Spellplague. Could include notes on a non-ToT version of the Realms as well, probably easier to implement than the main purpose of a non-Spellplague FR, will not take much space. Most of the other RSEs are relatively minor compared to the Spellplague, even the Drow pantheon ones. The Spellplague requires negating whole areas of the setting rather than just a few characters or a god.
Maybe then have conversion guides adapting 5E post-Spellplague material to pre-Plague eras for DDI. It could be an annual compilation. All the articles of the last year, if they fit the classic Realms, put them in, if they don't, given them a quick conversion. Sell this for the price of a regular e-supplement and I would buy it.
This does shove non-Spellplague fans off into a corner, but it's still an actively supported corner, making use of not only the historical articles, but also a large portion of the 4E/5E era material. The non-Spellplague version becomes the secondary, where as a lot of old fans would rather Spellplague FR be secondary to to the non-Plague version. Novels and such hold the Spellplague as canon, and I think that's the only continuity that matters to WotC.
If given a choice of not supporting the Realms at all, I'll take this bone thrown at me. FR still wouldn't be my primary setting, but it would at least remain a setting I participate in. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 04:55:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
They had so much riding on that event, it was their big "shot heard around the community" signalling "these aren't your father's Forgotten Realms anymore". I don't see them fading it so readily, they believed it was a necessary, and even a great, idea.
It was a particular, narrowly decided on response to a specific economic situation, corporate pressure and resulting D&D business plan that are no longer current. I doubt most involved in Realms-2008 thought it was the definitive best thing for the setting in artistic or even long-term commercial terms even then, and the people behind the next phase of Realms publication are a largely different group. The inclusion of Realms-2008 in this phase is one of the few givens we've been told, but its relative prominence is far from a sure thing.
(I hope most of us realize how tenuous most of our 'wills' and 'shoulds' are!) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
