| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 21:47:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And again, having someone keep an eye on continuity would fix problems. We've had more continuity glitches from source material than we have from novels, so your idea doesn't fix that.
We have?
Thats weird, because IMO its the precise opposite. Too bad its too huge an issue to 'crunch the numbers'. Maybe I just don't notice them as much in-source?
On the other hand, I notice them snow-balling as the setting matures, so I completely understand where they were coming from with 4e (not agreeing with what they did, just where they were coming from).
And I don't see us getting a 'setting cop' unless 5e FR is wildly successful, so if you and everyone else wants to see one of those, I suggest we buy-up every FR product they produce in 5e (in other words, they would only make such a decision if its lucrative to do so).
We are on near-opposite ends of the spectrum, I fear, as far as our 'needs' are concerned Wooly. Novels are not a priority to me - I'm a D&D gamer first. The novels are enjoyable, but I don't assign them any sort of importance (beyond providing us with additional information, which sourcebooks can do better). I actually prefer novels not attached to a game setting - less problems that way.
I also came from Greyhawk, which probably has a lot to do with it - novels were never canon there (not even Gary's).
This is a perfect example of how they have their work cut out for them - most of the time you and I agree on things, but this is a basic building block of the setting that we don't. Once again, I do not envy the task they set before themselves. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Feb 2012 21:48:30 |
 |
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 21:56:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And I'm not saying to get rid of the 4e lore at all - a LOT of it was retro-active (retcons), but wouldn't it be better to reboot to an earlier period, using that lore (Abeir, primordials, Aboleths, etc), and then leave the future up to the gamers? Only movies and books should have 'fixed' endings - I'd like to have a little more free will then that. This isn't a MORPG - the quests should not have pre-scripted endings. D&D's main attraction was its 'free-form' style - this 'future is set in stone' approach is counter-intuitive to what D&D was all about.
The future is not set in stone. Canon just gives you suggestions about what to do in your games--you are completely free to ignore it, and it's disingenuous to suggest that you don't have the choice.
Erik, I fully appreciate this... but what WotC is saying is that we have the choice to be their customer or not. Agreed, this is common sense, but it's not a statement they should be making, now that they're #2 to Paizo. WotC should be doing everything they can to bring back lost fans of the Realms, and many of those fans were lost simply because of Mark's point... which I've made regarding the "end of 3e" adventure trilogy several times around the 'Keep. I'd started to reiterate myself yet again here, but it's counterproductive. Let me just say that I hope that WotC does the right thing, but they'll need to look long and hard at their recent track record to do so. To make things line up (one of your stated goals, and a most laudable one), WotC will have to go back to having a Realms continuity director, but even this may not be enough. The gaffes in continuity in 3e and later are far beyond two liches named Wulgreth arriving in the same place at vastly different times and coexisting in that place without interaction for a span, and if making things line up is the primary goal, I would think that the only way to do so without a timeline rewind or reboot is to have a continuity team go back through all of the 3e and 4e FR products and fix everything... and to my way of thinking, a reboot to the end of 2e is far more economical. One thing I would mention is that, if WotC does "open up" the tmeline, what's to stop them from invalidating canon and/or splitting up the timeline based on customer interest? Not that I would expect them to do any such thing; they've flayed the covering flesh from my internal cynic, and it will take some powerful magic for me to recover. I've tried to be optimistic, but I realize that doing so just sets me up for disappointment, so I will continue to be the armchair quarterback I've always been since the Spellplague began, and I'll keep my Ctrl-Alt-Delete thoughts out of this scroll; I've seen some excellent ideas in it, but my bet is that they will be ignored by the powers that be. Yes, I regularly bet against myself, because that way, if I lose my bet, I have the consolation of being right. It works.  |
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 12 Feb 2012 22:00:46 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 22:08:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
We are on near-opposite ends of the spectrum, I fear, as far as our 'needs' are concerned Wooly. Novels are not a priority to me - I'm a D&D gamer first. The novels are enjoyable, but I don't assign them any sort of importance (beyond providing us with additional information, which sourcebooks can do better). I actually prefer novels not attached to a game setting - less problems that way.
I also came from Greyhawk, which probably has a lot to do with it - novels were never canon there (not even Gary's).
This is a perfect example of how they have their work cut out for them - most of the time you and I agree on things, but this is a basic building block of the setting that we don't. Once again, I do not envy the task they set before themselves.
I'm with you on this one, Mark. I haven't thought FR novels (with the possible exception of Ed's) should be canon since reading Beyond the High Road... I'm hoping that the opening of the timeline will finally allow Ed to tell us more about the Lords Who Sleep. But in the same way, this might be why I've enjoyed Ed's 4E Elminster novels so much; I don't play 4E or post-Spellplague Realms, so I don't associate these novels with a game setting that I'm involved in. If you put that spin on it, you might find it easier to read them. |
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. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 23:30:14
|
I'm actually beginning to see a way this can work. Not precisely Erik's way, nor my way (or most folks).
Jeremy Grenemyer has pointed straight at the Border Kingdoms several times already. It is probably one of the very places in the Forgotten Realms that can be completely divorced from any dating and still work.
My own... hmmmm... ambivalence? toward them had me not even considering that option, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. If they detail the entire region, and set no dates to it (at least not DR - it can have its own internal 'Border Reckoning'), who's to says when the campaign is set? It could work; precarious, but possible.
Not sure how they would proceed with the rest of FR - thats gonna be like walking a tightrope. I am starting to hold out hope again, though. Whatever they do, I just hope its packed with quality - if they can do that, they may be able to pull this off yet.
Oh yeah... and just to reiterate... Nentir Vale is good... stick it down by the Border Kingdoms. Hell, they can even call it Shaareach.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Feb 2012 23:31:08 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 23:40:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Vote Diffan for President.
Agreed  though I don't think my wife should have that sort of power. I have no illusions that I'm her puppet (as lovely as that is) lol.
But getting back on track, xaeyruudh has the right of what I'm trying to get across. The setting is always advancing, so long as Authors advance the timeline further than 1479 DR (hopefully, at a very slow rate). If there's any place for a 'start date' then it would be the very farthest future we currently have. But the gaming supplements and novels shouldn't focus solely on that era because it's just one of many times to play in the Realms.
Novels would also have to be strictly Canon for this to work IMO. They're the one big area where things move in the Realms. Additional gaming supplements of specific places can also advance plots and stories along too and I'd consider this tied for importance in focusing on specific details in the Realms as much as novels were. And, strangely enough, I was against making novels canon in the Realms near the beginning. I thought that so much goes on and that their scope was often too broad (with gods interfering and planes shifting and whole regions changing) and I wanted that to end. But if they're given free reign to do as they please (within the scope of the current Canon), it shouldn't be a problem. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 00:53:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm actually beginning to see a way this can work. Not precisely Erik's way, nor my way (or most folks).
Jeremy Grenemyer has pointed straight at the Border Kingdoms several times already. It is probably one of the very places in the Forgotten Realms that can be completely divorced from any dating and still work.
My own... hmmmm... ambivalence? toward them had me not even considering that option, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. If they detail the entire region, and set no dates to it (at least not DR - it can have its own internal 'Border Reckoning'), who's to says when the campaign is set? It could work; precarious, but possible.
 Yes... and compile all of Ed's "Border Kingdoms" articles (including those not yet released by WotC) as part of the initial setting release, similar to the "Shadowdale" book in the 2E FRCS... except, of course, for the fact that any DR dates in those articles would have to come out... hrm... as would any hint of a strictly-defined past timeline for the region within the larger-world context; otherwise, 'Border Reckoning' will necessarily have a fixed conversion factor and can be easily translated to DR.
Edit: Still, I'm interested to see how you would handle these issues... as you've said, it would be precarious indeed, rather like a tightrope over the Niagara Falls... a simile that I think you and Ed in particular can appreciate, given your geographical locations. |
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 13 Feb 2012 00:55:51 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31798 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 00:57:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Jeremy Grenemyer has pointed straight at the Border Kingdoms several times already. It is probably one of the very places in the Forgotten Realms that can be completely divorced from any dating and still work.
That's essentially what Ed attempted to outline, when providing the details for the Border Kingdoms in the original POLYHEDRON articles.
The Border Kingdoms, perhaps more so than any other part of the established Realms, are designed to be easily customised for particular and/or individual home Realms campaigns -- complete with swiftly shifting borders and ever-changing rulers. So there's plenty of room for changes and/or the addition of new details for your game. |
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 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 01:34:21
|
Not to be picky, but I'd rather say the setting is always expanding, rather than advancing, and then I think authors can expand it as far and as quickly as they want to, as long as we keep a high standard of excellence in our lore.
Time moving forward is kinda incompatible with the absence of a "now" and that's part of what I like about that absence. I'm interested in reading ideas about the past and future, but ...frankly, I don't want the potentially-wacko future events to be built on. Because that's how we wound up where we are now... with a fragmented fanbase that requires a herculean effort to reunite.
I'm not saying time should stop in the Realms. I'm saying WotC should publish sourcebooks which describe a setting, not a calendar of events. That calendar is mine to write, as a DM. So if we can ditch the idea of "Now" then the 5e sourcebooks can tell us about all time periods. If we have to have a Now, say 2000 DR because we're leaving the Spellplague behind, then every 5e sourcebook is set in 2000 DR. With a pre-1358 section like Erik mentioned at the beginning of the thread... because that's really not negotiable. It needs to be there.
Novels can be placed anywhere in the timeline. A series about the sarrukh empires, circa -30,000 DR? Gimme! A series about the We Pwn Joo Thralldom, set in 6,000 DR? Bring it! And those can be canon, or not, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. There may even be sourcebooks or mini-settings to go along with them. But what does matter is that the dates in those novels cannot affect the time frame of the Realms described in the main line of sourcebooks. Because those sourcebooks are talking about the Realms... not about -30000 or +6000 DR. Which is why there shouldn't be a precise Now, because if there is then we're talking about pre-1358 and post-1479, rather than about the Realms.
We have enough creativity and ingenuity to develop the Realms, as a whole, without focusing on any one year, or series of years. We can make "next year" and "last year" relevant only in individual campaigns, the way they should be. Let's do it. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36844 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 02:24:00
|
I don't care if some novels are set in the past; I welcome that. I just need novels that are set in NOW, and move us to a later NOW.
I walked away from Dragonlance, because they didn't give me that. Out of the first five trilogies, two were set in NOW, and the other three trilogies were set either in the recent past or in the distant past. After reading nine books that didn't advance the setting, I jumped ship for a novel line that did advance the setting -- the Realms. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 03:48:07
|
| Can anyone provide a generalist commentary on how Eberron has fared as campaign setting where the novels are divorced from canon? |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 04:15:35
|
I could be completely wrong, but I remember reading a few years ago Eberron was not doing as well as WotC would like (does anything ever?). This was in a thread at the Eberron forums. I believe this was after 4E Eberron game books.
Personally I don't think it has to do with novels at all. Eberron is a bit niche, being dungeonpunk rather than traditional sword and sorcery fantasy. People who want to play in a steampunk setting have many alternatives outside of D&D (or even within d20). Still, the traditional fantasy fans probably still outnumber the steampunk fans and steampunk is still tied heavily into a Victorian influence and aesthetic, whereas Eberron is not.
Pathfinder's Golarion is doing well even without novels until recently (also non-canon). Eberron had novels pretty much since launch.
Eberron's novels don't boost the setting like FR novels do. I'm sure their novels read fine, but they've yet to have breakout or consistent bestselling characters like FR. The FR authors also seem to have more bestsellers even from their other setting work (like Star Wars). If people recognize an author, they will find more bestselling authors amongst FR authors than Eberron. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.
When or if they do get their breakout, then Eberron novels would transcend the game setting rather than being a lesser marketing tool and content for their fans only. This could be a good thing, but if handled like FR, it may not always be an advantage on the gaming side of things. |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 13 Feb 2012 04:46:25 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 04:17:20
|
I think Eberron is doing well. I might go so far as to say it did better then FR in 4e (because the fanbase stuck by it), but I have no way of knowing that without seeing some hard numbers.
I have read only one Eberron novel, and also only one Greyhawk novel, and I found neither particularly interesting, but I doubt that has any bearing on whether they were canon or not.
I've never read any DS or DL novels, strangely enough. I always felt I was missing something there, but there are only so many hours in the day.
Anyhow, as for the point - I think Eberron has done just fine. It has maintained its role as an RPG setting, whereas FR has gravitated toward becoming a novel-based shared world (similar to the Thieves World setting). Eberron remains stable, because Eberron's primary function remained focused. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 05:20:15
|
@Jakk: yes, WotC said that before. I see their tone being very different now.
@MT: oh sure, flatter me while you're at it! Srsly luv to the example of Ghostwalker.
@Wooly: Do the novels need to advance the timeline or just expand/develop the world? A lot can be done to develop the realms without changing it drastically, and there are all sorts of secrets to be explored and uncovered. Drizzt doesn't advance the timeline by his actions--his stories are relatively small-scale/personal and sometimes explore events we already knew happened, albeit not how (ie foundation of Many-Arrows, Neverwinter's doom, etc). I see such novels as warm and lively and breathing that into the setting.
@general: I don't think the setting needs to be pressing constantly forward from a particular timestamp in order to be dynamic and interesting. You just keep exploring the vast mysteries that are already there--you don't have to keep changing everything. And especially if you're looking at multiple eras, the Realms has a LOT to explore.
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" |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31798 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 05:28:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Can anyone provide a generalist commentary on how Eberron has fared as campaign setting where the novels are divorced from canon?
It's not as divorced as some would seem to indicate here. I've read the majority of EBERRON novels, and aside from a few "questionable" plot points which clearly show a very specific cut from established EBERRON source material, the many stories would all generally seem to follow canon as dictated by the published sourcebooks.
I think a great many folk tend to overlook the fact that EBERRON is still within its first decade of being a published setting. So there is, generally, a lot of "creative plot decisions" that can be made within the fiction, simply because the source material in published tomes either hasn't covered it, or has provided only the vaguest details.
But, at least from my perspective, I've yet to encounter any real divorce from the canon setting in any of the EBERRON novels I've read. |
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 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 06:24:49
|
Well as I understood it Eberron was--at its beginning, at least--touted as a setting where the novels were specifically not going to be considered canon.
Thus I was curious to see how that's worked not that some time has gone by. Do fans of Eberron novels have no interest in the D&D game? Do D&Ders who play in Eberron feel like their Eberron games should reflect the novels or not? What about sourcebooks? I have almost all the 3E Eberron books, but am curious if the 4E books (such as they are) tried to talk about anything in the novels?
It just seems to me that if we're suggesting the Realms novel line ought to no longer be considered canon, we might as well look at the one setting (that I know of) that's done that to see how the experiment went. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 06:37:31
|
thats what I understood too.... they did it that way atleast from my understanding so that the pcs would NEVER feel outshined by the npcs in the novels.
or in the most extreme way of saying dm has ultimate control on that subject |
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31798 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 06:45:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Do fans of Eberron novels have no interest in the D&D game?
Well I, and the majority of EBERRON novel readers that I regularly interact with both in real-life and online, care greatly for the EBERRON-branch of the D&D game and its continued future development.
quote:
Do D&Ders who play in Eberron feel like their Eberron games should reflect the novels or not?
Generally, I'd prefer that they follow the same path as what we've seen in the relationship between both DRAGONLANCE novels and the campaign setting, and the FORGOTTEN REALMS novels and the campaign setting.
quote:
What about sourcebooks? I have almost all the 3E Eberron books, but am curious if the 4E books (such as they are) tried to talk about anything in the novels?
In terms of the 3e sourcebooks, I'd say that's a "big" yes. But it's harder to judge with the 4e EBERRON setting books, because they spend so much time updating the 3e material into the 4e rules-set. But, generally, some of the more important events from the novels [and game modules in the previous edition, like the much-touted Lord of Blades, for example] have been incorporated into the EBERRON canon gaming firmament.
I guess what I'm saying, is, basically, that using EBERRON as an example of a product line that has a perceived and certified divorce between novels and gaming material, may not be the best comparison for this. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 07:21:41
|
I suspect that the biggest problem will be Canon. Much like Star Trek, canon was being created by many people before they knew they were writing canon. Bob Salvatore had to tweak his early novels to coincide with his later ones. In order, here are the things I would suggest "fixing" and my explanations thereto:
1. Mystra
2. The Weave
3. The Dead Gods
4. Returned Abeir
5. Ao
6. Mystra's Chosen
7. Miscellanous
1. Mystra must return. Clearly Ed's gaming for this, but his excellent novelizations aside, there should be an official trilogy about Mystra's return. The whole premise of Cyric killing her (with or without help) makes no sense. Mystra is/was/will be the conduit to the Weave. A lot of people (including Ed) have tried to rationalize how people continue to cast spells, but prior to 4E, the Weave was everything. Mystra restricted deities access to it, which gave her immense power. Azuth (sorry, a little bias here) was a perfect addition to focus on magecraft versus magic. He was also the patron god of the Magister, at least unofficially. My personal take is that Mystra is so vital to the Realms that her absence, death, and resurrection via Midnight in the Time of Troubles demonstrated the need for a goddess of magic.
2. On the Weave, just looking at what it did when functional was amazing. It also gave a great "out" as to why we couldn't cast magic IRL: we don't have a Weave. There are so many plot holes opened by its removal from the game that I can't envision a successful game without its return.
3. Killing all of the deities made no sense from any perspective, IMHO. When transitioning to 2E, I happened to be playing a Priest of Bane, and I did not want to convert to Cyric. It was a well-told story, but Bane himself proved too powerful (a.k.a. popular) and he returned. Cyric, in theory, handles Bhaal's old job, although not with nearly as much panache. Kelemvor is a better Death God, I believe, because it's relatively neutral, as a death god should be. I'm not going down the list, but so many great stories are built around the minor deities, that the haphazard removal of them is akin to randomly removing a wheel from a car while traveling down a road. Put them back, and then have a sidebar in the FRCG that says "these are the basic deities you really need to have" and, as they always could, DMs could ignore the rest if they so chose. I'm attempting to run a 4E campaign with all of the deities in place, but it's too much work without official support.
4. Again, too much change. So many of my friends said "I had a great campaign going in "X" and now it's not on the map. While the campaign may advance the time setting 100 years into the future, the content to play 100 years in the past under the old "setting" with the new "rules" is not provided. Send it back from whence it came, and let me keep Faerūn as I know it. 4E felt like a shift from Fantasy to Sci-Fi, and I have plenty of other outlets for Sci-Fi.
5. OK, first my only gripe. The Abolethic Sovereignty is not more poweful than Ao. Ao was listed as the supreme being for all of Toril/Realmspace. Absolutely nothing can happen without his approval, direct, tacit, or otherwise. Ao is the perfect plot device (again) to explain things. Maybe he was taking a divine nap. He can come in and throw around his divine might and set some things back to the way they were. He can resurrect deities on a whim, he can banish things he doesn't like, and he can punish deities for being bad. Dying isn't serving one's worshippers, I would argue. Ao established the gods as "Keepers of the Balance" but I felt with 4E the Balance was really destroyed. Many of the novels in the 4E setting introduced really neat traits/powers/aspects, but those could easily have been ascribed to a deity without blowing up the pantheon. Gond has a great interest in things not directly done by magic. He deserved more street cred, and he and Mystra should be more oppositional, I feel. So, let's use Ao, again, to reset his pantheon and get the gods back.
5A) from a novels standpoint, I like the 13XX DR books. I am comfortable with the characters, and I like the way that they interact. Some of the 4E characters were great, but others, not so much. As noted, Waterdeep changed very little; therefore, most of the books could easily have taken place pre-spellplague with little modification. Again, reverting to the Star Trek analogy: I like TOS. I do not like TNG or Voyager. I think DS9 is OK. Enterprise was a "meh" series to me. In that same vein, others love TNG, and hate TOS. So, offer a little bit of mixing of the setting. Why can't the "Returned Abeir" timeline exist via some type of magical mechanism. Players who choose to play in that setting should be able to do so, but "switch" to "classic" Realms without the need for time travel. This is where I look to the authors to find an eloquent, awesome story.
5B) in an RPG stanpoint, I felt that the 100-year gap was not only lacking in details, but demonstrated the Realms were seriously lacking in smart people. Without magic, or stable magic, guns should have made huge strides. I didn't see better smelting techniques, or the advancement of culture in other areas that I would expect regardless of magic's state. Yes, we need details, but they must explain how we got to where we are. Basically, I feel like the people in the Realms did absolutely nothing for 100 years, and we have the entre'act beginning. "Hello, I'm Elminster and I was the greates mage 100 years ago. I'm just standing here because, well, I did it for 100 years. Now I'm going to be active, though, so watch out!" (Repeat for nearly every major character in the 2E/3E world. And what happened to Aglarond?
6. I admit I was really angry about this one. The Chosen were the moral guides to readers. They weren't just characters, but they were a cause for "the goodly folk" of the Realm. Yes, they were nearly deities. Yes, it can be argued that their existence made Mystra a "good-aligned" deity. But I had no idea that Mystra's Death would cause them to suffer so. That didn't happen during the Time of Troubles. Suddenly Khelben (not a Sister, but a Chosen) needs to die? It was a glorious death, but it made "The" Blackstaff go from a known person into a title. With the Return of Mystra, she should immediately resurrect any AWOL of her Chosen, and return this great toolset to DMs. In 3E, my players avoided Blackstaff tower like the plague. Now they don't worry, because if they happen to kill "The Blackstaff" another will just be chosen. Laeral deserves so much better, as well. Quilué as well... I could ramble for pages, so I'll stop. Let the other deities have Chosen, but leave the ones Ed created alive and available for his use in his books.
7. To a deity, or specifically an Overlord, 100 years isn't even a blink of an eye. So, let's call 4E an extended "Time of Troubles II." Ao can come in and set things back to 3.5E status, but find curiousity in the "new" world. Thus, he creates a fantastic portal unassailably and impenetrable by anyone that allows people to move freely between Abeir and Toril. Let Abeir be the 4E world (a nice source book for "expansion play" located in a demiplane or something) and let the CORE rulebook be about the Realms as they were for over 25 years to us mere mortals. It's a relatively painless way to reinstate the way things were, while still allowing for the way things are. I have no problem with trying a new setting, AKA Ravenloft, but I do not like being forced to change my whole world for no apparent reason.
Let's put Chronomancy as an official school of magic, and it can allow characters to "time travel" between the eras. To avoid timeline problems, I'd probably set it so that players can only go forward in time, but I leave the specifics to the rule makers who are far more skilled than am I. I can say with utter honesty that I loved the 3E campaign book. It filled in so many holes, and really brought the game up to par with other products. I felt that the D&D movies would have been much more successful if they had been set in the Realms, because it has such a rich backstory. Ian McKellen would have been a great Elminster, just like he was a great Gandalff. Jeremy Irons would be a great Manshoon. So many possibilities, and it all built upon what had come before. To make 5E a success, it must do what 4E didn't, and namely that is provide a real sense of continuity. The jump to 3E was modest in years. It wasn't so long that it was beyond most human lifespans. It does not follow that editions in rules must also follow the chronology of the game. The 5E rulebook could offer appropriate rules for ANY time period. It could say "Psionics are active from years x to y, and then no active again until year z." The mechanics of the book needn't follow a story, just explain how to run a game. This might explain why Infravision became Dark Vision, and other such things.
That's all for now; it's late and I have rambled far more than I had intended. Erik, I welcome your thoughts (and those of others, also).
Cheers,
Azuth |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36844 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 09:50:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
[br@Wooly: Do the novels need to advance the timeline or just expand/develop the world? A lot can be done to develop the realms without changing it drastically, and there are all sorts of secrets to be explored and uncovered. Drizzt doesn't advance the timeline by his actions--his stories are relatively small-scale/personal and sometimes explore events we already knew happened, albeit not how (ie foundation of Many-Arrows, Neverwinter's doom, etc). I see such novels as warm and lively and breathing that into the setting.
@general: I don't think the setting needs to be pressing constantly forward from a particular timestamp in order to be dynamic and interesting. You just keep exploring the vast mysteries that are already there--you don't have to keep changing everything. And especially if you're looking at multiple eras, the Realms has a LOT to explore.
Cheers
See, here's something I don't get. I've said, more than once, that books can be small in scope and still sufficiently advance the setting. And yet there seems to be a lingering idea that books have to have big, major events... They don't.
Elfshadow and Azure Bonds remain two of my fave Realms novels. Neither one has anything all that huge in scope happen, but both still advance the setting.
Books like that show that you can move the timeline forward and have things happen, and do so without RSEs or otherwise rewriting the Realms as we know them.
That's all we need: to know that the Realms is a living place where things happen.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 13:52:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Can anyone provide a generalist commentary on how Eberron has fared as campaign setting where the novels are divorced from canon?
It's not as divorced as some would seem to indicate here. I've read the majority of EBERRON novels, and aside from a few "questionable" plot points which clearly show a very specific cut from established EBERRON source material, the many stories would all generally seem to follow canon as dictated by the published sourcebooks.
I think a great many folk tend to overlook the fact that EBERRON is still within its first decade of being a published setting. So there is, generally, a lot of "creative plot decisions" that can be made within the fiction, simply because the source material in published tomes either hasn't covered it, or has provided only the vaguest details.
But, at least from my perspective, I've yet to encounter any real divorce from the canon setting in any of the EBERRON novels I've read.
Precisely the point I was making.
Just because the books are not considered 'canon', does not automatically make them non-canon. Thats a fallacy.
Look at the non-canon Double Diamond series of FR novels - some of the events therein became canon, but the full, detailed stories are still not canon. AFAIK, they are written to be like in-game 'chap-books' - stories told by characters in the setting about events within the setting. And just like RW chap books, they are a romanticized version, with varying degrees of accuracy. What the modern entertainment industry usually refers to as a 'dramatization'. In other words, the stories are embellished.
When I ran FR, thats how I considered ALL novels (since my Realms were not the canon Realms, I cold easily do that).
So the events in the novels can remain canon (and made so by later sources), but the details don't need to be - see my above example of how simple that is to apply to already-existing novels (and thanks for the kind words Erik - that means a lot). Whats wrong with that sort of work-around? No-one is saying to pretend the novels never happened - just alter their perspective a wee bit and we are good. Is that really impossible to do? Do RW history books paint an accurate picture? I know world history has changed at least a dozen times in major ways just since I was in school (and men landed on the moon!); how can it be okay for RW, non-fictional sources to contain multiple errors (discovered later after new research), but fantasy fiction can not be tolerated to have this same level of inaccuracy?
Heres a recent example of how this was done in FR, retro-actively: the novel where Aliisza the Alu-Fiend (Gossamer Plain?) 'sees' the events surrounding Mystra's death taking place. The fans were in an uproar over it, and low and behold, we are then told "thats not really what happened, thats how Aliisza's mind interpreted what she was looking at". So we all know that for what it is RW (back-peddling), but so what? It placated us! Once we knew that what she 'reported' to us (readers) may not have been a very accurate portrayal, it diffused the situation with the fanbase (mostly... people still crack jokes).
So if you can just except that non-canon =/= 'never happened', its so much easier for the authors to do their thing, and for us to enjoy our Realms novels without having to pick them completely apart.
Heres a GREAT example of an entire sourcebook written in that fashion - the Netheril: Empire of Magic boxed set. Does everyone realize that that entire product could just be so much gibberish Larloch fed to Szass Tam? A simple prologue is worth its weight in gold. The whole box became so much apocryphal.
Now, if only later designers had realized that and fixed the gawd-awful naming conventions (amongst other things). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 13 Feb 2012 13:54:27 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 13:52:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
1. Mystra must return. Clearly Ed's gaming for this, but his excellent novelizations aside, there should be an official trilogy about Mystra's return. The whole premise of Cyric killing her (with or without help) makes no sense. Mystra is/was/will be the conduit to the Weave. A lot of people (including Ed) have tried to rationalize how people continue to cast spells, but prior to 4E, the Weave was everything. Mystra restricted deities access to it, which gave her immense power. Azuth (sorry, a little bias here) was a perfect addition to focus on magecraft versus magic. He was also the patron god of the Magister, at least unofficially. My personal take is that Mystra is so vital to the Realms that her absence, death, and resurrection via Midnight in the Time of Troubles demonstrated the need for a goddess of magic.
Faerūn does work without the Weave (we have proof of it now) but I agree that it didn't needed to be destroyed to somehow explain 4E's magic. 4E's magic works perfectly fine with the Wevae in tact. That being said, I had a bit of a problem with the goddess of Magic being able to just cut arcane spellcasters ability to use magic. I know she's the goddess of Magic, but her power is specific, unlimited, and so powerful that it begs the question "Why aren't ALL arcane spellcasters Mystra worshippers?". Bringing her back is fine, but lets make sure her alignment fits the role she's playing. True Neutral would be best or Unaligned if they don't change the Alignment system). But really, it's moot as we're all fairly certain Mystra is coming back, hopefully with a little more Wisdom and maturity.
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
3. Killing all of the deities made no sense from any perspective, IMHO. When transitioning to 2E, I happened to be playing a Priest of Bane, and I did not want to convert to Cyric. It was a well-told story, but Bane himself proved too powerful (a.k.a. popular) and he returned. Cyric, in theory, handles Bhaal's old job, although not with nearly as much panache. Kelemvor is a better Death God, I believe, because it's relatively neutral, as a death god should be. I'm not going down the list, but so many great stories are built around the minor deities, that the haphazard removal of them is akin to randomly removing a wheel from a car while traveling down a road. Put them back, and then have a sidebar in the FRCG that says "these are the basic deities you really need to have" and, as they always could, DMs could ignore the rest if they so chose. I'm attempting to run a 4E campaign with all of the deities in place, but it's too much work without official support.
I really don't think there were as many deities killed as you believe there to be. At most 15, at the least 10. What 4E DIDN'T do was put spotlight on ones that were redundant or really uninteresting to the majority. Of course, this will shift from one individual to another, but I'd say Mielikki and Silvanus are far more popular than Lurue and so we get info on the former but nothing on the latter. But it doesn't mean the latter is gone either. And the Duergar Pantheon....can't anyone name 3 deities from it without referencing a book? I know I can't. Was I sad to see them wiped-out? No, not really. Also, why is doing a 4E game with all the previous Gods that much work? I mean it's as simple as "*BAM* they're there". It you feel the need to create mechanics for some of them, it's easy enough to pilfer other sourcs for them from already existing material or create new (and ask for help is cool too). But to run gods of pre-Spellplague, you don't require all the gods to have mechanics tied to it. Setting that aside, I think we'll see some other gods return, but not ALL of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
4. Again, too much change. So many of my friends said "I had a great campaign going in "X" and now it's not on the map. While the campaign may advance the time setting 100 years into the future, the content to play 100 years in the past under the old "setting" with the new "rules" is not provided. Send it back from whence it came, and let me keep Faerūn as I know it. 4E felt like a shift from Fantasy to Sci-Fi, and I have plenty of other outlets for Sci-Fi.
I feel the map will largely stay as is with D&D-Next. Now, a cool book that delves into Abier side pre- and post-Spellplague would be interesting, showing how Mulhorandi/Unther have been doing since the Planeshift and how Abier looked before hand.
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
5. The Abolethic Sovereignty is not more poweful than Ao. Ao was listed as the supreme being for all of Toril/Realmspace. Absolutely nothing can happen without his approval, direct, tacit, or otherwise. Ao is the perfect plot device (again) to explain things.
5A) from a novels standpoint, I like the 13XX DR books. I am comfortable with the characters, and I like the way that they interact. Some of the 4E characters were great, but others, not so much. As noted, Waterdeep changed very little; therefore, most of the books could easily have taken place pre-spellplague with little modification. So, offer a little bit of mixing of the setting. Why can't the "Returned Abeir" timeline exist via some type of magical mechanism. Players who choose to play in that setting should be able to do so, but "switch" to "classic" Realms without the need for time travel. This is where I look to the authors to find an eloquent, awesome story.
We don't know really anything about Ao except that he holds power over the deities of Realmspace. Outside influences might (or have, apparently) more power over him or at least formiddible power that makes him question if he should oppose them or not. We know that even Ao has an Overlord and who even knows what that being's plans are? The fact is Ao is ambiguous for very good reasons such as leaving it open for interpretation.
As for Returned Abier, again I think it's staying put in the Realms. I think it'd be fun to detail that place more and put in lots of info that might be too "weird" for the Realms, but it's location will most likely remain mixed with FRs post 1385 DR.
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
5B) in an RPG stanpoint, I felt that the 100-year gap was not only lacking in details, but demonstrated the Realms were seriously lacking in smart people. Without magic, or stable magic, guns should have made huge strides. I didn't see better smelting techniques, or the advancement of culture in other areas that I would expect regardless of magic's state. Yes, we need details, but they must explain how we got to where we are. Basically, I feel like the people in the Realms did absolutely nothing for 100 years, and we have the entre'act beginning. "Hello, I'm Elminster and I was the greates mage 100 years ago. I'm just standing here because, well, I did it for 100 years. Now I'm going to be active, though, so watch out!" (Repeat for nearly every major character in the 2E/3E world. And what happened to Aglarond?
Gunns were pretty rare pre-Spellplague (or at least, supposed to be) and with the "sinking" of Lantan, most of the technology was lost for firearms. Even if they kept the prints to make Gunns, the ritual for creating Smokepowder might have been lost as well. And the 100 year timejump was designed to provide players with enough room to write backgrounds that doesn't have to adhere to Canon and for Authors to draw elements from that time without contradicting Canon of previous editions. It would've worked much better if WotC hadn't restricted all supplements and novels to be written post-1479 DR.
Besides, magic might have been unstable but it was still accessable. The Weave wasn't the source of magic in the Realms, but a filter Mystra used to make Epic spellcasting really hard. It helped wizards craft spells with formula (as an example) but with it gone, Wizards had to harness magic a different way.
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
Let's put Chronomancy as an official school of magic, and it can allow characters to "time travel" between the eras. To avoid timeline problems, I'd probably set it so that players can only go forward in time, but I leave the specifics to the rule makers who are far more skilled than am I.
To make 5E a success, it must do what 4E didn't, and namely that is provide a real sense of continuity. The jump to 3E was modest in years. It wasn't so long that it was beyond most human lifespans. It does not follow that editions in rules must also follow the chronology of the game. The 5E rulebook could offer appropriate rules for ANY time period. It could say "Psionics are active from years x to y, and then no active again until year z." The mechanics of the book needn't follow a story, just explain how to run a game. This might explain why Infravision became Dark Vision, and other such things.
Chronomancy is a dangerous thing. Tying mechanics to it might make the situation worse. I don't think putting mechanics to time-travel, even if it's only going forward, is going to do anything helpful. Time Travel should be something the DM allows or sets up, not official rules. As for continunity, I agree that D&D-Next needs to keep up with what previous editions of the Realms has created and go in a setting sense. Continunity is important in that way, as it makes the Realms more real. But you'll never have continunity with the rules part. Too many changes over the last 20+ years pretty makes make the gaming aspect the antithesis of continunity. There has to be, on some level, where a player disassociates gaming material from setting materials. An understanding that in the setting, things aren't formed by D&D rules. But designers need to be broader in their descriptions. When they detail a specific person's ability to cast magic, it's often used with tags such as Arcane or Divine (which is great, it's broad) but then might then use Wizardly or his sorcerery words which instantly forms "Ok, he has levels of Wizard or Sorcerer." Basically, the thinking shoud be as someone who's from there and magic looks like magic, not a difference in class because game mechanics are abstract ideals and pricipals. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 14:50:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
I suspect that the biggest problem will be Canon. Much like Star Trek, canon was being created by many people before they knew they were writing canon. Bob Salvatore had to tweak his early novels to coincide with his later ones. In order, here are the things I would suggest "fixing" and my explanations thereto:
1. Mystra
2. The Weave
3. The Dead Gods
4. Returned Abeir
5. Ao
6. Mystra's Chosen
7. Miscellanous
1) The Weave was good, but I don't think Mystra is necessary. Her various 'rises and falls' are a very good way to explain why things change between editions (isn't it amazing that Ed built all of these 'switches' right into the setting?) I am ambivalent about Mystra herself - I'd prefer something more like Wee Jas or Boccob. Boccob is like Azuth and Oghma combined (and we had that in Thoth). Wee Jas is the GH goddess of Magic, Death, Vanity, and Law (sexy, no?) At least reset Mystra back to an earlier incarnation; Mystra 1.0 was 'besties' with Wee jas, and look at her portfolio! You wouldn't see Mystra 2.0 hanging out with someone like that. Get rid of the 'nicey-nice' and go more neutral, PLEASE.
2) As for the Weave - (D&D) Earth does have one, otherwise, how would Elminster ever get back home?
3) I do prefer the original pantheon to the post-ToT one, but I also have no problem in accepting that many, MANY deities pose as others, in order to increase their power and faith (many folks only want to worship 'racial' gods). Deities coming and going are really part of the setting - its just a bit jarring when it happens almost every time we get a new edition. It begins to look like a case of "who we gonna kill-off this time?" Change for change's sake is not good, IMO.
4) They can keep the concept of Abeir - it is a pretty sweet tool for designers to swap places around when the need arises. However, Maztica wasn't all that bad, it just needed some 'sprucing up'. I would have much preferred they merge parts of Laerakond (returned Abeir) with Maztica - a facelift would have been preferable to a body-bag. In an old (WotC) Maztica thread, we had worked-out that the draconic pantheon was a near-perfect fit for the Maztican gods - they should have ran with that and incorporated Abeir instead of 'dumping it out an airlock'. It would have not only been a helluva lot less 'jarring', but also would have given fans what they wanted - a re-imagined Maztica. They basically replaced a 'WTH' with a 'WTF"? Shoe-horn all the RA material into Maztica itself, and its pure win, IMHO.
5) Ignore the weird new cthulhuesque vibe thats been spread all over the setting like so much rancid jelly. Odd lore is like cake - a little bit is very tasty. Eating 200 lbs. of cake is a VERY bad thing, and may kill you. I've already handled the 'Ao vs Eldest' question elsewhere - comparing them is like trying to compare a Lamborghini with a tractor-trailor truck; they are both really good at what they do, but I wouldn't try to 'race them'.
6) I think you misunderstand the Chosen's purpose (at least, Mystra's). They are about balance, not 'good'. Mystra ordered The Simbul not to kill any more Red Wizards, and Elminster spent as much time trying not to kill Manshoon as he did battling him. Mystra's chosen are about FREEDOM, because freedom leads to artistic magical expression. Freedom itself, is usually - but not always - associated with 'good', so Mystra's Chosen are seen as doing 'good', when thats not really the case. Create a tyranny in the Realms where the Gov't controls all aspects of peoples lives, and even represses their freedoms (in most areas), BUT allows for a gov't-sanctioned series of magical Schools for anyone who has talent, where the only freedom (through magic) can be had... and then see what Mystra and her Chosen do about that. Absolutely nothing. She doesn't give an osquip's arse about the untalented peasant who is getting whipped for not cleaning out the stables properly. As an aside, I would prefer ONLY Mystra have 'Chosen' (as it should be) - this 'nuclear escalation' mentality of designers/authors has to stop. YES, the other deities can have similar agents, but please, PLEASE, just call them something else. Is that really so hard to do? CREATE?
7) I would actually prefer that the multiple-era thing be done in a way where you can travel between them, but they are not part of the same continuity (less problems that way). So yeah, you can go back in time and kill Karsus when he is an infant, but when you get back home your reality hasn't changed one bit. Also, something far worse may have risen in Karsus' place in that other timeline (which you may have actually created by causing an anomaly), and that 'thing' may come to your reality looking for you (or just to conquer it). Also, you'd be bothering the Time Cops - there are several groups of those (along with the Council of Cross-Time Manshoons ).
I guess the bottom line is, stop trying to create 'new kewl' by bringing back or destroying 'old kewl'. Or worse, by making your toys "bigger and kewler then Ed's" (the armchair psychologist in me would LOVE to tackle that). A setting is omni-directional - it can go anywhere; they need to stop thinking in two dimensions. Do people realize just how big FR is? I can easily fit at least a dozen other settings into it, without any of them even disturbing what is already there. It is so HUGE, and has so much potential - they need to stop beating the same dead horses. The lore doesn't have to move forward chronologically - it can broaden in scope. Thats how you 'grow' a setting. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 13 Feb 2012 20:42:38 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 20:03:10
|
I really hope they change the plane structure to something near the Great Wheel. There was no reason to destroy the great wheel concept. Many designers wanted to eliminate places that "could not be played in" but that was a rather silly goal. A lot of the planes acted as good background.
Another thing that chapped me about it was eliminating infinite planes. The designers did not consider that we very well might live on an infinite plane. They were very limited in thier thinking that infinite planes meant you could never travel from Point A to Point B. All it meant that wherever you are is the center of the plane. The portals to other planes could be anywhere. I really felt the designers did indeed set out to "dumb things down."
This thought came about more from reading the early DDI articles. I like to think the designers learned the error of their ways with alot of the 4e decisions and I really hope they re-evaluate some of them.
THis is not a reflection of the 4e realms. I am not so concerned whether or not they keep the spellplague, as long as THIS time they explain the edition change well.
Eliminating the Ethereal plane because it was a highway was silly. It is not like there is an overhead or something they have to pay to support the ethereal plane. The ethereal plane was a great mechanism and great flavor, and they eliminated it just for accessability. If nothing else I really hope WOTC sees they need to do this right as they have a viable competitor now.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 22:35:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
...but I'd say Mielikki and Silvanus are far more popular than Lurue
Not arguing, just a comment in passing that this is sad. Mielikki and Silvanus are generic and unmemorable. Lurue is unique and interesting. If you want generic, you don't need a lore-heavy campaign setting. Realms deities should imo be creative and unique. Given that deities should play a small role in day-to-day adventuring, it's not worth getting steamed over how the powers are going to be handled in 5e, but hopefully someone will insist that the genericizing of powers (getting rid of the God-Kings of Mulhorand was one example) is counterproductive. Flavor > bland. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 22:39:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I guess the bottom line is, stop trying to create 'new kewl' by bringing back or destroying 'old kewl'. Or worse, by making your toys "bigger and kewler then Ed's" (the armchair psychologist in me would LOVE to tackle that).
 Fully agreed. On all counts; I have a minor in Psych (along with a second minor in Philosophy) and (once I'd calmed down) I was rather intrigued by the psychological statements made by the Spellplague. In any case, I'll hope that WotC takes your advice this time around, and probably continue to ignore anything set after DR 1370-ish for my own purposes.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
A setting is omni-directional - it can go anywhere; they need to stop thinking in two dimensions. Do people realize just how big FR is? I can easily fit at least a dozen other settings into it, without any of them even disturbing what is already there. It is so HUGE, and has so much potential - they need to stop beating the same dead horses. The lore doesn't have to move forward chronologically - it can broaden in scope. Thats how you 'grow' a setting.
[APPLAUSE]
If the powers that be at WotC/Hasbro had figured this out an edition ago, they'd have a lot less work to do now. But then, reinventing the wheel is much easier than inventing the internal combustion engine... and I had extended this comment, but talking about different wheel shapes isn't productive. Hopefully we'll have a round wheel again with 5E, and I'm not talking about the cosmology. Oh, and I agree with your metaphorical point as well; beating the same dead horse, while it is monogamous, is probably still not the healthiest relationship.
I commented in the early days of 4E that there was plenty of room for everything that was shoehorned into Faerun on another continent, but apparently this option (which had been considered during development) was refused by the powers that were at the time... why, I don't know, except that someone may have been at the beach with their child(ren) and seen a kid kick over another kid's sandcastle... but that's beside the point.
As others have already mentioned elsewhere, the timeline-opening gives WotC a great opportunity to go back to the undetailed areas and start filling them in, with novels and game products set in all eras. My personal preference is irrelevant to this scroll (in more ways than one), but I would hope that the powers that be take advantage of this opportunity this time.
|
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 13 Feb 2012 22:42:21 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 04:30:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
...but I'd say Mielikki and Silvanus are far more popular than Lurue
Not arguing, just a comment in passing that this is sad. Mielikki and Silvanus are generic and unmemorable. Lurue is unique and interesting. If you want generic, you don't need a lore-heavy campaign setting. Realms deities should imo be creative and unique. Given that deities should play a small role in day-to-day adventuring, it's not worth getting steamed over how the powers are going to be handled in 5e, but hopefully someone will insist that the genericizing of powers (getting rid of the God-Kings of Mulhorand was one example) is counterproductive. Flavor > bland.
I don't really care for Lurue either way (keep her or don't *shruggs*) but I think the big thing was that it might be flavorful that she's unique and what-not but probably a little too specific for the general audience to accept. For some, it comes of more redudance instead of more flavor. And really, I don't think it's from a power structure or game element perspective, I just think people generally like keeping things simple. And adding a lot of different deities that's covered under broader portfolios or domains or whatever puts a lot of people off.
This is the big reason why I loved the Exarch idea they had going. Some "lesser" deities weren't popular or big enought to be worshipped all over Faerūn. Some, like Lurue or the Red Knight or Shaundakul or Uthgar or Siamorphe were better localized in certain spots or being a lesser version or difference of order of a Greater God. Of course, all IMO. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 06:41:49
|
This probably goes beyond the scope of this thread; it's just a recurring thought I've had whenever I can't necessarily argue someone's logic but I still hold an opposing opinion.
It'd be nice to have a setting where things are simple-but-not-boring and a setting where things are purposefully less constrained by structure and consistency. There are, I think, a lot of us in each camp, and for some it might depend on the night.
The rules seem to be geared toward one group or the other, too, and it might be tricky to make both happy. Player's Option might have been an attempt to explore that idea, but perhaps that door has been nailed shut.
Anyway, just a thought. Not arguing anything. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 14:41:32
|
I see Lurue as 'The Lurue', the actual 'id' (borrowing from psychology) of the Weave.
If we see The Weave as an operating system (and the Sphere is the computer), then 'The Lurue' is like the coding that is embedded in the processor itself (even more primitive then DOS). That 'instruction set' is what everything else we have (technology-wise) is based upon.
Elves/Fey just choose to represent this as a unicorn, and like all powers, it appears to it's followers precisely how they expect to see it. Lurue isn't really a unicorn at all - thats just a generic symbol of magic.
I know Ed choose her because of the old 'Lion & the Uniceorn' thing (along with Nobanion). Not sure what he was going for, but I peg Nobanion as an aspect of Torm (or maybe the other way-around). Interesting how he appeared lion-headed during the ToT, no? And where was Nobanion then?
@Diffan - Agreed on the Exarch thing. Give things lots of different, flavorful names (and only Mystra should have 'Chosen'), but then lump them altogether in one category mechanics-wise.
One of the biggest problems with earlier editions was the tendency to give everything is own 'stat box' (or monster entry, etc). I look through those old MMs (and other sources) and I am like, "why not have one entry, with multiple variants?" I know the 2e Monstrous manual (the big book) was probably one of the finest sources ever produced for D&D - it is still my #1 go-to source for 'all things monstrous'. Not only only did it have lots of excellent (DiTerlizzi) art, but it was also the very first MM to do what I am talking about - group similar creatures together under a single entry. I know toward the tail-end of 3e they started to go that route in the later MMs, but it wasn't universal (just a few groups, like gnolls, orcs, Hobgoblins IIRC, etc).
What approach did 4e use? I had the 4e MM, but thats gone now as well. I know I was a fan of the simplified approach to beasties (3e went overboard with the amount of detail 'encounters' got).
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 14 Feb 2012 14:58:06 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 17:56:56
|
I think the DM's FR guide should present a comprehensive list of deities (as well as historical notes about when they are active/ascendent/"dead"/etc), and the PC FR guide should present a list of "popular adventurer deities," which your cleric/paladin/etc is most likely to worship. There is absolutely nothing stopping you the player from doing some research and picking an uncommon deity, but I think this approach avoids confusion on the part of new players.
The list of popular adventurer deities would be something like this:
Tyr, God of Justice (LG)
Torm, God of Paladins (LG)
Lathander, God of the Morning (NG)
Mielikki, Goddess of the Woodlands (NG)
Tymora, Goddess of Luck (CG)
Sune, Goddess of Love (CG)
Helm, God of Guardians (LN)
Kelemvor, God of Death (LN)
Mystra, Goddess of Magic (N)*
Oghma, God of Wisdom (N)
Silvanus, God of Nature (N)
Sharess, Goddess of Passion (CN)
Tempus, God of War (CN)
There. Just thirteen deities (two for each PC-ish alignment, plus Mystra) for your standard adventurer to pick from. Ilmater was a runner-up, but again, he's less common than these core adventuring deities (I also didn't want LG to be too heavily represented). Mielikki and Sharess are on the list because of Drizzt and gamers love Sharess, respectively. I didn't even list evil deities (though I probably would have listed Bane and Loviatar for LE, Mask and Shar for NE, and Cyric and Malar for CE). Players can always choose an "uncommon" deity to worship.
This section of the guide would also note that occasionally gods rise and fall with the passing of years, and players should ask their DM whether a particular god they want to choose is appropriate for that particular campaign.
*Note that I list Mystra as "neutral," because she changes alignment periodically but is always at least partly a neutral arbiter. I rather think that if Mystra returns, I hope she ends up being True Neutral or at least Lawful Neutral again. Maybe that's just me.
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" |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 17:59:11
|
IMO, we're making too much of this "Chosen" thing. Chosen is just a word that suggests we're talking about a favored servant, and it's not too big a stretch to think it indicates a mortal into whom a deity might have poured some power.
Just because Mystra's Chosen are *more important* to her than the Chosen of other deities doesn't mean that she should have exclusive use of the term "Chosen."
Debate, MT?
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" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
