quote:

---

Originally posted by Jakk

quote:

---

Originally posted by coach

i just read this whole thread:

ideas i liked that perhaps could be combined:
1) for the entire setting ... set the default date somewhere in the 1480's (keep new fans) .. but drop all the silly MMO crap from canon
2) then have official "mini-settings" (or dare i say 'Adventure Paths') releases of other eras (-160 to -150DR Raumathar vs Narfell, 1482-1487DR War in Abeir, 710-714DR the Fall of Myth Drannor, -25000DR Ostoria vs Dragon Kingdoms, -300 the Heighth of Jhaamdeth, etc, etc, etc (new and old fans)
3) have a special emphasis (i.e. more than half) of these mini-settings adventures occuring between 1348 and 1385 (regain old fans)
4) lore heavy regional books ( i'd go 40% general and 20% ancient, 20% 1300's, and 20% 1400's ) (new and old fans) ... and these regional books will be produced for all major regions and will fill in gaps
5) Ed's book (regain old fans) ... he must be allowed 100% freedom, no editing, no cutting, we will pay whatever you charge up to $149.99, it needs to be at least as big as AEG's world's greatest dungeon and world's greatest city ... umm combined ... yeah
6) lore heavy former setting and settings-never-detailed books (maztica, al-qadim, osse, karatur, etc) same format as regional books except smaller and cheaper (these wont be money makers just break even) (new and old fans)
7) very nice looking Realms Bestiary, Realms Deities, Realms NPC books (for all eras)

i'll think of more later

---

I like this... although for #2, rather than actual adventures, I would simply provide adventure hooks and hints and tips for the DM for each. This takes up less room... meaning there can be more of them. And for #7, I'm not sure we need different monster books for different eras. Deities and NPCs, possibly, but monsters of any sort should be able to fit into any era (the sole exception that I can think of being the Shades prior to the 3E timeline, and in many ways they're really just a special case of an existing, timeline/setting-independent creature type).

Edit: And for point #5: Keep the page count reasonable, but make sure that it's book #1 of however many it takes to publish all currently-extant Ed-lore. I'd say 250-300 pages per volume would be good, and if there are going to be that many volumes, we should probably keep the price somewhat reasonable, coach. But still, I'll buy the whole series either way.

Excellent ideas, Coach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

I would be more for a complete re-write/reboot (ST-style) of the Realms over a 4e+ start date. Since I (and obviously others here) feel this was the #1 failure of the 4e realms, extendeding the date outward even further is like saying "we didn't get rid of all of you the first time, so we are going to try again".

And once again, I am not saying to get rid of anything - not even the 4e lore (most of which I like and use) - all I am saying is start from the same 'blank slate' perspective 4e was going for, but do so in such a way as to invite both older fans and newer ones to enjoy and learn about the Realms together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

If they reboot to the OGB or before, they can retro-actively fix all the continuity errors moving forward, and re-release all the older modules and sources with the new, 'corrected' timeline and lore behind it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

And the setting is already built with a reset-switch, with the Abeir lore. We have at least TWO in-setting pieces of canon (Shar's Black Chronology and the Abeir terrain-swapping) that allow us to do whatever we want, and still keep everything within the same 'world' (not an alternate one), much easier then how Star Trek achieved this.

Hmph... maybe Elminster and Halster can become Old Spock/Young Spock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

Oh NO!!! We could wind-up with two Drizzt's instead!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

The spellplague was, indeed, the focal point of what drove a lot of people away. I do think it was more the time skip, which was sort of a consequence of the spellplague, that was more damaging to the realms. If we'd had the spellplague but no big time jump, I think that wouldn't have driven so many people away. People were being asked to return to a setting that had been--if not severed--at least substantially removed from its older self.

---

As a representative of the 'driven away'*, I think that Erik is spot on here.
*I haven't bought a Realms supplement since GHotR and when novels started being set so long after the 1300s that most ordinary people living then would be dead, I lost interest in them too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jakk

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

The spellplague was, indeed, the focal point of what drove a lot of people away. I do think it was more the time skip, which was sort of a consequence of the spellplague, that was more damaging to the realms. If we'd had the spellplague but no big time jump, I think that wouldn't have driven so many people away. People were being asked to return to a setting that had been--if not severed--at least substantially removed from its older self.

---

As a representative of the 'driven away'*, I think that Erik is spot on here.
*I haven't bought a Realms supplement since GHotR and when novels started being set so long after the 1300s that most ordinary people living then would be dead, I lost interest in them too.

---

In some ways I agree, but if we'd had the Spellplague with no time jump, the designers would have been pressed to provide more detail on the various regions immediately, and given that the greatest 4e detail I've been happy with has covered Cormyr, Waterdeep, and Laerakond, I think I would have been less happy with the 4e Realms overall after this length of time. The time jump and the vagueness preceding it has given us this opportunity to smooth things out and provide alternative "real" explanations of what happened without having to retcon significant portions of 4e lore out of existence, and (as vocal an opponent of the entire time frame as I've been) I have to see this as a positive development... retcons are the real bugbear of the setting, and I'd like to see them all done away with. And yes, I'm aware of the consequences of doing so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


But how do you smooth out 4E lore and get rid of retcons at the same time, when some of the 4E lore was retcons?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

It is what it is.

I'm not sure I even understand this 'open up the timeline' thing - it sounds like someone trying to put a positive spin on 'moving forward'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Eh, a ret-con is when you retroactively change an established fact. The mere existence of Abeir, unbeknownst to Torilian sages, doesn't qualify. That's new lore being inserted into the pre-history, not ret-cons.

I'm not qualified to say whether anything about Abeir involved a ret-con as an explanation, of course. Might be. But the part in the history section where it is stated that it was created as a Primordial prison, that's just new lore. Your choice whether you like it or not, but it is not, at least not in that form, a ret-con of anything previously established.

The re-arranging of the pantheon involved several ret-cons, of course. But that's another issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Well, I'm never going to accept a 4e statement of 'this god is the same entity as that god and always has been' over prior lore establishing them as seperate beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Making it clear that sometime during the pre-4e era, the pantheons of Abeir-Toril finally came to the point where their deific essence started to feel the pinch of the Time of Troubles rules change and similar gods could not longer exist seperately as easily, we have an excellent reason for why various gods had merged. This might be new lore that many dislike, but it's not invoking retroactive continuity.

These gods haven't always secretly been the same, like Discworld's Blind Io with Groucho Marx glasses, wigs and even a false tail; it's just that the fact that they had to compete for limited amounts of worship and sustain their power on that since 1358 DR has had the effect of merging their consciousnesses into fewer gods. There will still be worshippers of the older forms and ways and with enough of them, the older god could seperate from the newer one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Well, I'm never going to accept a 4e statement of 'this god is the same entity as that god and always has been' over prior lore establishing them as seperate beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarlyn

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Well, I'm never going to accept a 4e statement of 'this god is the same entity as that god and always has been' over prior lore establishing them as seperate beings.

---

I would rather that part of 4e be swept under the rug and ignored. It was only added to bring the deity's in realms in line with the new core deity concept for 4e. It does not really serve any interesting purpose, it also just makes the Realms pantheon more like the core pantheon, which I don't understand how that is a benefit. I actually liked the deity presentation in the 4e handbook, it was a different take on what the gods are and how they behave. However, that doesn't mean I want it duct taped into every other setting. The various setting should have differences, otherwise why print them? The WotC designers actually did seem to realize this when they didn't dramatically alter Darksun to fit in every 4e concept. Of course, at that point it was a little to late for FR.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Eh, a ret-con is when you retroactively change an established fact. The mere existence of Abeir, unbeknownst to Torilian sages, doesn't qualify. That's new lore being inserted into the pre-history, not ret-cons.

I'm not qualified to say whether anything about Abeir involved a ret-con as an explanation, of course. Might be. But the part in the history section where it is stated that it was created as a Primordial prison, that's just new lore. Your choice whether you like it or not, but it is not, at least not in that form, a ret-con of anything previously established.

The re-arranging of the pantheon involved several ret-cons, of course. But that's another issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooley Rupert
When it's stated in canon that Abeir-Toril is one world, and then later stated that no, there's a world called Abeir and another called Toril, that's a retcon.

We have canon that tells of many things that happened in the pre-history of the Realms. Wars against primordials and sundered worlds aren't things that would be overlooked, when we know so many other things. Thus, it is a retcon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Eh, a ret-con is when you retroactively change an established fact. The mere existence of Abeir, unbeknownst to Torilian sages, doesn't qualify. That's new lore being inserted into the pre-history, not ret-cons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I've often tried to argue this concept, but you'll run into a lot of people who just don't allow for the insertion of new lore.

After banging heads repeatedly with the same people, you start to appreciate where they're coming from.

RE: the deities all being "one and the same": I would have preferred an explanation that stated the gods all decided that for the sake of their portfolios it was better for them to merge with deities holding similar portfolios in order to survive the Spellplague (this allows for them to separate at some future point too).

That said, part of me has always left open the possibility that it was all Ed's idea. That this was one of those heretofore untold secrets of the Realms.

I'd wanted to wait to ask him in his scroll until after the next edition of D&D is released, so there you go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icelander

Eh, a ret-con is when you retroactively change an established fact. The mere existence of Abeir, unbeknownst to Torilian sages, doesn't qualify. That's new lore being inserted into the pre-history, not ret-cons.

---

I've often tried to argue this concept, but you'll run into a lot of people who just don't allow for the insertion of new lore.

After banging heads repeatedly with the same people, you start to appreciate where they're coming from.

RE: the deities all being "one and the same": I would have preferred an explanation that stated the gods all decided that for the sake of their portfolios it was better for them to merge with deities holding similar portfolios in order to survive the Spellplague (this allows for them to separate at some future point too).

That said, part of me has always left open the possibility that it was all Ed's idea. That this was one of those heretofore untold secrets of the Realms.

I'd wanted to wait to ask him in his scroll until after the next edition of D&D is released, so there you go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jakk

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

It is what it is.

I'm not sure I even understand this 'open up the timeline' thing - it sounds like someone trying to put a positive spin on 'moving forward'.

---

Except that I don't see the two as being related at all. I think that moving forward from the 4E date is inevitable, even if not desirable. I also think that opening up past eras to new material is not necessarily associated with that, but it is necessary if WotC wants to bring people like you and me back to the Realms, if they're not willing to reboot to an earlier time entirely.

Honestly, if pre-Spellplague new FR releases dramatically outsell post-Spellplague new releases in the 5e Realms, WotC might actually decide to cut their losses and give us that reboot... but I can't see that happening before 5e, simply because there hasn't quite been a complete turnover of WotC staff since 4e's release.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jakk

And for all we know, there are people higher up at Hasbro who still like the Spellplague.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay


I keep hearing how this approach works in Star Wars, but do people really play in those eras? I can certainly understand writing novels in all eras - that works in dozens of setting I can think of - but why would anyone want to play in the past, where they will make no difference what so ever? You're not gonna stop Anakin from killing the younglings - its pointless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay


So why would I want to play in the 1e-3e era Realms, when everything I do is pointless? Its all going to go to hell in 1385 regardless, no matter what we do. I play games to win, not to play out a pre-written script until its end. The existence of the 4e (and by extension possibly the 5e) Realms makes playing in the earlier period an exercise in futility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarlyn

Ed actually did mention that he was not consulted at all on the changes to 4e realms four years ago. He was basically told either he goes with it, or WotC would not be requiring his services. Or rather the hooded one posted about that for Ed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarlyn

If I remember right, he wasn't originally even going to be included as a designer for 4e realms, but due to community outrage he was added in rather late in the design process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarlyn

If I remember right, he wasn't originally even going to be included as a designer for 4e realms, but due to community outrage he was added in rather late in the design process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mournblade

The Cormyr to Anauroch adventures (I will call them the Black Chronology AP) was really the most fantastic work of WOTC adventure design since 2000. Nothing from WOTC has yet surpassed it, and really it ranks as high as any Paizo AP.

I would like for it to mean something in the general canon. The adventurers thwart plans by Shar in that AP yet still Shar wins. The AP is an empty victory.

I would be onboard with a D&D Forgotten Realms reboot. I would also be onboard with some form of Spellplague fix. Maybe they can release a Adventure path in the flavor of cormyr-anauroch allowing PC's to alter the course for the new timeline. Those that want to keep Spellplague do not have their PC's undergo the adventure. Those that do not want it have a perfect excuse why the spellplague never happened.

I think different era timelines work REAL well in Star Wars. And it can work for the realms. The Old republic era may even become a dominant era for the Star Wars univerese.

The guys that work on current realms lore do a good job. I just think the Spellplague was a complete botch. They could have made it work much better if they thought it through.

What I am not interested in is 4e realms getting the lionshare of support while the classic realms gets token articles in dragon here and there.

Honestly, my time is limited to game systems I have time to master and run. I am willing to give WOTC a chance, but it very well may hinge on their handling of the D&DNEXT realms. I would have played 4e if the 4e realms was implemented well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

It doesn’t seem fair to chide Mournblade for complaining in the same post where you air (that is, repeat) your own grievances, Azuth.

I think Mournblade’s general request that the trio of adventures should mean something in canon is worth thinking about.

Wouldn’t you agree, Azuth, that focusing on a way to have the adventures mean more than they ended up doing (perhaps they somehow lead to Mystra’s resurrection [assuming we get as much in Ed’s Elminster Engraged]) is at least worthy our time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

It doesn’t seem fair to chide Mournblade for complaining in the same post where you air (that is, repeat) your own grievances, Azuth.

I think Mournblade’s general request that the trio of adventures should mean something in canon is worth thinking about.

Wouldn’t you agree, Azuth, that focusing on a way to have the adventures mean more than they ended up doing (perhaps they somehow lead to Mystra’s resurrection [assuming we get as much in Ed’s Elminster Engraged]) is at least worthy our time?

---