| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 20:19:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
I bring these things up because if this edition is going to make (most) people happy, some of the things need to be "undone" somehow. Again, I'm liking the remerge/retwinning story as a way to explain the disappearence and remergence of many factors. It reminds me of the Disney movie Hercules, ironically, where Hades has all of the other gods locked up by the Titans. Hercules wins the day, the gods come back, and we have a happy ending.
I understand what you're saying, and yes, I think certain things should be undone . . . but UNDONE, not RETCONNED. The Spellplague needs to be resolved, but not eliminated entirely (in case people still want to use it). Certain gods should return, and certain civilizations should be rebuilt--like Halruaa, Luiren, etc.
I'm not generally a fan of *removing* lore. For as much as you might dislike something, there might be someone else out there who LOVES it and will get really upset if you take it away. Far better to make lore ignore-able if you want, so that everyone's happy. The problem here, though, is that you have to accept that you are playing in a setting that is NOT CUSTOM TAILORED TO YOU AND YOUR GROUP. It's a sandbox for everyone to play in. If you're not ok with that, you should be asking yourself why.
I know this puts me in the minority, but I see the disappearance of Mystra and several kingdoms in the Realms not as a travesty and problem, but as an opportunity: it's basically a built in adventure, i.e., "let's go rescue Mystra!" If your group loves Mystra or one of the things that went NERF in 4e, then by all means, run an adventure to get them back. My answer to complaints about "omg, this is gone, I'm so upset!" isn't "well, you should be happy because XXX," but rather "well, then go fix it!"
@Infravision: Yeah, this is kinda beyond the scope of this thread. Lord Karsus's explanation is as good as any.
@Jakk: You're exactly the sort of gamer I design for.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
(I like the "attack vs defense" mechanic, except that I think 4e took it in the wrong direction; I would make all attacks opposed rolls instead of having the defender "take 10"... then we still have meaningful saving throws, and mechanics are still made more consistent in the process).
And that's cool. It's very swingy, but as long as you're happy with that, more power to you. This is how the largely-unsuccessful 3e Song of Ice and Fire d20 system did combat: the attacker and defender both make rolls, and basically every attack is an opposed check.
You could also make it about which side of the DM screen you're on, and have the players make all the rolls--attack and defense checks, against static attacks and defenses on the part of the monsters (i.e., the monsters always "take 10" on their attacks, and PCs roll defensive checks--if they roll a 1, they get crit. If they roll a 20, it's like the monster rolled a 1.)
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 03 Mar 2012 20:40:29 |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 20:40:08
|
They do make checks.
They are called 'attacks'. 
The D20 system mimics the other method by simply choosing to go full-defense for the round (so you get a bonus to your defense by giving up an attack). I suppose you could use that 'Active Defense' in much the same way - instead of applying a static bonus, give the defender a die-roll instead.
As much as I believe in as much detail as possible in my games, somethings I don't mind being a little more abstract.
And as I've said before, I'd prefer they make damage part of the attack roll: The better the roll, the more damage you do. Why are we still rolling TWICE? If I need an 8 to hit something, and I roll a 20, why is it I still might only do 1 point of damage? Shouldn't I be rewarded for a 'a good strike'?
They can add detail by removing a roll, in this case. Its pure win. The weapon should have a static 'base damage', and then you get the extra in how much you beat the target # by. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Mar 2012 20:42:52 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 20:52:16
|
To indulge in some more mechanical geekitude for a moment:
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
They do make checks.
They are called 'attacks'.
The D20 system mimics the other method by simply choosing to go full-defense for the round (so you get a bonus to your defense by giving up an attack). I suppose you could use that 'Active Defense' in much the same way - instead of applying a static bonus, give the defender a die-roll instead.
As much as I believe in as much detail as possible in my games, somethings I don't mind being a little more abstract.
And as I've said before, I'd prefer they make damage part of the attack roll: The better the roll, the more damage you do. Why are we still rolling TWICE? If I need an 8 to hit something, and I roll a 20, why is it I still might only do 1 point of damage? Shouldn't I be rewarded for a 'a good strike'?
They can add detail by removing a roll, in this case. Its pure win.
See, and that might work for you, but not for another gamer, who wants his math "swingy," rather than sort of "flattened." 
"Swingy" refers to a system with either lots of variables or very significant variables. For instance, take the d20 system, where you roll a 1d20 to attack and add your modifiers to compare against a defense. You have an equal chance of doing totally awesome or whiffing entirely, as you're just as likely to roll a 20 as a 1.
Now add the defender making a defensive roll (which could also be a 20 or a 1), and you have something even swingier. Rolling independent damage--so that your great attack could do only a little damage, or your ok attack could do a LOT of damage--only compounds it.
A "flattened" system (more like 4e, though even 4e retains more of the swingy from using a d20) makes it more a matter of likely variables, and you're more likely to do an average amount of damage, or at least the system assumes you will do a certain amount of damage. It is assumed that monsters will go down in 4 or so hits (maybe just 2-3 if you're a striker, whose job it is to do damage). Compare this to swingier earlier D&D, where you could easily take out creatures in 1 hit with a good attack, but it was a random luck event.
Compare using a d20 for attacking to using 2d10 for attacking. With a d20, you're equally likely to whiff or crit. With 2d10, you're most likely to end up somewhere in the middle (which is probably enough for a decent hit or a near-miss), but really low and really high results become unlikely.
Anyway, that's what I mean when I use those terms.
What I think is necessary is a happy medium between "swingy" and "flattened," which I think 4e largely did. I've been playing D&D a long time, so I have a certain attachment to d20s, but even that I'm considering whether it's too swingy. I almost prefer 2d10 as your attack roll, with snake-eyes being a fumble and double-aught being a crit.
Back to Realmslore, unless there are more mechanical questions.
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" |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 21:40:57
|
My lists of things that need to be undone
the inserting new lore like what 4e did shoehorning in 4e POL into the realms. making halflings nomadic and all that...
the removal of x amount of deites
the primal spirits, primordial, demon, devil, deity fiasco.... we have yet to see a book on primal spirits( and if we ever do it will be for the nentir vale)
the distruction of halruua and lurien( dont give a wererat's diseased arse about lantan)
the missing deities like whats his dumathoin... yeah he's mentioned in a sidebar in the heroes of elemental chaos but not in the list of known primordials and he has no listing anywhere else save maybe another sidebar)
the newer holy symbols of corellon, and a few others... really, why did we need to have the core book corellon and what not holy symbols brought int othe realms, it just confuses people and making them think that they are the same deity.... and they are not the same except for name only)
the abolythic sovernty... really, we did not need this in the realms... the spell plague could of and should of just blocked them from coming in all together...... they need to be sealed away again.....( no offense to the auther, I liked Darkvision....., but we had enough lovecraft stuff put in and this just did not belong imo in the rrealms.. might have done well for NV though)
matzica.... from what I've heard.... returned abeir is not even in the place that matxica was...so I could be wrong there
I'm sure there is more I could think of..... but right now.... not the time
the Eminence of Araunt...... really they need a better explanation or just wipe them out.
I'm not in for retconning them out, I want lore to say how it was undone explaining them being gone.....
oh and Death to Cthulu....1000 times over....
|
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 05 Mar 2012 16:48:12 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 21:49:59
|
How is that flattened?
I use a Waraxe (lets say it does 4 Dam), and I need an 8 to hit a Kobold. The first time I roll an 8, just making it, and do 4 damage to the little bugger (who is still alive, because he is one tough kobold!)
The second time I roll a 19, doing 15 points of damage (4 + {19-8}), and squash it flat.
Thats an 11 point swing in HP, and thats without calculating crits (which is why I didn't say I rolled a 20 the second time).
You still have the same curve, but there is a very basic damage intrinsic to the weapon itself. Under the normal rules, that intrinsic damage is represented by the amount of dice (which is rather small - a greataxe has the potential of doing only 1 point of damage... thats just silly - you already determined you HIT the damn thing!) A Guisarme has less potential, but still does a base damage of 2.
Lets take a different scenario - a sleeping PC (maybe the guy got the better loot during the last excursion). You stab him with a dagger, which only does one point. However, the 'to hit' roll is zero, so whatever you roll on the D20 becomes damage. You roll a 19, and you just did 20 points of damage - enough to kill most level 3 and under characters.
Which is how it should be, if you just stabbed a guy while he was sleeping.
You're not changing the math at all - just the way the combat flows. It speeds-up combat not only by removing a roll, but also by removing the number of Feats necessary for melee-oriented characters (since the chance to hit now = damage done, you do not need two separate feat-trees for them).
I also use a hit-location system VERY similar to Runequest, and a separate set of 'Body Points' for that, representing actual (critical) damage done. That allows for aimed shots, without a lot of excess rules (by adding a stat, you remove entire layers of rules).
Once I am all set-up at my new house, I will 'publish' (to the web) my own set of OGL-based set of modifications. I still need a new comp and a new copy of Adobe suite. Maybe by the time I am done, 5e will be out, and I can adapt them to that.
I'll call it The Book of Ten swords, just to have one more sword then them. 
EDIT: Sorry - just read your last sentence Erik. Back to Realmslore.
Sadly, I have nothing to contribute in that regard. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Mar 2012 21:59:29 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 22:57:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Jakk: You're exactly the sort of gamer I design for.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
(I like the "attack vs defense" mechanic, except that I think 4e took it in the wrong direction; I would make all attacks opposed rolls instead of having the defender "take 10"... then we still have meaningful saving throws, and mechanics are still made more consistent in the process).
And that's cool. It's very swingy, but as long as you're happy with that, more power to you. This is how the largely-unsuccessful 3e Song of Ice and Fire d20 system did combat: the attacker and defender both make rolls, and basically every attack is an opposed check.
You could also make it about which side of the DM screen you're on, and have the players make all the rolls--attack and defense checks, against static attacks and defenses on the part of the monsters (i.e., the monsters always "take 10" on their attacks, and PCs roll defensive checks--if they roll a 1, they get crit. If they roll a 20, it's like the monster rolled a 1.)
 This is also a very cool concept... and, quite frankly, as a DM, I have better things to do during combat than roll dice. I want to be rolling dice outside of combat, even if only to keep my players on edge... pointlessly-rolled dice behind a DM screen are one of my best friends when I'm running a game. 
I hadn't realized that SoIaF d20 used the opposed-roll combat mechanic... I suppose I'll have to track down a copy now... off to nobleknight.com I go... |
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 03 Mar 2012 22:59:14 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 03 Mar 2012 : 23:06:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
To indulge in some more mechanical geekitude for a moment:
<chop>
What I think is necessary is a happy medium between "swingy" and "flattened," which I think 4e largely did. I've been playing D&D a long time, so I have a certain attachment to d20s, but even that I'm considering whether it's too swingy. I almost prefer 2d10 as your attack roll, with snake-eyes being a fumble and double-aught being a crit.
Of course, this makes each extreme happen only 1% of the time, because you've essentially gone from rolling d20 to rolling d100. I (and my fellow players in both groups I'm active with, one PF, the other 3.5) love the randomness of the relatively-more-frequent crits and fumbles, probably because most of us have played Rolemaster before and we love having a fumble system that isn't potentially fatal to the fumbler.
Anyway, back to lore... and I'm working on ideas in that department... really. |
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. |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2012 : 01:01:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
My lists of things that need to be undone
the inserting new lore like what 4e did shoehorning in 4e POL into the realms. making halflings nomadic and all that...
the removal of x amount of deites
the primal spirits, primordial, demon, devil, deity fiasco.... we have yet to see a book on primal spirits( and if we ever do it will be for the nentir vale)
the distruction of halruua and lurien( dont give a wererat's diseased arse about lantan)
the missing deities like whats his dumathoin... yeah he's mentioned in a sidebar in the heroes of elemental chaos but not in the list of known primordials and he has no listing anywhere else save maybe another sidebar)
the newer holy symbols of corellon, and a few others... really, why did we need to have the core book corellon and what not holy symbols brought int othe realms, it just confuses people and making them think that they are the same deity.... and they are not the same except for name only)
the abolythic sovernty... really, we did not need this in the realms... the spell plague could of and should of just blocked them from coming in all together...... they need to be sealed away again.....( no offense to the auther, I liked Darkvision....., but we had enough lovecraft stuff put in and this just did not belong imo in the rrealms.. might have done well for NV though)
matzica.... from what I've heard.... returned abeir is not even in the place that matxica was...so I could be wrong there
I'm sure there is more I could think of..... but right now.... not the time
I'm not in for retconning them out, I want lore to say how it was undone explaining them being gone.....
oh and Death to Cthulu....1000 times over....
Death to Cthulhu...or to the aboleths?
I'll agree, the aboleths were waaaaaaay overdone...they're like the Chinese mustard you get at the local Oriental cuisine outlet - a little bit adds flavor. 4th Edition upended the entire gallon jar onto the tea plate, so to speak. It was too much at one time, considering that the Sellplague was introduced at the same time.
While I'm with you on Halruaa and Luiren (and Dambrath, regionally), I think some justice does need to be done for Lantan. The thought behind most islands in 4th Edition seemed to be "wipe 'em clean and then forget about them completely". Sorry...that doesn't work for me. That very much doesn't work for me. I liked Lantan, and Nimbral, and the Nelanthers...only the Moonshaes seem to have come out even remotely resembling what they once were.
Iconic mortals need to be brought back. All of the Chosen that cannot be said to have had a point to their passing. I was not thrilled with how Khelben passed (despite my not really liking him all that much), but at least it made sense how they did it. No casual mention in a half-paragraph somewhere...and no dumb murder because some professor at Wizbro had a rabid hatred for All Things Drow. He went out in a blaze of glory, which is the only way one of the Chosen should go, regardless of how you slice it. And they are hardly the only iconic mortals that need to return.
Returned Abeir is very much sitting squarely where the bulk of Maztica used to be. Leagues of trackless ocean covering over half of Toril, and that's where it ended up.  No sense. Can't undo it, obviously - but Maztican culture and lands needn't be completely erased, and Wizbro needs to address that.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2012 : 01:15:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Returned Abeir is very much sitting squarely where the bulk of Maztica used to be. Leagues of trackless ocean covering over half of Toril, and that's where it ended up. No sense. Can't undo it, obviously - but Maztican culture and lands needn't be completely erased, and Wizbro needs to address that.
-Because I know, when I want to get rid of a large landmass that, all things considered, did seem out of place and relatively unconnected to Faerûn, and the rest of the setting as a whole thematically, because very few links existed between it and the rest of the world, I'd replace it with...arge landmass that, all things considered, did seem out of place and relatively unconnected to Faerûn, and the rest of the setting as a whole thematically, because very few links existed between it and the rest of the world!
-I was never much of a fan of Maztica not because of the general Mesoamerican theme- which, mind you, was something that I really could not get into- but because of the many parallels, down events taking place exactly as they had in American history. That's just laziness. At least Kara-Tur felt different than a carbon copy of Asia with a few fantastical elements, and Zakhara felt different than a carbon copy of the Middle East with a few fantastical elements. Maztica, not so much, though there were a few interesting aspects. Maztica could have felt more it's own entity than simply a fantasy Latin America if more had been written about it.
-I'll give 'Returned Abeir' that it is more congruous with the rest of the setting, because it's more generic fantasy, without a specific ethnic feel to it. But, the feeling of being completely separate and apart from the rest of the setting as a whole, feeling like a foreign land that seems like a fairly glaring insertion into the Forgotten Realms, that's still there. With more development, it could feel more connected and less 'randomly dropped out of the sky', but there really hasn't been too much of that in the 5+/- years the 4e Forgotten Realms have been in print, to the best of my knowledge. Depending on if the timeline is pushed forward, 5e sources should improve upon that. Otherwise, Returned Abeir is the new Maztica, and there was no real point in anything that was done, regarding switching out one for the other. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 04 Mar 2012 01:16:41 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2012 : 01:56:11
|
| In one way, I miss Maztica about as much as I miss Unther and Mulhorand (not at all), but in another way, I think the placement of Returned Abeir could have been far better handled. Markustay had a map giving us a far better alternate placement... but then, like I said, I didn't care for the way Maztica was handled... for much the same reasons as LK. It was far too "RW-history" for me. Still, if they'd dropped Returned Abeir closer to Faerun, it would have (a) been easier to connect to/adventure in/make use of in a campaign, and (b) helped explain some of the more catastrophic geographical changes in Faerun. But there was an apparent commitment to illogic that could not be violated, and so we got what we have now. The big thing I'd like to see is more development of Returned Abeir / Laerakond in new post-Spellplague material. |
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 - 04 Mar 2012 : 17:41:56
|
How about making Athas Abeir?
If you really think about it, it makes a LOT of sense. Athas has no gods, neither does Abeir (that we know of). Athas was a 'closed world' - it had no access to PS or SJ, and yet was still part of the greater D&D universe because at least one part of it wound-up in the Domains of Dread (Ravenloft setting). Abeir fits that bill as well. Parts of Abeir are run by 'Dragon Kings' - so is Athas (there is even a book with that title for that setting).
Also, magic doesn't really work on Athas - obviously it is cut off from the Weave (which reaches much further then we realized - I just found a rather interesting reference last night while looking for something else).
If Athas isn't Abeir, then it seems to be a world that has undergone the same 'punishment' Abeir has, in whatever sphere it was located in.
And then there is the rather interesting Abber Nomads that dwell in the Nightmare Lands in RL - they come from a place of 'changing landscapes'. Sounds like another candidate for past-lore tying into 4e lore (Abber Nomads = Abeir Nomads... and the culture is very similar to the Sharrans).
Athas would make a perfect anti-Toril. Since the Realms were never very big on Psionics (something I think has to do more with Primordials), I think it would make a great fit. Larakond (Returned Abeir) may have just come from the other side of the world from the Tyr region - I am actually picturing a planet with almost no axial tilt, where the people both north and south of the equator never enter the 'burning zone' (the belt of extreme heat around the middle). Ergo, the two hemisphere can have completely separate cultures independent of one another.
And only the dragons can cross the "land of fire".
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
In one way, I miss Maztica about as much as I miss Unther and Mulhorand (not at all), but in another way, I think the placement of Returned Abeir could have been far better handled.
All of that could have been fixed.
Obliteration is never a good answer.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 04 Mar 2012 17:45:33 |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2012 : 17:56:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Athas would make a perfect anti-Toril. Since the Realms were never very big on Psionics (something I think has to do more with Primordials), I think it would make a great fit.
The Realms still has a god of Psionics. He's just put to sleep by Mystra. And she can awaken him anytime. And when she does, Auppenser (and what's left of his worshipers) can migrate to Athas, where he can act as overgod, making it an ally, instead of a rival world. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2012 : 18:59:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
How about making Athas Abeir?
-That would probably increase confusion and complexity tenfold, and not in a good way- it would cause a lot more lore ruffles that should be being smoothed out, not created.
-It's not that it's not theoretically possible, with enough retconning and alterations and whatever else. One shouldn't have to be doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to make tacked on, new lore fit, though. Making Athas Abeir would be doing just that. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2012 : 19:27:12
|
enough of that was done for 4e and we dont need anymore of that going on......
besides I though that Athas was one of the levels of Hell or something.. hahahahahahahahaha.... yeah I know it s not. |
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 |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2012 : 19:37:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
How about making Athas Abeir?
-That would probably increase confusion and complexity tenfold, and not in a good way- it would cause a lot more lore ruffles that should be being smoothed out, not created.
-It's not that it's not theoretically possible, with enough retconning and alterations and whatever else. One shouldn't have to be doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to make tacked on, new lore fit, though. Making Athas Abeir would be doing just that.
I must agree with Lord Karsus. Psionics has always intrigued me, but it is too akin to the mysterious powers people have in the 4E setting. It is important to note that authors generally create fantastic exceptional stories because their works are exceptions. Ed has, by virtue of his position, created characters far more powerful than any normal mortals. Even those characters, however, are tied to Mystra for their power. Bob Salvatore used psionics to his advantage during the Time of Troubles in Menzoberranzan, but that house got conveniently eradicated when divine magic returned.
More simply, human minds generally seek order, and we have an instinctive desire to understand things. My fundamental problem with 4E was the lack of serious explanation of key events and how they came to happen, especially when it (seemed to have) conflicted with previous canon. I find it difficult to believe that the collapse of the Weave brought about so many things, especially the Abolethic Sovereignty. If one views the Realms as a (very) long novel, with chapters still being written, then the 4E changes didn't make me say "I didn't see that coming... clever!" Instead, I said, "WTF just happened? Did I accidentally get a totally different book inserted into my novel?"
My question is in what category would you place the following?
- 1E - Medieval
- 2E - Medieval
- 3E - Medieval
- 3.5E - Medieval
- 4E - ? (Sci-Fi)
- 5E - back to Medieval or continue Sci-Fi or ?
I think that answering this question, in large, would assist with the overall question of how to make the Realms more recognizable to established fans as well as compelling to new players. Before Erik started this thread, I assumed that 5E would require me to roll a character and then roll a Mech so I can start firing lasers at the new monsters. In that Scenario, Gond becomes the only deity that really matters.
One note in particular to Erik's originalpost: I view the 1E-3E are the same era. Yes, we advance a few years, but no major characters died, and nothing Toril-shattering happened. So I only see two eras, not three.
Azuth |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 00:36:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
My question is in what category would you place the following?
1E - Medieval
2E - Medieval
3E - Medieval
3.5E - Medieval
4E - ? (Sci-Fi)
5E - back to Medieval or continue Sci-Fi or ?
This would be my list
1E - never played can't comment
2E - 3.5E - high fantasy
4E - Low fantasy with some Sci-Fi elements
5E - unknown
That being said, I think realms products focus has changed over time.
1E - never played can not comment
2E - create living breathing world, extremely detail oriented(city maps, lots of supporting cast npcs, complex politics, trade, regional favorite foods, setting assumes that their are many adventurers and describes how they fit into daily life at specific locations)
3E-3.5E - Begin focusing more on the background concept(less support for details, focus on marco)
4E - Setting is a backdrop (Virtually zero focus on details, only provides enough information to the players/DM to facilitate rearming process between dungeon crawls, adventurers are no longer commonplace, but the rare heroes that are the only ones that can save location x from threat y)
I have found the move from world designing to backdrop designing the most frustrating part of the rolling editions. I find the details like names of brands of wine, or interesting npc(whether that is a mover and shaker like Alustriel or the one-legged general store owner in Waterdeep that gives PC discounts if they listen to his old adventuring stories) are what latter editions focus less on.
I would like to see more Realm's products similar to second edition's city of splendors box set. City of Splendor's provides a host of supporting cast npcs and locations that are a huge time saver for me as a DM. I do like to design the occasional blacksmith, inn keeper etc, but I don't want to design a dozen of them. This gives the impression to players that the city has great depth, because their is not only that one inn that they always have to rest at and their are multiple taverns and smithies for them to visit. Similar for noble families and guilds, of course as a DM I want to design a few, but having some others built in saves me time. Also, the prebuilt political environment allows me to insert my custom stuff into it, allowing for a richer world.
Another important feature to Waterdeep was the map, not only was it huged with an impressive amount of detailed locations. It also had a massive amount of non-defined buildings which are equally valuable. For one the non-defined building could be anything the DM needs.
Myth Drannor and Imaskar's new capital both seem ripe for this kind of treatment. Both are large cities that should support a host of various interesting locations to PCs. Both have complex political organizations that could use some supporting casting to supplement DM designed villians and npcs.
Although Myth Drannor really missed its potential, by merely being an elven city rather than trying to recreate the city for all races that it was prior to its original sacking.
Myth Drannor's many unexplored vaults allow for an epic dungeon to be built into the city, similar to Waterdeep's Undermountain. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 02:35:24
|
maybe they will take the hint and move back to thigh fantasy...
but now that you mention it, myth drannor's vaults would make a good dungeon like undermountain.... |
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 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 02:41:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
maybe they will take the hint and move back to thigh fantasy...
but now that you mention it, myth drannor's vaults would make a good dungeon like undermountain....
I like thigh fantasy. Especialy those involving Qilue veladorn, arilyn moonblade, and Sharess priestesses.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 02:57:06
|
I think that "high fantasy" is too distinctive for most people. When I go into Barnes & Noble, I look in "Fantasy" for D&D and in "Sci Fi" for Star Trek. To move toward a fifth edition that encompasses new players, we need to define these terms. What is "Low Fantasy?" I recall when the arquebus was made into the canon during 2E, and I didn't like it. It seems trivial now, but I didn't want to progress into gunpowder. I understand Gond's worshippers would love it, but I just didn't like it. That was easily discarded (I made them incredibly rare and horrendously expensive to my PCs) but it didn't make the game difficult for me to run. As a DM, I'm completely on board with the "give me some great, in-depth information that I can use to quickly spawn up a city/smith/tavern/et cetera) but leave me the open areas to play with, too. I'd lvoe to see "Desert of Desolation" (the module) redone for the new edition, too. I think it was probably one of the best products for new DMs and Players alike. I cut my teeth as a DM on it, and I also learned to play on it, albeit in the 1E version. Anyway, my key point is that making some great modules needs to be on the list of 5E products, and preferably ones that help "smooth out" the canon in the process. Whether or not they accompany novels is irrelevant to me, as a DM, but as a player, sometimes it's fun to play along.
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 03:01:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
I must agree with Lord Karsus. Psionics has always intrigued me, but it is too akin to the mysterious powers people have in the 4E setting. It is important to note that authors generally create fantastic exceptional stories because their works are exceptions. Ed has, by virtue of his position, created characters far more powerful than any normal mortals. Even those characters, however, are tied to Mystra for their power. Bob Salvatore used psionics to his advantage during the Time of Troubles in Menzoberranzan, but that house got conveniently eradicated when divine magic returned.
More simply, human minds generally seek order, and we have an instinctive desire to understand things. My fundamental problem with 4E was the lack of serious explanation of key events and how they came to happen, especially when it (seemed to have) conflicted with previous canon. I find it difficult to believe that the collapse of the Weave brought about so many things, especially the Abolethic Sovereignty. If one views the Realms as a (very) long novel, with chapters still being written, then the 4E changes didn't make me say "I didn't see that coming... clever!" Instead, I said, "WTF just happened? Did I accidentally get a totally different book inserted into my novel?"
That's pretty much how I feel. If you want to take the setting in a "lore-light" direction, then don't do a bunch of things that need explaining in-setting. That's the equivalent of dropping a worker into a new job unlike anything they've ever done before, providing no training, and giving them a "three screwups, you're fired, and don't ask questions" warning. Granted, no employer really does this (I hope), but that's precisely the point. It just isn't done. 
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
My question is in what category would you place the following?
- 1E - Medieval
- 2E - Medieval
- 3E - Medieval
- 3.5E - Medieval
- 4E - ? (Sci-Fi)
- 5E - back to Medieval or continue Sci-Fi or ?
I think that answering this question, in large, would assist with the overall question of how to make the Realms more recognizable to established fans as well as compelling to new players. Before Erik started this thread, I assumed that 5E would require me to roll a character and then roll a Mech so I can start firing lasers at the new monsters. In that Scenario, Gond becomes the only deity that really matters.
Azuth
Given this scenario, do we get to watch as Hasbro gets sued by Palladium Books for making the Realms just like RIFTS?  Don't get me wrong, I like science fantasy; I'm an old-school gamer, and I loved the Arduin material (most of which has been recently recompiled into a single hardcover volume, and yes, I own it); I wish I had the original stuff, because it would be worth more, but for me, science fantasy done right needs to emphasize one or the other, not both. Star Wars is definitely science fantasy, but it has a sci-fi feel to it, because the only fantasy element is the Force. But science fantasy feels wrong in the Realms. It's probably because of the ground rules of Ed's original creation. And yes, I know that 4e isn't science fantasy, but the whole idea of lasers in the Realms needs to be removed. Everything else, I'm good with, at least on a "tolerable" level... but  ?
Edit: I suppose I should answer the question. 
5e - definitely back to medieval high fantasy. If I want post-apocalyptic, I'll play in Athas. If I want science fantasy, I'll play in Eberron. If I want traditional high fantasy, right now my only option is Golarion, which is why WotC isn't seeing any of my money. The sooner they realize that, the sooner thing will improve.
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
One note in particular to Erik's originalpost: I view the 1E-3E are the same era. Yes, we advance a few years, but no major characters died, and nothing Toril-shattering happened. So I only see two eras, not three.
Azuth
I agree completely on this. I actually see the 2E-3E transition as bigger than the 1E-2E shift, largely because of the map shrink. If we're going to make even one retcon-ish move going into 5E, I would say, give us the 1E-2E map scales back, and emphasize Toril's portal network that it's always had.
Okay... anything else I have to say, I've already said before in this thread, and it's off topic anyway. |
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 05 Mar 2012 03:06:01 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 03:36:19
|
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.
As you've mentioned above, it's already been done. Just have them reprint the existing trilogy. And we don't have to throw anything out with it, either; it's been pointed out (exactly where, and by whom, escapes my mind at the moment) that the Realms already has alternate timelines; if anything is going to create another one, it's something like the Spellplague. I've gone over how to publish the material for such a scenario elsewhere (but I think it's still in this thread). The best thing is, it opens up a whole new option for chronomancy in the Realms; travel between timelines. There's even a logical argument for the PCs not having alternate selves in the other timeline, assuming we're talking about the beginning of the Spellplague here... some random magical flux associated with the Spellplague prevented the PCs' timelines from splitting along with everything else's. It might have affected other people, too... and some might have gone one way, some the other. A timeline split can add all kinds of possibilities to the setting, and fans of both versions of the Realms get what they want.
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
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.
I can't say the same... I would have played in the 4e Realms, but I probably still wouldn't have used the 4e rules. First, I would have had to find a completely new gaming group, because neither group I currently play with had anything good to say about the core rules; looking back, even though I wasn't impressed either, I think I was the biggest fan out of the two groups; admittedly, it took me a while to get there.
Edit: As Erik said, regarding my last paragraph above, the ruleset should be irrelevant. The Realms should be about the lore, not the mechanics. If you don't like something, then don't use it, instead of screaming for it to be denied to all of us. Hopefully we won't have any more of that going on in the new edition... and I'll stand by my clarified opinion that a timeline split is not inconsistent with Erik's goal, but I do agree that the Spellplague can be cleaned up somewhat... we've already proven that here. |
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 05 Mar 2012 03:44:34 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 16:32:50
|
I'm not sure where all this "low-fantasy" and "scifi" talk comes from. The Realms is, as it has always been, a high fantasy setting, where people use magic (not technology) and swords (not guns) to fight monsters (not aliens). Of course there are exceptions (the Abolethic Sovereignty is scifi inspired, for instance), but there have always been exceptions. Not enough to warrant labeling the setting as "scifi" or "low fantasy." I'm just not seeing it.
One of the purposes of 4e was to make the world MORE "fantastic," in terms of floating earthmotes, flying cities, more high-octane magic in the hands of PCs and NPCs. And I think they achieved that purpose--for better or worse.
As for lore fixes:
The Spellplague can be addressed. I use the term "neutered" to describe this process--the Spellplague was always intended to be a footnote in the history books. It's just the marketing that turned it into a big deal, and it's come to represent everything that went wrong in 4e FR. I stand by my assertion that if we'd have coherent, consistent lore from the beginning (something that can still be created and back-filled, which is my goal here), then the 4e FR would have worked great, and still had that "fresh start" feeling for new players.
You see, that was the whole goal with the 4e FR: make it accessible for new players who hadn't been involved in the setting for years and didn't have hundreds of dollars worth of books and the time to pour through them. They did it a particular way--trying to render the canon easily ignore-able by putting in distance--but doing so only drives away those people who WANT the canonical explanations.
What needs to be stated from the get-go is that canon is merely a tool for you to use in your games, not a set of manacles. You the DM and you the player should incorporate those things that appeal to you--that inspire your imagination--and you should throw out the rest.
Authors and designers are under a different burden. We have to abide by all the canon all the time, because THAT'S OUR JOB. We are creating a Realms in which all the canon functions as seamlessly as possible, so as to offer these tools for you to use.
Of course that's going to be frakked up from time to time, but we as Realms fans should look at that as an opportunity, rather than a negative event. It's a chance to dream up some cool new lore to plug the holes or serve as a bridge through the void.
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" |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 16:38:14
|
Its the Spellplague Erik - the name itself conjures visions of a 'zombie apocalypse', or some other 'modern horror' scenario.
Poor 4e - even the name of their McGuffin was bad.
Anyhow, their is another planet involved (Abeir), which gives it a bit of a Scify spin, and the plague itself, and the 'Mad Max' feel of much of the world (Two cities work for Escape from New York!) Toril got invaded from another world, has organized undead (the Eminence of Araunt), and creepy-crawly 'aliens' (Aboleths) are now trying to eat everyone's brains.
How can people NOT get that vibe? They changed the flavor completely (although in their defense, I honestly don't think they meant to do that). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 05 Mar 2012 16:41:43 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 16:46:45
|
and yet they still shoehorned the core lore into the realms....... the abyssal plague... the dawn war.... the races new lore.............. okay I thank you markustay... I dont like that group and thus forgot to add them to my list of things to be undone.....
we have an undead group and its leader is by far a force to be reckoned with and that group is Thay |
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 05 Mar 2012 16:48:46 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 17:26:16
|
I like the Eminence.
Then again, I am a fan of both WoW and Deadlands (Forsaken and The Harrowed, respectively), so it makes sense I would like them. They are nothing new - they are just a MORPG concept shoe-horned into the Realms.
I liked Thay the way it was before (but once again, I am a fan of Conan's stygia, which is how I payed Red Wizards in my games). The 'Plateau of Leng' vibe is redundant with the Aboleths as well (just couldn't get enough of those tentacles, eh?) Why they decided to go redundant and create TWO different 'uber undead' groups is beyond me.
They got rid of Halruaa, and yet brought back Imaskar - WotC is like a dog chasing its own tail. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 05 Mar 2012 17:29:13 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 17:44:45
|
@Markustay:
Having two dimensions/worlds collide is a mainstay of fantasy, with deep roots in the D&D setting. Claiming it's the province of scifi is like claiming that Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel is scifi because they travel to the land of Faerie, which is clearly "another planet."
I have never really liked the presence of aboleths in D&D, but I will state that they have been there a LONG time--long enough to warrant them being as much fantasy creatures as scifi creatures. There's obviously a flavor issue here, and I think it's just as possible to craft them as either SF or F. The fact that they are organized in a flying city does not make them space aliens.
I appreciate that some of the marketing of 4e FR was "post-apocalyptic kewl!", but I don't think the setting really reflects that. Sure, it's a little more rustic than previous versions, but then, so was the OGB. And I for one like to see a world that isn't completely cosmopolitan-ized by the "good" races.
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 - 05 Mar 2012 : 17:45:07
|
I never saw the Eminence as anything like a MMORPG concept. They're unique and very interesting. They have appeal to me (as a DM) because they're capable of popping up just about anywhere.
Likewise I don't see the Eminence as redundant simply because both it and Thay are comprised of undead. That's like saying Cormyr and Amn and Impiltur are all redundant because they're controlled by humans.
Like anything in the Realms, a little reading will show there are significant differences between the Eminence and Thay. This is why I like the Realms: it has variety. There's no reason for Thay (as it stands now) be the only undead-controlled state/organization.
The Eminence isn't something that needs any sort of correcting. It belongs in the Realms. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36884 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 18:28:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I appreciate that some of the marketing of 4e FR was "post-apocalyptic kewl!", but I don't think the setting really reflects that. Sure, it's a little more rustic than previous versions, but then, so was the OGB. And I for one like to see a world that isn't completely cosmopolitan-ized by the "good" races.
Cheers
The material I read, with emphasis on all the destruction that had gone before and how things were no longer the same -- or were even darker/tarnished from what they'd been before -- is what made it feel post-apocalyptic to me. It wasn't the marketing, it was the sourcebooks and novels. |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36884 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 18:30:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
One of the purposes of 4e was to make the world MORE "fantastic," in terms of floating earthmotes, flying cities, more high-octane magic in the hands of PCs and NPCs. And I think they achieved that purpose--for better or worse.
But other than earthmotes, we already had those things in the Realms. How can they make something more fantastic by adding something that's already there? |
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! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 18:48:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm not sure where all this "low-fantasy" and "scifi" talk comes from. The Realms is, as it has always been, a high fantasy setting . . . Not enough to warrant labeling the setting as "scifi" or "low fantasy." I'm just not seeing it.
I'm surprised you think so. The Realms has always drawn on influences from high fantasy (Tolkien, Kay), swords and sorcery (Leiber, Vance, but equally in a sense Wodehouse), and writing that doesn't easily fit those categories (Zelazny). Its core narrative is an adventuring company getting into scrapes, doing the best they can, often falling in over their heads, with a mixture of mood and motive of which high fantasy's high-toned nobility is just one element. There are sources that take a more high-fantasy approach, and especially the degraded version of that that comes from missing the point of Tolkien -- the constant large-scale would-be epic stories, the mighty mages bestriding -- but these sources, with their shifts of emphasis from the human to the divine and spectacular, their erasing of locality into a foreshortened modern-style world, are painfully discordant with what the core of the Realms is.quote:
What needs to be stated from the get-go is that canon is merely a tool for you to use in your games, not a set of manacles.
Yes, as the 1987 campaign set did so clearly and elegantly. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
