| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 18:50:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It wasn't the marketing, it was the sourcebooks and novels.
I'm sympathetic to the post-apocalyptic vibe, because much of the marketing focused on the Spellplague itself as opposed to what the sourcebooks and novels (that I've read) focused on: i.e. a Realms that has settled, recovered and moved on from the Spellplague.
To be fair, the sourcebooks and novels (granting that you and I may not have read all the same post-Spellplague novels, of course) don't just emphasize either A) everything is different or B) some of it is even darker.
They do emphasize that some parts of the Realms are just the same, save for the changes wrought naturally by passage of time, and those that aren't have managed by and large to recover, move on and even prosper, just as much of the Realms has done down the centuries in the wake of any of several prior calamities.
Yes, I think we can agree that not all the changes feel organic or "right" in terms of what fits the Realms, but I just don't get any sort of "post apocalyptic" vibe from the FRCS, FRCG or the novels I've read (Ed Greenwood Presents: Waterdeep; Elminster Must Die; Bury Elminster Deep; Gauntlgrym).
Check that: I do get a post-apocalyptic vibe from the Neverwinter Campaign Setting and the Gauntlgrmm novel, but that owes itself not to the Spellplague; rather to Mount Hotenow blowing its top.
To me, “post-apocalyptic” means “we’re still dizzy from having our bells rung”. That’s not a theme the FRCG champions in my opinion. Change, yes. Post-apocalyptic, no.
Regardless, this is all a moot point.
What’s more important (in my not so humble opinion) is minimizing the Spellplague even further. Don’t pretend it’s not there, but do make an effort to smooth out its rather prominent rough edges so we can better fit the changes that don’t feel right into the Realms.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 05 Mar 2012 19:13:58 |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 18:56:34
|
BTW Erik - I wasn't supporting the notion, just explaining why people feel that way (a view I can obviously see, if not entirely agree with).
Personally, I do not differentiate between scify and fantasy - SW is a fantasy, IMHO, and Jack Vance - who's magic system D&D's is based on - is Scify. The lines are way too blurred for me to see any difference any longer (the last 'scify' novel I read was about a 'possessed' spaceship, so even that definitely crossed some lines).
And what is Dune? The entire first novel of the serties (and by far the best) sounds more like Athas (one world, with little in the way of 'visible' tech). Yet, it is most definitely Scify, despite the many fantasy tropes (including a 'god king').
Or King David's Spaceship? Or The Magipoor Chronicles, or the Pern series? Etc, etc, etc...
As I said, Erik, I do not agree with the assessment, merely understand it (and since you ask for clarification, I thought I'd share my insights on people's perceptions).
Traveling TO other worlds is very fantasy-ish, but being invaded by them, not so much. 
If anything, I would say the Realms crossed more into the Horror genre, then the scify (but once again, all those lines have blurred).
EDIT:
@Jeremy - because nearly everyone we know is dead. Thats the most basic premise of a post-apocalyptic tale. Sure there are new people... but we don't really care about them. |
"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 19:20:40 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 19:17:18
|
@Wooly: Which novels and sourcebooks are you referring to?
If we're talking Ed Presents Waterdeep, I think that "post-apocalyptic" feel is more of "this is a medieval city--it's a little grimy," rather than actually post-apocalyptic. The Waterdeep of my novel, at least, is a pretty civilized, decent sort of place, the way Waterdeep has always been. My next novel explores Westgate, which is similarly a cosmopolitan city. They're not back-broken wastelands. Luskan is, and for good reason--you read RAS's Pirate King novel. Neverwinter is a little post-apocalyptic, but as stated above, that's due to a volcano/earthquake, not the Spellplague.
I wonder if the "post-apocalyptic" thing has more to do with the feelings of fans, who feel like WotC broke the setting (which they sorta did), egged on by the marketing, which focused on the changes/subtractions, rather than "hey, look at these cool things in the setting!"
4e FR is NOT the dark ages of FR.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Jeremy - because nearly everyone we know is dead. That the most basic premise of a post-apocalyptic tale. Sure there are new people... but we don't really care about them.
That's not at all the case. Sure, some people did indeed die, but not "nearly everyone we know." And many of the deaths that *did* transpire were in pre-4e materials. And many people just *vanished*--that does not entail death.
The only obvious big NPC deaths I can even think of are Alustriel, some of Drizzt's friends, and some of the Cormyr folks (Alusair still exists as a ghost [for now], Caladnei, Filfaeril, etc.). No one lives forever, and just because people die doesn't mean that it's post-apocalyptic--just that it's a different era.
Also, let's look at a wider scope here: Do we call 1e post-apocalyptic because of the fall of Netheril?
And do you really feel confident saying "we don't really care about" any of the new people? If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that we FR creators are all terrible writers and designers, which I find somewhat insulting for obvious reasons.
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 : 19:25:30
|
Its a century later - barring magic, lichdom, non-humaness, etc... everyone should be dead.
If all the NPCs from the 1e/2e/3e sources are still around in 4e, then I would say the Realms are even more amazing then I thought.
Or maybe they all absorbed a Shade (following Entreri's example). 
I'm being perfectly frank here - if the 'old Elminster' got killed, I probably would have cried (I cried for Azoun), but if this new incarnation (and I'm still dragging myself through EMD) died, I wouldn't care a wit. I don't know that guy - he's not my Elminster. My Elminster juggles beholders and farts atomic bombs. That guy is just some creepy old man who crawls through sewers and gripes about every little thing. I have ZERO connection to the character. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 19:27:13
|
@Jeremy: I tried reading a copy of the FRCG, and right at the beginning (IIRC) it goes on about how things have changed from the earlier editions of the Realms. And while not necessarily "post-apocalyptic," many of the changes were to things that I loved about the earlier Realms (the Realms is supposed to have portals to and from everywhere IMHO). I then skipped to the deities chapter to see who remained after the "culling," and only found a sub-par list of available deities—in the "campaign guide" which is supposed to be a "DM resource"! I literally could not get into it enough to read it through (and this is from someone who reads most of his RPG source books cover to cover).
On the novels side, all I have read so far are Erik's Downshadow and Shadowbane. And while Waterdeep felt much the same, and the inclusion of written works by Danilo and a couple of other 1370s era characters was a nice feature, I found Downshadow to be a little heavy on the spellscars. Not to say that I did not enjoy the novels. I especially like how Erik is weaving the Helm/Tyr/Torm aftermath. And I am looking forward to being able to read a novel set in fabled Westgate (an oft-mentioned-but-never-visited mystic local in my FR novel experience, though maybe I am just reading the wrong novels). |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 19:31:16
|
| -Heh. When I was at the library, they had Elminster Must Die, and when I was flipping through it, I was also like, "What the hell? Does all this guy do now is complain?" I didn't like him much before, and everything that has happened since has done little to endear me more to him. He doesn't feel "always in control, absolutely", which is a character conceit that I really don't like in characters of any kind, like he felt to me in the past, but that's been replaced by the griping, which is almost as annoying. |
(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 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 19:32:56
|
I think we have two themes here that are running in parallel and that we’re interchanging a little too freely.
One is about a personal feeling. How you (as in the generic ‘you’) feel about the changes to the Realms.
The other is how the setting feels. That is, what sort of tone or feel does the latest iteration of the setting portray in its Campaign Guide and subsequent products (novels, magazine articles, etc…)?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Jeremy - because nearly everyone we know is dead. That the most basic premise of a post-apocalyptic tale.
I guess I see this as more of a personal feeling and not a mark against the setting.
I get the feeling of a disconnect and a sense of loss…the “oh no!” feeling that a favorite NPC or novel character is gone in the sense that the setting won’t (at the time, as stated by WotC) be focused on anymore.
But it reads more to me like you stopped caring about everyone who’s dead just because they died. Why don’t their stories matter anymore? Or their legacies or their effect on the setting?
In a thread like this, shouldn’t they? I certainly care about Alusair’s story (for example; and this is just one of many).
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Sure there are new people... but we don't really care about them.
Why? Why do “we” not care? I know you couldn’t get past the appearance of Alusair as a ghost when you read that Ed novel, but is that true for every reader?
I know I care. Which is to say I’m very interested to see how long King Foril (for example) lasts on the throne in Cormyr with all the noble and Manshoon-caused strife going on.
I find myself wondering what effect did Azoun V have on shaping Foril? What effect did Alusair have in shaping Azoun V? What lessons learned by Alusair when she dealt with rebellious nobles will Foril use in his time under similar circumstances?
What of Alusair (and Queen Fee and all the others) shaping Cormyr as it stands under Foril’s (and soon, no doubt, Irvel’s) rulership?
History is a linear thing. Granted in some parts of the Realms that direct line has been erased with the disappearance or destruction of certain parts of the Realms, but others are untouched.
Those parts matter to me.
It’s that kind of structure and interlinking of past with future that can help tie the Realms together literally and metaphorically, as we work to build One Realms.
EDIT: @Hawkins - I feel you on the changes, portals in particular. I could understand why many portals would malfunction or just not work anymore, but saying they're all more or less defunct was, frankly, a bad design choice. Why make the Realms generic? Why take away one of the mindblowingly best and most obvious means for DMs to move players around the campaign world quickly (and interestingly)?
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 05 Mar 2012 22:22:11 |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 20:46:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
<snip>
The only obvious big NPC deaths I can even think of are Alustriel, some of Drizzt's friends, and some of the Cormyr folks (Alusair still exists as a ghost [for now], Caladnei, Filfaeril, etc.). No one lives forever, and just because people die doesn't mean that it's post-apocalyptic--just that it's a different era.
Also, let's look at a wider scope here: Do we call 1e post-apocalyptic because of the fall of Netheril?
And do you really feel confident saying "we don't really care about" any of the new people? If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that we FR creators are all terrible writers and designers, which I find somewhat insulting for obvious reasons.
Cheers
I want to be extremely cautious in responding to this post and a couple that have since appeared. First of all, Alustriel wasn't just an NPC to me, I had made her and Silverymoon central to my campaign. Thus, the 4E world dramatically changed everything upon which my game had been based. I'm a somewhat lazy DM, and so determining what everything is/would be to transfer just to the 4E rules would be a huge ordeal. Additionally, because of Alustriel's presence, I frequently pulled in any of the other Seven Sisters to provide a quest, although I avoided Elminster unless the PCs sought him out. This is important because at the time of the 4E CG's publishing, Mystra was said to be dead. Novelizations hinting otherwise are not withstanding, because I can't magically update a printed book with new lore.
On Netheril: I would have felt post-apocalyptic if I had a campaign staged and run in Netheril in 1E. I didn't, and I don't think that new players have as much problem with the "new" Realms. From a fiction perspective, I love reading Ed's new books. I do not love reading Bob Salvatore's new books, because he's basically killing off all of the characters I have come to love in each successive book. Drizzt was not my favorite character, but he was central to that storyline.
I view novelizations as stories that take place in a setting with which the user has some degree of familiarity. Most of the 4E books I have read are fantastic books, but they do not feel like FR books to me. They use the same names ("Waterdeep" is still a city) but I'm not at all sure what's going to happen next. So, I need to split my final commentary into published novels, and the published campaign setting.
With respect to novels, perfection is impossible, and much more so, not even practical. I enjoy some of the new characters, and don't want them "retroed" out of existence. I'm angry that I have to make this decision at all, because they would have been just fine in the 3E world, albeit with slight modifications to their back stories to remove the Spell Plague. I do not think that the 4E creators are bad, or malicious. I do think that 4E took away nearly all that was familiar and that I have to learn everything all over again. It's the equivalent of going through school and graduating, then going back to first grade again. I don't want to go through all of that learning again, because I was happy with what I had. That's something I'm learning comes with getting older, and I may not like it, but it nevertheless exists. I was extremely psyched for the 3E Realms because, although it advanced the timeline slightly, it really brought a true "refresh" to the Realms. Maps were better, descriptions were better, and the books were top-notch from a CG-approach.
So, with respect to teh FRCG and everything else in 4E, I felt disconnected. I didn't feel that I had to "choose" between 1E/2E/3E because the changes were minor, and well explained. Bane, Bhall, and Myrkul all died. If you played a priest worshipping one of them, you could keep worshipping them and receive all of the benefits of said worship, OR you could convert to Cyric. I, as a DM, didn't have to decide what to do. I could focus more on great adventures and less on mechanics. 3E didn't off any major gods, or do massive damage to the Realms, and so I just avoided Tilverton as much as possible and continued on with my "Epic" game that had lasted over a decade. Then 4E comes out, and everything is changed. Assuming I want to continue using my 3E campaign, I either need to advance it 100 years to be current with the new novels and books, or I have to retcon my entire campaign somehow. A whole boatload of gods have died, cities have dissapeared, a giant lake is drying up, new places are appearing, new monsters are appearing, and I feel as if I have lost the support of the people publishing the materials on which I based my campaign. There was no tidy way to transition from 3E to 4E. There wasn't even a guide on what events happened when so that I could continue working in the 3E era. I read it as: things are going normal, now Mystra dies, now the Weave collapses, a whole bunch of people died, and all of these strange things are happening to the world, none of which I can explain with a degree of confidence as the DM. That does indeed feel apocalyptic to me. If I had just started a new game with new players in 4E, then yes, it would be a setting in which I could become comfortable. I don't know about Azuth IV, or the Seven Sisters, or anything else. But everything that drew me to the 1-3E Realms is suspect, and I'm even more fearful of the future because what little remains of what I knew might be taken away in the next edition. My players feel the same way.
Again, this is why I think that a fantastic epic needs to be drawn up in which players/protagonists "fix" the problems of the Realms in returning it to (generally) the 3E world. Let's use portals and plane travelling to deal with Abeir if we want it in our campaigns, but don't force it upon us. I do not want the Realms rebooted. I have never wanted the Realms rebooted. I somehow want 5E to take place prior to 4E and continue the era that 3E took place within, and make 4E an optional path that the Realms might take for those who wish it.
I want Dungeons, and I want Dragons. I want sweeping forests, huge mountains, vast oceans, and everything about the Realms that I loved because it was familiar to me. I personally don't have any ties to pre-TOT Realms, because the changes were minor. The Rules changed, but not so much did the Realms. Again, I repeat that with 3/3.5E. I understand why WoTC set 4E so far into the future, as it let players basically ignore 4E and continue their games without interruption in the current "time." The problem is that the campaigns that did this became "legacy" campaigns, as our books stopped being published, and new lore stopped being created in that era. If I had a PC who wanted to play a Plague-touched character, I'd have to move my game ahead 100 years, or find a way for him or her to go backward in time 100 years. It broke the tenet of good usability called "Don't Make Me Think!" I play D&D to get away from my daily life, and immerse myself in a world in which I am comfortable, free, and enjoy the fantastical. 4E broke that connection for me, and it's going to take a lot of explanation (not necessarily rebooting/reconning) to make me comfortable again.
My cantrips, for what they're worth.
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
36885 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 21:54:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Wooly: Which novels and sourcebooks are you referring to?
If we're talking Ed Presents Waterdeep, I think that "post-apocalyptic" feel is more of "this is a medieval city--it's a little grimy," rather than actually post-apocalyptic. The Waterdeep of my novel, at least, is a pretty civilized, decent sort of place, the way Waterdeep has always been. My next novel explores Westgate, which is similarly a cosmopolitan city. They're not back-broken wastelands. Luskan is, and for good reason--you read RAS's Pirate King novel. Neverwinter is a little post-apocalyptic, but as stated above, that's due to a volcano/earthquake, not the Spellplague.
I wonder if the "post-apocalyptic" thing has more to do with the feelings of fans, who feel like WotC broke the setting (which they sorta did), egged on by the marketing, which focused on the changes/subtractions, rather than "hey, look at these cool things in the setting!"
It was a couple of the Waterdeep novels, one of which was your own. And seeing the city as it's written in that series, and comparing that to what it was before, there is a notable feeling that the city has lost a lot of its shine. It now has a run-down and grimy feeling, where before it felt vibrant and ever-changing.
And in the FRCG, I see a lot of the same. I see things aren't the same, and repeated references to chaos, destruction, and devestation caused by the Spellplague.
The world feels darker and dirtier, and the feeling of wonder has been replaced by the tired weariness of just trying to get by. Perhaps post-apocalyptic isn't the right word... It feels more like cyberpunk, with straight fantasy instead of high tech. Fantasypunk? |
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!  |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 22:22:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
<snip>
Again, this is why I think that a fantastic epic needs to be drawn up in which players/protagonists "fix" the problems of the Realms in returning it to (generally) the 3E world. Let's use portals and plane travelling to deal with Abeir if we want it in our campaigns, but don't force it upon us. I do not want the Realms rebooted. I have never wanted the Realms rebooted. I somehow want 5E to take place prior to 4E and continue the era that 3E took place within, and make 4E an optional path that the Realms might take for those who wish it.
It's good to know someone else feels exactly the same way I do. If D&D Next is going to be about choices, then make the 5e Realms about choices too. Saying that we can play "in the past" isn't enough. We were given the perfect epic adventure trilogy to make the PCs the heroes of the 4e Realms, and WotC made it meaningless (that point has been argued, but the fact that we got the Spellplague with no other options makes it pretty much solid from where I'm standing). As Azuth mentioned, the ToT was not nearly as big a deal; Bhaal and Myrkul can be brought back into a 2e (or even 3e) campaign without re-writing 50% or more of the immediate background lore for the world, but I can't say the same for reversing the Spellplague (or even just its effects)... and the major point for myself and Azuth is, why should individual DMs (in what must be a sizeable community, or we wouldn't be back at the "new edition on the way" scenario after only three years) have to do all the work to have the Realms we want to play in? The whole point (and I've said this before) of having a published campaign world is to save the DM time and creative energy. As it is right now, I felt that it was easier for me to create my own world than to re-engineer new (post-Spellplague) Realmslore to fit the Realms I wanted to play and DM in. I've said it before, rather recently IIRC, but giving both the Spellplague fans and the "classic Realms" fans what we want, in the form of a split timeline, doesn't invalidate anything. If anything, it helps make the Spellplague make sense, and it provides a whole new dimension (literally) of adventure possibilities, with magic that allows travel between the timelines. I would make it directly straight-across, so that you arrive in the destination timeline at the same instant you left the original, but there are plenty of ways to avoid the "meeting up with yourselves" paradox... and that's only if the DM and players want to avoid it. That creates another interesting possibility for adventures to take place in. Anyway, I may be flogging a dead horse, if WotC is dead-set against a timeline split, but that also greatly diminishes the chance that I'll be interested in a 5e Realms apart from the possibility of new pre-Spellplague products, and from my point of view, that's only bad for WotC, because it means fewer people buying their stuff (given that Azuth and I are likely not the only two people who feel this way).
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
<snip>
I want Dungeons, and I want Dragons. I want sweeping forests, huge mountains, vast oceans, and everything about the Realms that I loved because it was familiar to me. I personally don't have any ties to pre-TOT Realms, because the changes were minor. The Rules changed, but not so much did the Realms. Again, I repeat that with 3/3.5E. I understand why WoTC set 4E so far into the future, as it let players basically ignore 4E and continue their games without interruption in the current "time." The problem is that the campaigns that did this became "legacy" campaigns, as our books stopped being published, and new lore stopped being created in that era. If I had a PC who wanted to play a Plague-touched character, I'd have to move my game ahead 100 years, or find a way for him or her to go backward in time 100 years. It broke the tenet of good usability called "Don't Make Me Think!" I play D&D to get away from my daily life, and immerse myself in a world in which I am comfortable, free, and enjoy the fantastical. 4E broke that connection for me, and it's going to take a lot of explanation (not necessarily rebooting/reconning) to make me comfortable again.
My cantrips, for what they're worth.
Azuth
Exactly what Azuth said. Me too. I have nothing more to add on this part of the post. 
|
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. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 22:34:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Its a century later - barring magic, lichdom, non-humaness, etc... everyone should be dead.
If all the NPCs from the 1e/2e/3e sources are still around in 4e, then I would say the Realms are even more amazing then I thought.
Or maybe they all absorbed a Shade (following Entreri's example).
 The Shades must be pretty much crippled as a nation, then...
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'm being perfectly frank here - if the 'old Elminster' got killed, I probably would have cried (I cried for Azoun), but if this new incarnation (and I'm still dragging myself through EMD) died, I wouldn't care a wit. I don't know that guy - he's not my Elminster. My Elminster juggles beholders and farts atomic bombs. That guy is just some creepy old man who crawls through sewers and gripes about every little thing. I have ZERO connection to the character.
I felt exactly the same way through much of EMD... but by the end of the next book, I had almost completely forgotten all of that. Keep reading if you can; I want the next book in my hands now, not seven(?) months from now. |
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 22:36:44 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2012 : 23:17:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Heh. When I was at the library, they had Elminster Must Die, and when I was flipping through it, I was also like, "What the hell? Does all this guy do now is complain?" I didn't like him much before, and everything that has happened since has done little to endear me more to him. He doesn't feel "always in control, absolutely", which is a character conceit that I really don't like in characters of any kind, like he felt to me in the past, but that's been replaced by the griping, which is almost as annoying.
I recently picked up EMD. I fin it intriguing. I think it is done well. With WOtc listening to older fans I got myself to a point to just deal with the changes. I hope DDNEXT fixes alot of what happened in 4e realms but I am certainly no longer in the school of erasing it.
EMD is a great book, and when viewed in the proper context is quite exciting. The book sets a sad tone initially, which shows well what the realms has lost.
I decided to reboot my old Darksun Campaign with the 4e rules. I am now at the point when I can look at the design for 4e admire it, but realize they are not leaving everyone else in the dust.
I think if they started off with Darksun right out of the 4e gate, I would have been much more onboard.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2012 : 00:43:33
|
I hear you guys. I really do. And I have my own pain and frustration to deal with regarding 4e FR, which I've mostly done.
I think there is so much value in all of the Realmslore published, regardless of edition, that losing any of it (as a retcon would do) would be a real tragedy for the setting. 4e FR saw an infusion of new players and new perspectives. Getting rid of 4e as it is would be a huge mistake for the setting.
But that doesn't mean that stuff that went down during the transition wasn't incredibly the suck. Because it was. And that's the sort of stuff we want to neuter or cut out.
@MT: The argument that "it's 100 years later, so everyone must be dead" doesn't fly when we're talking about SPECIFIC characters. Granted, yes, millions of people will have been born and expired between 3e and 4e, but what more emotional connection do you have to them than people existing today? To me, the Realms is largely about the specific iconic characters of the setting, and it's truly remarkable to me how many of them have survived into 4e. And those who didn't, well, in most cases we just don't know what happened to them, freeing up the DM to use them or ignore them in whatever way he sees fit.
No one is advocating moving forward with 4e FR "as-is," and I really hope WotC isn't considering that. Stuff needs to be done, and stuff IS BEING DONE. I really hope we don't see a Dallas moment, where Elminster wakes up and Khelben's in the shower. (Also that would be more than vaguely disturbing.)
I advocate support for all eras. If WotC is really going to free its players to play in any place at any time, they'd better put their design where their mouth is.
That's it.
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 - 07 Mar 2012 : 16:12:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
EMD is a great book, and when viewed in the proper context is quite exciting. The book sets a sad tone initially, which shows well what the realms has lost.
I'm inclined to agree. The Realms has lost some key things, but really that's just an opportunity to regain them, or replace them with something better.
And when I say "better," I don't mean "the new kewl"--I mean something steeped in lore, a logical and cool evolution of what was originally there. For instance, I believe Mystra should return, but not as a Mystra we have seen before--but I wouldn't want to comment too much, as Ed's currently working this.
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" |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:11:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@MT: The argument that "it's 100 years later, so everyone must be dead" doesn't fly when we're talking about SPECIFIC characters. Granted, yes, millions of people will have been born and expired between 3e and 4e, but what more emotional connection do you have to them than people existing today? To me, the Realms is largely about the specific iconic characters of the setting, and it's truly remarkable to me how many of them have survived into 4e.
I think this is a key area where I disagree with you.
I think that the 'iconic' characters of the Realms have been overemphasised at the cost of presenting more of the rich tapestry that exists. I think that in making them trademarks of the setting, not only have 'iconic' character dominated novel and sourcebook pagecounts, but the creative direction has been to make sure that the most popular of them survive, regardless of whether this is the most plausible result or the choice with the most artistic value.
The Realms would still be the Realms to me if the grand heroes of the setting had met their deaths. What I truly regret about the 100 years of time-jump is not that Elminster, Drizzt, the Simbul or a couple of dozen other 'iconic' characters might have died in the meantime. I regret the thousands of minor characters like innkeepers, merchants, Zhent informers, slyblades, ambitious magelings, ships' captains, pickpockets, farmers, farriers, fletchers and so on.
I miss the way that thanks to Ed's decades of work and play in the Realms of the 1350s onward, there would be little details about the personalities, histories or relationships of even the least 'iconic' NPC that could be encountered in every little town. Those were not onlyl useful as adventure hooks, they were interesting, entertaining, vital in making players feel that their characters were interacting with an actual living-and-breathing world, not just checkpoints on a quest map.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of 'iconic' NPCs, even those not previously established as long-lived, survived the Spellplague and the century of time-jump does not make the 4e Realms any more interesting to me. I still haven't got the texture of all the minor NPCs, taverns, inns, stores, rumours and adventure hooks accumulated over decades of work, but now I've got a series of increasingly contrived plots that allow characters to survive based on their commercial viability.
I'm not going to object to art being sold for a commercial purpose. I'm aware that this is a reality and I find it the best of all possible solutions, in that it allows people to vote with their wallets on what kind of art they want. But I am going to complain when a product is marketed with so much attention to the marketing department that people forget that quality of product is necessary in order to keep customers once you lure them in.
In my opinion, at least, plot-lines driven by marketing concerns are generally so much inferior to a plot that arises from an attempt by a talented creator to make the best story he can, that I avoid the former entirely in favour of the latter. This is why I don't like Transformers* or Pirates of the Carribbean** and it is why I cast a jaundiced eye over the extremely coincidental correlation between the supposed 'iconicity' of Realms characters and their odds of surviving the edition shift.
The Realms, to me, is not any iconic character or even any group of iconic characters. It is all the other people, the ones who aren't high lords, mighty wizards, Chosen of gods or ancient and immortal beings.
What the Realms are is epitomised for me, in, perhaps ironically, the words spoken by a near-immortal Royal Wizard:
"The gods do not grant to us all. The shining mantle of the hero. Do what you can and it will be enough."
-Lord High Wizard, Baerauble of Cormyr
*Writing secondary to the goal of selling the toy line.
**Based on an amusement park ride, large parts of the sequels written to accomomdate audience enthusiasm for certain elements of the first movie. Consequently, overuses marginally amusing gags to painful lengths, drags out increasingly repetative and similar storylines into far too many movies and reduces a previously respected artist to a career now consisting almost entirely of an extended one-note parody of a role he himself played. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 07 Mar 2012 17:14:35 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 17:31:22
|
Icelander, I think you're taking what I said out of context. I was responding specifically to MT's lamenting (not unreasonably):
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Jeremy - because nearly everyone we know is dead. Thats the most basic premise of a post-apocalyptic tale. Sure there are new people... but we don't really care about them.
I will allow that it isn't clear if he means the named/iconic characters in the Realms (who I spoke of) or the vast numbers of "minor" characters who may or may not have names (who you seem to be talking about). I didn't think I was off-base in understanding him to mean "major characters" when he talked about "everyone we know."
Regardless, your implication is that somehow you took what I said to indicate that I don't care about the "minor" characters,* which is really not how I feel. I rather believe that both the heavily publicized and the quiet/minor characters are important and key to the Realms.
(*I put that in quotes because, according to Ed, there are no minor characters--just quiet ones.)
The Realms never runs out of quiet/minor characters--we potentially have just as many in 4e as before. What I reacted most to was MT's assessment of "but we don't care about them."
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" |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:06:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The Realms never runs out of quiet/minor characters--we potentially have just as many in 4e as before. What I reacted most to was MT's assessment of "but we don't care about them."
Potentially, certainly.
But if 'potentially' alone made for a good setting, one could write down the name of a setting and then start playing, satisfied that it potentially contains all the awesome possible.
In practice, creating characters and their environments, not to mention tying everything together in a way that suggests interesting adventure hooks, is a creative process. One of the things it does is take time.
The thousands of people like Beliost Sevenecho and his family and friends, like Anablasker Thurim of Blisterfoot Inn, like Beluastra Stormfall of Essembra, like an endless parade of others, are the fruit of quite literally tens of thousands of man-hours of work by Ed Greenwood and at least thousands of man hours by others.
Obviously, it is not commercially viable for any publishing company to devote that much preparatory work to a game setting. Nor am I demanding that they do. But if Realms 4e is to be competative with what came before, they have to offer the same wealth of locations, minor characters, relationships between minor characters, plots, conspiracies, local legels, rumours, etc.
And by severing the connection between their new setting and the Realms for which these mostly normal human NPCs were written and the years in which their news, rumours, relationships and adventure hooks are applicable, WotC is forcing its creative team into matching decades of work in a a few short years, while also working on other things.*
*I realise that no one is forced into doing that, because there is no intention to match the level of detail. In fact, the level of detail was apparently specifically mentioned as a perceived flaw by an important focus group of the target demographic. It is absolutely the right of the owner of the IP to pay attention to their target demographics preferences, of course, but in trying to capture gamers who feel stifled if there is too much lore, they have created a product which delivers little if any of that which attracts me to the Forgotten Realms. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:16:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The Realms never runs out of quiet/minor characters--we potentially have just as many in 4e as before.
I had a wall of text written up that said the same thing, but you by far said it better.
As to Icelander’s last: I think there’s a middle ground. For the Realms to grow and prosper it needs to appeal to the maximum number of people possible.
How you do that while maintaining its unique qualities and feel has been a hotly contested question for a good number of years. After all, every change to the Realms, no matter how minor, has always provoked some portion of the fanbase to rise up and howl in dismay.
For the sake of playing D&D, the whole of the (4E) Realms just doesn’t need that level of detail. I say this freely admitting I enjoy all the details I can get about Cormyr.
There’s a good chunk of Realms DMs who’ve always enjoyed being a Dungeon Master as much as they enjoy reading Realmslore for its own sake. Those DMs who like to take a setting’s framework and fill it in need room in the Realms to do that.
The 5E Realms can best appeal to the largest number of gamers by using the timeline to its advantage. This way DMs can have their hyper-detailed eras, there less detailed eras and feel free to pick and choose details from all of them for their game.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 07 Mar 2012 18:24:15 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:21:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I think we have two themes here that are running in parallel and that we’re interchanging a little too freely.
One is about a personal feeling. How you (as in the generic ‘you’) feel about the changes to the Realms.
The other is how the setting feels. That is, what sort of tone or feel does the latest iteration of the setting portray in its Campaign Guide and subsequent products (novels, magazine articles, etc…)?
So what you are saying is that if a majority of old fans think it has a post-apocalyptic feel, their feelings are INCORRECT, because the guys who designed it can't possibly be wrong.
Thats precisely how I read what you just wrote. Maybe its just me...
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I guess I see this as more of a personal feeling and not a mark against the setting.
How is that a 'personal feeling"? HUMANS in FR live more then a century, on the average? Read through the OGB - 99+% of those NPCs are now dead, and the few that aren't are so changed they are barely recognizable. And I'm not really talking about non-humans.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I get the feeling of a disconnect and a sense of loss…the “oh no!” feeling that a favorite NPC or novel character is gone in the sense that the setting won’t (at the time, as stated by WotC) be focused on anymore.
Not my favorites (most of my favorites are very minor characters!) - EVEREYONE. A setting without the personal stories is just a pretty map (and in 4e, not so pretty). Anyone can make a pretty map - just check the Cartographer's Guild site. A setting is about the PEOPLE, not the terrain. At least not a generic one like FR (Athas, for example, is about the terrain... somewhat)
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
But it reads more to me like you stopped caring about everyone who’s dead just because they died. Why don’t their stories matter anymore? Or their legacies or their effect on the setting?
Precisely. for example, I don't care about Abraham Lincoln - he's shot and gone. Don't care a wit. Its history. Had I been alive during that time period, I might have cried my eyes out. Why care about the dead (in a setting)? I celebrate people's lives, not their afterlives. Especially fictional characters - I'm supposed to mourn for ones that have been cold and in the ground a century?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
In a thread like this, shouldn’t they? I certainly care about Alusair’s story (for example; and this is just one of many).
Had I been 'witness' to her death - in a story - I probably would have cried. I love Alusair. That ghost-thing - thats not her. Sorry. Thats a pathetic spirit that for some reason hasn't got the good sense to 'move on'.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Why? Why do “we” not care? I know you couldn’t get past the appearance of Alusair as a ghost when you read that Ed novel, but is that true for every reader?
At least one person here agreed with me, but I have no idea how it effected others... nor do I care. I am simply stating a fact in regards to me - it was at that precise point in the novel where my last connection was severed. After that, I felt like I was just reading some generic fantasy novel about stuff I could care less about. Everyone has a line they can't cross, and I guess that was mine. It wasn't a conscious decision - it was something I examined after the fact and came to that conclusion (when I found I didn't want to keep reading... it was actually very frustrating for me, and still is).
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I know I care. Which is to say I’m very interested to see how long King Foril (for example) lasts on the throne in Cormyr with all the noble and Manshoon-caused strife going on
King Foril? Who's that? Isn't he one of those 4e people I already said I don't care about? Naming him is the same as naming some obscure Irish Chieften from a 1000 years ago to me; although I am of Irish descent, I don't care about any of those people. Shoot him in the head with a crossbow and be done with it - I really could care less. He is nothing to me - I don't know his story, nor care to. In my mind, he won't even exist until a 100 years into the future of anything I care about.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I find myself wondering what effect did Azoun V have on shaping Foril? What effect did Alusair have in shaping Azoun V? What lessons learned by Alusair when she dealt with rebellious nobles will Foril use in his time under similar circumstances?
I'm glad you care about these things. I don't. Alusair is dead and buried (and that 'thing' is a monster, because thats what ghosts are under D&D rules). Once again, nothing there I know or care about.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
What of Alusair (and Queen Fee and all the others) shaping Cormyr as it stands under Foril’s (and soon, no doubt, Irvel’s) rulership?
Why does it matter? In the end, they all died. Filfaeril died before her story was even told. That one gets me worst of all - I liked her a lot, and before we even really got to know her, she was obliterated because some people... never mind. 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
History is a linear thing. Granted in some parts of the Realms that direct line has been erased with the disappearance or destruction of certain parts of the Realms, but others are untouched.
I liked that the Realms moved forward incrementally - it made sense. But jumping forward a century because someone decided to remake FR into something else? I do this all the time - I eat food, and then I turn it into something else. Doesn't mean anyone wants it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It’s that kind of structure and interlinking of past with future that can help tie the Realms together literally and metaphorically, as we work to build One Realms.
And I am all for this... but not if it means moving the timeline forward even more. Thats akin to throwing gasoline on an inferno - what would be the point? If the new setting is 'open to all eras of play', then it should be perfectly acceptable to detail some period early during the 'Wailing years' (1386 DR+). If they move the timeline forward even more, then its clear 5e is really just 4.5, because that is in no way, shape, or form 'a compromise'.
More On-Topic:
There are things I like: Waterdeep has a very different 'vibe' to it, but I like it. Its more useful to me as a DM. And with Khelben dead, I could care less about everyone else there (and Khelben was killed in 3e, in-story, so it was perfectly acceptable). The Paladinson (and nearly everyone else there) were like 2-dimensional cut-outs to me. I am much more a fan of 'new' Waterdeep then the older one (although they really should go get the REAL Khelben Arunson back from GH - then it's perfect). I have read 2 4e WD novels, and like I said, the feel is different, but I like it.
I also like what Rich Baker did to the Moonsea. I miss the Zhents... but then again, I didn't play them as 'idiots' (a popular misconception). But I can bring them back - the 'Pirate Port' thing makes them even more interesting now (and secretive... no-one realizes they are still around).
In fact, because I was a DM FIRST, I am in-favor of many of the changes (their presentation need much work, to put it mildly), but I want them to happen during a period I care about - the Spellplague is IDEAL. As a DM, I can pick-and-choose from ALL sets of lore. If I want some NPCs to have survived, they can, along with their settlements and storylines. If I don't want something - lets say the Eminence of Araunt (I like them - its just an example) - I can say they haven't arrived yet. The Spellplague, as an on-going effect, is a MUCH better McGuffin in this regard - in the past, its nearly useless to gamers (it was only useful to the designers - why can't we play with their toys/tools?)
The only thing wrong with the Spellplague is that it is OVER. Why hand us the ultimate customizing tool, just to take it away again? Pushing the date forward helps no-one. Putting it back (without resetting) helps EVERYONE.
I have never said they should get rid of the 4e era - all I said is they should shelf-it (for now). They can continue to support it by not saying it won't happen. That gives us so much more freedom to do the things we want. Why eliminate past lore, when it can be used to prop-up future lore?
And maybe if we had 'lived through' the 3e-4e era (the wailing years), I would CARE about those future characters. Right now, they are just names I have no connection to. Give us the connections, and maybe we'll care. As it is, moving to the 4e (and 5e?) Realms is almost as much work as moving to Golarion - if I need to learn new stories about new realms and people, why stick with FR at all? Paizo has proven itself, WotC hasn't. I need something to draw me back, and moving forward just pushes MY Realms (the one I fell in love with) further away.
My apologies to Erik - I tried to keep this as neutral-toned as possible, and also still try to continue with the topic (albeit on a slight side-tangent, but still related). Its all about the lore, after all. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Mar 2012 01:10:16 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 18:40:37
|
Markus, I'm sorry but it just seems like we're rehashing old debates.
Out of respect for Erik, what do you say you move (most of) your last post to a new scroll and you and I can continue it there?
Call it Markus vs. Jeremy: The Eternal Battle Rages On  |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 07 Mar 2012 19:02:30 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2012 : 23:50:17
|
You guys have strong feelings on the subject, and that's totally cool. I do appreciate the drive to take the "Eternal Battle" elsewhere. But let me answer a couple things:
1) "Jumping the setting forward FARTHER in time": I would absolutely NOT advocate this. Time skips don't help anyone. What we need to do is *expand* the setting as it exists now. If they want to skip ahead 1-2 years in the 4e era, that's fine, but no substantial time jump. All that does it introduce yet another blank era.
2) "The 100 year time jump killed everyone I love": Yeah, that really sucks. There is some art in tragedy, but it's not for everyone. Personally, I think the 100 year jump is ridiculous and never should have been done in the first place. But it is what it is, and hand-waiving it away neither acknowledges nor solves the problem.
The jump was specifically engineered so that gaming groups could run their campaigns into a sheer wall of time, then start up new campaigns with whatever developments they want in the backstory. Personally, I think the novelists and designers should have got the same opportunity. Ed should have given us a real ending to Alusair's story, or at least a proper explanation of how she became a ghost and where she's going from here. (Which still might happen--who knows?)
3) "The Spellplague is useless to gamers"? Huh? OK, so clearly you don't play in any 4e Forgotten Realms game. I have never sat in a game where the Spellplague was not a major thing--empowering monsters, empowering PCs, sweeping across the landscape, etc. You don't HAVE to do that, obviously, but you CAN. The Spellplague was and remains an ultimate swiss army knife for solving story issues.
It's kind of ironic that I state that, when I have previously advocated neutering/footnoting the Spellplague. But even if it is "resolved" in a big way--a way that says to Realms fans that WotC is correcting its mistake and reviving the Realms--it still remains as a potential tool that an interested DM or player could use. Just like any sort of ancient magic/secret.
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 - 08 Mar 2012 : 00:02:31
|
Also:
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I have to give Erik credit for being the solo source of a one man campaign to convince people that 4e realms with some work can please everyone. I kind of view him as the unofficial Richard Baker of 5e FR.
First of all, haha!
Second of all, I'm sure you mean that in a friendly way . . . right?
Third of all, no, that's not what I'm advocating. Not by a LONG shot.
What I'm advocating is a panoramic Realms that embraces and gives equal weight to ALL eras of Realms play, with ALL eras supported, that allows players to use whatever era they choose.
A Setting for old school Realmsians: If you never quite got around to thinking the Time of Troubles was an ok idea and still stick to your 1e guns, well guess what, here's some more lore for you, because your era is being supported: Age of Legends, 1340-1358. You can avert the ToT or ignore it as you will.
And we've got a whole 10 year gap there that's BARELY been touched. A place to grow some new Realmslore? You betcha.
A Setting for pre-Spellplague loyalists: If you hate the 4e period and love the 3e era, more power to ya--play in the 2e/3e era and either have your PCs avert the Spellplague or just ignore it entirely. The 4e era should have no more bearing on your game than the Arcane Age does. You've got game in the Age of Upheaval from 1368-1384.
A Setting for the New Guard: If you love the 4e FR, great, keep playing there. We're going to fill in a lot of material before, which you are free to use or ignore as you like. Heck, you can explain away the Spellplague in a different way if you want to. Our Age of Heroes runs 1475-1485.
A Setting for Brand New Exploration: And if you want a brand-spanking-new play experience that's unlike anything that's transpired in the Realms before, well, we've got your hook-up for that too: The Wailing Years, immediately after the Spellplague, the Age of Darkness 1385-1395. Get ready to get heroic, because the world's going to NEED it.
A Setting for All: The Realms is defined by unity, not fragmentation. There is so much to explore and learn and enjoy about the Realms, regardless of era. Why not let everyone in to play in Ed's sandbox? That was the idea, after all.
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 08 Mar 2012 00:07:53 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 00:57:25
|
When I say 'Spellplague', I mean the moment of Mystra's death, when the 'cerulean wave' spread across Toril. To me, that was the Spellpague.
You mean its on-going? The Cerulean wave hasn't finished yet? (Wow... that thing moves slow! Why didn't everyone just get out of the way? LOL)
What you are describing are what I call 'the after-effects'. Once again, the 4e nomenclature is less then helpful; it just convolutes matters epically.
The day after Mystra died everything is in turmoil - that is the one 'era' in which EVERYTHING 1e/2e/3e can still apply, right alongside EVERYTHING 4e. At no other point is this true (because in 1479 DR, we know the results of everything). Are the Chosen, Harpers, and everyone else still around? Sure.. if I want them to be. Are they all dead, and the world is filled with new creepy-crawlies, Dragonborn, freaky-looking Tieflings, giant Killer Catfish, etc, etc - sure, if Diffan (or whoever) wants them to be. It is the only point in the timeline where both us can run precisely the game we want.
How can you unite the fanbase, if everyone plays in different eras? Am I only the only one who thinks that makes no sense? I have enough trouble getting players to go along with other things without worrying about who wants to play when.
Anyhow, my last post had me bring-up something that is very much on-topic: Khelben Arunson. Canonically, the real one lives in Greyhawk (and that was his grandpa posing as him). Bring Mordenkainen back home and lets get Khelben back (okay... having him be Mordenkainen was my idea... but it does give an in-game reason why Elminster met with him from time-to-time, other then it was a good excuse to eat Ed's pizza and hotdogs).
So whatever era they plan to reboot in, they can bring back Khelben Arunson... because the Blackstaf wasn't really him. Thats canon.
And now to go off-topic for a moment again, if I may (just to end it):
@Jeremy - you are far too 'professional' for me to beat, so I will concede, rather then start another thread. Sun Tsu teaches us to 'know thy opponent', and I haven't gotten you fully figured out... yet. Not sure if you were hired just for this (Diet-drug companies are notorious for that), or if you are someone inside (but the guys I think you could be should be too busy to sit on a website arguing with idiots all day).
Hmmmm... maybe... nah... (I'd be giving them way too much credit). Then again...
Anyhow, you are just too good at this, so I submit to your superior 'posting face'. You remind me of Doc Holiday in Tombstone, "Im your huckleberry" - and I'm not used to being Johnny Ringo. {tips hat}
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Mar 2012 01:13:09 |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 02:50:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
<snip>
The jump was specifically engineered so that gaming groups could run their campaigns into a sheer wall of time, then start up new campaigns with whatever developments they want in the backstory. Personally, I think the novelists and designers should have got the same opportunity. Ed should have given us a real ending to Alusair's story, or at least a proper explanation of how she became a ghost and where she's going from here. (Which still might happen--who knows?)
3) "The Spellplague is useless to gamers"? Huh? OK, so clearly you don't play in any 4e Forgotten Realms game. I have never sat in a game where the Spellplague was not a major thing--empowering monsters, empowering PCs, sweeping across the landscape, etc. You don't HAVE to do that, obviously, but you CAN. The Spellplague was and remains an ultimate swiss army knife for solving story issues.
<snip>
Cheers
I just want to interject here: regardless of how the Spellplague was designed, I don't think it had the intended effect at all. I don't agree that the Spellplague is useless to gamers, but as a DM, I didn't need a Spellplague to explain anything. One of the advantages of being the DM is that I get to be God, and if an NPC or monster has an unexplainable trait, the players can either seek divine explanation (via a god (me) for a large sum of gold at a temple) or just accept it. This was never a problem, so in that effect, the Spellplague “solved” a problem not in existence. That's in my opinion, anyway.
I couldn't agree (and disagree) more on the time jump. I agree with everything after the first sentence; the first sentence, well, I can't really disagree with what it was engineered to do, only that like the Spellplague, it didn't have the intended effects. If WoTC had continued supporting 3/3.5E Realms then I would buy that argument. But as soon as a player comes along with a 4E handbook and wants to use power "X" from that setting, I either have to understand the whole new 4E world, or I have to retrofit something that doesn't exist, yet. In simpler terms: they drafted me. I am forced to understand what is in the 4E world if I want to allow or disallow its entry into my game.
Closing my argument/comments (I hope) in this area, 4E should have been handled as another ToT, basically. Opened and closed over a couple of game years, supported by novels. It would have (and still does) make a great story. The problem is that we didn't have our “happy ending” where nearly everything is put back as it was after the original ToT. As I stated previously, I had to deal with three dead gods turned into one new one, and it was well explained to me and my players. With the death of many (not all) major non-player characters and gods, WoTC created a transition to a world that the majority of its players didn't want. (Again, my opinion)
The reason the Realms was so fantastic was that it was steeped in lore, it was well documented, and things were explained well in the novels and handbooks. 4E took this all away, and did so in a way that didn't allow continuity to the new rule set without a massive game change. I could (and did) run 3E rules during the 2E time period after they were published. I even reran the Time of Troubles for a new campaign using the 3.5E rules because none of the characters new what "Year of the XXXX" meant. I reiterate that my belief that the best thing to do with the Spellplague is religate it to a demiplane status in which Abeir and Toril are again separated. Bring back the gods, let Ed tell a great Epic of her return, and while I won't get Azoun IV or Fifaeril back, Mystra can easily resurrect the Seven (why she never did so to Syluné is a question I've wanted Ed to answer…) and I can use the updated rules/mechanics in my game without jumping ahead 100 years in time.
Make the rules easier, give me more Ed lore, and let me run my game in a way that it time-agnostic. That's the difference between 2/3/3.5E and 4E... prior to 4E, the core rule updates could easily be be placed into a backstory or different time without the need to adopt Realms-changing events.
Erik, I look forward to your reply, as well as my other fellow scribes.
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. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 03:13:05
|
I didn't mean to use the Spellplague to explain plot-devices. As you yourself said, any DM worth their salt can do that.
I meant that it was a great tool to re-write whatever I want from the official setting, without players (or anyone else) being able to argue with me.
For instance, why is Thay down in the Shar now? (something I actually did, long ago). The Spellplague did it! Why is Anauroch now more like the Mournland (in Eberron) - the Spellplague! Why are there 'extra' kingdoms all over the place? The Spellpalague! Where did the gnomes go? The Spellplague ate them! Why does Elminster have tentacles now, and Drow women only prance around in lingerie? Spellplague!
Spelplague! Spellplague! Spellplague!
In 1386 DR, I can do whatever the hell I want, and I violate no canon. My Realms were always way different from the canon one (and weirdly, my last campaign was set in 1385). For the very first time ever, my own homebrew variant is perfectly acceptable by canon.
I don't need it for adventures - I've been creating my own McGuffins for years. What I need is something that allows me to make all the changes I want to the setting itself, and still have a canon explanation for all that. In this regard, the Spellplague is the ultimate tool. How often can we make sweeping changes to an official setting, and have a canon reason for those changes? Why Waste that?
Don't give me aftermath, give me Spellplague! I don't want 'crumbs', I want the whole damn cake! |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Mar 2012 15:21:48 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 10:45:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
As to Icelander’s last: I think there’s a middle ground. For the Realms to grow and prosper it needs to appeal to the maximum number of people possible.
For the Realms to grow and prosper as a commercial property, yes. Which is, I understand, WotC's goal and a perfectly legitimate goal it is.
I've stated my opinion on the business side of things as one of cynicism toward the predictive powers of market research. If it is all you have, I guess you might be forced to make certain decisions based on such incomplete information, but let's not imagine that the track record of foreseeing the future is good for anyone. Even when you can ask 'your audience' what it thinks it wants, the problem is that you only get answers from a loud minority that is in no way numerically representative of even the minimum number of customers desired. Snakes on a Plane was written to specifications of Internet commentators, but it didn't turn out wildly popular, it was a disappointment.
The only marketing departments with any consistent success in predicting trends among the consumer are the ones who set it. And that kind of underlies my point. The science of using market research data to model consumer reactions to artistic decisions is not advanced enough to be more reliable or more effective than the art of having a talented creative indinvidual or team make the artistic decisions based on their best judgment. Most commercial products that enjoy enduring popularity among consumers were not designed to marketing specifications, but rather designed by experts in their field to be good products.
The thing is, even when you can ask target demographics directly, people are bad at knowing what they'll like and why. After all, there's a reason not everyone can successfully write good fiction or direct good films and it isn't just that their tastes are different. There is an element of judgment involved, knowing when something is good and when something is bad, which is a completely different judgment than whether or not it fits current market trends.
How many people do you know that often make sweeping general statements like 'I don't like [genre X]' or 'Anything with [actor Y] is awesome'? As it turns out, these people then often contribute to the success of a [genre X] movie or don't actually go and see [actor Y]'s new movie, because as it turned out, more factors affect their choice. And maybe they made an exception for this one genre movie because everyone agreed that it was brilliant and maybe this actor piece was universally felt to be a self-indulgent piece of prairie apple.
In this way, the current impression, even by professionals, of what kind of products are going to sell on today's market, might be spectacularly wrong. Enter the music executive who told the Beatles that this acoustic guitar stuff was so last season and never going to sell.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
For the sake of playing D&D, the whole of the (4E) Realms just doesn’t need that level of detail. I say this freely admitting I enjoy all the details I can get about Cormyr.
There’s a good chunk of Realms DMs who’ve always enjoyed being a Dungeon Master as much as they enjoy reading Realmslore for its own sake. Those DMs who like to take a setting’s framework and fill it in need room in the Realms to do that.
The 5E Realms can best appeal to the largest number of gamers by using the timeline to its advantage. This way DMs can have their hyper-detailed eras, there less detailed eras and feel free to pick and choose details from all of them for their game.
Are you familiar with the adage that it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?
Some people don't need all that many details to play D&D. Fair enough. But the thing is, no one forces anyone to use more details than he wants.
The most common setting I use is Earth, set during some historical period (when I set games 'today', game time consistently advances more slowly than real time). And the level of detail on Earth is infinitely greater than that of the Realms. But would any game master really be naive enough to think that because there are all these details about historical Earth, the game needs to use them all?
I'll play during the English Civil War, but with secret demons and monsters. I know that there weren't any in history, but that doesn't actually prevent me from setting a game where there are. I'll create a game of returning magic and ancient spirits in 2010s Boston. It doesn't matter that in real life, all the mythology and magical traditions that I use have no measurable effects, in my game, I decide how they work and then work out the ramifications for the setting (which started out as the real world).
The thing is, every game, no matter the setting, is set in an Alternate World of that setting. For many of them, the only 'Alternate' thing about it is the existence of the PCs. Which carries over into the actions of the PCs and the consequences of such actions. In that way, a strictly historical game set during Republican Rome, without any ahistorical or supernatural elements at all, is still set in an Alternate World. It's the Real World Republican Rome + the PCs.
How much of the historical detail to use in a game is a decision for the gaming group. Whether to change any of it, ditto. The mere existence of literal mountains of information about the setting, as well as a 'canonical timeline' in the form of history, does not in any way limit the way that a game master might set games in it.
Why should a fictional setting by any different? Why is simply having a lot of details suddenly a disadvantage? Surely players and DMs are still capable of tuning their game to the desired level of detail and authenticity with the setting, adding or subtracting what they like. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 13:39:38
|
| @ Icelander: for me, details are fine but when it gets to the level that the Realms have, I feel it takes away from the setting on a whole. Lets take the level of detail that Waterdeep has received, from plots and inns/bars and establishments and NPCs (BIG and small), and how the city is run, and about two dozen other things. Now lets look at Maztica....... my point being if they spent a little less time fully detailing Waterdeep we could've received more detail on Maztica (or some other less developed area). Espically when its supposed to be in one source book. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 14:37:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
@ Icelander: for me, details are fine but when it gets to the level that the Realms have, I feel it takes away from the setting on a whole. Lets take the level of detail that Waterdeep has received, from plots and inns/bars and establishments and NPCs (BIG and small), and how the city is run, and about two dozen other things. Now lets look at Maztica....... my point being if they spent a little less time fully detailing Waterdeep we could've received more detail on Maztica (or some other less developed area). Espically when its supposed to be in one source book.
That isn't an argument for less details, if you examine what you are actually saying. You're arguing for a more equitable distribution of them over the geographic expanse of the setting.
It's always going to be a matter of taste where people want the focus to be. I can agree that I'd want more on certain areas at the expense of less on others, but I'm sure we'd disagree where to cut and where to add. Of course, we'll always have less lore than we want for given areas. Fact of life, there will never be enough good things in it.
What I don't think is helping anyone is a 'solution' to the problem of some areas being extensively detailed and others being less so that involves making most of the details irrelevant for all areas. Yes, that does move closer to an equal level of details for everything. But unless you think that equality of imaginary nations is good in itself, that's no benefit to anyone. What you have isn't more detail on the areas you wanted, you simply have less detail in total.
Basically, an ideal setting for me would be detailed like Waterdeep and Cormyr (but more so) for every spot on the globe. But that's impossible. But I'd rather have a setting where some areas are this detailed than one where none are.
I can create a bare bones setting myself. It's easy and quick. In fact, by just taking the real world and changing something, I can create something with a lot of details, but still anything I want to add. The problem is just that the more you change, the less the details are applicable, meaning that soon enough, creating a real-world inspired setting is a lot of work, if you want it to make sense and fit together in an organic way.
So when I want to play fantasy games that are less grounded in the real world, I play in the Realms. In that case, I'm buying the product in order to enjoy the work of designers in not only filling in details, but tying them together in a way that works and is plausible and feels alive. If the setting doesn't contain enough detail and texture for that, it's less useful to me than the free setting of the Real World (With Extras). And it's really hard to make money selling stuff in competition with free stuff that's better at doing what the product is designed for. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 08 Mar 2012 14:43:33 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 15:56:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
@ Icelander: for me, details are fine but when it gets to the level that the Realms have, I feel it takes away from the setting on a whole. Lets take the level of detail that Waterdeep has received, from plots and inns/bars and establishments and NPCs (BIG and small), and how the city is run, and about two dozen other things. Now lets look at Maztica....... my point being if they spent a little less time fully detailing Waterdeep we could've received more detail on Maztica (or some other less developed area). Especially when its supposed to be in one source book.
Where's our 'clapping smiley'?
Well put - Cheers
*Corrected spelling error |
"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 - 08 Mar 2012 : 16:49:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The jump was specifically engineered so that gaming groups could run their campaigns into a sheer wall of time, then start up new campaigns with whatever developments they want in the backstory. Personally, I think the novelists and designers should have got the same opportunity. Ed should have given us a real ending to Alusair's story, or at least a proper explanation of how she became a ghost and where she's going from here. (Which still might happen--who knows?)
I couldn't agree (and disagree) more on the time jump. I agree with everything after the first sentence; the first sentence, well, I can't really disagree with what it was engineered to do, only that like the Spellplague, it didn't have the intended effects. If WoTC had continued supporting 3/3.5E Realms then I would buy that argument. But as soon as a player comes along with a 4E handbook and wants to use power "X" from that setting, I either have to understand the whole new 4E world, or I have to retrofit something that doesn't exist, yet. In simpler terms: they drafted me. I am forced to understand what is in the 4E world if I want to allow or disallow its entry into my game.
True, though there's really no reason you can't use the 4e mechanical system to play at any period before the Spellplague as well. One thing that's clear is that 3e and 4e are not compatible without some heavy tweaking--the defenses and attacks don't have the same math, etc.
Maybe you could give me a specific example?
quote:
I just want to interject here: regardless of how the Spellplague was designed, I don't think it had the intended effect at all. I don't agree that the Spellplague is useless to gamers, but as a DM, I didn't need a Spellplague to explain anything. One of the advantages of being the DM is that I get to be God, and if an NPC or monster has an unexplainable trait, the players can either seek divine explanation (via a god (me) for a large sum of gold at a temple) or just accept it. This was never a problem, so in that effect, the Spellplague “solved” a problem not in existence. That's in my opinion, anyway.
Oh, I definitely agree. The "problem" that the Spellplague was aimed at was largley illusory.
I do think the Realms was falling in terms of sales and new blood, so WotC definitely needed to revise the game and bring in new players. And 4e was indeed innovative and broke free of a lot of cumbersome design work of previous editions (which is not to say it's all good, only that there is a LOT of good in it). Those instincts were good ones--it's just the execution and (especially) the negative marketing that were bad.
DnD-Next (and 5e FR) need to set a positive, inclusive tone, and that means supporting everyone who wants to play in the Realms, not only those who are eager to barrel along into a post-Spellplague future.
quote:
Closing my argument/comments (I hope) in this area, 4E should have been handled as another ToT, basically. Opened and closed over a couple of game years, supported by novels. It would have (and still does) make a great story. The problem is that we didn't have our “happy ending” where nearly everything is put back as it was after the original ToT. As I stated previously, I had to deal with three dead gods turned into one new one, and it was well explained to me and my players. With the death of many (not all) major non-player characters and gods, WoTC created a transition to a world that the majority of its players didn't want. (Again, my opinion)
I agree with your opinion. I think the 4e FR jumped too far, made too many changes, and didn't fill in the gaps, and this is what the problem was. The Spellplague itself was ok--even potentially very interesting. It's the disconnect from previous lore that makes it such a hard pill to swallow.
Which is, of course, the purpose of this thread.
quote:
The reason the Realms was so fantastic was that it was steeped in lore, it was well documented, and things were explained well in the novels and handbooks. 4E took this all away, and did so in a way that didn't allow continuity to the new rule set without a massive game change. I could (and did) run 3E rules during the 2E time period after they were published. I even reran the Time of Troubles for a new campaign using the 3.5E rules because none of the characters new what "Year of the XXXX" meant.
Yep.
quote:
I reiterate that my belief that the best thing to do with the Spellplague is religate it to a demiplane status in which Abeir and Toril are again separated. Bring back the gods, let Ed tell a great Epic of her return, and while I won't get Azoun IV or Fifaeril back, Mystra can easily resurrect the Seven (why she never did so to Syluné is a question I've wanted Ed to answer…) and I can use the updated rules/mechanics in my game without jumping ahead 100 years in time.
I think that all this can be accomplished without breaking the 4e FR as a toy or relegating it to "What if?" status. Toril and Abeir are already again separated--they just left parts of themselves in each other.
I'm already working on the Helm angle, and my path just might involve other gods along the way. Stay tuned.
Ed's working on the Mystra angle (and as I said, I'm not convinced she's dead). I don't know if resurrecting the 7 is really necessary--several of them are still alive anyway, and I think it puts too much pressure on them to keep filling the role of "the" safeguards of the Realms. I am happy to let Alustriel and Qilue rest. If you really want them as what they were pre-Spellplague, why not just set your game pre-Spellplague? Or bring them back yourself? I don't think we need "official lore" to do that.
quote:
Make the rules easier, give me more Ed lore, and let me run my game in a way that it time-agnostic. That's the difference between 2/3/3.5E and 4E... prior to 4E, the core rule updates could easily be be placed into a backstory or different time without the need to adopt Realms-changing events.
Erik, I look forward to your reply, as well as my other fellow scribes.
Time-agnostic is a good term. I think that should be the goal here.
The thing we've all got to understand is that presenting the canon is really just a stewardship of a toolbox. WotC is the keeper of the toybox next to the sandbox, and it should be in the business of handing out toys to all the kids, whether they want to play with the shiny 3e toy, the slightly dingier 4e toy, or the oldie-but-goodie OGB 1e or 2e toys. Maybe you don't like the other edition toys, but that's no reason to break them or demand that WotC throw them away. All that does it lead to tears on the playground.
There is no logical reason you can or even should make your game obey strict canon--I don't even think you can do it hypothetically, as there is a bunch of canon lore that contradicts itself. All WotC is supposed to do is present options--it's up to you to pick the ones you want and build a game out of it.
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
