| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 16:52:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
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.
[snip]
Don't give me aftermath, give me Spellplague! I don't want 'crumbs', I want the whole damn cake!
Maybe I don't understand, MT. What are you asking for?
You *have* the Spellplague. It hit in 1385, had numerous after-shock waves thereafter, and still exists in places in the Realms in active pockets. There are all kinds of people running around with Spellplague-imbued powers (well, maybe not that many, but you could certainly make there be a lot in your game).
And you can certainly set your game in the era during and after the Spellplague. That is, indeed, one of the eras I propose for the multi-timeline support.
What's the problem?
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 : 16:59:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
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.
Maybe you are. I mean, before the Spellplague, we had people playing in various eras--1e, 2e, 3e, etc. Liken it to Star Wars--people play in various eras there all the time, and yet, it's still a single fanbase.
When 4e hit, a bunch of people flipped the table in disgust (understandable), then took their dice and went home or elsewhere. Which, I think, is partly because WotC was so adamant that this was the Realms now, and their time jump had the effect of seeming to divorce it from the setting.
All I'm advocating is reopening the Realms to players of the same various eras, and giving them support. (Which is exactly what WotC seems to be doing with some of their articles and sourcebooks lately.)
I think that the big issue here is that things change, and not always in ways that will make you happy. You as a player need to take some responsibility for your own game. WotC cannot reach inside your head and make the setting exactly what you want--and they shouldn't anyway, even if they could, because what you want is not necessarily what everyone else wants. The best they can do is give you the tools to build the Realms you want to play, and 4e and its tools are just a set of those tools.
Now I do think the handling of the Spellplague and the timejump was a mistake. Not because the lore is necessarily bad (that we can argue about until we're blue in the face and have fun doing it), but because they made a purposeful effort to distance the 4e lore from what has gone before. This needs to be corrected. The setting needs to be stitched back together, the lore made continuous, and the Realms returned to the detailed, lore-rich, immersive setting it always was and should be.
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 : 17:13:22
|
@Icelander: Agreed on the "marketing is an imprecise science" concept. Actually, calling marketing a "science" is probably an insult to scientists everywhere. I retract the term. 
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
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.
[snip]
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.
These concepts basically encapsulate my design philosophy. I will happily provide WAY more than you actually need, so that you can decide what you will use and what you will ignore. If you want to use all of it, great--if you want to throw it all out and do your own thing, more power to you. Or something in between. A gamer is not a cup to be filled but a candle to be lit--not a man to be given a cooked fish but a fishing pole and a boat. My job as a designer is to make sure you have the tools you need, not push you into playing a particular story.
@Diffan: The discussion about equity of detail is a good one. What area do you focus on, and what area do you ignore? Most of these decisions come about through a researched/perceived (mostly perceived) interpretation of how popular a given area is. Maztica never seemed to be nearly as popular as Waterdeep, so of course WotC needs to allocate its resources where they will attract the most customers. That's just a business decision.
Do I think Maztica should be neglected (or worse, exploded)? No. But WotC can't afford to release a sourcebook that only the 50 or so people who love Maztica are going to buy.
I think the gold standard of game design is, as Icelander put it somewhere above, QUALITY PRODUCTS. WotC should be in the business of producing good design, steeped in lore, that is appealing to play. If I can be forgiven a slight conflict of interest, I consider the Neverwinter Campaign Setting to be an example of good work that is appealing regardless of mitigating factors like the time jump, etc. Brian Cortijo's Cormyr articles are like that. I hope the forthcoming Menzoberranzan book has that character too.
This is the path WotC should head down: produce good work, and let the fans come to you. Stop chasing them--if you build it, they will come.
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" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 17:16:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
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
-It is entirely impossible to run a game that is 100%, entirely, fully strict to canon. Minor details that, normally, we might ignore, would have to be researched, and in most cases, these minor details don't exist outside of Ed Greenwood's answers. When the set-up to a game gets bogged down not on staying beholden to large-scale canon issues, but rather, minor-scale canon issues (Does this character wear the correct type of shoes? Are the spices this dish uses regionally accurate? What kind of wood are the buildings of a certain settlement primarily made with? Do Faerūnian roses smell just like roses on Earth, or does a rose by any other name would smell sweeter?), it's not viable.
-People who say their games are 100% canon are lying. The second a PC asks a question pertaining to any minor, inconsequential detail that the DM answers without first consulting the hundreds of thousands of pages dedicated to the setting, to move their game along, his/her game becomes less than 100% canon. And, that's not even getting into, yeah, the contradictory information on the same exact events that different books give.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
When 4e hit, a bunch of people flipped the table in disgust (understandable), then took their dice and went home or elsewhere. Which, I think, is partly because WotC was so adamant that this was the Realms now, and their time jump had the effect of seeming to divorce it from the setting.
All I'm advocating is reopening the Realms to players of the same various eras, and giving them support. (Which is exactly what WotC seems to be doing with some of their articles and sourcebooks lately.)
I think that the big issue here is that things change, and not always in ways that will make you happy. You as a player need to take some responsibility for your own game. WotC cannot reach inside your head and make the setting exactly what you want--and they shouldn't anyway, even if they could, because what you want is not necessarily what everyone else wants. The best they can do is give you the tools to build the Realms you want to play, and 4e and its tools are just a set of those tools.
-Not that I have much of a direct, vested interest in this, but to me, the hardest question to answer is this: In going back and making novels/adventures/sourcebooks set in, say, 1,380 DR, do people still 'reject' them because they put in motion the events that they disagree with, that they felt severed their connection to the world? A lot of people got very upset about Mystra being killed, for example. By 1,380 DR, plenty of the plot lines that led to her eventual demise in a few more years were well in motion. Is it just the actual event (her dying in 1,385 DR) that generated resentment or whatever you want to call it, or does the chain of events stretching back however far count too? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 08 Mar 2012 17:23:26 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 17:59:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Now I do think the handling of the Spellplague and the timejump was a mistake. Not because the lore is necessarily bad (that we can argue about until we're blue in the face and have fun doing it), but because they made a purposeful effort to distance the 4e lore from what has gone before. This needs to be corrected. The setting needs to be stitched back together, the lore made continuous, and the Realms returned to the detailed, lore-rich, immersive setting it always was and should be.
Very true. That is, I believe, the ideal outcome from the point of view of many fans.
On the other hand, I believe that producing sourcebooks useful over a 150+ year period, during which entire countries and regions explode, appear or disappear, is a Herculean effort. I don't know, of course, to what extent you have any idea of the WotC design philosophy of a new edition, but it is bound to be more information than a complete outsider would have.
Do you see WotC as being willing to assume the risk of transforming the presentation of their IP from a meta-plot driven 'present time' setting to a world where many eras of play are supported?
The former is very much more common in game settings of all sorts, with the ones that go against it often being, like Star Wars, IP that are already popular and support a fanbase with diverse interests. I cannot think of any* 'original' game settings that present multiple eras of play as a central assumption over the published line of sourcebooks, rather than an optional supplement or two.
In short, I think it's a good idea, but is it a good idea that WotC is willing to explore?
*Thought I am sure that some exist. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 18:00:48
|
@Lord Karsus re: "canon" games: 100% agreement. (Though maybe it's impossible to be in total agreement. I mean, the second I consider changing even a single letter . . . )
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
Not that I have much of a direct, vested interest in this, but to me, the hardest question to answer is this: In going back and making novels/adventures/sourcebooks set in, say, 1,380 DR, do people still 'reject' them because they put in motion the events that they disagree with, that they felt severed their connection to the world? A lot of people got very upset about Mystra being killed, for example. By 1,380 DR, plenty of the plot lines that led to her eventual demise in a few more years were well in motion. Is it just the actual event (her dying in 1,385 DR) that generated resentment or whatever you want to call it, or does the chain of events stretching back however far count too?
Well, we can discuss issues of using/ignoring canon until our fingers fall off from the typing, but it isn't going to change the basic fact that people perceive the canon as what SHOULD happen in their Realms, which creates cognitive dissonance because for many people, Mystra's disappearance (I still do NOT think she died) is NOT what SHOULD happen in their Realms.
What should happen in your Realms is what you WANT to have happen in your Realms. What works for your game? What inspires you? What leads to awesome stories?
There is a certain extra component to my strategy, which is Ed resolving the Mystra thing. It's clear that he's going to, though I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how he's doing it. There are lots of possibilities I can foresee, and I will say that I've made overtures to him offering my services (and/or the services of one or more of my characters) in some minor or major way. Whether he accepted or not, or what we agreed upon or not, is entirely a mystery. We'll just have to see.
Regardless, an important part of my One Realms concept is for the Spellplague to be resolved. Not that the canon requires it, per se, but in order for WotC to re-establish its relationship with its readers and fans, this needs to happen. That way, we can look back on it the same way we look at the Time of Troubles: an event that happened, that was really tough, but eventually ended, and the setting could move on.
I think the Spellplague should remain as a DM tool, and the stories it gives rise to should remain as canonical pieces of the Realms.
I think the restoration (or evolution) of a god of magic is part of this. The reconstruction (or development) of the Weave concept is part of this. But Ed's on those things--which gives us a great start.
I think a novel about the divine drama (Tyr, Helm, Tymora) needs to be written, or an article about it released. Following along the lines of what I suggested however many pages ago that was.
I think some of that gap needs to be filled in.
I think the Wailing Years needs to become a supported play period.
I think the Chosen of Mystra should be retained in some fashion, but not necessarily as they were. I like to see things change and develop, and resetting the powers of Elminster, restoring the Seven, etc., just makes them less interesting to me. I want more stories about them where they seem human the way they have in EMD and its series. Let them seem really threatened, but let them be important. Let's get away from the "omnipotent heroes" of the past and into the "not always win" heroes of the present.
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 : 18:04:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
In short, I think it's a good idea, but is it a good idea that WotC is willing to explore?
I wish I could tell you for sure, Icelander, but the short answer is, I don't know.
I think it can be done in small steps, and I see many of the articles released recently going down that path. We're not looking at a scope quite as big as Star Wars (which has multiple planets, thousands of years of history in both directions, etc), and I think this is something within the Realms' means. I think if it can be done--and I believe it can--then it has the potential to revolutionize and open up the setting in a way never before seen.
So call me a revolutionary.
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 : 18:27:43
|
Apologies. My "Days of our Deities" post actually resides somewhere in my "Create Realmslore!" contest thread. I'll repost it here.
In summary, this is a concept of stitching together the Helm vs. Tyr vs. Tymora love triangle/divine struggle thingy. This is only one potential explanation, though I think it's reasonable.
Topic: DAYS OF OUR DEITIES
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Ok, here is one that has been eating at me for a long time: Please make sense of the Tymora + Tyr betrothal / Helms recreation of Roxanne / and the subsequent murder of Helm by Tyr. A CG goddess marrying a LG god is unlikely. The two alignments often clash (sometimes violently), even when working toward the same goal (Thornhold is a good example of such clashing).
(This one should also be easy for you since you have already put a lot of thought into it.)
Aww. Well, my work with Helm doesnt really run to the romantic side of the characterthough Shadowbane himself is a charming bastard, in his own way. Theres just something about bad boys . . .
I dont really know the specifics of this, so this is all going to be speculative. I understand this as a growing alliance of priesthoods for one reason or another. Here are some possibilities:
As you know, Tymora and Tyr were (in their heyday) both extremely popular faiths for adventurers, leading to COUNTLESS iterations of the LG paladin of Tyr and the CG priestess of Tymora having spirited banter in the middle of battle and, well, you know the rest of the story. The years leading up to the Spellplague were extremely popular for adventurers, and the rise of the adventuring worshipper of these deities may well have led to a tighter bond between the two faiths.
Also, theres a whole discussion to be had about Justice and Chance, so Tymora and Tyr have things in common.
It might be a consolidating move to try to resist the growing power of Tempusa warrior god (like Tyr is a warrior god) who claims dominance over the fortunes of battle (Tymoras thing).
There could have been a coordinated strike on one church or the other, while the other church came to its rescue, and they left with an alliance.
These are all just possible explanations for why Lady Luck and old Grimjaws might have grown closer together. We have seen countless examples of churches forming alliances regardless of alignmentSune and anybody shes allies with, for instance.
Now as for the romance, heres where it gets murky, but roll with me a minute. I have this conceptthe tragic love triangle is reflective of their mortal high priests. (Yep, you heard me right.)
Specifically, there were four of them, adventurers active in the 3e era:
- Malantiir, LG human male paladin of Tyr, bold and brave
- Oevere, CG half-elf female cleric of Tymora, cheery and optimistic
- Helian, LN human male fighter/divine champion of Helm, cool and stoic
- Eselve, NE half-drow female illusionist/rogue (secretly sworn to Shar), seductive and mysterious
(See where this is going?)
These four were the perfect representations of what service to their respective deities meant. They fought great evils, saved countless lives, and advanced the causes of their respective deities. Over the course of their career, they became extremely powerful, well known, and influential in their various churches. Maybe the gods are experimenting with appointing Chosen of their own, just as Mystra has done (though obviously not on the same scale). We know the gods in 4e have Chosen, if only because that path is open to PCs.
Ultimately, why are these four specifically so successful? Well, because they were heroes, and because Shar was making sure it happened. Seeing as it was part of her plan.
Malantiir (the high priest of Tyr) and Oevere (high priestess of Tymora) grew to be friends, and from there to lovers. They were both so powerful and influential in their respect churches that they spoke of marrying them, in a sense: they started working toward similar, joint goals, and they began preaching similar things about justice and fortune and fate and all that. How much love was really in this connection between the high priests is debatableit might have been a political/religious arrangement more than actual affection.
Enter Helian, perfect knight of Helm, sworn to be Oevere's priestesss protector and (through her) to protect her church. This isnt just some bodyguard, thoughhe is THE champion of Helm, and he might even wield a certain sword whose name starts with the letter V (ahem
). He sees the growing influence of Tyrs church over her as a threat, which is tinged of course by his own feelings for her. You see, he's been in love with Oevere since they first started adventuring, but always tried to keep his feelings quiescent so they wouldn't interfere with his duty. It was his hope that some day, something more would grow between them. And while he tried to be happy for her with Malantiir, he could never quite stop being jealous of what they had together.
(Eselve, of course, had spent her entire career encouraging this jealousy.)
Add a little love triangle, maybe a seduction or four by Eselve in disguise as Oevere, and you have a recipe for courtly love/hate and a challenge of honor. Helian challenges Malantiir for Oevere, on the grounds that he is a threat to her and her church--Malantiir accepts the challenge because he believes Helian has been corrupted by Sharrans and because he has no choice..
And what do the gods do? They follow through with the duel. The religious synergy has already been happening, and Tyr is honor-bound to his commitments to Tymora, while Helm is honor-bound to protect Tymora's church, just as his high priest has sworn to do. They fight, just as the mortal men fight over their mutual beloved.
And OF COURSE this is empowered/expedited/set up by Shar. She has been working for decades (ever since these mortals were born), throwing just enough opposition against them to sculpt them (in the way of PCs) into the most perfect vessels of their gods power. And her plan came together: when Tyr defeated Helm (as of course he was going to do, being far more powerful than him), it gave Shar the opportunity to slay the God of Guardians and destroy Tyr psychologically. (All part of her greater plan!)
Of course, the gods sword ended up elsewhere . . .
So theres the explanation *I* go with in my games: religious alliances and infighting, tinged with just enough mortal jealousy. I think thats steeped in Realmslore: that gods are so dependent on their mortals. Its a little metaphysical how exactly Shar pulled it off, but I think theres no question she has the potential to plan something that audaciousand cover her tracks so the gods only suspect that she was involved.
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 18:29:51 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 18:43:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
...but let's not imagine that the track record of foreseeing the future is good for anyone.
Actually yes, lets imagine it, because market research relating to the D&D community has been done in a manner that led to the extremely successful re-launch of Dungeons & Dragons under the Third Edition rules.
Im not overemphasizing anything in my last paragraph. Every word is true and accurate.
Are you at all familiar with Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0?
The concept of a loud minority is only true to the extent of the internet and its capacity to channel the loudest and the angriest. It doesnt extend to sampling and research.
Its simply not true that marketing departments who set trends are consistently successful. Marketing teams that gather information without inserting bias into their information gathering process are just as successful.
You can design a product to be a good product, as you put it, but you can design a good product to be even better, with proper market research.
Its true that people arent great at knowing what they want, but it simply doesnt follow that this means theyre an unreliable resource of information.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
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?
Its never a good idea to use weasel words (i.e. naļve) to support your claims.
You seem unfamiliar with the great big back and forth debate about what is and isnt a tolerable level of detail in the Realms. While it may seem true from your own point of view that its just not practical to worry over all the details when using a campaign setting (or that of historical Earth), it doesnt follow that how you think a game should be run is how others will feel they should run theirs.
Smart people tend to assume other people will naturally think just like they do.
This isnt the case.
A good number of gamers who play D&D in the Realms have for the length and breadth of D&Ds existence worked very hard to make their campaigns match whats going on in the published campaign setting, as you essentially note.
However, for a very long time (roughly the length of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D) it was understood between publisher (TSR) and gamers that the setting had to be internally consistent because gamers and DMs expected their campaigns to be consistent as possible with the published material.
Yes, people deviated wildly from the Realms in their campaigns, but the onus was always on DMs to either run games consistent with the setting or sit down with their players and explain why things are different before play starts. This could cause headaches because players could rightly say, Hey, thats not in the Realms! Why did you change that?
Third Edition D&D saw a transition. WotC encouraged players to not cleave so closely to the setting and all but made it official that DMs were expected to make the Realms their own.
Fast forward to now and make the Realms your own is the rule, not the exception.
Regardless, the expectation/burden of consistency for a DM and players grows larger as more information on any given part of the Realms is published.
In closing, have you ever sat down with a group of DMs in person and talked about the Realms? Ever sat on message boards and read peoples accounts of why they do or dont like the Realms after having tried it out, Icelander? Ever read their comments about when they learned theres a mountain of books on the Realms and their first response was, Yeesh
.I have to read all that? No thank you.
You and I both know they dont have to read all of that information, but that in no way, shape or form invalidates the impression those mountains of books left on the potential Realms customer who just walked away.
Its better to have it than not have it sometimes, not always.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 08 Mar 2012 19:00:43 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 19:00:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think the Chosen of Mystra should be retained in some fashion, but not necessarily as they were. I like to see things change and develop, and resetting the powers of Elminster, restoring the Seven, etc., just makes them less interesting to me. I want more stories about them where they seem human the way they have in EMD and its series. Let them seem really threatened, but let them be important. Let's get away from the "omnipotent heroes" of the past and into the "not always win" heroes of the present.
I both agree and I don't. They shouldn't just pop all the Chosen back in and say "Here we are, everything's fine!" Everything is not fine, that's one reason we're here.
But the stories need to be told, especially of the Seven Sisters. And if there's one of the Seven that does need to be brought back 'the way she was', it's Qilue Veladorn. Why? Not that she's any better than any of the others (I liked Laeral a heck of a lot more), but they simply need to undo the atrocity that is the Drowpocalypse.
Just make it so that the effects are gone. Not the history - I am not saying retcon it out of existence - but make it so that some Wizbro staffer's rabid drow-hatred is no longer polluting the background of the Realms. Which entails bringing back Elistraee, Vhaeraun, Kiaransalee, you name it...and also Qilue, because there was no logical reason for her to have had to die in the first place. Whoever gave Ms. Smedman her instructions needs to have their influence expunged completely.
And for Ao's sake, tell us what happened to the rest. As it stands, Laeral is dead. Alustriel is dead. Dove is dead. And that's all we know. Okay...if we aren't going to bring them back in one capacity or another, why are they dead? Who or what is responsible for it? What's the story here, and why?
Khelben had his story told. We know what happened, and why it happened. There are no loose ends behind why the Blackstaff is now the Peatmoss. The others deserve the same.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 08 Mar 2012 19:01:05 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3813 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 19:12:03
|
| If they don't bring Qilue back from the dead, I'd like to know at least that her soul has been granted access to Arvandor instead of the "and her soul was utterly obliterated" (IMO) crappy ending we got. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 08 Mar 2012 19:14:11 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 20:30:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
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?
Its never a good idea to use weasel words (i.e. naļve) to support your claims.
You seem unfamiliar with the great big back and forth debate about what is and isnt a tolerable level of detail in the Realms. While it may seem true from your own point of view that its just not practical to worry over all the details when using a campaign setting (or that of historical Earth), it doesnt follow that how you think a game should be run is how others will feel they should run theirs.
Smart people tend to assume other people will naturally think just like they do.
This isnt the case.
A good number of gamers who play D&D in the Realms have for the length and breadth of D&Ds existence worked very hard to make their campaigns match whats going on in the published campaign setting, as you essentially note.
However, for a very long time (roughly the length of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D) it was understood between publisher (TSR) and gamers that the setting had to be internally consistent because gamers and DMs expected their campaigns to be consistent as possible with the published material.
Yes, people deviated wildly from the Realms in their campaigns, but the onus was always on DMs to either run games consistent with the setting or sit down with their players and explain why things are different before play starts. This could cause headaches because players could rightly say, Hey, thats not in the Realms! Why did you change that?
Third Edition D&D saw a transition. WotC encouraged players to not cleave so closely to the setting and all but made it official that DMs were expected to make the Realms their own.
Fast forward to now and make the Realms your own is the rule, not the exception.
Regardless, the expectation/burden of consistency for a DM and players grows larger as more information on any given part of the Realms is published.
In closing, have you ever sat down with a group of DMs in person and talked about the Realms? Ever sat on message boards and read peoples accounts of why they do or dont like the Realms after having tried it out, Icelander? Ever read their comments about when they learned theres a mountain of books on the Realms and their first response was, Yeesh
.I have to read all that? No thank you.
You and I both know they dont have to read all of that information, but that in no way, shape or form invalidates the impression those mountains of books left on the potential Realms customer who just walked away.
Its better to have it than not have it sometimes, not always.
I have trouble with having sympathy for those that are intellectually lazy. More detail IS always better. Technology is proof of that. The detail available with HD television is far beyond projection TV's of the 80's, but now that people have it they want it. A simple out of the way analogy but it works.
Subtracting the detail that is already there is a mistake. In trying to get the DM's that were not studious, or willing to put the time into exploring the benefits of the detail, WOTC lost a BULK of the fans that wanted the detail. WOTC backpedalling towards D&D next some proof they realized their mistake.
Really though, here is how I know the level of detail was never a problem. Talking to some of those DM's that did not want detail, and just trolling the internet has shown me people given a taste of the realms have researched more into the lore. Many of the people that were not happy with the realms level of detail, came around to seeing detail as important.
It is easier to give than take away. I think in the case of the 4e realms shift their marketing was far off the mark. Its great that for 4e realms one does not have to know several levels of detail to run a game. This is also the case with any other iteration of the realms.
Some DM's got it, others didn't. I do not like Eberron mostly because of the magetech, and 'modern' mood. I could never imagine running it because I do not like the setting. Yet I am not demanding that the MAGETECH be stripped from the setting so that I can enjoy the setting. Nor do I demand it becomes completely western medieval. I realize that setting is not for me. Why would I appeal to WOTC to change the setting, just so 'I can play in it too?'
This I think is what happened with the realms. People Generally did not like one or more of the following:
1) The lore was too heavy
2) High level NPCs
3) Real world analogs
4) Too many gods
5) Too much like Tolkein
People also liked the realms for one or more of the following reasons:
1) Great Lore
2) Awesome characters to aspire to
3) Real world analogs
4) Rich mythology
5) Good traditional fantasy
So WOTC went ahead and reduced the lore, killed good characters, got rid of historical inspirations, and culled the pantheon. Simply because squeaky wheels get the grease.
There is no doubt, that if YOU (not you Jeremy just someone that is not me) dislike something, your communication to the company will be much more vocal than what I would generate if I like something. Inverting You and I would also be true. So monitoring conversations, they read alot more criticism than praise.
Therefore those terrible things that were also good about the realms get changed because it is perceived that is what the majority wants. Everything you say about marketing is true, but WOTC chose the amateur method of analysis and not the rigor you described above.
Likewise, 4e is going through changes now because the angry crowd was very vocal about it. And I think WOTC was losing money.
I think alot of good work was done in this thread alone. Yet the trend of the realms still remains that the more lore there is, the better the setting. This thread alone is proof of that.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
Edited by - Mournblade on 08 Mar 2012 20:34:04 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3746 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 20:37:39
|
| @ Erik: I didn't really mean it as in Mystra's death, specifically. I was just using that as an example. If a piece of lore from the 4e Forgotten Realms that turned people off, because it accomplished something that they didn't like, even if additional products were released that "go back in time" and deal with the end of the 3e era, that isn't necessarily going to "recapture" people that felt alienated when the 4e Forgotten Realms came out, because, at the end of the day, the event(s) that made them feel alienated still occur (though, now with more detail and possibly build up). Not that I am advocating retcons- we all agree that retcons cause even more problems- but I see it kind of like being trapped between a rock and a hard place. It's definitley a hard line that authors/designers have to balance. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2012 : 20:57:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Actually yes, lets imagine it, because market research relating to the D&D community has been done in a manner that led to the extremely successful re-launch of Dungeons & Dragons under the Third Edition rules.
Quite apart from the fact that I seperated rule systems from settings, with one being primarily a simulation program run by bioware and the other a work of fiction, how on Earth does an anecdote of one success equal a consistent track record?
I maintain that a better long-term strategy to establish and maintain a base of loyal customers is to focus on the quality of product, not on trying to predict and chase ephemeral trends among desired target demographics.
Do you disagree with this?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Are you at all familiar with Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0?
Name one conclusion that you could reach from this information that you think is relevant to establishing the artistic direction of the Realms as a work of fiction.
Keep in mind that groundbreaking revelations like 'there are women in gaming' and 'people who play computer games may have other hobbies as well' are not exclusive to this report and should, in fact, have been known to anyone who did not live in a cave in 2000.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
The concept of a loud minority is only true to the extent of the internet and its capacity to channel the loudest and the angriest. It doesnt extend to sampling and research.
Because the people who choose to respond to random questionaires or cooperative with researchers are in all ways a representative sample of potential buyers?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Its simply not true that marketing departments who set trends are consistently successful. Marketing teams that gather information without inserting bias into their information gathering process are just as successful.
'Socrates is a man.' Consider this carefully. Be especially vigilant to the fact that it does not say that 'all men are Socrates.'
I said that the only examples of marketing departments whose predictions for future trends turned out remotely right on a consistent basis were those who also had the job of setting these trends, such as ones in the field of high fashion. Everywhere else, the analysts follow the trends, they don't often predict them with much succcess. Even a lucky strike once or twice pretty soon falls victim to regression to the mean, with the long term tendency being toward a success rate similar to guessing.
There is even a mathematical reason why. It's called emergent behaviour in complicit, complex systems with a sensitive dependence on initial conditions. It's the reason scientists with sophisticated methodology and equipment are unable to reliably predict the weather a few days in advance. In fact, ask them how the weather is going to be in a month and they'll give you pained looks and explain probabilities until you realise that their best guess is going to be pretty much as good as anyone else's.
Human behaviour on a macroscale is the ultimate example of a complex emergent system where the high degree of complicity between factors and the self-awareness of individual actors combine to make long-term predictions not only axiomatically impossible, but possibly even a new factor that may influence the eventual outcome. That's the reason why even the best market analysts do not always manage to outdo simply throwing darts and calling the results predictions.
Seriously, check out comparisons of the combined powers of the best human and computer analysts to predict market trends on financial markets vs. a random choice of stocks. It's a sobering reminder of how little our puny minds understand the system they're caught in. And never fall into the cognative error of thinking that financial systems obey different rules than other fields of human interaction. It's just easier to measure the effects there because we have a convenient unit of notation in the various forms of currency.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
You can design a product to be a good product, as you put it, but you can design a good product to be even better, with proper market research.
Surely.
However, so far, the ability of experts in the field of designing the product seems to exceed the ability of experts in the field of predicting the future.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Its true that people arent great at knowing what they want, but it simply doesnt follow that this means theyre an unreliable resource of information.
In what way does the fact that people lack sufficient information about their actual future buying habits not have the effect of making them unreliable sources of information about them?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Its never a good idea to use weasel words (i.e. naļve) to support your claims.
In what way to you believe that the word 'naive' is not an accurate description of someone who is unaware of the fact that when engaging in cooperative narrative creation with friends, his conduct is not limited by the corporation who sold him the toys he's using?
In my experience, children know this from the time they start playing. Which is why I made the question rhetorical, as I don't really believe that there is a significant group of roleplayers who truly do not realise this.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
You seem unfamiliar with the great big back and forth debate about what is and isnt a tolerable level of detail in the Realms. While it may seem true from your own point of view that its just not practical to worry over all the details when using a campaign setting (or that of historical Earth), it doesnt follow that how you think a game should be run is how others will feel they should run theirs.
Unfamiliar? No. I just believe that the extremely loud minority calling for less detail is not representative of the customer base, in that they are not necessarily even regular gamers, let alone regular buyers of Realms products. I can safely say that I have not yet come across a sound argument for removing most of the detail from the Realms that gave the impression of being written by someone who had a thorough knowledge of the setting.
I do recognise that there are gamers out there who don't care for the Realms. More power to them. I just think that changing the Realms to suit people who aren't buying it now is not necessarily a sound decision, on either artistic or business grounds.
If you discover that certain people don't buy your soft drink because it includes sugar, you don't immediately jump to and remove all the sugar. No, you create a new brand with artificial sweeteners, so you can appeal to both a new group of customers who rejected your old brand because of the sugar content and continue to sell to the old group, who like sugar. There is no pressing reason to have all your customers drinking the same soft drink.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
A good number of gamers who play D&D in the Realms have for the length and breadth of D&Ds existence worked very hard to make their campaigns match whats going on in the published campaign setting, as you essentially note.
However, for a very long time (roughly the length of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D) it was understood between publisher (TSR) and gamers that the setting had to be internally consistent because gamers and DMs expected their campaigns to be consistent as possible with the published material.
Internal consistency of the material is one of the primary things I am paying designers for doing when I buy a setting. Thinking up an endless list of 'cool things' is not work and anyone can do it. It's maintaining the internal consistency of these things that is hard and that is why I like to play in a setting that deviates only a little from the real world, or, alternatively, play in a vibrant, detailed, deeply textured world like the Realms.
But, again, it doesn't matter how stridently I may demand internal consistency from published setting material, that simply has no relevance to how I choose to make use of it. Internally consistent and plausible settings are easier to modify, not harder, because the cause and effect chains there make sense and the probable effects of any changes are therefore foreseeable.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Yes, people deviated wildly from the Realms in their campaigns, but the onus was always on DMs to either run games consistent with the setting or sit down with their players and explain why things are different before play starts. This could cause headaches because players could rightly say, Hey, thats not in the Realms! Why did you change that?
Uh... the only game where I've even seen it suggested that the player and game master do not need to discuss the premise of the campaign beforehand is D&D and then only if approached as some kind of tactical boardgame. Any game that I recognise as a role-playing game, including all varieties of D&D as actually played by anyone I know, have always demanded this step from all the participants and will continue to do so.
Roleplaying is a cooperative social activity. Expecting to avoid the necessity of socialisation and communication, in order to plan the cooperative venture, is like expecting to play football* without feet.
*The real kind, where the ball is round and you kick it, you damned colonials! 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
In closing, have you ever sat down with a group of DMs in person and talked about the Realms? Ever sat on message boards and read peoples accounts of why they do or dont like the Realms after having tried it out, Icelander? Ever read their comments about when they learned theres a mountain of books on the Realms and their first response was, Yeesh
.I have to read all that? No thank you.
I have. Like 99% of comments on the Internet, the majority was founded in ignorance, prejudice and a desire to stand out from the crowd. Some of the rest amounted to differences in tastes, which is something all artists have to learn to live with. Some people didn't like Schindler's List, Chinatown or Blue Velvet, and they never will, but the proper response to that is not to stop making movies if someone dislikes them.
A publisher can publish more than one thing. He's not actually committed to having everyone like the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
You and I both know they dont have to read all of that information, but that in no way, shape or form invalidates the impression those mountains of books left on the potential Realms customer who just walked away.
Its better to have it than not have it sometimes, not always.
You do realise that this is an argument for all makers of computer games to make their games simpler, because there are a lot of people out there who feel that Angry Birds is too complex?
It is impossible to cater to every potential customer with the same product. If a company wants to market both to people who want a map and list of place names, in addition to periodic pre-packaged adventures that make gaming simple, and those who want a fictional world with the texture and versimulatude of the real world, they're going to have to publish more than one product.
If you try to make your soap more like a soft drink and your soft drinks more like soap, because research shows that some people dislike the taste of your soap and the poor spot-removal properties of your soft drink, you're just going to end up with two similar and inferior products.
If you make soap, make good soap. Don't try to make your soap into all things to all people. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 00:18:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
However, for a very long time (roughly the length of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D) it was understood between publisher (TSR) and gamers that the setting had to be internally consistent because gamers and DMs expected their campaigns to be consistent as possible with the published material.
Sorry, I have to call BS on this. The introduction in the OGB makes it very clear that everyone's Realms will be different and that DM's should feel free to change and modify what they prefer. Simply put, you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 01:37:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
However, for a very long time (roughly the length of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D) it was understood between publisher (TSR) and gamers that the setting had to be internally consistent because gamers and DMs expected their campaigns to be consistent as possible with the published material.
Sorry, I have to call BS on this. The introduction in the OGB makes it very clear that everyone's Realms will be different and that DM's should feel free to change and modify what they prefer. Simply put, you are wrong.
I can confirm Apex's statement as to the Old Grey Box's clarity. One of the reasons I originally fell in love with the Realms was that, while steeped in lore, it didn't seem as depressing as, say, Krynn.
That being said, I'm uncertain why people are speaking of research studies and Socrates. I do know CEOs who are dumb enough to have lived in caves since the year 2000. I do not know anything about the CEO of WoTC or Hasbro. I do know that "common sense" is routinely ignored. It is in that spririt, I beleive, that Erik began this post.
As the Realms have "aged," more lore has been added. Most of this is good (nod to Ed, specifically) and other changes were made entirely without his permission. This is the nature of selling your intellectual property, and we should be grateful he has retained as much influence as he has, however much that may be.
In that spirit, it is my opinion that deities have no reason to engage in "marriage." Each deity is responsible for maintaining as aspect of "the Balance." For Tyr to kill Torm would be for a lawful judge to murder the God of Duty. I would actually expect Tyr to avoid Tymora at all costs, as there should be no place for luck in true justice. I do not believe that Chosen's actions bind the pathes of gods. That's my take on it, anyway.
Erik (or one of our illustrious moderators, or someone with more time than I have): could you please summarize what real ideas we have promoted her for the "One Canon, One Story, One Realms" plan?
May all your spells go off as intended,
Azuth |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 01:42:02
|
| Ditto Icelander, above and on the so-called 'minor' characters who constitute the Realms. Apart from all else, a low-lore Realms is the opposite of what Ed wants -- temperamentally, artistically, practically -- and of what was agreed in 1986 would be published, and that's enough for me, for one, to keep opposing the idea however I can. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4471 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 03:31:40
|
I guess the problem I had with pre-4E stuff wasn't the amount of Lore for the Realms (at the time it was, but not now) but the bad distribution of it. The FRCS only had so many words for the book. Did they spend it on any other contient but Faerūn? No. Did they spend it on highly specific and stylized NPC stat-blocks? Yes. Sorry, but I don't need "official" stats for Drizzt or Elimnster or the Symbol or Gertti or Miklos or Obould or Fzoul or Ms. Darkhope or....well you get he point. For me, a quick writeup would've been sufficient (ie. Drizzt Do'Urden - Bbn 1/ Ftr 10/ Rgr 5; CR 17. Notes: Uses Two Scimitars and is unaffected by Daylight). And move on to the description and other lore of Mithral Hall. How much information could they have had to spread around had they just simplified all that stuff with all the NPCs?
And really, it just goes further from there. I think it's important to set the stage, as it were, with campaign settings. You want to give players an idea, a visual, a understanding of where they are and where they're going. To do that, you need people, places, and things to do. But going so far as to list what people are (in game terms) or detailing every nook and cranny of where they are down to the names of the sorts of plants and common house-pets found there.....really that's better left unsaid for word/page restrictions. It's not about the detail, it's about understanding that specific detail comes with the price of not listing another places generics.
Also, the version of the rules does not mean (or has ever meant) that you have to remain within a specific time 'scope' of the Realms. 4E mechanics work just fine pre-Spellplague, 2E mechanics work just fine post 1479 DR. 3E mechanics (I dare say) work pretty much across the boards and that goes from completly non-magical to the high-powered epic fantasy. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Rhewtani
Senior Scribe
USA
508 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 04:14:22
|
| Isn't Halruua beseiged by Asmodeus basically Pools of Darkness with a higher budget cast? |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 05:36:36
|
@Azuth: I'm not sure what you're asking me to do?
Regarding the deific love triangle, I presented a story that did NOT require the deities "marrying" or anything of the sort--they were so closely tied to their mortal high priests that they followed through with the duel, and its terrible consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by Rhewtani
Isn't Halruua beseiged by Asmodeus basically Pools of Darkness with a higher budget cast?
Shh! You'll spoil 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" |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 06:17:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
Sorry, I have to call BS on this. The introduction in the OGB makes it very clear that everyone's Realms will be different and that DM's should feel free to change and modify what they prefer.
Not to be obtuse, but did you read my post before responding?
Regardless, Ed's made it quite clear that the concept of the unreliable narrator was created from the get go to quell just the sort of problems I talked about.
There's no BS here. That's just how things were.
Yes, your campaign(s) might have been different. More power to you!
But that doesn't change anything. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 06:46:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
In what way do you believe that the word 'naive' is not an accurate description of someone...
Hey, you're the one who asked the question of whether people might actually think they'd need to use all the details.
Yes, quite a few people do (or did) feel that way.
If you think some people are naive for feeling that way, that's cool by me. Label people however you want.
I just don't take such a limited view, because I know people are turned off by a setting that's overloaded with information. That doesn't make them "intellectually lazy" or stupid, because not everyone has the desire to wade through a ton of books, much less the time.
And frankly, no good campaign setting should do that.
Ultimately, all the Realmslore in the world won't do a D&D campaign any good if it gets in the way of the DM creating adventures and the players from playing their characters.
There's a balance that must be struck. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 08:10:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Azuth: I'm not sure what you're asking me to do?
<snip>
Cheers
I was hoping you might summarize what we've come up with (thus far) for 5E fixes and ideas. There are numerous postings that offer neither, and since you're an (un?)official representative of WoTC here seeking ideas, I'd like your count of what we've actually presented in a summary. If I had more time, I would gladly undertake such an effort myself.
That's "all" I was asking. 
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. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4471 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 11:18:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
In what way do you believe that the word 'naive' is not an accurate description of someone...
Hey, you're the one who asked the question of whether people might actually think they'd need to use all the details.
Yes, quite a few people do (or did) feel that way.
If you think some people are naive for feeling that way, that's cool by me. Label people however you want.
I just don't take such a limited view, because I know people are turned off by a setting that's overloaded with information. That doesn't make them "intellectually lazy" or stupid, because not everyone has the desire to wade through a ton of books, much less the time.
And frankly, no good campaign setting should do that.
Ultimately, all the Realmslore in the world won't do a D&D campaign any good if it gets in the way of the DM creating adventures and the players from playing their characters.
There's a balance that must be struck.
Nicely put. For me, I felt it would be hard to have a high-leveled campaign (PCs in the 15th-18th or even 20th level range) that would be challenging enough for them to battle yet not realistically involve any high-leveled NPC in the region. I understand that I don't have to use them (and I don't) but even in such a huge city as Waterdeep, if things of appropriate CR to near-epic characters were to challenge the city, I'd be suprised if they didn't ask "Um, where's Khelben or (rummages through Waterdeep: City of Splendors supplement and picks out any number of high leveled NPCs) X-person? Shouldn't they also be apart of us trying to blow up a quarter of the city to stop a zombie plague?"
As a DM, you'd have to know how to use these PCs or at least make excuses for them as to why they're not there (but this is a beef for the problem of High-leveld NPCS, not detail).
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 14:51:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I just don't take such a limited view, because I know people are turned off by a setting that's overloaded with information. That doesn't make them "intellectually lazy" or stupid, because not everyone has the desire to wade through a ton of books, much less the time.
Again, why would the existence of a ton of books necessitate that someone read more of them than he feels he needs?
Your central argument seems founded in the idea that customers are incapable of choosing their own prefered level of detail. It is as if you are saying that if Microsoft Word 2010 offers various options for word proccessing, it's impossible to use it for basic typing.
I asked a rhetorical question, hoping to demonstrate thusly the invalidity of such an argument. Instead, I find that you continue to maintain a position where the existence of options somehow traps consumers into having to use them all.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Ultimately, all the Realmslore in the world won't do a D&D campaign any good if it gets in the way of the DM creating adventures and the players from playing their characters.
How can it?
Seriously, explain to me how the existence of Band of Brothers or Der Untergang could get in the way of a game master and his players enjoying a WWII game. Or how it would suddenly be less fun to play Star Wars d20 if someone published a new Expanded Universe novel.
Or since you maintain that GM's cannot exercise their creativity if there exists information about something, are you saying that historical fiction is produced only by superior men, men who have an ability not shared by most GMs? Because I think that all GMs could write historical fiction. Some might not write publishable fiction, but I don't think that there are any actual hard limits that prevent people from exercising creativity just because there exist details about their subject.
Explain how your central thesis actually works. How does the existence of information force people to use it and make it impossible for them to create their own fiction?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
There's a balance that must be struck.
How, then, do you explain the ability of GMs and players to use varieties of the real world as a setting? There is no balance. There are literally endless details available. You could spend lifetimes researching and still not know everything.
Yet the majority of campaign settings, considered over all roleplaying games and taking into account that a significant portion of roleplayers never buy settings at all, are varieties of the real world. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 14:57:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And really, it just goes further from there. I think it's important to set the stage, as it were, with campaign settings. You want to give players an idea, a visual, a understanding of where they are and where they're going. To do that, you need people, places, and things to do. But going so far as to list what people are (in game terms) or detailing every nook and cranny of where they are down to the names of the sorts of plants and common house-pets found there.....really that's better left unsaid for word/page restrictions. It's not about the detail, it's about understanding that specific detail comes with the price of not listing another places generics.
I can agree to an extent on the resources argument. So yes the source book might give too much information at some point. I look at the less developed realms as places I can develop. I Love very specific lore, it brings the world alive, though you are absolutely correct it has 0% necessity for an RPG supplement.
Then you have the case of the VOLO's Guides which are excellent bits of lore for those that want it. Aurora's guides and Volo's travel guides do not have much crunch, they are mostly fluff, so someone into crunchy bits does not have to buy it. THose books are fantastic at bringing the lore to life.
Products like those are what the realms has been missing since 2nd edition. Good concise guides just for the lore 'scholars'. Nothing in the volo guides has any impact on the game. |
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 - 09 Mar 2012 : 16:02:48
|
@Azuth: I shall undertake that task, mammoth as it may be. I'll need some time!
@Icelander: Alas, the "OMG there's too much lore for us to use!" is indeed a problem with gamers in general, and Realms fans in specific. All the logical arguments in the world have not been able to crack the "canon armor" of such FR players.
There is a prevalent attitude wherein FR players or DMs feel they need to examine every source in order to make their games "canon." Because otherwise someone at the table will stand up and say "nuh-uh! This book says THIS!" And presumably the whole game will collapse under the weight of disagreement.
It doesn't make any sense, I know, but that's just how a lot of Realms players roll. Look at the Spellplague, for instance. People reacted to it by saying "OMG I hate that!" and then, instead of going right on playing FR games without the Spellplague happening, actively shunned the setting or launched huge flame wars about it.
You can read this attitude in the current drive to abolish the Spellplague as an event, because "OMG, our games are doomed to this bleak future!" When OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT.
Self-bondage to canon is a real thing, nonsensical as it might be, and moving forward the Realms needs to do something about it. I would really like people to broaden their minds and move outside the narrowly-defined niche into which slavery to canon puts them.
Canon should be a tool, not a strait-jacket. You as a player or DM should feel empowered by canon, not attacked or overwhelmed by it--use what you find appealing, ignore the rest. This way, there is no upper limit to the lore that can be released--you just look at however much of it you wish, take what you want, and let other people play with the toys you don't use.
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 - 09 Mar 2012 : 16:09:00
|
And before we jump to conclusions, no, I'm not calling anyone "stupid" or "uncreative" or whatever for succumbing to "canon-slavery."
If anything, I'm ultimately calling DMs who can't see past the canon "narrow-focused"--if the canon is the be-all and end-all of your game, then odds are your campaign is missing that spark of creativity and originality that will make it a really awesome and fun one.
I think this kind of focus is *amazingly* easy to take, and indeed somewhat desirable. I know I as a DM get a little burst of pride when I come up with cool connections or am able to incorporate canon. I have been guilty of this kind of self-bondage myself.
But I think you should take pride in your own creations, too--in the slick and clever ways you mold canon to fit your game. The goal of a FR game should not be *accuracy* but rather *fun.*
If devotion to canon spoils the fun (and in most cases it inevitably will), then don't do 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" |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2012 : 16:59:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
And before we jump to conclusions, no, I'm not calling anyone "stupid" or "uncreative" or whatever for succumbing to "canon-slavery."
<snip>
But I think you should take pride in your own creations, too--in the slick and clever ways you mold canon to fit your game. The goal of a FR game should not be *accuracy* but rather *fun.*
If devotion to canon spoils the fun (and in most cases it inevitably will), then don't do it.
Cheers
For my part, if a player corrects me, I generally reply, "first, how does your character know this?" and second, "How do you know that [the person to whom he is speaking] knows what is in the book?" If anyone wants to see this in a real-life example, watch any "Jaywalking" clip from The Tonight Show. Just because it's printed in a book doesn't mean it must be known.
Having said that, there are some things that everybody in Faerūn should know. My method fails when it happens to be one of those things. There is simply no way to "hide" the Spellplague, for example, anymore than the ToT could have been ignored. I do not subscribe to the theory that a DM is responsible for knowing all of the lore before beginning a campaign, nor do the players bear this responsibility. Rather, lore is learned over time, as it is intended to be learned. I've made many tiny "course corrections" over the years as new lore has changed things I have done in the past as a DM. When playing, I suspect my own DM has done the same.
SO...as much as I wish I could tuck away the Spellplague as a bad dream of Mystra's (I'd do the same with Star Trek V, too) it happened. The question is how do I deal with it, and more importantly (to me), how is WoTC going to make me deal with it moving forward. Often times, the people who fix things are not the people who broke them, and here we are being given a chance to be the "fixers" of the problems about 4E that we didn't like.
Erik: to be fair, I don't think that focusing on the Spellplague as the root of all animosity toward 4E is fair. I could have lived with the death of Mystra if another god has assumed the mantle. Destroying the Weave, and three quarters of the pantheon, and then there's the disappearance of Maztica, and the Abolethic Sovereignty... all supposedly started because of the Spellplague... it was the massive amount of change (unexplained, in large) that drove me away from 4E. Furthermore, this is fiction: there is no rule that says WoTC needs to do anything to the lore when issuing a new edition of game mechanics. The two must be separated, because in reality, they are completely separate. 3E could have just been a rules update. Instead, is was a vast expansion and improvement on the Realms, making me feel like I had finally found the golden egg after hunting for so many years. That is a feeling I hope to reclaim with 5E. I want to have fun!
Cheers all,
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 - 09 Mar 2012 : 17:35:02
|
Bickering isn't helping us "unite the fanbase". I suggest we dial it back a bit, and see what they produce, before we complain about it.
I want the edition-wars to end, and although I may not agree with what they do (or even support it, if I don't like it), I will still support their wanting to keep D&D and FR alive for years to come.
I don't have to like Chevys (I don't) to want to see Chevrolet still be a successful corporation - thats just good for everyone (just thought I needed to explain how I can support one concept, and not the other).
Anyhow, I don't think you understood what I meant, Erik (or I don't understand the Spellplague at all... which just goes to show you how poorly it was implemented).
Didn't the Spellplague occur in 1385 DR? Anything after the Cerulean Wave rolled across the world and screwed everthing up is 'after shocks'. That's not Spellplague, those are symptoms of the Spellplague (IMO).
If the Spellplague is on-goning (and still going on in 1479 DR), then what happened in 1385 DR? You can't have one name describing two different (but related) phenomena. Did the Spellplague HAPPEN? Or is it still happening? Which is it? I don't care either way, but one name for two different things is one of 4e's biggest foibles. Something cannot be both past and present tense (and the Spellplague has been described in both fashions, in numerous sources).
For instance, we have the Avatar Crisis. The tablets were stolen and the gods got booted out of the heavens by Ao.
Then we have the Time of Troubles (ToT) - a separate (but related) event, which was the AFTERMATH of the Avatar Crisis.
So me must call 1385 DR "The Weavefall", or "Mystra's End", or the "Amok Arcane", or whatever - I don't care - but if you call it the Spellplague, then the results of that magical disaster MUST be given a separate name. The Spellplague can't have 'happened' (past tense) in 1385 Dr, if it is currently going on.
Considering all the confusion regarding 4e terminology, perhaps a course in Linguistics might be in order for all designers.
Anyhow, are you saying Erik that everything that occurred in those first few hours/days (whatever) is STILL occurring? That entire realms/continents are still appearing/disappearing? I thought that was a one-time catastrophe. 
Why is it three years later, people are still trying to figure out precisely what the Spellplague is? Or am I just an idiot? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Mar 2012 17:43:44 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
