| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
498 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Mar 2012 : 10:13:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
. . . what REGION would you focus on as a starting campaign site?
Let me explain: My concept for the Campaign guide is to provide all the information you need to start up and run a Realms game, with a TINY travelogue section (mostly leaving that to larger sourcebooks like NEVERWINTER or MENZOBERRANZAN so you can pick and choose a region of play). The book does, however, include an adventure site, similar conceptually to Loudwater from the 4e FRCG, albeit larger and better developed. This would be the default area for starting your campaigns, and would provide suitable challenges for characters of levels 1-5 or so. But where would this be?
-Baldur's Gate. It's a semi-iconic site, so anyone who has played the video games but isn't really that well versed in the Forgotten Realms will know it, and at least be familiar with the city itself, some of the people living in it, and some of the stuff in the local area. It's information-lite enough for older lore to be included and more fleshed out, while not being complete reprints of older books (like Waterdeep, for example). It's cosmopolitan enough to be able to support plot hooks and stories that involve the rest of Faerûn, while small enough to be able to ignore those aspects of the city.
I'll agree with this idea. This has 'name' status, and there's a bunch of ready-made adventure and 'base camp' areas that anyone who knows anything about the BG games could instantly pick up and recognize. This could be a hook that nets the new consumer fish (so to speak)
In the original game, for example, one of the most logical places to 'base' the character was in Beregost (in Borland's home, for those who knew of it). So why not emphasize that again? And there are lots of places in the surrounding environs to go. High Hedge, Cloakwood, Ulcaster, Firewine...maybe the Nashkel Carnival is still a tradition? All these places would do well with a 5th Edition spin on them. |
 |
|
|
Rils
Learned Scribe
USA
108 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2012 : 15:53:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Personally, I think Loudwater is great--it was largely just a tragic casualty of the anti-4e backlash. I started my players there and recently had them return (10 levels later) to save the town from marauding giants under the command of Nosnra, the Hill Giant Chief, at his Stedding. If you see what I mean. 
I actually thought Loudwater was a great starting point as well. Small enough that you could get immersed in it without knowing the whole socio-politico-economic history of a large city like Waterdeep/Suzail/Baldur's Gate/Arabel, but large enough to accomodate a growing group of adventurers. It presented a variety of adventure types depending on your group's interests - the High Forest (fey) to the north, Greypeak Mtns (orcs/giants/etc) to the east, and the Southwood (goblins), High Moor and Serpent Hills (snake folk and dungeons) to the south. As well as convenient access to Waterdeep/Sword Coast on the West, Luruar to the north and the growing threat of Netheril to the East.
My problem with starting in large cities is the amount of background info you need to make sense of it. Starting new players in Waterdeep is dumping them in way over their heads (yes, pun intended lol). I like small towns that I can craft as needed for my campaign, without too much baggage. Then I can move into more developed areas as my campaign gets traction.
One area that hasn't seen much love lately is The Vast/Vesperin. It's always been described as an area ripe for adventure, and has mostly been left as a sandbox. It could fill a similar role as Loudwater - Start in a smaller city, say, King's Reach, and you've got access to large mountains and forests for monsters, the sea for trade/travel, an influx of Zhents and Banites from Mulmaster to the north and an influx of Sembian ex-pats from the west for intrigue, large cities (Tantras, Raven's Bluff, Calaunt), and convenient access to the Dales and beyond just across the sea. It's a small enough area that you can cover it pretty thoroughly in a short amount of space/time, the PCs can make their mark, and then you can conveniently move into the greater world as needed.
Just another idea for the pot. |
Dugmaren Brightmantle is my homey. |
|
|
|
Lirdolin
Learned Scribe
Germany
198 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2012 : 20:05:08
|
Ever since 'Eye of the Beholder' and the old Waterdeep sourcebook Waterdeep has been the 'iconic' starting point of most of my groups. Many starting with a tavern ;).
Waterdeep is cosmopolitan (and has quite a lot of gates in Undermountain), for player characters to arrive from everywhere.
As a starting base a quarter or district would be described in detail (taking not more space than Loudwater). Waterdeep has lot's of dungeons (with connections to the underdark), mountains, an ocean and (elven) forests in it's vicinity. It borders on the frontier of the north and connects to the great kingdoms to the south and the east. The city is rich of history, noble houses and (guild) politics.
Baldur's Gate may share many of Waterdeeps characteristics, but to me Waterdeep is a city that has grown in an 'organic way' over years, if not decades and BG will never feel like that to me (earning much of it's fame to a rather recent computer game and having received a jumpstart in 4e of being now larger than Waterdeep). |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2012 : 00:45:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lirdolin
Ever since 'Eye of the Beholder' and the old Waterdeep sourcebook Waterdeep has been the 'iconic' starting point of most of my groups. Many starting with a tavern ;).
Waterdeep is cosmopolitan (and has quite a lot of gates in Undermountain), for player characters to arrive from everywhere.
As a starting base a quarter or district would be described in detail (taking not more space than Loudwater). Waterdeep has lot's of dungeons (with connections to the underdark), mountains, an ocean and (elven) forests in it's vicinity. It borders on the frontier of the north and connects to the great kingdoms to the south and the east. The city is rich of history, noble houses and (guild) politics.
Baldur's Gate may share many of Waterdeeps characteristics, but to me Waterdeep is a city that has grown in an 'organic way' over years, if not decades and BG will never feel like that to me (earning much of it's fame to a rather recent computer game and having received a jumpstart in 4e of being now larger than Waterdeep).
-Agree completely about Waterdeep being the city. It is. True, 4e has changed things, with the effects of Spellplague, and the detail-lite way that the 104-year jump in the timeline was filled in, but, Waterdeep should get more than a "sample city" chapter in a theoretical campaign setting overview sourcebook. Both cities probably could be detailed sufficiently in the 25-50 pages that might be dedicated to a chapter about establishing the setting of a game in a sample city. Waterdeep, 25-50 pages wouldn't be enough. Baldur's Gate, in theory, it probably could carry more than 25-50 pages, but way fewer people would be clamoring for more about it. Waterdeep would be better suited having a generic look at in a campaign setting overview sourcebook, and then a more detailed look in a Waterdeep-specific sourcebook. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2012 : 16:22:40
|
I posted this elsewhere but thought it belonged here too. For clarity:
quote:
Originally posted by JamesLowder
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The active Candlekeep scribes whom I consider affiliated with WotC are Matt and Brian James, Steven Schend, James Lowder, and of course Ed (via proxy). Erik, Elaine, PSK, RLB, and many others are more loosely affiliated. I consider them all privy to "inside" proprietary NDA secrets, though of course my list is far from complete or accurate and WotC employees have recently been coming and going a bit faster than I can follow.
Haven't been to the Keep for a while, so I just saw this.
Just so it's clear: I'm not affiliated with WotC in any way, beyond whatever work I did for TSR and Wizards in the past. I haven't worked for the company for quite a few years.
In fact, most of the people you listed are not privy to inside information about the Realms or anything else having to do with 5E, beyond what they are working on individually for the company. If they don't have a current project, they're likely completely out of the loop on the Realms and everything else. Sure, we may hear rumors and, if we know people working on the current incarnation, we might hear other snippets, but the company as a whole does not share information with former and, in a lot of cases, current freelancers. In fact, freelancers frequently find out about reprints and other uses of our own books at the same time the public does.
The only people who can speak to what's going on in Renton, as far as official plans and the like, are the company reps.
What James said!
Speaking only for myself (never for anyone else), I am not "on the inside" and am not in any way official. I'm just a fan, and I occasionally have the honor/duty of contributing directly to canon Realmslore. The folks at WotC are the ones who can make the decisions, and they are whom you should query with your thoughts, ideas, and appeals.
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 - 21 Mar 2012 : 16:01:58
|
This comes out of a discussion in the "Reboot the Realms" thread. I am posting it here so as not to take over and clutter up that thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
1)While I have preferences where a split should occur, anytime prior to spell plague works. The difference between 2e-3e FR is very minimal. 1e had a lot less development, but still was ripe with interesting possiblities. The major fanbase split only occurs with the 3e - 4e jump. There were people lost at each jump, but the massive gap in which people playing FR were basically speaking foreign languages only occurs with the 4e jump. There is no guarantee that "supporting all eras" of play attracts back all previous fans.
Well, there's no guarantee that doing anything will attract back any fans whatsoever, let alone "all fans." In logical parlance, your argument begs the question, that is, assumes as a premise what you're trying to prove: that a "split timeline" will attract back all the lost fans, or even that it will attract back MORE fans than my concept.
I honestly don't think breaking the setting as you suggest is going to attract people back. What I *do* think is that releasing work that can be used in various eras/contexts (like the Cormyr Royale article, for instance, and even to an extent Neverwinter, which can be adapted) has shown much better results in terms of attracting some of the old guard.
I certainly think it's important to bring back as many fans as possible, but I think we get there by designing good, intriguing, immersive, comfortable work, not breaking a toy that works perfectly well for some of the fanbase and saying "See? We did it! Come play with us again!" I don't think I'm being naive when I suggest that fans aren't really that vindictive. They aren't just stubbornly not playing the Realms because something exist they don't like--they're not playing it because they're not getting what THEY want (which is not the 4e). My solution is: Give them what they want, which is pre-4e lore and support.
The 4e needs to be addressed, clearly, but throwing it out is just as bad as what WotC did going into it.
quote:
2) There is nothing preventing a DM from pulling from both timelines for ideas. The split timeline opens up possiblities that development could go in new directions rather than all roads lead to ToT /Year of Rogue dragons / spell plague / tyr & helm or any other RSE that does not make it into the new timeline. The developers could actually surpise the DMs in both timelines in a split timeline rather than just designing lead up events to already existing lore in one.
So if there's nothing stopping DMs from pulling from both timelines in your scheme, why couldn't they do that in mine? There is nothing (I repeat) NOTHING to dictate that your campaign can or should end up in the 4e FR. As I've said time and time again, the second you start playing a Realms game, you've already diverged from the "canon Realms." All that is just background to be molded into your particular game. Why oh why would your game be forced into an event you don't like?
We already have divergent timelines: thousands of them, at thousands of different tables. It would be a disservice to those gamers if WotC broke its own timeline and canon, leading to division and confusion and (I contend) the eventual death of the setting.
On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).
quote:
Your solution to "fixing" this issue is all books contain timeline neutral material followed by a section dedicate to each of the four major timeline eras, you have outlined. This approach succeeds in selling the book to all audience, because despite only playing in era x the book supports all eras. I believe the original suggestion is a 70/30 split in each book. 70% being edition netrual and 30% being divided between four eras. Take a look at an equal split between eras for a 200 page book. Each of the four time eras get only 15 pages of material.
I think that's more than enough for historical notes that specifically state "This is how the Realms in this era varies from what you've just read." This way, if you're playing a game in one of the four eras presented, you have 78% of the book that you can take basically as-is. The remaining 22% you either draw from if the ideas presented are cool or safely ignore.
If you look at the 3e FRCS (one of the most successful Realms products ever published), that book is only about 50% (at best) usable in a typical campaign, simply because the scope is so vast. It's chock full of setting description, NPCs, etc., on such widely ranging topics and areas that you're probably not going to get to in the course of your game (unless you really jump around like crazy). You can't even spend 1 level in each area, because there are more than 20 areas. More than 40, even.
This is not to diminish my affection for the book (it's one of my favorites), but only to make a point about what I'm advocating: I want to produce a line of books that are extremely usable, regardless of area or era of play.
quote:
There is no reason why the same approach cannot work with a split timeline.
Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?
quote:
70% shared and 30% divided between the two timelines. This forces everyone to buy the product still and gives each era significantly more room to add material. Doubling the developers space per product by select to focus on two timelines rather than 4 eras. DMs can still look at both sections and pull the best of both worlds approach, or even run games that jump between the timelines.
Limiting it to two eras is definitely a possibility, though I wanted to be more open to games.
I really don't think you need that much space to put in era-specific information. Sure, the Realms changes, but not radically enough between the various editions to warrant wholly different sourcebooks. What WotC should be looking at now is expanding OUTWARD, not ONWARD: exploring those areas that have not been analyzed in detail, and there are LOTS.
And again, DMs can do what they want. I just think that the presentation should be whole, consistent, and coherent. We need explanations for why things happened, not just edition dumping like we had with 4e. If we split the timeline before 4e, then we're not solving any problem. The timeline is ALREADY split, if only because we just don't know what happened in that century of silence. I'm advocating a solution--you seem to be advocating status quo.
quote:
Neither solution resolves the issue that 4e split the fanbase, both solutions cause anyone that wants to purchase a FR product to accept that a significant portion of the material will have to be customized.
Well, by your math, 77.5% of the material can be used as is, meaning only 22.5% of it will have to be customized (or ignored). Contrast that to products we have today (or in the past), where if you don't want to play them as-is, you're looking at customizing 60-80%, it's a pretty big difference.
There is a difficulty inherent in using non-setting appropriate material in your game. This came up all the time when I apply 2e lore to 3e or 4e-based games. What I'm suggesting is that the material in 5e FR should be released such that it can be used in *ALL* Realms games, not specific to any particular edition. It needs to be lore heavy, mechanics light, and largely era-neutral.
quote:
Neither solution is guaranteed to attract every realms fan back.
Agreed. Neither your solution nor mine is "guaranteed" to attract even a single Realms fan back. Personally, I think mine stands a good chance to do so, which I think is supported by the evidence (Cormyr Royale, for instance). What draws gamers is good design, and that's what we need to do.
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
3768 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 17:00:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).
-I think that's looking at the issue way too simplistically. For most who voiced displeasure about the direction various things went, the end result was cited as often as the way it was arrived at. Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. disappearing was something that was was generally not very well received, in addition to the fact that nothing was revealed about the specifics of those disappearances. More could be written about Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. from 1,375 DR until the Spellplague, or whenever things drastically changed, explaining X, Y, and Z details that are completely organic with prior information and aren't necessarily directly tied to any of the changes that came to be in the 4e transition. At the end of the day, Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. are still changed from the incarnations that they once appeared as that got people to like them, X, Y and Z details included. New information in a depth and scale we've never seen before that is universally hailed as being the best ever detailing Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. could be written, but the ill received end result that comprises 50% of the gnashing of teeth is still in effect, so to speak.
-And, really, that's not something that can be fixed.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?
-That people can do anything they want when they play their own private games shouldn't be cited to keep the status quo of the setting's design philosophy. It wasn't in the past, when people could have ignored Elminster and other NPCs that they didn't like, trimmed the pantheon down to a level they would more suited to their own preferences, and various other things that people cited as things they didn't like. I don't mean that in a "They did it to us 1-3e people, so they should do it to those 4e people" 'vindictive' way. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 21 Mar 2012 17:02:43 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 17:16:00
|
Erik, you've done it again... another massive, well-thought-out essay on FR setting design philosophy. I really hope you're getting WotC's attention with these.
As usual, I have some comments. 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Well, there's no guarantee that doing anything will attract back any fans whatsoever, let alone "all fans." In logical parlance, your argument begs the question, that is, assumes as a premise what you're trying to prove: that a "split timeline" will attract back all the lost fans, or even that it will attract back MORE fans than my concept.
I honestly don't think breaking the setting as you suggest is going to attract people back. What I *do* think is that releasing work that can be used in various eras/contexts (like the Cormyr Royale article, for instance, and even to an extent Neverwinter, which can be adapted) has shown much better results in terms of attracting some of the old guard.
I certainly think it's important to bring back as many fans as possible, but I think we get there by designing good, intriguing, immersive, comfortable work, not breaking a toy that works perfectly well for some of the fanbase and saying "See? We did it! Come play with us again!" I don't think I'm being naive when I suggest that fans aren't really that vindictive. They aren't just stubbornly not playing the Realms because something exist they don't like--they're not playing it because they're not getting what THEY want (which is not the 4e). My solution is: Give them what they want, which is pre-4e lore and support.
The 4e needs to be addressed, clearly, but throwing it out is just as bad as what WotC did going into it.
We already have divergent timelines: thousands of them, at thousands of different tables. It would be a disservice to those gamers if WotC broke its own timeline and canon, leading to division and confusion and (I contend) the eventual death of the setting.
I don't see a timeline split as a break. I see the kind of timeline gap we had with the Spellplague as a break, which could easily have led to what you suggest. I just think that railroading the Spellplague through after allowing the PCs to apparently prevent it at the close of 3e, then shouting "The PCs are the heroes!" from the rooftops for 4e is the height of hypocrisy. The PCs already proved themselves to be the heroes by preventing what the designers then shoved down the Realms' throat offstage; this action simply made the people responsible for the change look like sore-loser DMs. That inference (regardless of how incorrect it might be) about the maturity level of the designers (because the customers see the designers as being responsible, whether or not that's the case) is what turned me (and so many others) off to the 4e Realms. Setting death has just recently been averted. In this sense, I am optimistic for the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).
 Agreed. On all counts. I think that's all I have to say here.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
If you look at the 3e FRCS (one of the most successful Realms products ever published), that book is only about 50% (at best) usable in a typical campaign, simply because the scope is so vast. It's chock full of setting description, NPCs, etc., on such widely ranging topics and areas that you're probably not going to get to in the course of your game (unless you really jump around like crazy). You can't even spend 1 level in each area, because there are more than 20 areas. More than 40, even.
This is not to diminish my affection for the book (it's one of my favorites), but only to make a point about what I'm advocating: I want to produce a line of books that are extremely usable, regardless of area or era of play.
The 3e FRCS is also one of my favourite FR products; it's in my top five all-time, and there are a lot of products to choose from in the past 25 years. The OGB, LEoF (3e), Waterdeep and the North (1e), and Serpent Kingdoms (3e) round out my top five, with The Savage Frontier (1e), Faiths and Avatars (2e), Powers and Pantheons (2e), FR Adventures (2e), and Secrets of the Magister (1e) rounding out the top ten in no particular order.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?
I really don't think you need that much space to put in era-specific information. Sure, the Realms changes, but not radically enough between the various editions to warrant wholly different sourcebooks. What WotC should be looking at now is expanding OUTWARD, not ONWARD: exploring those areas that have not been analyzed in detail, and there are LOTS.
And again, DMs can do what they want. I just think that the presentation should be whole, consistent, and coherent. We need explanations for why things happened, not just edition dumping like we had with 4e. If we split the timeline before 4e, then we're not solving any problem. The timeline is ALREADY split, if only because we just don't know what happened in that century of silence. I'm advocating a solution--you seem to be advocating status quo.
The timeline is broken, not split; there's a difference. We're advocating a split between the broken Spellplague timeline and an unbroken non-RSE'd timeline. And yes, we could do that ourselves, but for each DM to avert the Spellplague in his or her own way would be counterproductive to your goal of consistency, not to mention creating a large amount of work for the DMs... but I will concede that it could be liberating for some DMs who have the time to invest in the workload required. Without being employed by WotC as part of the Spellplague Avoided Timeline team, I don't have that kind of time. Of course, this ultimately has the consequence that DMs will either resign themselves to the Spellplague, or jump ship for Golarion (those who haven't done so already). I see an alternate non-Spellplagued future Realms as the only way for FR to reclaim market share from Golarion. But I think I've said that before. Onward...
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
There is a difficulty inherent in using non-setting appropriate material in your game. This came up all the time when I apply 2e lore to 3e or 4e-based games. What I'm suggesting is that the material in 5e FR should be released such that it can be used in *ALL* Realms games, not specific to any particular edition. It needs to be lore heavy, mechanics light, and largely era-neutral.
Agreed. Hopefully WotC also agrees... 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Agreed. Neither your solution nor mine is "guaranteed" to attract even a single Realms fan back. Personally, I think mine stands a good chance to do so, which I think is supported by the evidence (Cormyr Royale, for instance). What draws gamers is good design, and that's what we need to do.
I am in 100% agreement here as well. There are no guarantees, but if the Cormyr articles did as well as has been suggested, perhaps WotC has realized that FR lore sells better than vaguely FR-flavoured crunch. Maybe we'll even see the Cormyr Lineage get published... Okay, now I'm getting silly. I'll shut up 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 21 Mar 2012 17:18:59 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 17:26:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
At the end of the day, Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. are still changed from the incarnations that they once appeared as that got people to like them, X, Y and Z details included. New information in a depth and scale we've never seen before that is universally hailed as being the best ever detailing Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. could be written, but the ill received end result that comprises 50% of the gnashing of teeth is still in effect, so to speak.
-And, really, that's not something that can be fixed.
Well, I do think that the Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc situations CAN be resolved in a way that is intriguing and interesting and GOOD design, both pre- and post-Spellplague. But no, we can't really *fix* the mistakes of the past, either by bandaging them over (further developing from here) or ignoring them (with a split timeline) or pretending they didn't happen (with a reboot). I think the only viable solution is to put out good design--good material--and good work, which tries to bring things together in a way that makes sense and is interesting. If gnashing-teeth fans follow the design back to the Realms, great. If they don't, then in all likelihood, they weren't going to come back whatever we did.
All we can do is push on to create good and compelling stuff. If people want to play it, great. If not, it can't really be helped.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?
-That people can do anything they want when they play their own private games shouldn't be cited to keep the status quo of the setting's design philosophy. It wasn't in the past, when people could have ignored Elminster and other NPCs that they didn't like, trimmed the pantheon down to a level they would more suited to their own preferences, and various other things that people cited as things they didn't like. I don't mean that in a "They did it to us 1-3e people, so they should do it to those 4e people" 'vindictive' way.
See, and I think trying to design otherwise (i.e. remove the things people were citing as problems) was a mistake--one we should not repeat with 5e FR. But I do think the tone can be set of it being (at last) YOUR REALMS. If the philosophy of "do what works for you" is made clear on page 1, then it undercuts all the voices decrying the strictures of canon and moves us into a better, more creative place.
I really think the feverish emphasis on "being true to canon" is rapidly pushing the Realms into an untenable position. While I firmly believe that the setting needs to have one consistent canon, which WotC is honor-bound (not to mention business-bound) to maintain with as much accuracy as possible, that does not mean fans of the setting can or even should use every inch of the canon for their games.
Let canon be a source of ideas and inspiration and a mutual basis for communication; don't make it a straight-jacket.
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
3768 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 18:09:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
See, and I think trying to design otherwise (i.e. remove the things people were citing as problems) was a mistake--one we should not repeat with 5e FR. But I do think the tone can be set of it being (at last) YOUR REALMS. If the philosophy of "do what works for you" is made clear on page 1, then it undercuts all the voices decrying the strictures of canon and moves us into a better, more creative place.
I really think the feverish emphasis on "being true to canon" is rapidly pushing the Realms into an untenable position. While I firmly believe that the setting needs to have one consistent canon, which WotC is honor-bound (not to mention business-bound) to maintain with as much accuracy as possible, that does not mean fans of the setting can or even should use every inch of the canon for their games.
-I can agree with this. That doesn't mean that WotC should go into the design process with this in mind. They should be going in keeping canon in mind, and how to naturally progress the stories of the world. If people want to use them, fine. If not, fine. As we are both advocating, the official designers design, and everyone else can figure out modifications that they want to use.
-I don't agree about the world being in an untenable position, though, or is/was headed because of a dearth of information, though. Especially with the caveat that people can pick and choose what they want when they are playing D&D games. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 19:25:54
|
quote:
Because basically, if you split the fanbase in half, any given book is only going to sell to half the fans. If you split it further, like 70/30 for instance, then the 70% book is going to do OK but not great, and the 30% is going to do awful. Splitting the timeline like that doesn't let "everybody win." Indeed, a lot of people are bound to be disappointed, and in the long run--after the IP fails because of falling sales--no one wins.
This "There is no reason why the same approach cannot work with a split timeline." is a response to that portion of your argument. The only reason that splitting the timeline results in divided sales is dividing the material in multiple books. Which would be the same result if one split the eras into different books.
quote:
So if there's nothing stopping DMs from pulling from both timelines in your scheme, why couldn't they do that in mine?
I agree complete, I was merely pointing out that the same argument of everyone can pull inspiration from all eras is true for timelines as well.
quote:
Agreed. Neither your solution nor mine is "guaranteed" to attract even a single Realms fan back. Personally, I think mine stands a good chance to do so, which I think is supported by the evidence (Cormyr Royale, for instance). What draws gamers is good design, and that's what we need to do.
The entire point of my argument was that both solutions are equal viable using the same bag of tricks you are wielding. Placing everything in one source book and forcing the various factions to take the "good" with the "bad" is in no way limited to a support all eras approach. Also, in no case is the actual problem getting resolved. A good analogy: It is just selling "Power Rangers and Transformers" in a combo pack, and then giving one toy to each kid and sending them to different rooms to play. The kids still aren't playing together. Or in the eras case 4 toys, 4 kids, 4 rooms.
quote:
On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).
I am not saying that you cannot further flesh out the 1e-3e realms, I am saying that by keeping with one timeline, the material will have a hard limit that is not there in the two timeline approach. The only group that has infinite possiblities for published lore is the 4e group under the multiple eras approach. Again obliviously DMs can make up whatever they want, but if spell plague / the merger of Abeir and Toril was the deal breaker major events stop happening after 1385. Also, there are many countries that stop getting support after 1385 Evermeet, Lantan, Nimbral, Halruaa, Unther, the Great Dale, Mulhorand to name a few. Furthermore, there are several location that no longer share much in common with there previous incarnations such as Thay and the Moonsea.
Again my point is not that one approach is better than another. It is that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages and neither approach Dooms the IP to poor sales and failure. Also, I have not restated the advantages you have already stated in this scroll, because I am reading it and already know them. To any scribe that is beginning this scroll at the end, I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, it is a great scroll.
As a side note, material such as the Cormyr Royale is not a tool to attract new players, or get back the "old guard". It is contained in the section of the wizard's website that can only be viewed through paying a monthly fee. That material is used to keep the current fans happy :). If WotC wants to use that material to attract new players, or returning players, it would need to be in the section that those people can view. World of Warcraft's patches don't attract new players, they give the current players a reason to keep paying. Their free trials and commericals do the marketing along with many other things. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
Edited by - Tarlyn on 21 Mar 2012 19:36:02 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 19:49:38
|
I've already stated my preference, in my 'Wishlist' thread. Each regional book should be presented as a stand-alone setting guide, with its own 'start area'. Different regions could (theoretically) be geared toward certain levels that way. As for the first one released? The Border Kingdoms area is as good an area as any. I would actually prefer they do the lesser-known regions first (areas not covered or barely covered before) - then they can leave the better-know regions for higher levels of play (tougher 'start areas').
The Dales, for instance, I think should be a levels 5-9 kind of region - not for green novices, but someplace the PCs can spend a lot of time adventuring during the 'sweet spot' of character-building. Every regional splat should have a detailed 'base of operations', and Batteldale (as someone suggested) could work well for this one.
Present the splats like CG expansions - open up new areas with new levels of play, and treat each as an entire separate entity. A setting the size of The Forgotten Realms should NOT have a single 'start area' - thats ridiculous, IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
That and the name would look good (read: stand prominently and be eye catching, all on its own) on the cover of a sourcebook, whether the Realms logo was on it or not.
Uhhhh-ohhhhhhhh... 
{accent, mine} |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Mar 2012 17:41:32 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 19:56:10
|
| Reading through the arguments here, what would the scribes who desire a split timeline think about an appendix (or small [$19.95] separate book) that describes what Toril would be like had the Spellplague never happened (or at least, none of the deity culling/landmass shifting)? This way the 5e core setting book (or two, like they did with 4e) can focus on the Realms as a whole, but then allow for a sanctioned, pseudo-canon what-if scenario that essentially "reboots" the Realms to pre-4e. |
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)
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 21:04:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
As a side note, material such as the Cormyr Royale is not a tool to attract new players, or get back the "old guard".
Wizards of the Coast stated position (with the release of the 4E Realms) was that the 100 year gap wouldn't be explored.
Cormyr Royale is evidence of a change in that official position, as about one half of the article is set in the time just after Alusair became Regent in Cormyr.
In other words, it’s lore from an era of the Realms that WotC had, up until now, given every sign that it had walked away from.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
It is contained in the section of the wizard's website that can only be viewed through paying a monthly fee. That material is used to keep the current fans happy :).
Just because content is behind a paywall doesn’t mean it’s targeted only at regular paying customers.
There is such a thing as word of mouth.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 02:07:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Reading through the arguments here, what would the scribes who desire a split timeline think about an appendix (or small [$19.95] separate book) that describes what Toril would be like had the Spellplague never happened (or at least, none of the deity culling/landmass shifting)? This way the 5e core setting book (or two, like they did with 4e) can focus on the Realms as a whole, but then allow for a sanctioned, pseudo-canon what-if scenario that essentially "reboots" the Realms to pre-4e.
-No good can come from creating "official" alternate universes. It also takes away very limited resources (time, money, designers, political/business will) from discussing the 'real' Forgotten Realms. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 22 Mar 2012 02:08:13 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 02:27:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Reading through the arguments here, what would the scribes who desire a split timeline think about an appendix (or small [$19.95] separate book) that describes what Toril would be like had the Spellplague never happened (or at least, none of the deity culling/landmass shifting)? This way the 5e core setting book (or two, like they did with 4e) can focus on the Realms as a whole, but then allow for a sanctioned, pseudo-canon what-if scenario that essentially "reboots" the Realms to pre-4e.
-No good can come from creating "official" alternate universes. It also takes away very limited resources (time, money, designers, political/business will) from discussing the 'real' Forgotten Realms.
I really don't think it'd be all that different than supporting multiple settings, which TSR did for a long time and which WotC still does. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 02:37:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I really don't think it'd be all that different than supporting multiple settings, which TSR did for a long time and which WotC still does.
-The most obvious difference is that it wouldn't be a new/different setting, it'd be the Forgotten Realms. Which scenario seems more feasible: WotC takes the "risk" of allocating X amount of resources to two distinct Forgotten Realms brands, or that the resources that are already allocated towards the Forgotten Realms gets subcontracted to this version, or that version?
-And, outside of issues like that, you'll then run into similar problems that are being faced now, in terms of 'canonicity': Do the 'Alternative Realms' get second-class citizen treatment? What exactly constitutes the canon of the official 'Alternative Realms'- what makes the cut and what doesn't; which designer's are having their work cut and which designers are having their work expanded to fill the gaps? Can there be more 'Alternative Realms'? And a variety of other logistical difficulties.
-I'm not saying that such a product wouldn't be something that wouldn't appeal to me. I don't like 70% of the design changes that happened to the setting in the 4e transition, and I'm selfish and obviously would prefer something I like to something I don't like, even at the cost of someone else's enjoyment of the product, or someone else's hard work, or whatever else (not that I don't see how those things are ultimately short sighted and not generally for the 'greatest good')- we all are. More problems would be caused in the prism of the overall product line, however. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 03:35:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I really don't think it'd be all that different than supporting multiple settings, which TSR did for a long time and which WotC still does.
-The most obvious difference is that it wouldn't be a new/different setting, it'd be the Forgotten Realms. Which scenario seems more feasible: WotC takes the "risk" of allocating X amount of resources to two distinct Forgotten Realms brands, or that the resources that are already allocated towards the Forgotten Realms gets subcontracted to this version, or that version?
-And, outside of issues like that, you'll then run into similar problems that are being faced now, in terms of 'canonicity': Do the 'Alternative Realms' get second-class citizen treatment? What exactly constitutes the canon of the official 'Alternative Realms'- what makes the cut and what doesn't; which designer's are having their work cut and which designers are having their work expanded to fill the gaps? Can there be more 'Alternative Realms'? And a variety of other logistical difficulties.
-I'm not saying that such a product wouldn't be something that wouldn't appeal to me. I don't like 70% of the design changes that happened to the setting in the 4e transition, and I'm selfish and obviously would prefer something I like to something I don't like, even at the cost of someone else's enjoyment of the product, or someone else's hard work, or whatever else (not that I don't see how those things are ultimately short sighted and not generally for the 'greatest good')- we all are. More problems would be caused in the prism of the overall product line, however.
+ infinity on the selfish part Lord KArsus.
I think everybody is selfish in that way.
we'd all prefer a product we'd enjoy even if it made someone else not enjoy it.
the haters of the realms did this and we all got lumped wit hteh 4e realms and all it did was alienate the fanbase amongst other things.
we told them not to do it and they did not listen giving in to the FR haters at the time. Now the tables are turned and those who made the realms into what it was by purchasing the old material hate it and I'd imagine a few of the old haters hate the new realms somewhere along the way.
on a completely unrelated foot note:
the 4e realms novels are not bad. that said the 4e fr campaign guide and charater guide are that bad and then some..... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 05:53:25
|
The viability of an alternate timeline / reboot is really being discussed in http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16059 this thread. I replied to Erik's posting in this scroll, because he posted it here. However, the argument is eating up a lot of valuable space and really not part of the One Cannon, One Story, One Realms topic. I think it is probably better to move this discussion over to the Reboot the Realms 5th edition thread, or start a new thread to continue it.
In that spirit, The east has never been the default starting location for FR, so Aglarond or the Wizard Reach seem like interesting places to be the next Loudwater. On the other hand, selecting a location in returned Abeir as the entry point could serve to better integrate it with the rest of the setting. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 14:42:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
+ infinity on the selfish part Lord KArsus.
I think everybody is selfish in that way.
we'd all prefer a product we'd enjoy even if it made someone else not enjoy it.
-Most people won't admit it. There's no shame, really, if you're at least mature enough to accept that what you want isn't necessarily the best case scenario. Case in point. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 15:47:43
|
I don't know, Tarlyn, I think this discussion is right on point for what I'm talking about here.
My concern about splitting timelines is that it eats away at the brand. It fractures the fanbase, fractures resources, and adds to confusion. You get into that problem of "which is the REAL Realms?" and neither timeline really has the cachet of being THE Realms. Both become lesser versions of a whole.
Keeping the canon consistent/contiguous avoids this problem and still keeps the benefits of "DMs can draw on multiple eras for inspiration" and "gamers can ignore what they don't like."
If it's the Spellplague and its aftermath you don't like, then you can ignore it--you have everything you need to play pre-SP right there in the book. I'm not sure there's really all that much drive for a future non-SP Realms (i.e. "jump my 3.x campaign forward 100 years but don't have the Spellplague), but for the sake of argument, we can go with it. If you really are interested in playing the future of the Realms where the Spellplague didn't happen, well, yeah, you'd have to modify stuff. But basically you could just use the post-Spellplague world with whatever tweaks you want (Mystra didn't vanish, such-and-such country didn't disappear, etc).
It's just like me saying "I want to play a Realms where the Time of Troubles never happened"--of course I'm going to have to tweak things. But it would be strange to demand that WotC release official design to assuage my needs. I'm more than capable of producing it myself by modifying the baseline canon they provide.
I really think this "hard stop" for 3e is an illusion, just like a "hard stop" for 1e or 2e was an illusion. As I've said time and time again, the second you start playing in the Realms, you are departing from the canon Realms. Of course things will shake out differently. If they don't, then you are not giving free will to your characters, and their efforts don't matter. This is just one of those things you run into when playing a game set in an era that has more canon information ahead of it in the timeline. I've run FR games set before novel trilogies where big things happen (the Avatar crisis/ToT, the Rage of Dragons, the Twilight War, etc), but those novels don't change the course of my game unless I want them to do so.
WotC needs to keep the canon consistent and contiguous so that DMs can pick and choose what to use for their game. DMs should have the option of taking everything "as-is" and having something that works and fits and makes logical sense. If, on the other hand, DMs want to change things to customize the game, the canon provides a template they can alter to fit their needs. Either way, WotC is under the onus to create a single, contiguous canon setting for use in the game.
Should there be an "alternate reality" where the Spellplague didn't happen? Sure, why not? But it shouldn't be an official product. It should remain the brainchild of whoever designed it, who should get full credit for the neat and clever things it does to alter canon. But this shouldn't be WotC that designs it--it should be each individual DM.
And yes, stuff needs to be done in 4e to assuage concerns and root out some of the crazy that happened in the setting. The Spellplague needs to be addressed. Mystra's absence needs to be addressed (see Ed's series). Some of the gap needs to be explained (see Cormyr Royale for evidence that this can be and is being done). Some of the lost countries need to be brought back, in a cool and usable way--Halruaa and Lantan, for instance.
Could these be addressed in an "alternate timeline"? Sure. But WotC shouldn't do that. All that does is disempower DMs by telling them "hey, we can design your game better than you can--look at ours instead!" WotC should not be in the business of dictating how you play your game. The gaming industry is a SERVICE industry, and they should be providing you the tools you need to build whatever game you want.
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 - 22 Mar 2012 : 16:34:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Keeping the canon consistent/contiguous avoids this problem and still keeps the benefits of "DMs can draw on multiple eras for inspiration" and "gamers can ignore what they don't like."
I think this is one of the overlooked qualities of the post-Spellplague Realms: a good portion of it is simply older, not impossibly warped or unrecognizable.
Not quite paradoxically, post-Spellplague Realmslore is newer, from the point of view of what’s been most recently published.
Because of this, post-Spellplague Realmslore is just as usable as historical information on the pre-Spellplague Realms for building and running a D&D game in the Forgotten Realms.
Currently I’m running a 3.5 Realms game. The campaign is centered on the Immerdusk noble family and some history I’ve created that links them to the realms of Esparrin that was defeated and absorbed by Cormyr.
If or when I move the campaign out of Cormyr and to the Sword Coast, I plan to use post-Spellplague Neverwinter. Why? It’s just more interesting than old Neverwinter.
I’m also considering using post-Spellplague Waterdeep. Why? Because it’s new. I’m perfectly versed in the Waterdeep of old…but I’ve used 1300s era Waterdeep several times already. It’s boring to me.
What I mean is that for Waterdeep I’m not interested in doing things the same as I have for the last fifteen years.
I want to expand on it. I want to explain to my players what Mistshore looks like and see them jumping from ship to ship, battling pirates and worse. I want them to explore Downshadow and not think of Waterdeep as a place with civilization on top, scary just underneath.
None of this requires vast amounts of work to explain on my part. Why? Because the gaming table is a very focused/tight lense through which to provide information to players.
I realize some DMs feel like they need to have everything in the background make sense (to their minds) before they introduce their changes to the canon Realms during a play session, but from a practical point of view that’s a Rabbit Hole with no end in sight.
Inserting one or two gears into a massive clockwork mechanism, then figuring out all the hundreds of other adjustments that need to be made before the clock tells time is something I don’t have time for.
I daresay most DMs don’t either.
All that really matters is that the world is lively, interesting and presented in a consistent manner at the gaming table.
For this, the Realms as a product line must have a single timeline; the game rules need to take a back seat in Realms products to story information and adventure ideas; the D&D Next game rules need to be easy to implement and use for both player and DM.
Publishing products that encourage DMs to pick and choose from different eras those parts of the Realms that are most interesting to them is a good strategy. I hope WotC implements it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 22 Mar 2012 16:47:19 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 18:27:52
|
I have to agree 100% with Karsus (and Erik) - we've already had a full 4 years of 'splitting the fanbase', and that hasn't done anyone any good. I'm pretty sure thats what did-in DL as well (although I am far from an expert on that subject). With both FR and DL, you had an unintentional split in the fanbase, but you still had an official 'current' setting (time). Proposing an official alternate timeline/setting would probably compound that mistake astronomically.
I am a big proponent of making FR core, and building upon that - making FR the D&D 'over-setting' (kind of like making it 'Earth prime' in the comics). Considering how much greater D&D lore/history/legends/cosmology/mythology is attached directly to Toril (like Drow, for instance), it would help smooth-over tons of continuity problems. In other words, What happens on Toril, does NOT stay on Toril.
However, I DO want to see an FR logo on FR products - just because its 'core' doesn't mean it's own identity should get 'washed out' into the background of greater D&D. I am not sure if this will even become an issue if they manage to separate the rules completely from the setting. I still have to see how they go about that before I make any decisions, though. It could wind-up a real mess. Rules tied directly to a setting are always superior, IMHO (but we shall see).
What this means for FR is that everything presented for D&D - monsters, NPCs, organizations and PrCs, etc - will have a place in FR, which could be very cool, but also could have the setting looking like an 'RPG junkyard'.
What they REALLY need to do is look at EVERYTHING (monsters, rules, Feats, etc), get rid of all the redundant crap, streamline all those things (while still providing multiple options for each), and THEN it could work. The Realms CAN have it all, so long as that 'all' isn't "everything including the kitchen sink". This will mean a new approach to splats - don't provide more and more of everything (which just makes the rules/setting an unplayable mess after a time) - provide more detail on whats already there.
I don't need 65 thousand monsters, more then 90% I won't use. Give me tribes of Orcs, with subtle differences. The same can be said of everything else - did we really need BOTH Dueragar and Derro? Orogs and Ogrillons? Goliaths and Half-Giants? By paring-down the major categories, and then giving details of individual groups (similar to the late 3e/4e style), you can both downsize the sheer numbers while providing more RPG details (and therefor hooks/adventures). Better to do a few things well, then hundreds of things poorly.
If they can do this - reduce all that baggage to manageable levels - then FR can become core without looking like a craptastic 'kitchen-sink' setting. This ties into the theme of this thread as well - reduce the clutter, fit things together better, and give us one, new continuity that makes sense, and doesn't contradict itself every time a new source comes out.
And make designers/authors read what the other guys are writing... for Pete's sake... that shouldn't even have to be a rule! If they can't be bothered to do that, at least create a massive data-case they can reference (Marvel comics does this), so they DON'T make mistakes. Or at least use Wikipedia (not the FR Wiki - that thing is BAAAAAAAD). 4e's worst mistake was the way it looked like it was trying to run in twenty directions at once, and not getting anywhere. Get a 'Continuity cop', or CORE (Council Of Realms Experts) to run things by, and half the complaints (from earlier editions) will vanish in 5e. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Mar 2012 20:22:55 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 18:44:30
|
I’ve never really thought of the Realms as properly having a good reason for genasi, tieflings, aasimar and other races to exist in it large numbers until the Spellplague hit. Third Edition got the ball rolling on introducing these races, but frankly they just never fit in the Realms until after the Spellplague.
Ironically, I think Akanul and Tymanther (for example) would fit better in the Realms’ past: as places that came and went at some point in the dim background of history, but left behind a legacy in the form of their native peoples and possibly some buildings, towns or small sections of land.
For DMs who prefer the 1300s era of the Realms but also want to give their players a chance to play the newer races or who want to use things like earthmotes or other fantastical terrain elements of the post-Spellplague Realms, I think this idea of “it came and went in the past” works pretty good.
This is also a good example of what any D&D Next/5E D&D Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book should have in it, in terms of stating implicitly to DMs that the whole wide Realms in its entirety is open to them to use…and here’s one example of how. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 22 Mar 2012 18:49:21 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 22:05:50
|
Let me tell you about my Realms game. It's 4e FR set in the post-Spellplague world (1479-1480), but it's heavily steeped in pre-4e Realmslore.
The heroes started off in Loudwater and did most of the 4e stuff released about the Realms (the campaign kickstarter in the FRCG, the Scepter Tower, etc). They skipped the "outside Loudwater" quests listed in the FRCG and went straight to Waterdeep, for which I used a combination of the 3.5 City of Splendors book and my own writing/reading of the Eddie Presents novels. I've weaved in old school things like the Tomb of Horrors (altered to fit my own particular chosen villain), Against the Giants (just finished Perkins's brilliant 4e adaptation of Stedding of the Hill Giant Chief), and City of the Spider Queen (as in Wyatt's late-era 3e adventure). Major plots run the gamut of pre- and post-Spellplague plot threads: one of the characters is in training as the annointed heir of the Blackstaff, Eilistraee's quest to redeem the drow lives on in another of the characters (currently a chosen wielder of part of the broken Cresent Blade), a couple genasi in the group seek to confront a primordial that slew their parents, and at least one of the characters is basically the last heir of the Daemonfey.
This draws on multiple eras and multiple sources of lore from all over the place, but it only makes sense in the context of all these things belonging to the same Realms. As a DM, it is tremendously rewarding for me to lace things into the often convoluted and sometimes contradictory canon. I'm happy to put homebrew stuff in, but this whole element to my game planning would be irrelevant if I had no canon to draw on.
I want to get away from the idea that in order to run a proper Realms game, you have to stick to canon. Canon just gives us a common discussion point. For instance, let's take the beginning of a FR game: your DM can say "go ahead and create FR characters" or even "go ahead and create FR characters except the Spellplague never happened, such and such gods are still around, etc." and you both know what background material you're drawing on, rather than the DM having to talk through a setting for an hour before you can finally start playing. You can just cite a few exceptions, rather than have to outline all the rules, and let players do the research if they want to.
If you have two (or more) totally different canon Realms, then it's an extra level of complication as regards campaign construction, lore research, discussion with players, etc. And that I would much rather leave to an individual gaming group, rather than try to create multiple official "canons."
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 - 22 Mar 2012 : 22:12:52
|
@MT: Oh yeah. The FR logo needs to come back, and it needs to be on the darn books. That's a no-brainer.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I’ve never really thought of the Realms as properly having a good reason for genasi, tieflings, aasimar and other races to exist in it large numbers until the Spellplague hit. Third Edition got the ball rolling on introducing these races, but frankly they just never fit in the Realms until after the Spellplague.
While I'm intrigued by the "came and went" concept you propose, Jeremy, I also think an easier solution is present too: if we assume these races originated (in Realmspace) on Abeir, I see no reason they couldn't have come to Toril from Abeir. I mean sure, that would be difficult, but in a world of magic I'm sure you could find portals, deific intervention, etc. They're interlopers from another realm--it happens all the time.
I also rather like the concept that genasi originated from the mixture of human blood with those of elemental creatures, such as genies and the like. And of course you could have things like this in Toril. It's just that in the 1300s, all you're seeing is the nascent stage of the race of genasi, whereas in Abeir you have a flourishing race of genasi that have evolved differently over the time they've been separated. I *enjoy* that kind of difference, but I recognize the drive to bring the races into closer alignment.
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 - 22 Mar 2012 : 23:08:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
While I'm intrigued by the "came and went" concept you propose, Jeremy, I also think an easier solution is present too: if we assume these races originated (in Realmspace) on Abeir, I see no reason they couldn't have come to Toril from Abeir. I mean sure, that would be difficult, but in a world of magic I'm sure you could find portals, deific intervention, etc. They're interlopers from another realm--it happens all the time.
Yep, that’s easier. (Hope this doesn’t read as snarky. I do mean to say I agree with you here.)
For genasi, yours is an example of first-step good advice.
To clarify, I was approaching things from the idea that the 5E Realms book will try to help DMs who have some Realms products already.
So if you’re a Realms DM who’s already got the 4E FRCG in hand and you prefer to play in the 1300s, here’s one way to use Akanûl (for example) by treating it as a place that existed in the distant past, then disappeared, leaving behind genasi, earth motes and ruins.
So basically you tell DMs they can get more miles out of the contents of any sourcebook they own that covers the modern realms, by asking them to reimagine those contents as old and historical. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 22 Mar 2012 23:09:41 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 23:29:24
|
yep the FR is a brand name. it should be on both the novels and the campaign books.
even though the FR uses the dnd brand to run. does not mean that the FR logo should be given the shaft any more than DArk Sun and Eberron should.
the settings are not dnd and dnd is not the setting.(well maybe not for 4e's nameless core setting)
add my name to the list of who think the FR logo should return |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 15:32:12
|
quote:
If you have two (or more) totally different canon Realms, then it's an extra level of complication as regards campaign construction, lore research, discussion with players, etc. And that I would much rather leave to an individual gaming group, rather than try to create multiple official "canons."
That is why I described an appendix detailing a "what if" scenario as pseudo canon. Though now that I have spent more time thinking about it, I think that it would be better as a one-shot (and only one-shot) "what if" book that is explicitly not canon. I also think that it should cover all the RSEs from the past two decades, and just a give a brief (2-4 page) as to what Toril would be like if the events of that RSE had never happened. Though I think this is more of a pipe dream than anything else. I don't even know if such a product would be marketable. |
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)
|
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 15:41:40
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I’ve never really thought of the Realms as properly having a good reason for genasi, tieflings, aasimar and other races to exist in it large numbers until the Spellplague hit. Third Edition got the ball rolling on introducing these races, but frankly they just never fit in the Realms until after the Spellplague.
While I'm intrigued by the "came and went" concept you propose, Jeremy, I also think an easier solution is present too: if we assume these races originated (in Realmspace) on Abeir, I see no reason they couldn't have come to Toril from Abeir. I mean sure, that would be difficult, but in a world of magic I'm sure you could find portals, deific intervention, etc. They're interlopers from another realm--it happens all the time.
I also rather like the concept that genasi originated from the mixture of human blood with those of elemental creatures, such as genies and the like. And of course you could have things like this in Toril. It's just that in the 1300s, all you're seeing is the nascent stage of the race of genasi, whereas in Abeir you have a flourishing race of genasi that have evolved differently over the time they've been separated. I *enjoy* that kind of difference, but I recognize the drive to bring the races into closer alignment.
Cheers
@Jeremy Tieflings and Aasimars have always fit well into the Realms IMO since there has always been quite a bit of fiendish and celestial pollination amongst the mortal races of the Realms. And Races of Faerûn, IIRC, did a good job of stating that Genasi came from parings with the various types of genies and other elemental themed outsiders. Of course, I never saw a problem with warforged in the Realms as well. |
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)
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
