| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 18:05:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
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.
-As a 'testament', Fallout 3 has generic raiders as enemies. Fallout: New Vegas has raiders as well, but they're all separated into different clans, tribes, and other distinctions. While most of them all share the same generic stats and pixels and stuff, it's a world of a difference. Some raiders come off as honest people just trying to live their lives in a post-Apocalyptic world. Others are crazy. Some are violent and evil, while others not so much. These little things make a huge difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
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.
-While I don't disagree, I don't like the idea that 'sticking as true to canon as possible' is a negative thing, or whatever you'd call it. 'Canon backlash'. If people want to play a game where they spend three hours researching minute details for their characters, and the DM does all of that doubly so for the details of the adventure, and everyone is happy doing that, more power to them, hope they have fun, goodbye. I personally think that there has been a lot of "push-back" against canon because of the kind of overbearing people who insist on DMs getting every detail right (and, it is interesting to note that while there are so many stories of these things happening, how often do we see this kind of stuff in the vocal, online Forgotten Realms communities? Almost nil) that we hear about. Just like there's nothing wrong with picking up a sourcebook and then making your game about aliens invading the planet and everyone banning together to fight them off regardless of past feelings, there's nothing wrong with picking up a sourcebook and having your games follow them to a T. Not that you, specifically were doing that, but it's something I've noticed since coming back to the Forgotten Realms.
-Also, regarding the "sticking to canon", while not specifically related to what we're talking about right here, it is important to note that a large segment of the total fanbase (a larger segment, I would posit, given the semi-mainstream success of plenty of novels, and the fact that D&D is a niche hobby) doesn't "have" a canon to play with, so to speak. My own interest has always been in the setting itself; From 2002 or whenever when I first picked up and read Homeland until 2008 or 2009, I'd never played a D&D involving the Forgotten Realms. I am involved in a Forgotten Realms D&D campaign that still periodically plays every once and a while, but that is secondary, and my interests are purely 'academic', not 'gamey'. We don't have anything but the canon that is written. This is a point of view that is regularly not taken into account when it comes to canon-vs-whatever discussions. Not fully relevant, but just an observation. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 23 Mar 2012 18:21:08 |
 |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 18:23:50
|
@Jeremy: Oh indeed. I wasn't trying to discount your idea--it's an excellent concept for DMs who aren't terribly comfortable fitting the so-called "planar races" into their games. Being a Planescape fan, I myself have been playing ranseur- and punch-dagger wielding tieflings in the Realms since 2e (Haer'Dalis, anyone?), but it wasn't until 3e that they started to become a standard but uncommon racial choice (i.e. presented in the book itself). 4e went the extra step of making them a CORE race, but I still think the 4e FR lore is pretty clear about their relative rarity in the world.
@Hawkins: You know, an unofficial one-shot "What If?" non-canon-but-still-interesting book might be nice, particularly if it touched on multiple RSEs. Isn't there a lot of that stuff floating around Candlekeep? Couldn't someone compile the data into a book? Hmm . . .
The issue I see is that if you're going to diverge from canon, what makes your idea any better than anyone else's? (This is not to be insulting--only logical.) I don't think of my 4e FR game as diverging from canon in any significant way, but I've certainly re-interpreted a lot of things to fit my own concepts, which may or may not be appealing to you and your game. I mean, clearly you'll build what works for your game, but unless you do so in a way that has broad appeal, I don't think you're any better off than the 4e FR.
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 - 24 Mar 2012 : 18:11:42
|
@LK: I have nothing against gamers that want to stay true to canon as much as possible. I generally am one of those gamers. I just want to get away from the impression that "strict-canon" is the ONLY way to go. "Loose-canon" should be just fine. (And doesn't that sound fun?)
Mostly, I want people to say "if I don't like an aspect of the canon, I'll ignore or revise it," rather than "if I don't like an aspect of the canon, I won't use the canon at all." See the distinction I'm making?
I want the Realms to be welcoming to players of all different playstyles.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 16:40:16
|
How wasn't it before?
The complete and utter inaccuracy (more like Hogwash!) that you had to read 100+ books to be familiar enough to run a game was pure BS... and yet they catered to those people.
I have related my 'introduction' to the Realms numerous times, but I will repeat it here once again: I was a GH DM, and liked Greyhawk very much (not sure I loved it anymore... I never had the emotional attachment I have with FR). I was very familiar with it (easy enough, in that setting), and could run a session off-the-cuff whenever I wanted, and had several favorite modules I was so familiar with I could practically run them from memory.
When asked to teach D&D to my brother-in-law and his friends (all around 14), I readily accepted... but they insisted I run FR! Some of them had read FR novels (damn you, Drizzt Do'Urden!), and others had become interested in it at the LGS. Needless to say, I went into The Realms kicking & screaming... well.. maybe more like pissing & moaning.
I ran several sessions, but used GREYHAWK modules, because I knew them so well, and cleverly hid this fact from my players (at least one of them suspected, however... future grognard, that one).
All I had was the OGB to go on, and I had barely perused it - just enough to give myself a passing familiarity. In fact, I didn't become a 'Realmsophile' until 3rd edition.
Yet, I ran FR all throughout 2nd edition with hardly any FR knowledge at all. Thus putting the lie to the statement that you had to 'read a lot' to run the Realms. False perceptions are VERY destructive.
So yes, I always ran the Realms very different then the canon one (mine's better!  ), and I am sure many folks would have issue with many of the changes I made, but despite that, I was still able to use the canon - EVEN AFTER MOVING ENTIRE COUNTRIES AROUND - to run my games.
So, am I 'special' (there's a loaded question!  ), or was it entirely possible to do this all along? I am a fan of the setting (novels & source), and I am also an FR DM (who chooses to ignore whatever he wants); I separate the two completely. I don't expect WotC to follow the changes I make - that would be silly.
So what was the point of eradicating the previous setting, when people were able to ignore it all along? The setting people run at home is NOT the canon Realms - that's a fallacy. Even if you follow canon 100%, you are still running a Sliders-like alternate reality. The canon from the novels and sources only effects your games if you let it.
Why couldn't we just have both? Doesn't anyone realize how insane it is to try and create a setting that doesn't violate thousands of people's home-games? WHY did the canon have to suffer, so people can play a D&D game?
I just don't get it.
What I run in the future - whether I use the 5e rules or not - has no bearing on my FR fanboism (and never has). D&D and FR are two different things, in my mind. The only thing that will change my fan-status in 5e is what year the products are set in (which is what changed it in 4e). Nothing else matters - I can use any rules, in any setting, and still have a great time.
The Realms existed before D&D, and they will probably outlive D&D. To change the setting to conform to some sort of game goal is short-sighted, to say the least. D&D will eventually just be a footnote. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 25 Mar 2012 16:44:27 |
|
|
|
Laeknir
Seeker
68 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2012 : 18:15:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
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).
Not much of a drive?
I will NEVER accept or play in a Realms that includes the Spellplague and all of the associated 4E changes (time jump, murdered nations, Abeir, etc.).
Yes, I can play the Realms with the material I have. But keep in mind one thing: if the designers retain the 4E changes and spellplague as part of history, my Realms totally diverges from your future merchandise - for the first time in decades.
Were there things that I didn't like about late 1E, 2E, and 3E? Yes, definitely, and I didn't include those when I played. But THEMATICALLY the Realms I played in and the Realms for sale in supplements during 2E and 3E were still recognizable and enjoyable as the Realms.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that 4E's changes are similar enough to earlier changes that were made. Little "tweaks" and lore-fixes are not going to cut the mustard. If such things were possible, DMs could do those things themselves and this whole thing would not be the gigantic issue that it is. With 4E, the entire THEME and FEEL of the Realms was radically altered. Prior editions may have had big history-changing events, but the core nature of the Realms was still intact.
Think of it this way. As a DM (or a designer), if you can't make minor tweaks to the introduced 4E elements without radically changing the nature of the Realms, then those elements are extremely different than the changes that came before. As an example, I can pretend that the entire Time of Troubles never happened in my Realms. By doing that, do I radically alter the thematic feel of the Realms? No.
By comparison, if I totally get rid of JUST the Spellplague, it would undo almost all of the post-apocalyptic themes put onto 4E's plate. Why? Because Mystra would not be dead, many nations would still be around, the excessive destruction of lands, people, and the alteration of monsters would never have happened. Heck, even the planes and cosmology changes to create the Feywild and Shadowfel would not happen. Pull on one thread of the 4E changes, and you see that they're all tied together. That's why they ALL need to be undone and excised from the game. The changes were too radical, too divergent from the original theme and feel of the Realms.
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 00:02:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@LK: I have nothing against gamers that want to stay true to canon as much as possible. I generally am one of those gamers. I just want to get away from the impression that "strict-canon" is the ONLY way to go. "Loose-canon" should be just fine. (And doesn't that sound fun?)
Mostly, I want people to say "if I don't like an aspect of the canon, I'll ignore or revise it," rather than "if I don't like an aspect of the canon, I won't use the canon at all." See the distinction I'm making?
I want the Realms to be welcoming to players of all different playstyles.
-No, I do not. Not using something that is canon includes taking that and ignoring/revising it. Ignoring or revising it is still not using it as is. If a taco is defined as meat, vegetables, salsa, and bread prepared in a certain manner, I am still not eating a taco if I take those same ingredients decide to not eat them, or if I go ahead and turn them into a pizza. But that's a tangent, anyway- essentially, we're agreeing.
-And, echoing Markus, it's been like that from day one, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
Yes, I can play the Realms with the material I have. But keep in mind one thing: if the designers retain the 4E changes and spellplague as part of history, my Realms totally diverges from your future merchandise - for the first time in decades.
Were there things that I didn't like about late 1E, 2E, and 3E? Yes, definitely, and I didn't include those when I played. But THEMATICALLY the Realms I played in and the Realms for sale in supplements during 2E and 3E were still recognizable and enjoyable as the Realms.
-I would disagree, and say that it was the timeline of the setting being moved up that causes the problems, not the Spellplague itself. Like one can ignore the Time of Troubles, substitute things that changed there and still be able to use future products with relative enough ease, one can ignore the Spellplague and use theoretical future products with relative enough ease. At the pace that the timeline used to move, roughly one in-game year for every one-and-a-half to two real years, the Spellplague would have unfolded at a pace that was more easily digestible and modifiable, since everything wouldn't happen at the same time. The sudden jump of 104 years, along with the no-to-light detail approach of those interim years, is the most problematic. If the Time of Troubles had taken place, and then 100 years were fast forwarded with little-to-no detail, you'd be in more or less the same situation as you are now. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 26 Mar 2012 00:10:32 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 00:38:37
|
in 5e
I dont want the spell plague mentioned except in the recent events chapter and absolutely no where else.... and no more time jump.... fill in the 100 years on the harptos calendar.
I dont care if it was one of LM's clones becoming an exarch of Tempus. just fill in the years |
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 01:33:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
in 5e
I dont want the spell plague mentioned except in the recent events chapter and absolutely no where else.... and no more time jump.... fill in the 100 years on the harptos calendar.
I would imagine that such a format would be next to impossible to incorporate into the sources detailing the 5e Realms.
Considering how much the Spellplague has touched and changed, I don't think reducing it's significance to a mere footnote in history is the way to go. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 03:24:34
|
sure it is. A foot note is the best way to down play it. AS I said elsewhere at the begining of the rift. the only way to end the plague is to have a sitting deity of magic. Assume for a moment that Ed Greenwood is indead going to give us nice Mystra(after Mystryl and before Midnight fiasco) it ends the palgue and it isnt mentioned as to what it did to the realms other than a foot note in the recent events section. what is gone stays gone(ie LAntan) except for the areas like lurien(which only got ousted becuase the core halfling lore got shoehorned into the realms where they had their homeland destroyed and are now nomadic) and Halruua which could be rebuilt after the plagueland is cured....
it becomes a mere footnote just like the ToT.
otherwise it could be mentioned only briefly in each area if it affected it at all...
hmmm had a question for Brian....
goes off to Loremaster site |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
Edited by - sfdragon on 26 Mar 2012 03:26:27 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 05:25:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
sure it is. A foot note is the best way to down play it.
Play what down, exactly?
The Spellplague was one of the most significant RSE's ever to impact upon the Realms setting as a whole. There's really no "playing it down." It's more about "creatively massaging" the changes that came about as a result of the Spellplague, and moulding them into new ways which work with existing and prior lore.
We're unlikely to see the Spellplague retcon'd out of the FORGOTTEN REALMS setting. And reducing it to a footnote in the 'history' section of the supposed 5e campaign guide would simply serve to undermine everything the Realms has become since 2008.
As I see it, a fair more mature, and developed attitude, would be to work with what already exists, and find new ways to reconnect with what's come before. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 05:53:13
|
| by that mean dont type up spell plague on every page or make it seem like it is typed on every page.... |
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
498 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 06:37:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
When has that every been an issue, though?
By itself, it hasn't, or shouldn't have been. They could have used the Sellplague as a vehicle for 'required' change quite deftly, without all the ridiculous 'Points of Light' nonsense that came with a 100-year time jump. Some elements of the plague are actually rather interesting - and absolutely nothing about it required a yawning, lore-devoid century.
Keep the Sellplague, by all means. Wizbro just needs to fix all the other nonsensical things they did. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 16:10:21
|
| Many people don’t realize this, but the post-Spellplague Realms (after the 100 year time jump) are not POL. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
498 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 16:49:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Many people don’t realize this, but the post-Spellplague Realms (after the 100 year time jump) are not POL.
Officially, no, it is not, you are quite correct. They knew they would receive no end of grief if they took the hatchet to Cormyr, Waterdeep, Amn, Baldur's Gate, Candlekeep, and so on. The existence of large metropolitan areas does run counter to POL.
It is more a matter of 'bleed-over' (or in my opinion, bloodsplatter) in the design philosophy that they took to the Shattered Realms along with the hatchet. The intent is there, even if the official status is not. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2012 : 23:21:46
|
Thanks to people here, like Eric S Debrie, another designer that responded to me, and Diffan I started a 4e realms campaign. I decided if WOTC could have the good will to make effort to appease customers, I could give them my business again.
My campaign focuses on adventurers who for various reasons were frozen during the spellplague. Some were on other planes, some were caught "in amber" etc. They were high level characters to begin with so we started an already epic 4e stint at level 21. Their purpose now is too see if there is anyway to undue damage done. One is an archmage that cleans up spellplague through rituals but their first target is to free Damara from the despot and restore the Dragonsbane bloodline.
Goodstuff so far.
|
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 - 27 Mar 2012 : 00:14:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
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).
Not much of a drive?
I'm not sure you understood what I was saying, so I'll clarify:
I haven't seen much of a drive for "give us a 1480 Realms without the Spellplague." I've certainly seen people ask "give us the Realms without the Spellplague" or "give us 1385-1400 Realms without the Spellplague." But really, if you were offered the choice of "we'll reset the Realms to 1380 without the Spellplague" vs. "we'll create a brand new 1480 Realms as though the Spellplague never happened," which would you choose?
All I was saying (and I think several scribes, LK in particular, would agree with me) is that the TIMESKIP is more damaging to the Realms than the Spellplague. The Spellplague has just come to be seen by the fanbase as the figurehead of all the 4e changes. I really do not think the Spellplague itself was all that bad or difficult to deal with--the real stumbling block is that huge time lapse and not seeing how things changed the way they did.
quote:
I will NEVER accept or play in a Realms that includes the Spellplague and all of the associated 4E changes (time jump, murdered nations, Abeir, etc.).
Well, I'm really sorry to hear that, Laeknir. I hold out hope that good design and a cool, compelling story will tempt you to change your mind, but until that point, alas.
If you are interested in hearing some of my philosophy on this point, read on--otherwise, I hope you find what you're looking for, and happy gaming!
quote:
Yes, I can play the Realms with the material I have. But keep in mind one thing: if the designers retain the 4E changes and spellplague as part of history, my Realms totally diverges from your future merchandise - for the first time in decades.
If it really doesn't work for you and you don't have anywhere to fit it, then yes, it seems that's the case. Though I don't see any reason your game even needs to get nearly as far as 4e. It's separated by a vast buffer of time into which you can design anything you want. And as I said, I'm hoping that WotC's "future merchandise" (not MY merchandise, as I'm not an employee of WotC's--I just do occasional freelance work for them) includes stuff that occurs before, during, and after the Spellplague. The goal is that 65-75% of sourcebook material can be used for any particular game, even if you absolutely don't want to use the Spellplague (or, alternately, don't want to play with pre-SP stuff). At least 50% of the sourcebook should be timeless, and 15-25% more of it fits in your era of choice. You can, of course, shamelessly borrow things from other eras that you aren't using.
quote:
Were there things that I didn't like about late 1E, 2E, and 3E? Yes, definitely, and I didn't include those when I played. But THEMATICALLY the Realms I played in and the Realms for sale in supplements during 2E and 3E were still recognizable and enjoyable as the Realms.
Ah, now the THEMATIC content is a very good point. I fully support the THEME of the Realms remaining consistent with old school Realms. The feeling of adventure, of discovery, of heroism in the face of villainy, etc., that makes the Realms THE REALMS should never be lost. I think the Realms means a lot of things to a lot of people (and there are a number of us author/designer folks who have totally different views on what the Realms should be), but there is that core that should not change. And I think that the 4e FR experience has shaken the core a little, and that 5e FR should bring everything back.
quote:
Do not make the mistake of thinking that 4E's changes are similar enough to earlier changes that were made. Little "tweaks" and lore-fixes are not going to cut the mustard. If such things were possible, DMs could do those things themselves and this whole thing would not be the gigantic issue that it is. With 4E, the entire THEME and FEEL of the Realms was radically altered. Prior editions may have had big history-changing events, but the core nature of the Realms was still intact.
See, I don't think it's that drastic. I think the marketing campaign and the subsequent edition wars painted it as that drastic, but I don't think it is. I've run numerous FR campaigns both before and after the Spellplague, and I find both eras equally capable of capturing the same tone. Do I think things need to be done to bring the Realms back into focus? Yes. But I don't think they're nearly as drastic as you seem to suggest.
quote:
By comparison, if I totally get rid of JUST the Spellplague, it would undo almost all of the post-apocalyptic themes put onto 4E's plate. Why? Because Mystra would not be dead, many nations would still be around, the excessive destruction of lands, people, and the alteration of monsters would never have happened.
Well, that's not necessarily true. Mystra's "disappearance" (I'm not going to say death, as I don't believe Mystra IS dead) *caused* the Spellplague, not the other way around--or at least the two events happened in that order. Mystra could easily have died without causing the Spellplague and remain dead. And over a hundred years, a lot can happen in a magical realm. Any of the lands could have been destroyed. People and monsters would definitely evolve. Considering how many RSEs we've been getting since the beginning of 3e, I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at a lot of change.
quote:
Pull on one thread of the 4E changes, and you see that they're all tied together. That's why they ALL need to be undone and excised from the game. The changes were too radical, too divergent from the original theme and feel of the Realms.
I'm not sure they're all so closely tied, but if they are in your mind, then that makes your job easier. Just pull that thread, excise them from your Realms, and voila! You're good.
But ask yourself this: why do you have to break toys that other people are using, just because you don't enjoy them? There are people (I for one) who find the Spellplague a useful tool, and are interested in the stories posed in the 1480s era.
If you yourself have no interest in using the Spellplague or the post-Spellplague Realms, why is the solution that they have to be destroyed? Why can't you just ignore them?
For hypothetical-not-actual instance: let's say the Abolethic Sovereignty doesn't work for me. I want to run a game set in Waterdeep (way, way far away from the Sea of Fallen Stars). Does it make any sense for me to say "the Abolethic Sovereignty needs to die die die!" even though my game will have nothing whatsoever to do with them? What about my buddy Bruce's game, which uses the Abolethic Sovereignty extensively? Is WotC supposed to destroy it just to make me feel better, and thus lose Bruce as a customer?
Destroying one kid's toy to make another kid happy is a zero sum game--you just end up switching who is unhappy. The path forward here is to acknowledge that both kids get to play with what they want, and make the sandbox open for everyone.
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 - 27 Mar 2012 : 00:27:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
How wasn't it before?
The complete and utter inaccuracy (more like Hogwash!) that you had to read 100+ books to be familiar enough to run a game was pure BS... and yet they catered to those people.
MT, I appreciate that *YOU* see it that way, and *I* see it that way, but over the last fifteen years or so, the attitude seems to be creeping in that it's "all canon or nothing." That the only appropriate way to run a Realms game was to run it 100% to canon, and that the mark of a Realms fan was how much Realmslore he knew and used in his game. Maybe it's because so many books came out, and it's a natural consequence of having so much material. Maybe the fans changed. I don't know.
I will not say that the setting required you to use 100% canon, or that it cast the chosen as the Justice League, or ZOMG Drizzt or any of that. But it's silly to ignore the widespread PERCEPTION of the Realms as being slavishly addicted to canon where a DM was supposed to use all the plentiful information provided.
Ironically, my impression of the WotC design concept in 4e was that they tried to hit the "spirit" of the Realms without worrying so much about the canon. They were trying to get away from the idea that you were bound to the canon--in effect, trying to design exactly the sort of Realms experience MT is describing here. This isn't to say they succeeded, but they made an attempt, anyway.
(Also, this was all just a thought I had--it may or may not have anything to do with reality.)
quote:
So yes, I always ran the Realms very different then the canon one (mine's better! ), and I am sure many folks would have issue with many of the changes I made, but despite that, I was still able to use the canon - EVEN AFTER MOVING ENTIRE COUNTRIES AROUND - to run my games.
So, am I 'special' (there's a loaded question! ), or was it entirely possible to do this all along? I am a fan of the setting (novels & source), and I am also an FR DM (who chooses to ignore whatever he wants); I separate the two completely. I don't expect WotC to follow the changes I make - that would be silly.
No, you're not special (in that way)--you're just right. This is something that has been, is, and should always be entirely possible. And it should be ENCOURAGED.
I want 5e to step up and encourage Realms gamers, from the very outset, to make the setting their own. Find canon you don't like? Ignore or contradict it. Found a neat idea in a whole subset of canon you don't use (like post-SP)? Incorporate it wherever.
Gamers are, by and large, remarkably stubborn about this sort of thing, and not without good reason. WotC needs to offer guidance about incorporating and altering canon. And WotC (or whoever owns the IP at any given time and puts out sourcebooks, etc.) needs to step up and embrace the job of maintaining continuity and consistency with the sort of diligence Realms fans can rightfully expect.
quote:
D&D and FR are two different things, in my mind. The only thing that will change my fan-status in 5e is what year the products are set in (which is what changed it in 4e). Nothing else matters - I can use any rules, in any setting, and still have a great time.
Why does the year change it, out of curiosity?
quote:
The Realms existed before D&D, and they will probably outlive D&D. To change the setting to conform to some sort of game goal is short-sighted, to say the least. D&D will eventually just be a footnote.
This is how I look at it as well. Maybe the Realms will be divorced from D&D at some point, and if it is, I think it's still perfectly viable as a setting on its own.
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 - 27 Mar 2012 : 00:33:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
sure it is. A foot note is the best way to down play it.
Play what down, exactly?
The Spellplague was one of the most significant RSE's ever to impact upon the Realms setting as a whole. There's really no "playing it down." It's more about "creatively massaging" the changes that came about as a result of the Spellplague, and moulding them into new ways which work with existing and prior lore.
I don't know, Sage. While I definitely agree about molding the changes and integratingt hem with prior lore (that's what this whole thread is about, which I started!), I do think that the Spellplague can be "resolved," and doesn't really have to continue to have ripples through the setting for a long time to come. I hesitate to get into any specifics, as I'm pretty sure Ed's working on this in his Elminster series, and I'm excited to see what he does with it.
I don't think you guys disagree all that much, actually. I seem to think that you might both go for the concept of 5e "moving on" from being entirely focused on the Spellplague (which 4e was, at least in perception).
quote:
We're unlikely to see the Spellplague retcon'd out of the FORGOTTEN REALMS setting.
This I agree with. Fracturing the canon didn't work out for WotC before--it's only going to be worse if they try it again.
quote:
And reducing it to a footnote in the 'history' section of the supposed 5e campaign guide would simply serve to undermine everything the Realms has become since 2008.
Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced. I think a lot of the new and exciting things going on in the Realms have little to nothing to do with the Spellplague, and more to do with the evolution of the setting over time.
quote:
As I see it, a far more mature and developed attitude, would be to work with what already exists, and find new ways to reconnect with what's come before.
Total agreement!
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 01:31:28
|
I repeat.. in that post I did not say to erase it from lore, I siad to turn it into a footnote. it happened , it ended. that simple.
4e didnt need to go and focus on it and 5e would do well not to focus on it.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 02:14:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
I repeat.. in that post I did not say to erase it from lore, I siad to turn it into a footnote. it happened , it ended. that simple.
4e didnt need to go and focus on it and 5e would do well not to focus on it.
That's basically what I'm saying too. I think the Spellplague can be resolved in a satisfactory way, leaving the Realms free to move on. And if a DM wants to use it, he/she can go ahead and revive it, use an isolate patch of it, etc.
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" |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 02:45:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
sure it is. A foot note is the best way to down play it.
Play what down, exactly?
The Spellplague was one of the most significant RSE's ever to impact upon the Realms setting as a whole. There's really no "playing it down." It's more about "creatively massaging" the changes that came about as a result of the Spellplague, and moulding them into new ways which work with existing and prior lore.
I don't know, Sage. While I definitely agree about molding the changes and integratingt hem with prior lore (that's what this whole thread is about, which I started!), I do think that the Spellplague can be "resolved," and doesn't really have to continue to have ripples through the setting for a long time to come.
Oh, I don't necessarily assume that the ripples will continue. I just don't like the notion of reducing the acknowledgement of the Spellplague to a mere footnote. The Spellplague has shaped so much of the "modern" Realms, that reducing it's overall presence in the lore would, as I see it, be a disservice to those Lorelords who have managed to craft some pretty unique stuff with it.
quote:
I don't think you guys disagree all that much, actually. I seem to think that you might both go for the concept of 5e "moving on" from being entirely focused on the Spellplague (which 4e was, at least in perception).
Regardless of how I may personally feel about some elements of the Spellplague, I'd rather see it promoted whole cloth into 5e, than have sudden unexplained retcons pop up in the new material just for the sake of making sections of the fanbase happy. If they're explained, then that's fine. But don't ignore them for the sake of "Oh, that was a bad idea, so it never happened." I've never cared for those "explanations.
quote:
Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced. I think a lot of the new and exciting things going on in the Realms have little to nothing to do with the Spellplague, and more to do with the evolution of the setting over time.
Granted, that's true. But the setting-changes stance of the Spellplague brought a lot of new opportunities for shaping the lore in directions that it might not otherwise have been able to go.
But I do believe that a number of the current designers have faithfully tried to massage of great deal of what we would mostly consider "the old Realms" into the new Realms of the post-Spellplague, and all without having to connect it with that RSE. In fact, I see this convincingly portrayed in many of the 4e novels, your works included, which seek to promote fresh Realmslore without even the merest hint of the Spellplague. It's the natural evolution of a shared campaign setting.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 05:45:52
|
The problem (stated ad infinitum wasn't the SpellPlague) it was the time jump. "Undoing" the SpellPlage won't fix anything, because many of the characters brought to life in 1E-3E are still dead. We can't suddenly have Azoun IV back on the throne if the SpellPlague is undone. Vangerdahaast won't be wreaking his own brand of havoc on Cormyr if the SpellPlague is undone. The Seven Sisters won't suddenly all be back and whole if the SpellPlague is undone. (On this last point, I admit I'm a bit at a loss since they were supposedly immortal, or at least very-very-very-very-long lived)
The reason I believe the campaign was advanced from each edition to the next was that too many things couldn't happen in one year. If ALL of the novels ALL happened in one year, nobody would know what was happening anywhere, paradoxically. However, such a huge timeshift on the Realms made it, in addition to the change in magic and the pantheon, as unrecognizable. Bring back the pantheon, and it's still 100-years later. The Realms is a collections of things, and 4E "broke" too many. I could have handled the SpellPlague if at least I read about it happening in a book, Alusair was still the Steel Regent, Fifaeril was still alive, Vangey was still around, the Sisters were still cunning away, Blackstaff still ruled Waterdeep in the shadows with Piergeron on the throne... Drizzt and his companions kept developing with the Kingdom of Many Arrows next door... et cetera. Suddenly 4E comes along and Bob Salvatore has to write gracefully-expedited deaths for most of the characters I loved (even Cadderly and the non-Drizzt novel characters) and I no longer recognize anything as the Realms except a few geographic names. The way fans work, if 5E is time-agnostic and WoTC focuses on the time period around 3E, most fans will be happy... not all, but most. Then 6E, 7E, et cetera can advance the years by two or three at a time. By the time they get to the SpellPlague years, most of us will be dead, and nobody will remember what all the big fuss was about.
Oh, and Azuth would be a god again, so that would make me happy on a personal note. 
Azuth |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
Edited by - Azuth on 27 Mar 2012 23:32:55 |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 09:13:13
|
| Exactly. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 16:03:33
|
Great posts, Sage and Azuth! I'm on board with what you're saying.
Indeed, a great many of those changes aren't Spellplague-related, but timejump-related. I do think the goal of rejuvenating the Realms was a good and noble goal, but some of the changes just went too far in making it "new and different," which translated into "unrecognizable."
Let me be clear when I say that even though *I* see the 4e Realms as being a logical extension of the previous era, and I can easily reconcile or hand-waive any lore snaggles between the two setting eras, I am very much sympathetic toward the stance on the part of many fans that the Realms has been torn apart. I am not proposing casual acceptance--I think a great deal of re-stitching work needs to be done. But I think that re-stitching is possible, essential, and would make the setting a truly magical place for everyone.
Embracing the time-agnostic character of the setting moving forward, you would indeed have a write-up for all the gods featured in the Realms, from Akadi (primordial) to Waukeen (goddess), from Azuth to Mystra to Moander to Myrkul. If a god has been dead for three editions, you still need to have that god written up, because it's entirely possible that players/DMs will want to run an era where that god IS alive and kicking and/or will want to bring back a god they really like and want to see revived. With deities presented in this way, you should have no problem playing a post-Spellplague Realms where Mystra returns at more-or-less full strength and relies on the PCs to go around "sanctifying/reconsecrating" sites of Spellplague energy (tattered remnants of the Weave) to strengthen her. You can run a game where the PCs have to invade hell to rescue Azuth from the clutches of Asmodeus (I rather think that should be one of the first official adventures WotC releases!).
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" |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 16:18:35
|
Let's be honest. In a business sense, there really are only two options. Either a) WoTC admits they messed up and reverts the timeline back to some point in the past, or b) they double down on the 100 year time jump. The reality is that the offended customers are not coming back unless they get some sort of timeline reversion and that the current customers will get peeved if they go back (future customers are exempt, as they will play in whatever Realms is current at the time they purchase). So, this decision (assuming someone at WoTC has any business sense) comes down to how many customers did you lose with 4E.
In other words Eric, I simply do not think there is a way to rectify the "mistakes" made in 4E and make even most Realms fans happy. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8067 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 17:21:23
|
In computer programming there are always only two methods to write error-free code - and only the third method ever works.
From this I surmise that Wizbro has more than just two options or that the apparent dichotomy restricting their options is fundamentally incorrect. (Or that they'll kludge together a product line full of errors!) It might even turn out, from a "business sense" viewpoint, that like it or not, any revenue they've lost from dissatisfied customers has already been written off and is treated as only a minor consideration when balanced against the potential revenue generated by the still-satisfied masses.
I like to believe that Wizbro's brand management has loosened their shackles on WotC, and until WotC's new products demonstrate otherwise I'm willing to accept that their partipation in scrolls just like this one are a genuine effort to forge unified Realms canon which everybody can embrace, accept, or hopefully at least tolerate.
I've been following D&D 5E's development through sites like this and it seems like the basic design philosophy is to break D&D into a "checklist" of modular rulesets which the players and DM decide they will apply or discard as suits their individual tastes. I wouldn't be surprised if Realms canon was branched apart in a similar fashion with different events and story arcs being end-user configured (this might even be something of a requirement based on alternate selections in game rules). I expect that certain "Core Realms" canon must stay relatively constant unless WotC plans to divide all future sourcebooks and novels across "Parallel Realms" subsets. Note that we've already been given hints of "Heroic Realms", "Legendary Realms", etc ... only time will tell, and I'm willing to treat the WotC people as game designers and authors who love the game more than I'll treat them as evil faceless corporate capitalists after my money. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 27 Mar 2012 17:28:51 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 17:22:47
|
I don't know what "in a business sense" means, Apex, but no, I really don't see it as a choice between those two options.
I really think my third way--a compromise--is a legitimate course, and one that has been seeing traction in the form of the Neverwinter book, the Cormyr Royale article, and hopefully future design.
Resetting the timeline is NOT going to "lure customers back"--good design is the only possible thing that's going to do that. That's what Neverwinter did, and Neverwinter embraced the Spellplague as a thing that happened, whilst simultaneously treating the past lore with respect and affection.
And I think/hope the folks at WotC are sensitive to that distinction.
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" |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
498 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 19:56:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I don't know what "in a business sense" means, Apex, but no, I really don't see it as a choice between those two options.
I really think my third way--a compromise--is a legitimate course, and one that has been seeing traction in the form of the Neverwinter book, the Cormyr Royale article, and hopefully future design.
Resetting the timeline is NOT going to "lure customers back"--good design is the only possible thing that's going to do that. That's what Neverwinter did, and Neverwinter embraced the Spellplague as a thing that happened, whilst simultaneously treating the past lore with respect and affection.
And I think/hope the folks at WotC are sensitive to that distinction.
Cheers
To be fair, Erik, the main reason (IMHO) that the Neverwinter book is a glimmering jewel in a sea of muck, is that the Sellplague is mentioned here and there, but is not a driving force behind the theme of the book. That is the mentality that needs to be further encouraged. You and the other authors of that book 'get it'. A lot of the staff at Wizbro at the time of the release of the FRCG demonstrated that they most certainly did not.
While I agree that moving forward is possible, it will be how Wizbro moves forward that's going to make or break their success in the next edition. Setting the idea of retcons aside, Wizbro has a rather high bar to hurdle in proving that they 'get it' now, and the possibility (and I fear, the likelihood) is that they will fail to even begin to clean up and repair all the damage they did.
If you were in charge of it, I'd be optimistic. If Ed was in charge, I'd be optimistic. If the James Brothers were in charge, I'd be optimistic. If certain others were in charge, I'd be optimistic. But none of you are...so I hope you will understand that I am not optimistic. |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 20:41:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
If you were in charge of it, I'd be optimistic. If Ed was in charge, I'd be optimistic. If the James Brothers were in charge, I'd be optimistic. If certain others were in charge, I'd be optimistic. But none of you are...so I hope you will understand that I am not optimistic.
Clearly this is self-serving, but if you *truly* believe that freelancers like Ed, Erik and I are the best suited to bridge the editions and write a kick ass 5E Realms campaign guide, then please communicate this to Wizards of the Coast directly (though snail mail, email, twitter, or facebook). |
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
