| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 18:25:46
|
What secret? 
 
Of course, the code would contain a deeper level of code, since there would be several 'false' codes' leaked to evil groups. 
You also crush-up some sort of fairly common mineral into the ink - one that contains the very faintest of natural dweomers (in other words, it always registers on 'detect magic', which should drive everyone crazy).
Just had a funny thought: If you make the mineral Faerzress, then you can find disguised drow, just by watching for folks who lick the newspaper (playing on the whole silly 'Drow Nip' thing established in LP).
Brunnor: "Will you leave that stlarned paper alone, ya' addled-brained elf!"
Drizzt: "I can't... its soooooooo gooooooood!" {takes another lick}  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Apr 2012 17:10:22 |
 |
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 20:56:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
The best way I can think of to help alleviate some of that barrier is to create introductory Realms material for beginners to the world. Then, they'll be able to choose how much further they wish to expand their Realms to beyond the basic Realms supplement(s).
-This is already the case, vis-a-vis introductory stuff: The Forgotten Realms Campaign Set box in 1e, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting box in 2e, the [[/i]i]Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting in 3e. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 22:17:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The impression is out there that FR is too big for its britches. There is too much lore for new players and DMs who don't have time/energy for that kind of commitment.
If this is a valid issue, how do we address it?
It's absolutely a valid issue.
The best (first) way to deal with it is to remove the Forgotten Realms Logo from every sourcebook and minimize it on each novel.
For sourcebooks, remove the Realms logo all together. Instead have each place name stand out on the cover. By displaying the place name and not the setting name in this manner, you don't have what amounts to a warning label on the book shooing away potential customers.
For novels, let the author or book title stand out prominently and keep the Realms logo small and to the side so those of us who are used to looking for the logo can still find it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 17 Apr 2012 22:23:34 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 22:38:22
|
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm on board with minimizing or removing the Realms logo from the novels and sourcebooks. WotC did that with their 4e FR stuff, and that seemed to be a step in the wrong direction.
Making the logo less important than the title and author's name is a possibility, but I think the logo needs to be there for branding reasons.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 22:41:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
What secret?
Of course, the code would contain a deeper level of code, since there would be several 'false' codes' leaked to evil groups.
You also crush-up some sort of fairly common mineral into the ink - one that contains the very faintest of natural dweomers (in other words, it always registers on 'detect magic', which should drive everyone crazy).
Ah, Denier and Oghma represent at last!  |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 22:50:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm on board with minimizing or removing the Realms logo from the novels and sourcebooks. WotC did that with their 4e FR stuff, and that seemed to be a step in the wrong direction.
Making the logo less important than the title and author's name is a possibility, but I think the logo needs to be there for branding reasons.
Cheers
Agree and disagree, Erik: The logo should be front and center, because it's what I associate first with Realms lore. With the removal of the logo, I had to learn authors' names to have a chance at identifying the book as FR. Logo gets primary placement to me, with the title being neat on the spine, and up to the art designer for the cover. Author's name must be present on both the spine and the cover, but that's tertiary on the list of import to me as a reader.
My typical adventure into a bookstore goes as such:
1. Where's the damn SF/Fantasy section?
2. Where's the D&D section
3. Where's the FR section?
4. Search for title of book
5. Verify book is the correct one by author (if I know who it is).
I didn't know any of the authors in the "Ed Greenwood Presents Waterdeep" series prior to reading them. I ordered those online, though, because I was never sure which book was to be read in what order, only to find out they weren't a series in chronology.
Trust me, I know how nice it is to see your name on a book, but readers really don't care. Now, when it comes to things like the FRCG, I want to know who were the writers, editors, contributors, et cetera. I shall take great offense if your name isn't on the cover, along with Ed's, and the whole lot on the list. I am, as a consumer, unhappy when something as important as a major sourcebook is covered with names entirely with which I am unfamilar. And there better be one giant FR logo on that book, too.
Cheers,
Azuth |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 22:55:34
|
The problem here (and it kind of applies to the whole FR kit and kaboodle) is that we're talking about two audiences: 1) readers who are drawn to the book because of the story/cover/title/author (like normal consumers of fantasy), 2) readers who are drawn to the book because it's a REALMS book (Realms-specific fans). The question is, how do you appeal to BOTH sets?
For those who have no idea what the Realms are, the logo is probably of negligible effect, but for everyone who DOES know what they are, it's either going to be a draw (fans) or a stumbling block (for those who don't want to commit to it).
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2012 : 23:03:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
WotC did that with their 4e FR stuff, and that seemed to be a step in the wrong direction.
How do you mean?
I know there was some negative feedback re: the novels, but I'm curious to know how a lack of logo affected the FRCG and FRPG (which spelled out the Realms but had no logo) and NWCS (which had no logo or mention of the Realms on the cover).
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Making the logo less important than the title and author's name is a possibility, but I think the logo needs to be there for branding reasons.
That's just it: the brand is the problem.
I'm willing to concede that it's been some time since 4E was first released and WotC in effect fired its Realms fanbase. The Realms have languished in terms of sourcebooks up to now, but I'm not so sure this is the time to put the Realms logo back on the cover, front and center on each new sourcebook.
EDIT: regarding your most recent post, I think group #1 far outnumbers group #2. I know we want to see the Realms grow, but I think to do that you follow the money.
To do that, put a cool name (one not used too often in prior Realms products) on the cover of a sourcebook over some killer artwork (as the NWCG had), absent a Realms logo (or with a very small logo) and you're good to go. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 17 Apr 2012 23:08:47 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2012 : 00:10:40
|
The FR logo should be noticable on the book's cover.
and right under it should be the books title if its a sourcebook
and if its a reading book, the logo should be on one ofthe corners of the front corner again it must be noticable.
the author's name on the novel should always be at the botom of the front cover and on one of the first pages
the authors names of a sourcebook, should be inside the the book on one of the first few pages IF and only IF its more than three contributors and if its three or less, it should be under the title....
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2012 : 01:49:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The problem here (and it kind of applies to the whole FR kit and kaboodle) is that we're talking about two audiences: 1) readers who are drawn to the book because of the story/cover/title/author (like normal consumers of fantasy), 2) readers who are drawn to the book because it's a REALMS book (Realms-specific fans). The question is, how do you appeal to BOTH sets?
For those who have no idea what the Realms are, the logo is probably of negligible effect, but for everyone who DOES know what they are, it's either going to be a draw (fans) or a stumbling block (for those who don't want to commit to it).
Cheers
I would posit that, in the digital era, most people aren't going to peruse covers. But, on the offhand that they are curmudgeons, like me, they look at the spines of books arranged on shelves. When I hit up any bookstore, even a half-price books, I recognize the section I'm seeking by the spine (and logos thereon) than the cover. And on the spine, I liked the FR logo much more than the D&D logo. No logo at all would make it very difficult given Wizard's lack of a standard typeface on the spines. Just my two copper's worth.
Azuth
Cheers, |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2012 : 01:57:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
For those who have no idea what the Realms are, the logo is probably of negligible effect, but for everyone who DOES know what they are, it's either going to be a draw (fans) or a stumbling block (for those who don't want to commit to it).
-The presence, or lack of a logo is going is negligible to things. If someone is going to buy a novel or sourcebook because whatever in it appeals to them- the cover art, the author, the blurb on the back page, the content-, they're going to buy it with or without a logo. If someone is not going to buy a novel or sourcebook because whatever in it disgusts them- again, the cover art, the author, the blurb on the back page, the content-, they're not going to buy it with or without a logo. This is especially true in the case of the group that has familiarity with WotC settings. Is the avowed "Forgotten Realms hater" going to suddenly buy a Forgotten Realms novel/sourcebook because the product does or does not have a Forgotten Realms logo? Of course not.
-In terms of a logo granting accessibility to the setting, this too is negligible. The presence or lack of a logo isn't going to prevent people who liked any one novel from being able to find other Forgotten Realms novels. I've never been to a bookstore that didn't group Forgotten Realms novels together in the 'Fantasy' section. The presence or lack of a logo isn't going to prevent people from knowing they're reading Forgotten Realms fiction. If they aren't aware immediately, there are plenty of indicators- older books and newer books- that say the book is a Forgotten Realms book, from context clues in the stories themselves, to basic marketing in the books that blatantly state "Forgotten Realms" in a bunch of places. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4496 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2012 : 05:23:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A question for the group:
The impression is out there that FR is too big for its britches. There is too much lore for new players and DMs who don't have time/energy for that kind of commitment.
If this is a valid issue, how do we address it?
If not, how do we negate the perception of a stumbling block?
For Players and DMs? No, I've never had a problem with the amount of lore that effects how or where I want to run a campaign. As a DM, specifically, I've run pretty much exclusively Forgotten Realms and never ventured out of the 3E/4E books for info even though I know that most of the Lore of FR is in 2E and earlier. Mainly because I get enough to sustain what I want to accomplish while giving myself room to work and Canon be damned. But I read the FRCS and I saw the part where it specifically tells you that it's OK to change what you don't like and encourages you to do so.
As a player, it's even less of an issue. I usually grab what I need out of the Player's Guide (3E and 4E) and Races of Faerûn (for both 3E and 4E) and usually think of some theme or 'style' I'd like to play and go with that. I'm not overly concerned with the specifics of an area my character might never have been too, even though I personally know a River doesn't run through "X" town or that there definitly isn't a temple to the Red Knight here or yadda-yadda. To me, those are inconsequential things that shouldn't be road-blocks in the game, but things to enhance the game.
Now, if we're talking about actually publishing Realms material, yea I can see that being a big issue. Lets take the article where the writer who was complaining (tongue in cheek) about the C.S.I-style Waterdeep article he wanted to write and then having to wade through pages upon pages and articles and lore and Who knows what else to make sure he didn't miss something pivotal. It appeard he became pretty flustered with that amount of lore and the expectation he felt in 'Getting it right'. On one hand, I can easily see his point because writing in a shared setting is hard when you have to factor in so many aspects and topics and lore that might have come before, not just novels but game supplement of the past 25 years. Personally, I'd never put myself through that primarily because I don't have any lore pre-3E. So he either has to wade through stuff that might not even be relevant to his article/novel/supplement or pick a new time or even a new city. Personally, I would've gone with the latter because Waterdeep is a bit.....over-done already. I'd like to see one on Iriaebor because it's a cool city that gets absoutley ZERO love.
But on the other hand, if he's getting paid to write articles, well that's sort of the price you pay for doing this setting. Also, with the advent of 4E, how much of that 2E and 3E material really important that carries over for a century? How much work did you put into looking up info for Waterdeep in your novel Downshadow Erik? Was it as much or as bad as that guy claims or did the 100 year gap make things easier to put stuff in yourself? I really have no idea, but running Post-Spellplague Realms is much easier in leveling the playing field for people who know a CRAP-TON of infomation and people who are pretty vague about the setting. So in a way, I can see the ease in which a less detailed setting can make on players new to the game and keep them up to speed with veterans of the setting. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2012 : 13:42:11
|
quote:
So in a way, I can see the ease in which a less detailed setting can make on players new to the game and keep them up to speed with veterans of the setting.
Which is why WoTC should stick to their vision of a less detailed/more accessible Shattered Realms and stop publishing lore for it (as more lore will just recreate the huge problem they had with the 1300's Realms). This is a great argument for a push back towards filling in Realms history prior to the Spellplague with increased publishing for those previous eras. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2012 : 16:09:24
|
@Diffan: Yeah, I read that article too, and yeah, he was definitely approaching it from a humor perspective. And while I enjoyed reading it, I don't think that piece was necessarily very helpful for WotC to publish regarding this issue. Humor is SO EASILY misinterpreted, and I guarantee you that for as many people like you or me that chuckles at his tongue-in-cheek humor, just as many if not more newcomers to the Realms read that and go "Yep! That's what I thought. Not doing Realms."
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But on the other hand, if he's getting paid to write articles, well that's sort of the price you pay for doing this setting. Also, with the advent of 4E, how much of that 2E and 3E material really important that carries over for a century? How much work did you put into looking up info for Waterdeep in your novel Downshadow Erik? Was it as much or as bad as that guy claims or did the 100 year gap make things easier to put stuff in yourself?
Oh sure, there was a lot of research involved, into all prior editions (my virtual map of the city is mostly 3e, and there are all kinds of pre-4e references that crop up*), but a lot of that just comes from playing in and consuming the Realms on a regular basis. Coming to it clean and new with little-to-no prior exposure to design an article? Yeah, that's a lot of work. But to an extent, hey, that's the job. If you don't want to do the work, don't write a Realms article.
(*In writing City of the Dead, Rosemary actually has a character who carries around a Volo's Guide to Waterdeep, which is outdated and inaccurate and points out actual inconsistencies between that book and subsequently released sourcebooks.)
quote:
I really have no idea, but running Post-Spellplague Realms is much easier in leveling the playing field for people who know a CRAP-TON of infomation and people who are pretty vague about the setting. So in a way, I can see the ease in which a less detailed setting can make on players new to the game and keep them up to speed with veterans of the setting.
(My point here addresses what Apex is saying a little as well.) I suspect that's a little bit of a false sense of security. Yes, 4e is separated from a lot of pre-Spellplague lore, but from a design/authorial perspective, running rough-shod through the setting without doing the research yields bad products. My books are heavily steeped in pre-4e lore, even if those people and events are long past.
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 - 18 Apr 2012 : 17:48:53
|
Not in the mood to quote anyone (and everyone).
While the 'fanboi' in me bristles at the idea of a logo-less FR in 5e, the businessman (and RPG aficionado) reluctantly agrees with the approach. You'll note in my 'Wishlist' thread I used catchy titles, rather then anything overly Realms-specific for that very reason. If "The Forgotten Realms" has become a turn-off to some folks - for whatever reason - then the logical thing to do is to change the branding; its just good business.
And saying that made me nauseous... but its true. 
This follows my own thoughts on the toy-line - call the figures and 'battle sets' Heroscape, and put the 'D&D compatible' stuff somewhere unobtrusive, like inside the packaging. That brings a major part of the game (for many of us) into the mainstream, targets younger kids, removes any past resistance to 'all things D&D', AND separates the minis from the RPG, which is important because many folks do not use them. The connection can be made in the D&D rulebooks - players will know of it, and that's all that matters.
They are merely taking it a step further by separating the game material from any sort of setting. I don't think this is quite the same as separating the crunch from the lore, however... in fact, it almost seems contradictory.
If they want the setting material to be rules-neutral, then why would they emphasize the fact that its D&D at all? I think that may come back and bite them in the arse. Think about it - my approach is to re-name the mini-line to remove the perceived necessities (that you need the rules to buy minis, or that you need minis to play the game). They are purposely attaching a perceived necessity to a product-line, which may chase-off a lot of potential buyers (comic & novel readers, VG fans, etc).
Shouldn't the logical carry-through be to remove 'D&D' from the setting altogether? Slapping that logo on everything will just be one more reason non-D&Ders will avoid the stuff, which defeats the entire purpose of making the setting rules-free. I understand their true goal is to make the setting edition-free, NOT rules-free, but I think they are hamstringing their products right out of the gate with that one. You alienate a very large portion (more then 50% these days) of the RPG customer-base by slapping the rules logo on the cover.
Dungeons & Dragons for the game
Forgotten Realms for the setting*
Heroscape for the minis
I think the current crop of designers are more focused on D&D then FR, which is what caused the 4e fiasco in the first place. Play to your strengths, don't try to turn your weaknesses into strengths - that's a longshot. FR as an IP has more room to grow, but D&D itself has a LOT of baggage attached to it - it is 'the weakest link'. They may be backing the wrong horse, here. So while I totally understand where they are coming from, and agree it is one solution, and I do not think it is the best solution, and may actually have the exact opposite effect (a tighter product-focus means a smaller potential customer-base).
Think about it - if some big movie-company wanted to do a Drizzt (or some other FR) movie, would they really want to attach the gawd-awful D&D movie-brand to the thing? They'd run from it as fast as they could - you have to take into account that 'D&D' has more bad associated with it then good, as far as the majority of the world is concerned. You want to grow the IP, you HAVE TO take THAT into consideration. About 15 years ago, I was using my company's copier to make some character-sheets, and another employee asked me what I was doing. When I told him, he look at me funny and said, "isn't that the game where kids go nuts and start killing people for real?"
THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SHACKLING YOURSELVES TO - think about that.
All IMHO, of course.
P.S. - If they do this with the novel-line as well, I can almost guarantee it will fail. I know a 'Drizzt fanboi' (my niece's boyfriend) who buys everything with the FR logo on it, but has never purchased anything with a D&D logo on it (and has told me he never will - he has no interest in playing the game). If they want to try this experiment going into 5e, fine, but limit it to the game-products; don't shoot yourselves in the foot.
*If they follow my "Forgotten Realms as a meta-setting" approach - making everything part of 'greater FR' - then emphasizing the logo is the way to go. Turn 'FR' into a generic fantasy tableu, that would include other planes and worlds. Then a Krynn or Oerth sourcebook just become extensions of the setting, because Toril becomes a 'cosmic crossroads' of sorts. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Apr 2012 17:13:58 |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 02:51:43
|
I like the 3 eras approach, and do think a "4th Era" is necessary for that 100 year gap.
Now, here you're talking about covering the same old region we've seen covered a million times. Cormyr's been done to death, for example. I know it's not company policy to make players resort to older edition material for the lore they need, but you're essentially, once again, reprinting the same thing most Realms fans by now have access to. Which increases the waiting period for covering areas that long should be covered.
I think covering places never covered before or deserve to be covered in ALL ERAS of play should be addressed (e.g. Mulhorand, Unther, High Ice, Hordelands, Bloodstone Lands, Sossal, Kara-Tur, Zhakara, Anchorome, Osse, Katashaka, and, yes, Maztica!).
And coverage should be at a much more frequent rate. I miss the 2E days when FR Realmslore thrived. Can we ever go back to THAT!?
I don't have much input beyond that. It's pretty much what is desired with the Realms. Give us a big chunk of each region to work with in each chunk of era. Personally, such a feat would take 3 huge books for each "era", but I know WotC won't ever go that route. Despite the huge selling point it'll have.
WotC's design choices do not really mesh with what the customers want. I really can't have much faith in how the Realms is going to be presented in 5E. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4496 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 04:21:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
So in a way, I can see the ease in which a less detailed setting can make on players new to the game and keep them up to speed with veterans of the setting.
Which is why WoTC should stick to their vision of a less detailed/more accessible Shattered Realms and stop publishing lore for it (as more lore will just recreate the huge problem they had with the 1300's Realms). This is a great argument for a push back towards filling in Realms history prior to the Spellplague with increased publishing for those previous eras.
That's not entirely what I had meant. There's some good behind that approach, but I don't think it is an all-or-nothing situation. When someone starts up a campaign setting in the Forgotten Realms, the first two things they're probably going to figure out is Place and Time. These two choices normally adjust the range of how much lore you'll need and/or want. Because of this, there will be a 'starting' point to focus on. So if I wanted to start a campaign in 1444 DR, a post-Spellplague time in the Moonsea region, I won't feel the need to delve into the multitude of novels set there in pre-1400 Realms. Nor would I be required to delve into the Mysteries of the Moonsea supplement OR any pre-4E Dragon/Dungeon articles made about the region. That doesn't mean any current lore would be useless or lore about what might happen in the future (because certain people I like screwing with future-canon events) can't be the effect of what my campaign caused.
People really need to understand that Lore is good, but they shouldn't be beholden to use it as a requirment for the setting. And even if I enjoy a little less delve into aspects I care nothing about, there are countless others who do and the setting should reflect that too. This means putting lore out there for a post-Spellplague Realms, a pre-Time of Troubles Realms, a post-Return of Shade Realms, a pre-Karsus Folly Realms, and even Crown-War era Realms.
That's the Realms I think we need. We need more details about everything, past-present-future Realms and let the group/DM decide where to start it, not someone in an office in Seattle. So hopefully we won't get an "Offiical D&D:Next/5E Realms date" like we've always got because some great stories haven't been written yet. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6689 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 05:55:11
|
It all comes down to what business model WotC will come up with to showcase their various campaign worlds. The 4E model was basically 3 books, with the Realms getting an extra one way after, and seemingly more on the way.
The recent announcement of more FR products I take as an implied admission on the part of WotC that they got that model wrong. My view is that they got it very wrong. I think (based on no empirical evidence whatsoever and more than a truckload of possibly way-off-base presumptions) that D&D has moved on from a group getting together and just rolling up some characters and drawing maps on graph paper. Computers and online gaming have exposed people to a multiplicity of worlds which are all detailed and ready to go. In my view that's what most gamers expect from their roleplaying game of choice. Homebrew campaigns are thinner on the ground but I guess that they borrow more than they create whole cloth. We all dream of being Ed Greenwood, but 99.9% of us know in our heart of hearts that we aren't ever going to match him in the world-building stakes.
The 4E model of concentrate on the core and keep everything generic wasn't the way to go IMO. They should have concentrated on the flagships - FR and Eberron with a few journeys into DL, GH and DS - and given the people a place to play. A place where they wanted to play. Then they could have done sneaky things. Like make multiple mentions of spells, powers, magic items etc. found in the core-add on products (like Adventurer's Vault etc.) in the campaign specific product while giving them vanilla, basic core substitutes.
It could have gone something like this: "The Ring of Krash" can be found in the sourcebook Adventurer's Vault, p.666. If you do not have access to this product you can substitute a "Ring of Nowhere Near as Interesting as the Ring of Krash" found in the DMG at p.1.
Allied to this, WotC should have had a planned, substantial, ongoing DDI article line-up which would have done exactly the same thing - except it would go both ways referring to material in both the core add-on products and the campaign specific products. Oh, and you could mix up gameworlds too. How about a Raumathar article using warforged which gives them the bare, basic treatment and points you to the Eberron sourcebook that gives you the big, interesting total treatment. It just might pique your interest to grab that book or even a few books if Eberron sinks its hooks into you.
People want a story. Roleplaying, not rollplaying. The focus should be on the Forgotten Realms and it should be in big, fat 24 font. Write good products, have enough stuff in there that even a non-fan of the setting can hijack and use for their homebrew and you are onto a winner. There's a reason the 3E FRCS sold like hotcakes. It had a somewhat broader appeal than a straight campaign setting book and had much that could be stolen for use elsewhere. Make it utilitarian, but make it the Realms first.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6689 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 06:00:05
|
And in relation to how we deal with the lorestone of Atlas that lies astride the campaign setting ...
I think the answer is very simple. Everyone who buys the 5E FR campaign setting book has an option to pay an extra bit of cash - not much, say $20. They do that, and they get a CD with all the 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E FR products in PDF.
If Battlefront Miniatures in New Zealand can release a new edition of Flames of War and provide a free, substantial A5 complete 3E rulebook to all people who bought the 2E rulebook, then I don't think my suggestion is beyond the powers of the monolith that is HASBRO/WotC. Their IP lies dead in a forgotten crypt. Use it.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 17:11:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Now, here you're talking about covering the same old region we've seen covered a million times. Cormyr's been done to death, for example. I know it's not company policy to make players resort to older edition material for the lore they need, but you're essentially, once again, reprinting the same thing most Realms fans by now have access to. Which increases the waiting period for covering areas that long should be covered.
How has Cormyr been "done to death" exactly? It had one small sourcebook (64 pages) way back in 2e, part of a mega adventure in 3e (Tearing of the Weave), and a recent DDI month (3 articles or so). I wouldn't equate that with "done to death."
That said, I do sympathize with your point. WotC should never be in the business of simply rehashing what has already been released. A Cormyr sourcebook should be substantially different/updated/improved from its previous incarnation--heck, I rather think it should INCLUDE the older version as well, or at least have it be a companion PDF as Krash suggests.
As for covering all the places that get less play, we get into a problem here with iconic vs. obscure. WotC tried to cover some less iconic locales in the 3e era, such as the Shining South, but those books didn't move all that well.
Personally, I think the 5e campaign sourcebook schedule should look a little something like this:
Baldur's Gate
Cormyr
Abeir: The Lost World (including Maztica, etc)
The Savage North
Thay and Aglarond
etc.
quote:
I think covering places never covered before or deserve to be covered in ALL ERAS of play should be addressed (e.g. Mulhorand, Unther, High Ice, Hordelands, Bloodstone Lands, Sossal, Kara-Tur, Zhakara, Anchorome, Osse, Katashaka, and, yes, Maztica!).
I do think that all those places you mention, Razz, should get some treatment, but those can be backdrop DDI articles, not print products. (Though a print on demand option should be in place for people who want paper copies.)
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 - 19 Apr 2012 : 17:52:33
|
First, I want to agree with Erik above, but only on principle. Cormyr still has tons of room to grow - people forget about 'depth' (and I'm not talking about the Underdark).
In my homebrew material, I have created at least one 'border kingdom' in Cormyr's past, and some of that lore effects current Cormyr (after that realm became absorbed), and I also assume a dozen or so more (we know of at least 3 (canon) independent 'citystates' in Cormyrian history).
Ergo, while I have plunked-down a rather major addition to Cormyr, it doesn't effect any of the canon presented thus-far (and if anything, supports it, and even adds a layer of intrigue to it).
I say 'support Erik on principle' simply because I have to agree that I don't want to see more Cormyr... for awhile. Bad-enough we are being force-fed yet more drow crap. I like Cormyr, and I even like Drow, but they are really milking them dry at this point.
My mother likes to tell a story about when she first married my dad. She asked him what he liked to eat, and he said "meatloaf". So every day for a month after they were married, she fed him meatloaf. I asked my mom "Doesn't dad HATE meatloaf?" She said "he does now". And until his dying day, I NEVER saw him eat meatloaf (and I make a mean meatloaf!)
Don't turn the Drow and Comyr into Meatloaf.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now for a question, @ Erik and George (and other published/official 'types' who care to chime-in) - have any of you considere my idea of a 'greater Forgotten Realms' meta-setting? I was hoping to hear some feedback, or pro's and con's.
The idea is that FR becomes a meta-setting concept, which would be based around Faerûn as a hub, and then work its way outward from there to the rest of Toril, and into the planes and beyond (eventually to other worlds even). Ergo, all of these places become part of 'The Forgotten Realms' - places that we of Earth only have in our myths, legends, and racial memories. With this concept, even 3rd-party settings become part of 'greater FR'.
It would work similar to how originally the planes were all part of the Greyhawk setting (the default cosmology of The Wheel), but then later split-off into its own setting, and even became the default cosmology for nearly all other settings. The actual Wheel, or tree, etc... doesn't matter at all. The planes remain the same (but not necessarily constant), and the local cosmology just becomes the accepted 'road-map' (and since belief shapes reality, the planer structure would operate on that basis for folks from that world).
What this does is defuse the "FR is too complicated" argument by saying it is really a multiverse, and the realms you play in may not be the same world Drizzt adventures in, or anyone else for that matter. It also allows players to use whatever they want, from any source they want, without having to adapt anything. You want to run a Tinker Gnome in Faerûn? Fine - you just say he is from krynn. You want to play a warfordged? great - he just arrived from Eberron. Whatever you want - it all becomes available.
And the pure beauty of it is, FR can remain distinct and intact (in canon), and still be the "everything but the kitchen sink" setting TSR and WotC try so hard to turn it into. Let the players and DMs decide how heavy the connections are. Portals can be as frequent as subway stations in NY, or there could be an ocean-liner like airship service that brings people to other worlds and planes... or not. You create those tools (as part of the greater meta-setting), but don't make them FR canon. Those will alow DMs to pick-and-chose everything - a true sandbox, but with 'filters' to keep out all the garbage (ie, stuff we don't care for).
And the funny thing is, they wouldn't be doing anything new to the setting at all - it's already set-up perfectly for this. We've had our Kender and Newhon ghouls in FR! The Eminence of Araunt is adding to the Road of Stars and Shadows exponentially (we see Khelben using part of the existing network - through elven Tombs - in Blackstaff). Add to this Spelljamming, Shadow & Planes-walking, Magical Chaos and terrain-shifting brought on by the Spellplague, and other weirdness (like demiplanes reaching-in and moving folks around), and we've really taken Ed's original concept of "Forgotten Realms" to a level undreamt of. This isn't a change - its a logical evolution of what the setting is, and how Ed designed it.
The Forgotten Realms should encompass ALL of D&D - NOT the other way around. Give it wings, and watch it soar. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Apr 2012 18:00:03 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 18:29:35
|
FR doesn't have to be the hub of everything D&D to allow for a kender or warforged to pop up. With planar travel (like with Emilo Haversack) or Spelljammer, any race from just about any D&D world can be used in a Realms campaign. And there are plenty of ways to make homegrown warforged. Or you could tweak the racial backstories and use Eber-whatsit's changelings and shifters quite readily.
FR already has portals leading to a lot of places, even Nehwon. Why complicate things by thrusting this to the forefront and rewriting the setting as being at the center of everything? |
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! |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 19:56:15
|
I like the idea, MT, but I don't think this necessarily needs to be written in as "this is the way things are." Basically, this is one DDI article saying "think of the FR as a hub of the multiverse." I have already played in several games where this has been a theme, and to an extent, EVERY game of the Realms is played with this being the case, because basically every campaign is a different Realms.
I don't think the Realms should be *the* center of everything. The most recognizable part of this particular constellation of dimensions, perhaps, but not the hub. (Our Earth should be the hub.)
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 - 19 Apr 2012 : 20:12:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
FR already has portals leading to a lot of places, even Nehwon. Why complicate things by thrusting this to the forefront and rewriting the setting as being at the center of everything?
Not necessarily the center, unless a DM wanted to use it that way.
More like a hub, which it always has been, which is why I am saying this isn't a change at all - its merely emphasizing a major facet the Realms had all along.
Folks can still use other planets as their 'hub', if they prefer. I am talking about a naming convention here, not a world. Toril would become just a major world (with multiple settings) of 'The Forgotten Realms'.
And to be quite frank, I have to admit this idea evolved out of one the more clever things I think WotC did with 4e - the ability to create 'use anywhere' modules, that were canon to all worlds. They mostly did this with the shadowfel (not sure if they bothered doing it with the Feywild), but the possibilities were endless.
In other words, even if your group is based in Shadowdale, why can't they use a module set in Xendrik (Eberron), or fight some Draconians (who they would misake for Dragonborn) on Krynn? Ed's portal-network made it possible for him to move his PCs anywhere he wanted to, quickly and easily, which was brilliant. This is just an extension of that. DMs can still adapt things if they want (like placing an Oerth dungeon in Faerun), but they don't have to. Especially with transitive planes like the Shadowfel and Feywild being moved to the forefront (probably because most translocative magic no longer functions).
You could even take this a step further (moving closer to my 'echoes of the one world' theory), and say that every plane is an echo of the prime (or the other way around?) That means that their would be an 'echo' of every locale in every major plane, like the heavens & hells, and the elemental planes, etc. You step into a cave-mouth in Turmish and come-out the other end in Baator, or Mechanus. Then they could set most of the adventure-modules in the planes (the Outlands are perfect for generic adventures), and they can be accessed from any setting. ONE setting, multiple worlds.
Ergo, if you pick up the Krynn Forgotten Realms setting-guide, and were running a game from there, you'd still be able to use all the same resources. This is why I wanted all the regional splats to work like independent campaign settings (so the world they were set on wouldn't matter nearly as much). This 'use anywhere' approach would really only matter with the adventures, and I could totally see them wanting to do that (not waste resources creating modules for different settings, that can only be used by people playing those settings). As for the sourcebooks - they would remain regional, and world(or plane)-specific.
My way may seem strange, but the alternative is to remove Forgotten Realms from everything, which would be terrible. To me, that is just moving further along the same exact path they went in 4e; they may be singing a different song, but it sure sounds like the same tune to me. They are once-again catering to FR's detractors, and that didn't work for them before, so I don't know why they think it will work now. I feel like I'm listening to politicians making the same old campaign promises... and getting the same raw deal every four years.
If we are faced with the choice of 'nothing is FR', and 'everything is FR', I choose the latter. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Apr 2012 20:22:21 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 20:31:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I don't think the Realms should be *the* center of everything.
Agreed, in the sense that 2E made the Realms into something very much like this, which diluted the setting IMO.
I like the idea of encouraging DMs to mix and match from other settings—and I think something to this effect should be in the 5E Realms campaign guide—because it fits the Realms backstory, it promotes creativity and it opens up the potential for there to be more satisfied players (isn’t it always the case that there will be at least one player per game asking the DM if they can incorporate something from a non-Realms source?).
It’s just that you have to be careful with the wording, otherwise readers form the impression the Realms are part of something more when the Realms should be about the Realms first and always. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 19 Apr 2012 20:32:11 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3768 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 21:14:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
First, I want to agree with Erik above, but only on principle. Cormyr still has tons of room to grow - people forget about 'depth' (and I'm not talking about the Underdark).
-Depth then prompts the "There's too much to look up!" griping.
-Cormyr has tons written about it, from sourcebooks, novels (especially novels, it seems), Ed Greenwood stuff, and other random sources of information. It, along with Waterdeep and Menzoberranzan probably are the most covered/set locales. If the idea is to say to potential new buyers who are/were scared off by the general depth of the Forgotten Realms as a whole, those places aren't the best to highlight and explore (at least initially). Menzoberranzan gets an asterisk, I guess, because of the fanboyism associated with Drow, and the fact that Menzoberranzan is like THE Drow city (in perception, not in-game). |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 19 Apr 2012 21:18:19 |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 21:24:19
|
Depth? Ha! Talk about overly highlighted! I've had more than enough Cormyr stuff to last a lifetime. Time to explore other realms---the overly under-developed. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 21:57:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
Menzoberranzan gets an asterisk, I guess, because of the fanboyism associated with Drow, and the fact that Menzoberranzan is like THE Drow city (in perception, not in-game).
I believe that the FRCG actually did make Menzoberranzan the most important drow city, even though prior lore said it was in the middle in terms of both importance and size. |
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 - 19 Apr 2012 : 22:19:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
Menzoberranzan gets an asterisk, I guess, because of the fanboyism associated with Drow, and the fact that Menzoberranzan is like THE Drow city (in perception, not in-game).
I believe that the FRCG actually did make Menzoberranzan the most important drow city, even though prior lore said it was in the middle in terms of both importance and size.
-Eh. Well, either way, there are bigger/more religious/whatever cities, so I guess it's subjective depending on whatever criteria we're talking about. But, to TSR/WotC, anyway, it's always been the most important for their PoV. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2012 : 23:08:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
Menzoberranzan gets an asterisk, I guess, because of the fanboyism associated with Drow, and the fact that Menzoberranzan is like THE Drow city (in perception, not in-game).
I believe that the FRCG actually did make Menzoberranzan the most important drow city, even though prior lore said it was in the middle in terms of both importance and size.
-Eh. Well, either way, there are bigger/more religious/whatever cities, so I guess it's subjective depending on whatever criteria we're talking about. But, to TSR/WotC, anyway, it's always been the most important for their PoV.
True. This was not a move I welcomed. |
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! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
