| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
 Posted - 30 May 2013 : 03:07:55
|
Yeah, I'm a fan of the setting and I liked reading about Zhentil Keep, Halruaa, Lantan, etc, even if for whatever reason I didn't end up playing in those areas. Lore for vibrant cities and nations is certainly more interesting than lore for a crater or a patch of ocean. It's certainly easier to take stuff out or ignore it then it is to add it back in.
And on a general world note, places like Halruaa and Lantan gave the Realms more character and helped make it what it was. Likewise, so too was Zhentil Keep a solid part of the Realms. They also made for great bad guys, and eliminating them only took away from the setting and playable choices, rather than adding to it. IMO, building settings by subtraction isn't the way to go. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
 |
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 03:35:54
|
| I submit you win lol |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 05:23:21
|
| We're leaning back towards edition-bashing, with this discussion. I really don't want to read yet another discussion about the merits, or lack thereof, of any particular edition. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 06:37:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I don't think WotC gained anything by killing of all their iconic characters. It is still a very common complain that FR has too many high level character despite the fact that they were virtually all removed in 4e. All they really did was succeed in ticking off all the people that read the amazing supplements like 2ed Seven sisters and Heroes Lorebook that defined those characters.
Agreed, and it's for the simple fact that WotC will never get rid of the NPC's which those critics hate the most, Elminster and Drizzt. You have a segment of people who just don't care how many fans Elminster and Drizzt have, how many books those characters sell, or that every single Drizzt novel has made the New York Times bestsellers list. So long as those two characters are still about, then those people will never stop. And as they've said time and time again over on the WotC boards, they're completely unable to enjoy the setting because, so long as those two characters exist, they can't have any meaningful adventures in the Forgotten Realms because Elminster and Drizzt are better than their characters, are capable of handling all the real problems, and are apparently even intrusively invading their home campaigns.
So no, killing off Alusair, Caladnei, Khelben, Laeral, Qilue, Wulfgar, Cattie-Brie, etc, didn't change anything, because the biggest "offenders" in their minds, Elminster and Drizzt, are still around and will always be around. And so long as Elminster and Drizzt are there, those same people will continue to be critical of the setting.
The Drizzt hate has always puzzled me. I get the whole "he's popular, so I must show that I am not a conformist and must therefore hate him" mentality, silly though it is. And I get people who think he's too brooding, emo, whatever. But the "he can handle all the problems so why do they need me" is the one I don't get. Anyone saying that has obviously not read any of the books. I can get where they are coming from with Elminster, even if they are wrong. He can level nations if he chose, but Drizzt is just better than average at stabbing things. His equal/rival/nemesis/potential bromance partner is just a (now rather long lived) human that happens to be equally good at stabbing things. They aren't exactly world shakers and both seem to just want peace. Aside from that, not counting the occasional trip to Calimshan Drizzt stays in one fairly small area of the map. It seems like any actual attempt to get to know the character would debunk a lot of the ideas about him.
I think the powers that be would do well to ignore those folks as they obviously aren't interested in giving the products a fair shake in the first place. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 07:06:22
|
quote:
We're leaning back towards edition-bashing, with this discussion. I really don't want to read yet another discussion about the merits, or lack thereof, of any particular edition.
Well, that was sort of the point of the thread, but in the interest of lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness...
There's one criticism of the Realms which I can understand, and that's the idea that the good NPC's are unassailable and aren't threatened by the evil NPC's, leaving the PC's little to do. While I don't agree with the most extreme of those critics, who want to eliminate every single good NPC from the game, from Elminster and Drizzt down to the Level 5 LG Watch Captain, I do think they have a valid criticism, and that's partly because the Realms supplements themselves have reinforced that idea.
For instance, look at the Heroes Lorebook from 2E. There, the levels of the 20 most powerful Realms heroes are:
30 The Simbul
29 Elminster
27 Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun
25 Laeral Silverhand
24 Alustriel Silverhand
22 Storm Silverhand
22 Sylune Silverhand
20 King Azoun Obarskyr IV
20 Cadderly
20 Gwydion
18 Durnan
18 Keane
17 Shal Bal
17 Vangerdahast
16 Drizzt Do'Urden
16 Peirgeiron
16 Qilue Veladorn
16 Ruha
15 Ren o' the Blade
15 Tarl Desanea
Then look at its counterpart, The Villain's Lorebook. Both books are the same size, but The Villain's Lorebook only offers 29 full fledged villain entries in comparison to the 60 from The Heroes Lorebook. The rest are monsters and various creatures, and a few more NPC's (typically villainous Drow), who only get a paragraph or two each instead of full page entries. Of the ones who get full page entries, the 20 most powerful have the following levels.
30 Halaster Blackcloak
29 Szass Tam, Zulkir of Necromancy
20 Maligor, Zulkir of Alteration
19 Cyndre
19 Manshoon
18 Deirdre Kendrick
18 Flattery Wyvernspur
18 King Manferic III
18 Zrie Prakis
17 Jarlaxle
16 Fzoul Chembryl
16 Victor Dhostar, AKA 'The Faceless'
15 Artemis Entreri
15 Cassana
15 Hobarth
15 Semmemon
14 The Mouth of Moander
12 Aballister Bonaduce
12 Dendybar the Mottled
12 Kymil Nimesin
There's a definite power disparity there, with seven heroes at epic levels while only two villains are at epic levels, and a noticeable power disparity going all the way down the list. And it doesn't help that the most powerful villain, Halaster, spends all his time holed up in Undermountain. Looking at supplements like those, it's easy to see players come to the conclusion that the NPC heroes dominate the setting. This was reinforced against with the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. There, the 10 most powerful heroes had the following CR's...
39 Elminster
36 The Simbul
32 Storm Silverhand
31 Khelban "Blackstaff" Arunsun
28 Alustriel
18 Drizzt Do'Urden
17 Ningal
15 Caladnei
15 Mirt
10 Alusair Obarskyr
...while the 10 most powerful villains had the most powerful CR's.
31 Szass Tam
30 Halaster Blackcloak
25 Klauth: Dragon of the North
25 Manshoon
23 Fzoul Chembryl
22 Hadrhune
18 Artemis Entreri
18 Gerti Orelsdottr
17 Semmemon
15 Scyllua Darkhope
This time it evens up a bit towards the bottom, but it's still massively top heavy in favor of the heroes. The three most powerful heroes themselves each have a higher CR than the most powerful villain.
I think that things like this have a tendency to create a perception problem where people assume that the most powerful heroes are able to take care of all the most powerful villains and still have time to do a lot more. It also doesn't help that the levels of the leaders of evil organizations are relatively low level. When you have a LG nation like Cormyr, then it's easy to believe that the Regent is Level 10 but there're plenty of far higher level agents in service to Cormyr (like Caladnei, who's Level 15, as well as any number of War Wizards and Purple Dragon Knights). That doesn't hold true for evil organizations. While there would naturally always be exceptions, it's hard to believe that the Zhentarim or Church of Bane have very many agents who're more powerful than Manshoon and Fzoul Chembryl, given that evil groups or organizations are more likely to see violent challenges to the authorities above them if they think they have a chance at advancing at their expense (not to the same silly degree as the Terran Empire in the Mirror Universe Star Trek episodes, but still) which puts a rough cap on how powerful agents of those organizations can be, which again makes it seem that they're not such a great threat.
My solution, as always, would be to add to the Realms rather than subtract. In this case, beef up the strength of the existing villainous NPC's as well as creating new ones and always make sure the books have far more villains than heroes in them. The stats aren't a problem, because even when we didn't see stats, we still saw that Elminster was W29 while Manshoon was W19 and Fzoul Chembryl was P16, and we all knew what the power disparity between those levels were.
I'd say a good rough rule of thumb would be to stat out two villains of about the same level for every hero they stat out (That's actually one of the few things I think the 4E Realms did right, as they boosted both Manshoon and Fzoul to Level 28, putting them roughly on equal footing with Elminster. More of that would be great). If they were to create another Heroes Lorebook I'd gladly buy it, but if that Heroes Lorebook is 120 pages, then it should be accompanied by a Villain's Lorebook which is 240 pages and filled with twice as many villainous NPC's.
By way of example, let's say these are the 10 most powerful NPC's in The Heroes Lorebook or the updated 5E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.
30 The Simbul
29 Elminster
27 Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun
25 Laeral Silverhand
24 Alustriel Silverhand
22 Storm Silverhand
22 Sylune Silverhand
20 King Azoun Obarskyr IV
20 Cadderly
20 Drizzt Do'Urden
Then that same campaign setting book or Villain's Lorebook should have 20 villains like so (Note: I'm just throwing out random names because I'm trying to fill up a list to get a general idea across, so let's not quibble over the level I slapped on a certain NPC, or whether that character's even still alive or not).
30 High Prince Telamont Tanthul
30 Halaster Blackcloak
30 Szass Tam
30 Larloch
29 Manshoon
29 Fzoul Chembryl
29 Iyacthu Xvim
27 Sememmon
25 The Pereghost
25 Klauth: Dragon of the North
24 Scyllua Darkhope
24 Matron Mother Baenre
24 Nevron
22 Druxus Rhym
22 The Serpent Sibyl
22 Rassendyll Uoumdolphin
20 Hadrhune
20 The Twilight Knight
20 Obould Many-Arrows
20 Artemis Entreri
Empowering, highlighting, and emphasizing the villains would go a long way towards solving that perception problem, because anyone glancing through the books, instead of getting the idea that the good NPC's are utterly dominating the villains, would instead get the impression that the heroes are outgunned and probably barely holding the line and being run ragged while they keep the big evil names from taking over the world, and probably only succeeding because those evil forces oppose each other just as much as they oppose the heroes. You won't bring around the people who think that Elminster and Drizzt should be killed off, but there's a wide ground inbetween here and there, and I think by doing something like that, it'd go a long way towards bringing over some of those people who'd like to play in the Realms but think that the good NPC's dominate it too much. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
Edited by - Venger on 30 May 2013 08:09:20 |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 08:03:30
|
quote:
The Drizzt hate has always puzzled me. I get the whole "he's popular, so I must show that I am not a conformist and must therefore hate him" mentality, silly though it is. And I get people who think he's too brooding, emo, whatever. But the "he can handle all the problems so why do they need me" is the one I don't get. Anyone saying that has obviously not read any of the books. I can get where they are coming from with Elminster, even if they are wrong. He can level nations if he chose, but Drizzt is just better than average at stabbing things. His equal/rival/nemesis/potential bromance partner is just a (now rather long lived) human that happens to be equally good at stabbing things. They aren't exactly world shakers and both seem to just want peace. Aside from that, not counting the occasional trip to Calimshan Drizzt stays in one fairly small area of the map. It seems like any actual attempt to get to know the character would debunk a lot of the ideas about him.
I think the powers that be would do well to ignore those folks as they obviously aren't interested in giving the products a fair shake in the first place.
For some, it comes down to a matter of not wanting any good NPC's who could potentially interfere with adventuring. I had a guy tell me that there shouldn't be any good NPC's in the world, period. That they should all be neutral or evil, and the way he described it, the neutral NPC's were to behave the way neutral armies behave in the game of Risk. They defend themselves when attacked but never go on the offensive. But that's just an extreme (and funny) example.
As I said in my previous post, I think it's just a matter of perception reinforced by some supplements. You have books that have a list of NPC's and the good NPC's are obviously able to blow away the evil NPC's, so it makes it seem like these guys can take care of the evil NPC's whenever they like and still have time to deal with a hundred other problems. While it's just a theory, I think that can be solved by just introducing a whole lot more evil NPC's and giving the existing ones power-ups. If Manshoon or Fzoul could be an equal match for Elminster, then I think perceptions will start to change. Not for every critic of the Realms NPC's (and definitely not for the guy who doesn't want there to be a Lawful Good Level 5 City Watch member), but for some I think that'd be enough, if they could flip over a Forgotten Realms book, look at the NPC's, and see a whole slew of villains. Instead of painting a picture of a world where a couple NPC's can handle it all, it'd instead paint a picture of a world which seriously needs some heroes to step up to the plate and fast. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 13:29:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
It's a shame you interpret it that way. Me, I see that as an opportunity to re-create something really cool and awesome in its place, which is exactly what happened.
4e FR made some giant mistakes. I have never pretended otherwise. As a freelancer who has never been employed by WotC, I can't speak on behalf of the company or officially comment on their intentions, but I find it ridiculous to think that any of it was intended as a slight to fans.
I never said they set out to purposefully slight the fans, but they certainly didn't give any thought to the fans when they made the changes they did, and they definitely blew off the criticisms of people who didn't like the changes, including their own writers. I saw a video where Salvatore talks about writing a letter to WotC begging them not to do the 100 year time jump, among other things, and that there was a way for them to accomplish what they wanted without going so far, but they disregarded him. [blue]<snip>[/b]
Way back when 4e was first released, I had a 'conspiracy theory' that at least one of the lead designers absolutely hated FR, and purposely made detrimental decisions to cause it to fail (especially when he revealed he didn't run an FR campaign... he preferred Eberron). I mean, you look at that abysmal 4e campaign map and say, there is no way way that wasn't chosen just to drive fans away - no-one's taste is that bad to believe that looked good. That certain other design decisions weren't done 'out of pure spite'.
It was good theory, but I realize the major fault with it after about a year. I was giving them WAY too much credit.
This was the HIGHLY edited version... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 May 2013 13:29:53 |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 13:29:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
If the gods disappear from the Realms, then so do I. If they take a backseat, okay, so log as they still have some kind of presence. They`re as much a part of the Realms as anything else.
But I realize I am in the minority in this view.
No, I don't think you are. When the gods got chopped, the reaction from FR fans was the proverbial canary in the coal mine. I think you sit amongst a comfortable majority of said FR aficionados. When (as Aldrick said in another scroll) James Wyatt opined that Realms-4th had 'run off the rails' (his words, not mine), I would be unsurprised to hear that this was a major portion of what formed that opinion.
On a different topic, I really don't see what the issue with the city of Neverwinter as presented in 4th Edition is. With the exception of some side additions required to tie it into the Realms-4th, I thought the damage inflicted on the city was quite well done. More to the point, the authors took lemons and made not only lemonade, but lemon tarts and lemon Nanaimo bars. The only reason I haven't started using it is because of random medical disasters amongst my players - I am looking forward to seeing what happens to it as a result of the Sundering. Strange as this may sound (especially from a complete reactionary like me), I hope they don't change too much about it. It was one of the parts I would still recommend to anyone who asked.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 13:42:52
|
quote:
On a different topic, I really don't see what the issue with the city of Neverwinter as presented in 4th Edition is.
As I mentioned later on, it was the Neverwinter in the FRCG.
"Port cities north of Waterdeep didn’t fare well in the years after the Spellplague; both Neverwinter and Luskan are now in utter ruin."
That was the sum total of how Neverwinter was presented at the start of 4E. A throwaway line telling you offhandedly that Neverwinter was gone. I never got around to reading the Neverwinter supplement that came out a few years later as I'd given up on the 4E Realms long before that.
quote:
(especially when he revealed he didn't run an FR campaign... he preferred Eberron).
I remember that. Who was it who said that?
quote:
It was good theory, but I realize the major fault with it after about a year. I was giving them WAY too much credit.
 |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 13:45:04
|
Most folks know. Out of the major members of the design team, I believe only two are still around... and sadly those are the two who I find most objectionable (and who's motives I questioned, since the other is clearly a fan of different genre, not just a different setting).
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
On a different topic, I really don't see what the issue with the city of Neverwinter as presented in 4th Edition is. With the exception of some side additions required to tie it into the Realms-4th, I thought the damage inflicted on the city was quite well done. <snip>
The fan in me positively loathes what they did with Luskan, Waterdeep, Neverwinter, Wheloon(!), etc...
The DM in me sees all the possibilities. As I've said numerous times before, I never had much interest in having PCs visit Waterdeep... now I look forward to it.
Except for Wheloon... still trying to wrap my mind around that one... theres only one kind of scenario I can think to run there (Escape from New York), and thats a pretty limited use for an entire city. It just seems so bizarre (out of character) that open-minded Cormyr would just unilaterally sentence EVERYONE to imprisonment. I hope they tweak that one. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 May 2013 14:03:38 |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 13:53:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
The Drizzt hate has always puzzled me. I get the whole "he's popular, so I must show that I am not a conformist and must therefore hate him" mentality, silly though it is. And I get people who think he's too brooding, emo, whatever. But the "he can handle all the problems so why do they need me" is the one I don't get. Anyone saying that has obviously not read any of the books. I can get where they are coming from with Elminster, even if they are wrong. He can level nations if he chose, but Drizzt is just better than average at stabbing things. His equal/rival/nemesis/potential bromance partner is just a (now rather long lived) human that happens to be equally good at stabbing things. They aren't exactly world shakers and both seem to just want peace. Aside from that, not counting the occasional trip to Calimshan Drizzt stays in one fairly small area of the map. It seems like any actual attempt to get to know the character would debunk a lot of the ideas about him.
I think the powers that be would do well to ignore those folks as they obviously aren't interested in giving the products a fair shake in the first place.
For some, it comes down to a matter of not wanting any good NPC's who could potentially interfere with adventuring. I had a guy tell me that there shouldn't be any good NPC's in the world, period. That they should all be neutral or evil, and the way he described it, the neutral NPC's were to behave the way neutral armies behave in the game of Risk. They defend themselves when attacked but never go on the offensive. But that's just an extreme (and funny) example.
Some people hate Drizzit because every other book is a Drizzit book and because he gets plastered on eveything else. Wizards acts like the setting revolves around hjim. |
. |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 14:35:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
Some people hate Drizzit because every other book is a Drizzit book and because he gets plastered on eveything else. Wizards acts like the setting revolves around hjim.
In a way, it does. For many of the people who read only novels and don't know the rich, in-depth world of the Realms as shown by the gaming supplements (the way that only the supplements can), Drizzt is the 'PR guy'. He's the Realms' version of Legolas, if I might make that comparison - he's not the central figure, but he's the one that a lot of people see as 'the most cool'. And it's undeniable that he is one of Wizbro's cash cows. Financially, they haven't gone wrong with a Drizzt novel yet.
Which is one reason, I suspect, that RAS is being given the free hand that he is. With Drizzt as one of the factors in mind, the Realms can take its new shape and have a measure of conformity to the novels that he wants to write. I think it's a sound move on Wizbro's part, in more ways than one.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 30 May 2013 14:36:56 |
|
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1155 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 14:55:19
|
quote:
Which is one reason, I suspect, that RAS is being given the free hand that he is. With Drizzt as one of the factors in mind, the Realms can take its new shape and have a measure of conformity to the novels that he wants to write. I think it's a sound move on Wizbro's part, in more ways than one.
It never seemed to me that RAS had that much of a free hand with the Neverwinter series. All 4 books read like foreshadowing for the MMO.
As to the topic at hand, Wizards is always going to take the path that they think will earn the greatest revenue stream. It's not their fault, they're a business, it's what they're supposed to do. However, they wouldn't have taken the tack that they did unless they were fairly certain that it'd earn them their money. While Candlekeep scribes may lament the fate of the Realms in 4e, some people MUST have liked the changes or Wizards would consider dropping all Realms sourcebooks and adventures from their product lists (novels would still be a money spinner, so they'd remain) and they wouldn't have invested so heavily in the Realms' future for D&D Next which appears, at least for the moment, to be the Campaign Setting that they're pushing the hardest to promote.
So, if we take the Realms fanbase as a whole, rather than just the opinions voiced here (and on the wiki where the vocal people are all against 4e too) we must be at least partly to blame. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 15:34:57
|
| Considering that they've promised to undo some of the major changes of the 4E Realms, I'm not as convinced of its popularity. |
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! |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 15:39:45
|
| Agreed. You don't backpedal on a "bold new direction" unless that move blows up in your face. Had it been as successful as they thought it'd be then they'd be continuing on with little change and there wouldn't be a Sundering. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 16:08:57
|
I actually believe the 'failure' is more upon book sales, as in novels. From whate I understand, the 4eFR game books didn't sell too badly.
Isn't there some sort of way of tracking all this - Amazon or something?
Anyhow, I think thats where they may have really screwed up. The Realms were once a place to tell stories, theirs and ours. Now - as of 4e - its pretty-much 'just a game setting' in most of our minds. At least, thats how I think of it now. As a game setting, I can get a lot of mileage out of the 4e material. As for the story... not really caring at this point.
So if it failed anywhere, I think it may be in the novel department. I really don't like this E-book only crap - reminds of those movies that "go straight to video".* 
Bottom line is, century time jump = Poo. There's no way of getting around that. I could have lived with the Spellplague (wasn't it just a ToT on steroids?), and we could have lived with a new ruleset (we have before.. grumpily), but that was jumping the shark, big time. There was just not enough left to hang on to. Not sure how they are going to fix that one, but strangely, I am still holding out hope. I refuse to prejudge 5e (rules or FR).
*P.S. - and PLEASE, I am not blaming individual authors here. They have no say over the setting as a whole, and if most setting story fans have experienced a complete disconnect, then that is not the fault of the authors - its the fault of the design team that has been steering the setting. When you have to scramble for ways to save your favorite characters (trapped in a sword, absorbed the essence of a Shade, etc) then there is something really wrong with 'the plan'.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 May 2013 21:24:17 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 20:53:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
and PLEASE, I am not blaming individual authors here.
I agree with what you're saying, and my comment about potshots at authors wasn't aimed at you, at all. 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I could have lived with the Spellplague (wasn't it just a ToT on steroids?)
I'm not smacking you for this; I think we're on the same page. (I'm definitely in the boat of starting posts and then deleting them without sending, multiple times. This one is edited from 9658 characters to 759.)
But it's the destination of this line of thought that prompts me to be so ugly regarding the 4e changes in the Realms. I'm worried that we're just going to keep on accepting. |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 20:53:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
For some, it comes down to a matter of not wanting any good NPC's who could potentially interfere with adventuring. I had a guy tell me that there shouldn't be any good NPC's in the world, period. That they should all be neutral or evil, and the way he described it, the neutral NPC's were to behave the way neutral armies behave in the game of Risk. They defend themselves when attacked but never go on the offensive. But that's just an extreme (and funny) example.
As I said in my previous post, I think it's just a matter of perception reinforced by some supplements. You have books that have a list of NPC's and the good NPC's are obviously able to blow away the evil NPC's, so it makes it seem like these guys can take care of the evil NPC's whenever they like and still have time to deal with a hundred other problems. While it's just a theory, I think that can be solved by just introducing a whole lot more evil NPC's and giving the existing ones power-ups. If Manshoon or Fzoul could be an equal match for Elminster, then I think perceptions will start to change. Not for every critic of the Realms NPC's (and definitely not for the guy who doesn't want there to be a Lawful Good Level 5 City Watch member), but for some I think that'd be enough, if they could flip over a Forgotten Realms book, look at the NPC's, and see a whole slew of villains. Instead of painting a picture of a world where a couple NPC's can handle it all, it'd instead paint a picture of a world which seriously needs some heroes to step up to the plate and fast.
This criticism I understand and somewhat agree with. Only somewhat because the Realms does have extremely powerful evil NPCs, they just don't get much coverage.
I wonder if the introduction of Shade and the Princes was an early attempt to balance things? I can see where the powers that be could see this problem and conclude that simply empowering Manshoon and Fzoul (presumably among others) to Elminster-like levels wouldn't be easy to do in a plausable way without being completely transparent so instead they dug up some villains that should be quite powerful right out of the gate. I don't agree with that assesment, but I could see where someone would conclude that after Manshoon and Fzoul have suffered one loss after another in the fiction*. It would be odd to say they were holding back for some reason and I don't take Bane to be the type to reward failure so options could appear to be limited. Then again, depending on how the implications of something revealed at the end of Elminster Enraged plays out, maybe Manshoon was holding back.
*This is what I ultimately blame. The old policy of not allowing evil to even see the goal line, much less stand a chance of winning. It's unrealistic in the extreme (how did these people get into power and how do they stay in power if they always lose?) and I believe it is a big part of this perception. I'm not sure how much it has changed, but I am fairly certain that it has given the events of some of the novels. The villains aren't winning it all, but they are having their victories (namely Shade). I agree that the fix is to add and empower more villains and not to decimate the ranks of good. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 21:39:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
I don't agree with that assesment, but I could see where someone would conclude that after Manshoon and Fzoul have suffered one loss after another in the fiction*.
*This is what I ultimately blame. The old policy of not allowing evil to even see the goal line, much less stand a chance of winning. It's unrealistic in the extreme (how did these people get into power and how do they stay in power if they always lose?) and I believe it is a big part of this perception.
I agree, the constant "good has to win" mantra is what is putting me off. It is unrealistic that evil never triumphs, it is unrealistic that good always finds a way to save the day. For the sake of roleplay, let the heroes bite the dirt, let them be destroyed, have them be defeated, it´ll improve the setting by showing no matter how good you think "good" was, they are still prone to defeat. That´s what should matter, showing that everyone is touchable and that you can´t rely on old ways to always come out ahead without a scratch, you need to improve and adapt or go down. |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 21:49:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
But it's the destination of this line of thought that prompts me to be so ugly regarding the 4e changes in the Realms. I'm worried that we're just going to keep on accepting.
I see that point too, and believe me, I've more-then-once had to question my own motives regarding some of my opinions - do I believe it to be TRUE, or am I having an emotional, knee-jerk reaction (which I am now of the opinion about 70% of the '4e uproar' was).
So, in hindsight, I have to say (as a DM) the Spellplague is kinda useful. It gave me the ability to change canon while staying within canon... neat trick, that. As for the sweeping changes (thinking about the cosmology ATM), I love some of it, hate some of it, and other parts I'm just sorta "why did they bother?" As for the rules... screw the rules (such language!) I've played this game without any rules, and you know what, it was damn fun! I've played it with T&T, C&S, Runequest, Traveller, Rolemaster, etc, etc, etc - its just about having fun with your friends. The rules mean diddly squat. If 4e didn't look like any previous version, well, neither did any of those other systems I just mentioned. I can RP with CLUE rules (and have) - 4e is no better or no worse for people who like to Roleplay. Different strokes for different folks - lots of people these days like that 'tactical feel'. No sweat off my brow. I've probably never run a campaign where I knew even half the rules I was using (and didn't feel I needed to).
So my point is, over the many long years I've been playing 'D&D' (and I use that term in the loosest sense), I've dealt with just about everything they (and everyone else) has thrown at me. The only time I ever felt the need to 'stay in the past' and not move on to what was current was with 4e FR. I can't blame that on the rules, because I've dealt with that before. I can't blame it on the Spellplague, because even in light of how badly scripted the trigger event(s) was, the Spellplague itself is very useful to me. So Cyric thwacked the 'Almighty Mystra' with a stick while Azuth was sticking dollars in Shar's G-String (because thats how the whole thing comes off) - I've seen sillier stuff in my 35 years of gaming.
NO, when all is said and done, I have to say the only thing that I couldn't get past was the century. A decade? Meh! We've seen it before. Two decades? Hmph... thats a lot... but oh well. Once you start going beyond the one generation point, you are pretty much throwing out the thing that made FR what it is - the PEOPLE. Without the NPCs, FR is just a pretty map and some cool locales. The people made it come to life - THEIR stories. They just killed them all.
I know they weren't real, but we cared about them. They were real enough to us. Somehow, they completely missed that during design. 
So if they are asking themselves now "why don't the fans care about FR anymore?", its because they didn't live us much to care about. Its a world full of strangers now. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 May 2013 21:54:16 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 21:58:01
|
Tyrant -
That has long been my thinking on the matter. The TSR policy of evil must never win, or be showed as desirable was disastrous for the Realms. It completely turned the Zhents into (using Ed's words): "Keystone Kops" and the same was done to Thay as well.
I think this is why we saw the Shades and Shar get so much attention in 3rd Edition. The more traditional villains of the Realms were somewhat "ruined" by their earlier portrayals due to the TSR policy on evil and villains in the Realms.
quote:
The "Keystone Kops" nature of the early published Zhentarim was due to the TSR Code of Ethics, which was being VERY strictly applied to the Realms because Dragonlance (what with Raistlin and Takhisis and Kitiara and the draconians) was seen by some in the company as having 'broken' the Code and gotten far too 'evil-is-successful-and-attractive' - - and "We're NOT going to let that happen in the Realms!"
- Ed Greenwood, January 25, 2005
quote:
So saith Ed. Who adds a response to Delzounblood’s queries: “Why, apart from standard structure do nearly all novels have the good guy's winning??
...
Ed replies:
“Nearly all novels” have that structure because most human readers want to know that good triumphs, and publishers know that (unless there’s a clear promise of a later book in which good might win, as in a labelled trilogy or saga, e.g. “Book One of”) sales will suffer if good doesn’t win. (Or, in a romance, if the hero and heroine don’t wind up with each other.)
TSR/WotC Realms novels have that structure because strict sets of Code of Ethics have applied, down the years, mandating that. In short, we were forced to write “good guys win” novels (hence the Keystone Kops-incompetent Zhents of early books). That has slowly been relaxed (as for how CRUCIBLE got that way, it must have had full editorial approval).
You’re quite right that evil must triumph to set up those established powerful evil organizations - - and if you check Realmslore, you’ll see many, many historical instances of the bad guys winning (fall of Myth Drannor, etc.).
- Ed Greenwood, March 5, 2007
quote:
When TSR first started publishing the Realms, they had a strict Code of Ethics: in all their published fiction, the good guys HAD to win, evildoers could never be shown to profit from their evil deeds, and no specific real-world "shady techniques" (how to break into a place, how to strangle someone) could be described. And so on.
In the early days, the results of this disgusted some readers (why the Zhentarim so "Keystone Kops" incompetent?), but it was the Way It Was.
Over the years since, there have been various codes applied by Wizards (and now by Hasbro), governing what can and can't appear in Realms fiction and game design. Moreover, you can't read a word of Realms fiction that hasn't been read, edited, and approved by an in-house editor (which is only sensible; it avoids having something horrible slipped into print maliciously or by accident in a printers' mixup).
So Ed has always had to write under such restrictions, yes.
- THO, August 7, 2008
So, yes. I've long believed the large focus on Shar and the Shades was in direct response to what the TSR Code of Ethics did to the Realms. It's also one of the reasons, I believe, that so many people think that the good guys can just show up and curb stomp the evil NPC's of the setting. After all, the TSR Code of Ethics had the policy of 'evil must never win' - so that's the perception it created for the setting, unfortunately.
You will notice how differently the Shades were handled as villains compared to the Zhents and other such evil groups prior to 3E. |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 23:39:44
|
| I still believe the Zhents are a way more intersting antagonist for the realms than Shade can ever be, now if they finally could get them out of the constant "evil = lose" trend i would very much appreciate it, so they can truely show the power they deserve. |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 00:06:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
(snip) if they finally could get them out of the constant "evil = lose" trend i would very much appreciate it, so they can truly show the power they deserve.
Agreed.
I would like to see the Zhentarim expand and control some new territory. Based on some commentary I've read, I don't think it's too much to ask that the game designers post a picture in their cubicle of Zhentil Keep with the words "do not destroy for at least the next one hundred years" on it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 00:26:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
I still believe the Zhents are a way more intersting antagonist for the realms than Shade can ever be, now if they finally could get them out of the constant "evil = lose" trend i would very much appreciate it, so they can truely show the power they deserve.
Yeah, I'm really hoping that both Zhentil Keep and the Zhentarim come back in a big way. It'd be nice if the Zhentarim didn't spend the 100 year time jump idling the time away as mercenaries, but were actually working towards the goal of restoring Zhentil Keep that whole time. Something out of the 47 Ronin where they play at being mercenaries, but are really trying to lull their enemies (the Shades) into a false sense of complacency before they strike back and get revenge for what was done to them, as well as restoring Zhentil Keep in the process.
It'd be neat if they were to bring back the Pereghost, too. If he returned to the worship of Bane and was eventually converted into a Death Knight (The guy already had the look, anyway, what with his armor). In the intervening century he could've easily hit epic levels, so that would give the Realms another epic level threat and one who isn't tied down by heavy administrative duties and would have a more free hand in taking the fight to the enemy. He's got a relatively light backstory, too, so there'd be plenty of room for Realms writers to fill out his backstory and take a guy who looks pretty cool and turn him into an exceptional character.
And I don't know about anyone else, but as off-the-wall and unlikely as this idea is, I'd absolutely love it if Iyachtu Xvim would return to the mortal coil, help reconquer Zhentil Keep, and become its ruler (with Manshoon running the Zhentarim and Fzoul running the Church of Bane). Particularly if he were treated more like the Greek conception of a demigod, like a Hercules, an Achilles, or a Perseus (who founded Mycenae, so it'd be an interesting take to have an evil Realmsian Perseus, who refounds Zhentil Keep). It'd be a great inversion of the mythic hero trope, with the evil demigod who has a complicated relationship with his godly father going on a quest and accomplishing numerous tasks to reforge an evil empire, but you'd root for him because, as bad as he is, the people he's fighting against are even worse. That, I think, would be pretty interesting. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 00:52:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Based on some commentary I've read, I don't think it's too much to ask that the game designers post a picture in their cubicle of Zhentil Keep with the words "do not destroy for at least the next one hundred years" on it.
One hundred years our time. 
- OMH |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 00:55:10
|
| No kidding. It was destroyed, what, twice in a 15 year time span? |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 00:57:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
But it's the destination of this line of thought that prompts me to be so ugly regarding the 4e changes in the Realms. I'm worried that we're just going to keep on accepting.
I see that point too, and believe me, I've more-then-once had to question my own motives regarding some of my opinions - do I believe it to be TRUE, or am I having an emotional, knee-jerk reaction (which I am now of the opinion about 70% of the '4e uproar' was).
So, in hindsight, I have to say (as a DM) the Spellplague is kinda useful. It gave me the ability to change canon while staying within canon... neat trick, that. As for the sweeping changes (thinking about the cosmology ATM), I love some of it, hate some of it, and other parts I'm just sorta "why did they bother?" As for the rules... screw the rules (such language!) I've played this game without any rules, and you know what, it was damn fun! I've played it with T&T, C&S, Runequest, Traveller, Rolemaster, etc, etc, etc - its just about having fun with your friends. The rules mean diddly squat. If 4e didn't look like any previous version, well, neither did any of those other systems I just mentioned. I can RP with CLUE rules (and have) - 4e is no better or no worse for people who like to Roleplay. Different strokes for different folks - lots of people these days like that 'tactical feel'. No sweat off my brow. I've probably never run a campaign where I knew even half the rules I was using (and didn't feel I needed to).
So my point is, over the many long years I've been playing 'D&D' (and I use that term in the loosest sense), I've dealt with just about everything they (and everyone else) has thrown at me. The only time I ever felt the need to 'stay in the past' and not move on to what was current was with 4e FR. I can't blame that on the rules, because I've dealt with that before. I can't blame it on the Spellplague, because even in light of how badly scripted the trigger event(s) was, the Spellplague itself is very useful to me. So Cyric thwacked the 'Almighty Mystra' with a stick while Azuth was sticking dollars in Shar's G-String (because thats how the whole thing comes off) - I've seen sillier stuff in my 35 years of gaming.
NO, when all is said and done, I have to say the only thing that I couldn't get past was the century. A decade? Meh! We've seen it before. Two decades? Hmph... thats a lot... but oh well. Once you start going beyond the one generation point, you are pretty much throwing out the thing that made FR what it is - the PEOPLE. Without the NPCs, FR is just a pretty map and some cool locales. The people made it come to life - THEIR stories. They just killed them all.
I know they weren't real, but we cared about them. They were real enough to us. Somehow, they completely missed that during design.
So if they are asking themselves now "why don't the fans care about FR anymore?", its because they didn't live us much to care about. Its a world full of strangers now.
I know that often having a disability means I come to most issues differently, but to me FR isn’t just about the people, heck, many of the characters I liked, weren’t “flagship characters,” and often got very little screen time. The noblewoman at Candlekeep in Elmenster’s daughter is a great point, I wanted to see where her story continued, but never got to find out, and that’s just one character. To me, it’s as much the “setting” of FR, than the people that I am enterested in. It’s the culture and psychology of the individuals that comprise the setting that interests me. A lot of the “ main” characters I’m not that fond of. Take Drizzt for instance, every Drizzt story I ever read was more to get a glimpse of the setting, not to read about Drizzt. It’s not that I really dislike Drizzt, he just doesn’t interest me. The same goes for Elminster, yes I expect to hear a lot of flack for this, but it’s very often the other characters that Ed thinks up that interests me, rather than Elminster. Was Making of the mage the first noval I ever read, sure, but at that time, reading it in brail, I knew very little about Dungens and Dragons other than the few games I’d already played in, which were taking place at such a later point in time that everything in the book seemed, at the time irrelevant. All I got out of it, was there was a really powerful wizard that was named Elminster, and that what he did had no impact on any of the characters I’d be playing. Two months later I learned that wasn’t necessarily the case, but the disconnect continued, up until two years ago. So when you say, the hundred year time jump bothered you because the characters are no longer there, I don’t see that as a problem, I see it as an oppertunaty for all these authors to write new characters, to explore personalities rather different than the ones that they’ve already done. Perhaps that’s why I’m reluctant, comments about the book aside, Bob’s recent book “the last threshold.” I know that even if they kill of Drizzt, then there just going to bring him back, so his death wont have the finality that it could have, the meaning that it should have if it really was the end. His kind of death would naturally impact the Drow in some incredible ways, it could lead to a new level of dynamic social interactions that haven’t been yet explored, males might realize that they don’t have forever to act, that they might have to take risks, big risks to act.
And this is turning into a foolish rant, which is really of no consequence, but hopefully you see a bit of my point. Excuse me for it’s length, and hopefully this wont be taken too much the wrong way; respectfully, Sightless.
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 01:09:19
|
Elminster isn't my fave Ed character, either... Of the Chosen, it's Khelben (though Steven Schend is the one that took him over). Of the Seven Sisters, it's Laeral.
From non-Chosen, I really like Mintiper Moonsilver and Baelam the Bold. |
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! |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 01:16:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I don't think WotC gained anything by killing of all their iconic characters. It is still a very common complain that FR has too many high level character despite the fact that they were virtually all removed in 4e. All they really did was succeed in ticking off all the people that read the amazing supplements like 2ed Seven sisters and Heroes Lorebook that defined those characters.
Agreed, and it's for the simple fact that WotC will never get rid of the NPC's which those critics hate the most, Elminster and Drizzt. You have a segment of people who just don't care how many fans Elminster and Drizzt have, how many books those characters sell, or that every single Drizzt novel has made the New York Times bestsellers list. So long as those two characters are still about, then those people will never stop. And as they've said time and time again over on the WotC boards, they're completely unable to enjoy the setting because, so long as those two characters exist, they can't have any meaningful adventures in the Forgotten Realms because Elminster and Drizzt are better than their characters, are capable of handling all the real problems, and are apparently even intrusively invading their home campaigns.
So no, killing off Alusair, Caladnei, Khelben, Laeral, Qilue, Wulfgar, Cattie-Brie, etc, didn't change anything, because the biggest "offenders" in their minds, Elminster and Drizzt, are still around and will always be around. And so long as Elminster and Drizzt are there, those same people will continue to be critical of the setting.
The Drizzt hate has always puzzled me. I get the whole "he's popular, so I must show that I am not a conformist and must therefore hate him" mentality, silly though it is. And I get people who think he's too brooding, emo, whatever. But the "he can handle all the problems so why do they need me" is the one I don't get. Anyone saying that has obviously not read any of the books. I can get where they are coming from with Elminster, even if they are wrong. He can level nations if he chose, but Drizzt is just better than average at stabbing things. His equal/rival/nemesis/potential bromance partner is just a (now rather long lived) human that happens to be equally good at stabbing things. They aren't exactly world shakers and both seem to just want peace. Aside from that, not counting the occasional trip to Calimshan Drizzt stays in one fairly small area of the map. It seems like any actual attempt to get to know the character would debunk a lot of the ideas about him.
I think the powers that be would do well to ignore those folks as they obviously aren't interested in giving the products a fair shake in the first place.
I am only responding to this, because of my previous post, and because I want to ensure that something is understood. I don’t hate Drizzt, or Elminster, I don’t particularly like them, but that’s more from the fact that they seem to be setting dependent characters, when I feel that they shouldn’t be. One thing that I kind of liked about Elminster’s daughter, was that El didn’t take center stage. Sure he was there, but he wasn’t what the story was all about. Personally I feel that having setting dependent characters limits not only the authors, but the overall imigination of the setting itself. Am I in the minority, I am beginning to seriously think so. Do I believe my opinion will have any major impact on WOTC marketing decisions, no. This is however, how I feel, and I shall leave it that. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
we are what's wrong with forgotten realms
