| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 12:51:39
|
I agree on that point as well.
So, in a sense, the 4e design team achieved what they set out to do, and on that point it was a whopping success.
Unfortunately for them, they didn't foresee the side-effects of the 'no need for canon' attitude they engendered in fans... no-one really feels the need to read novels anymore. I don't have to 'keep up to date' with anything. We also don't need to rush out and buy every single sourcebook.
So Hurray for them, and Hurray for us. They don't have to work so hard, and we get to save money. When you look a that way, 4e was win-win for everybody.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
 |
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 13:28:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I will agree that 4e "taught" me that following cannon was a waste of time. However, the reason for that is the quality of realms products noised drived with 4e and the "cannon" was a big one fingered salute to fans of the setting. I also don't purchase 4e FR products, because they have nothing to add to my game. I would much rather have a setting with an interesting cannon that was populated by great characters rather than a post apocalyptic waste land that has no advantage over the vastly superior Dark Sun setting.
As someone whose primary interest is in the novels I cannot speak for the quality of the gaming materials however I must say that the quality of the novels in 4e has not 'nose dived' , in fact many of my favorite novels are set in 4e or at least in the period leading up to it. Such as the Twilight war trilogy, which pretty much everyone agrees is a great series.
I wonder if you have given these products a fair chance or just have an " I hate all 4e stuff" attitude.
While I agree that the realms have become darker but that is the trend nowadays and it can hardly be called a 'post Apocalyptic wasteland' especially compared with many other settings. Try out The Biomass Revolution by Nicholas Sansbury Smith if you want some really dark stuff. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4492 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 14:17:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
that might be the only way they could describe it, after all Diffan, each class did get x amount of powers per day.......
On the surface, sure it appears the same but in actual application it was much much differeent (at least to me). Because a Fighter had two exploits he could peform all the time did not somehow mean he could use "Magic" just because the wizard got two 1st level spells which they could perform all the time. The effects were wildly different, keyed off of different Stats, had different targets, ranges, and applications AND wizards used implements like staffs/orbs/wands where as the Fighter used weapons.
Still, some people felt that the classes played the same because the structure was AEDU and I recognize that even if I never had the same experience. In fact, I had the opposite experience because I felt the classes were far more diverse due to other factors such as Roles, Ability score requirements, weapon/armor prof., and the powers themselves were diverse enough to me that the "sameness" just wasn't there. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 14:36:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
As someone whose primary interest is in the novels I cannot speak for the quality of the gaming materials however I must say that the quality of the novels in 4e has not 'nose dived'... <snip>
I just want to be CLEAR (and not unintentionally insult people I like and respect)- I have no problem with the quality of 4e novels - I have read a few and they were pretty good.
My issue is with the setting itself, which means it did not matter how good the novels were, I just didn't care about the information they contained (as opposed to 1e/2e/3e novels). I felt no need to rush and and buy every one, as I did before.
So its not a knock to any authors - I know they did their damned best with what they were handed. Quality has nothing to do with it at all - I can think of several 1e/2e/3e novels I re-read, even though I thought the quality was severely lacking, just to get a better understanding of the information they contained. This is what 4e 'taught me' - not to care about the lore itself. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Jul 2013 14:39:23 |
|
|
|
Krafus
Learned Scribe
246 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 14:59:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I will agree that 4e "taught" me that following cannon was a waste of time. However, the reason for that is the quality of realms products noised drived with 4e and the "cannon" was a big one fingered salute to fans of the setting. I also don't purchase 4e FR products, because they have nothing to add to my game. I would much rather have a setting with an interesting cannon that was populated by great characters rather than a post apocalyptic waste land that has no advantage over the vastly superior Dark Sun setting.
While I don't like 4e as an edition and absolutely hate the butchering the grand, gaudy Realms suffered to make them fit the tiny "points of light" hole, like Thauranil, I feel I must speak up on behalf of the 4e FR novels. To tar them with the "4e products are inferior quality-wise" brush is just wrong IMO.
In particular, Erik Scott de Bie's Shadowbane novels have reawakened my interest in the Realms and D&D in general in a way the 3e RSEs never managed (indeed, the RSEs were a turn-off for me). If not for them, I'd not be here today posting this. I'm also hopeful that WotC's stated intent to have post-Sundering novels be character-driven like the old Harpers series will result in more novels being not just character-driven, but character-focused like the Shadowbane novels, which is exactly the kind of novels I want to read nowadays. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 15:23:49
|
I am going to have to agree here that the subject matter of the 3e novels began the downward spiral for me as well.
In 1e/2e novels, I could read about some local heroes, and even learn about some new place (or a dozen), and learn not only the name of the local tavern, but the family that runs it. All those minute, little details that brought the Realms to light.
Much erased here because it served no positive purpose.
So what 4e also taught me was that I am way too anal about 'trivia'. Maybe it was some well-needed therapy. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Jul 2013 15:52:57 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 15:54:23
|
Irennan -
I'm not sure how to exactly describe it, but it was just a different time. Judging by the responses of others, it seems that I'm not the only one to have had this experience.
Due to the RSE's things were shifting toward the late end of 3E. People were being forced to choose between following the canon or having their home Realms constantly blown up. It wasn't 4E that CAUSED the break with canon, at least not for me - and I'm sure it's true for many others - it was just the final nail in the coffin. Most of us were already picking and choosing what would be canon in our Realms by late 3E.
I would describe it as if I was watching the Realms get carpet bombed. I was standing there screaming and begging WotC to stop blowing things up, and their response was to drop a nuclear bomb.
I think Diffan described it rather well:
quote:
In previous editions, it always felt (to me) that the Realms were a HUGE puzzle that most of the pices were already set. The cities, the NPCs, the nations, rivers, landmarks, hills, mountians, etc. were all detailed in some form or another (and that's good, to a point) but it also made me feel that messing with that puzzle would result in something bad or unrecognizable and thus, ruin my experience. Because 4E made the lore and map much lighter in scope and detail, it also removed this willingness to work within a narrow frame and to branch out a bit to make it a bit more "my own".
That's EXACTLY how the Realms felt to me as well, and it was one of the reasons all the RSE's drove me absolutely nuts. They were doing things that I would have been afraid to do in my home Realms, because of all the little fiddly bits of lore out there - it would have been a herculean effort to determine the consequences of some of their actions. They got around this by IGNORING the consequences of their actions, and in many cases simply hand waving them away.
I saw the Realms as a living and breathing world, and just like in the real world if you impacted one part of the setting you've impacted it all. Small actions could have big consequences, and even bigger actions could have catastrophic consequences.
When you were gaming in the Realms you wanted to know what would likely be the consequences of your actions, and how that would influence your Realms in relationship to the canon.
It's somewhat hard to describe to someone who didn't live through it, because as Diffan said - it had more to do with "feeling". As Markus pointed out prior to 4E and late 3E there was a desire to be up-to-date on what was happening in the Realms, a real sense that if you didn't have the latest product that you were missing important stuff that was going to directly impact your home Realms.
A decade or so ago, I think you would have found so many more people trying to stick close to the canon of the Realms. Nowadays? I don't think anyone sticks to the canon anymore. Even people who have active campaigns which are set pre-Spellplague openly say that they won't follow the Realms canon into the post-Spellplague, that they will diverge at that point.
Even the people who like and play in the post-Spellplague Realms do not have that same "feeling" (as Diffan described it), that they have to stay canon.
It's just a different time, with a different feeling. The water was shifting in late 3E, and I think the tide really broke against WotC as a result of The Lady Penitent Trilogy by Lisa Smedman in which the Drow Pantheon - in particular Eilistraee was killed. Although I was personally crying foul with all the RSE's long before that, it's around this point when I felt more people were shifting to my position. ...and like I said, 4E was the equivalent of a nuclear bomb, but the problems existed long before that point. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 16:02:36
|
Re: The Novels.
I have to agree with the prevailing sentiment. I think most people think that the quality of the post-4E novels are perhaps some of the best the Realms has ever seen.
If they were set in another setting, it's no doubt they would be much more highly praised than they are - they are definitely a cut above some of the crap that used to be churned out. (Especially during the TSR era with their dislike of moral ambiguity and 'evil must never win nor be shown in any favorable light' policy... which pretty much destroyed groups like the Zhents.) |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3823 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 16:28:03
|
Yes, I get what you mean, that 4e was only the last of a series of changes that drove many people away from canon.
I know that I tend to be not so clear when explaining my opinions (english not being my native language surely makes it worse), and I apologize for it.
It was a discussion sprung from the statement that 4e promoted the ''lore as tool'' take on canon, while its approach was exactly the same as the previous editions, but with less lore (unlike -say- the way 5e is supposed to offer pieces of lore, that actually encourages their use as sourcse of ideas and info, even as stand-alone). In fact, the idea I get from you and Diffan is that being ''liberated'' was more a feel than anything else.
So, my original point is very simple: the people who used to follow canon were aware that they weren't restrained by it. Therefore RSEs in both 3e and 4e (I get your feel here. It kinda sucked to see things change so much while starting to read about the setting, and I still feel strongly about the drow deities and redemeed elves pointless RSE) didn't send the message that canon is just a tool, they only made the ones who were looking to make their Realms authentic (and that disliked the changes) no longer able to do so, forcing them to be selective about lore.
That's it. Sorry for being prolix or repeating myself, just wanted to make my point clear. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 03 Jul 2013 16:31:34 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 16:45:56
|
Irennan -
I think you're getting your point across. 
It is definitely a "feeling" more than anything else. I mean, it was never a situation where WotC or some canon nazi was going to jump through your window and attack you if you didn't use the Realms as it was presented. People WANTED to do that because we loved the setting, and other people were encouraged to do the same because of that love for the setting.
Perhaps, a good way to describe it would be a romantic relationship that turns abusive. In the beginning you're deeply in love. However, after some time problems begin to appear in the relationship. You don't split at the first sign of problems, of course, you instead try to work it out. Then things take a turn for the worse, and the relationship turns abusive. You go through a period of breaking up, then getting back together, followed by periods of separation, and attempts to try and fix the problems... by the time you reach the 4E point of the relationship - it's at that point you truly hate each others guts and are actively going through a nasty divorce.
However, it's easy to forget that at one point in time that relationship started with a deep and strong love for one another. That things weren't always bad.
That is pretty much how my relationship with the Realms feels at this point. 5th Edition is post-angry divorce, and where we are contemplating "being friends" for the sake of the children. 
The only thing I wanted to get across is that things were not fine prior to 4E. No, things were going to hell long before 4E was even conceived of by WotC, it was just the final straw that caused the inevitable divorce from canon. Without 4E things probably would have continued to drag out even longer than they needed to, but the outcome was inevitable due to what WotC was doing to the setting with the RSE's. |
Edited by - Aldrick on 03 Jul 2013 16:53:46 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 17:15:28
|
I would almost go so far as to say it is/was a 'respect thing'.
The material they were producing (at one time) was just so darned good (for the most part) that we felt that if we changed any one thing, certain things would begin to unravel, and we'd have to work hard to put it back together (to use some plothook we 'cancelled out' at a later date). So although none us truly ran a 'canon world', we all tried to follow the canon as close as possible, so we could latch onto all those juicy bits as they came at us.
When 4e came along, many of us felt there really wasn't much we would want to use (as things progressed), so the canon became unimportant to adhere to so closely. At least, thats how I think it went for me, anyway. I do believe this was one of 4e's major design goals - to detach us from this almost phobia-like fear of 'breaking canon', and on that point, they probably succeeded well beyond their expectations.
Case-in-point: My last (3e) campaign I ran was set in 1385 DR, and I was using Khelben as a sort background character (WELL in the background), and then the novel Blackstaff came out, and I was like, "crap! Now what?" I was purposely running a game a decade ahead of current canon just so I could iron-out any wrinkles, but that was one MAJOR wrinkle! The whole point of running something ahead in time caused a snafu, and things began to unravel. I was able to still fix it (using the 'real' Khelben Blackstaff from GH), but I shouldn't have run into that problem, and wouldn't have if I wasn't so damned worried about 'sticking to canon'.
So even though we knew our games weren't canon, and we veered from it at will (when we wanted to), it was still there, in the background, like some hungry beast needing to be appeased. What 4e did was slay the beast. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Jul 2013 17:16:46 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4492 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 17:29:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Yes, I get what you mean, that 4e was only the last of a series of changes that drove many people away from canon.
I know that I tend to be not so clear when explaining my opinions (english not being my native language surely makes it worse), and I apologize for it.
It's cool, describing feelings is difficult to describe in peson let alone on a messageboard.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
It was a discussion sprung from the statement that 4e promoted the ''lore as tool'' take on canon, while its approach was exactly the same as the previous editions, but with less lore (unlike -say- the way 5e is supposed to offer pieces of lore, that actually encourages their use as sourcse of ideas and info, even as stand-alone). In fact, the idea I get from you and Diffan is that being ''liberated'' was more a feel than anything else.
Exactly. Going back into 3E Realms I don't feel obligated to remain true to the words as written. It's nice, sure, but that feeling of keeping the puzzle in tact (or nearly so) is gone. It was long after I started 4E that I went back to pre-3E timeline and did a v3.5 campaign set in 1374 DR Moonsea region and I changed a lot to fit my campaign. I put in castles and Zhentarim outposts, NPCs, organizations, and lore into the area that I knew none existed before. I don't think I would've thought to do that had I not started 4E. I probably would've just created my own world for that stuff because it didn't fit into the grand puzzle. And funny enough, that campaign used all pre-made adventures in it (The Burning Plague, Sons of Gruumsh, and the Moonsea supplement) for the PCs to run though.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
Edited by - Diffan on 03 Jul 2013 23:40:15 |
|
|
|
Krafus
Learned Scribe
246 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 21:18:55
|
The more I think about it, the more I believe that a lot of FR fans are angry that WotC tried in a way to have its cake and eat it too. Or rather, to make us pay for the cake, and then make us pay again to watch them devour it.
With the 2e and 3e sourcebooks/supplements, they went to considerable effort to intricately detail large parts of the Realms, and to make us buy all those products. But then came the succession of RSEs in 3e, which often invalidated previous material (speaking only for myself, I'm still unhappy that Myth Drannor was retaken by the elves instead of remaining the largest and deadliest treasure hoard in the Realms).
It's as if WotC wanted us to, one on hand, pay over a number of years for material/products detailing the Realms and become attached to the lore within, and then, with the succession of 3e RSEs, pay again for the dubious privilege of watching places, characters, and lore we'd grown attached to get blown up and/or replaced by we something didn't like. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 22:18:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm looking forward to 5e providing reasons to reconsider.
I really hope it won't. The things you describe as "bad" are the only way to keep a shared setting used by a host of different authors consistent.
If an author is "pulling to much at the leash" he might not be suited to work in a shared setting where everyone has to keep the greater picture in mind and follow some common rules.
Letting each and every author just pull a shared setting into whatever direction he wants is a sure way to ruin a shared setting very quickly.
Not sure if you meant to quote me but I'm going to agree with what you're saying here, and also add that WotC apparently disagrees strongly with both of us. If they had even the slightest sense of a greater picture, or a shred of respect for the concept of shared settings, the 4e changes in the Realms would not have happened.
(9k snipped because I get passionate sometimes, and my rants are either misunderstood, misdirected, or preaching to the choir.)
|
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2013 : 23:33:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
As someone whose primary interest is in the novels I cannot speak for the quality of the gaming materials however I must say that the quality of the novels in 4e has not 'nose dived' , in fact many of my favorite novels are set in 4e or at least in the period leading up to it. Such as the Twilight war trilogy, which pretty much everyone agrees is a great series.
I wonder if you have given these products a fair chance or just have an " I hate all 4e stuff" attitude.
While I agree that the realms have become darker but that is the trend nowadays and it can hardly be called a 'post Apocalyptic wasteland' especially compared with many other settings.
The twilight war trilogy(or at least the first two books) was a solid series, the Sembia changes were actually really well done and made sense in the setting. The haunted lands books weren't that interesting IMO and they made the setting less interesting as a whole. Book one of the empyrean odyssey was terrible from start to finish. I didn't bother with any other "4e FR" stuff, because they have no relevance to any setting that I care about. I did read the newest Elminster trilogy, because it basically marks the end of the 4e FR era. I did purchase the 4e FR game supplements and used them for a single campaign and to be quite frank, they are the worst roleplaying game product I have ever owned(and L5R third edition was pretty bad). To be clear, the Dungeons and Dragons 4e stuff is not my cup of tea, but I can understand the appeal of a system that focuses solely on player character class balance.
Even during the end of 3e, it was worthwhile to read the novels, because they were effectively a newspaper for the setting. I didn't care for every RSE and feel like they occurred to close together. However, they still shined light on areas of the realms and provided me ideas I could use for campaigns. Even if I didn't care for them, I could find value in the information. 4e FR on the other hand might as well be an entirely different setting. The design goal of separating the setting from its vast amounts of lore that hypothetically intimidated new DMs and players(and certainly intimidated WotC employees) was successful IMO. Other than borrowing the map along with a dozen or so NPCs(Elminster, Drizzt and every super villain NPCS except poor Halaster), 4e FR is just the core 4e lore combine with some of FR's map.
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Try out The Biomass Revolution by Nicholas Sansbury Smith if you want some really dark stuff.
I don't have any problems with dark stuff. I just prefer to have the choice of apples and oranges rather than everything being an apple. After FR, my second favorite D&D setting is Ravenloft. That doesn't mean I think that I,Strahd would make a fantastic addition to the Realms. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Things that 4e taught me about faerun
