| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Jul 2014 : 21:05:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
The old style Tiefling is now a member of the Planetouched race, with the pact Tiefling aka the 4e Tiefling beings a magically enhanced off shoot that is its own race oc tiefling thanks to Asmodeaus.
Think of it like this, if old Tieflings were homo sapiens, the new Tieflings would be homo superior, a new species of Tiefling descended from the old, but enhanced in a sense.
Well, then they stayed true to their word and decided to provide options for both kind of tastes. Tbh, I see no harm in that. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 12 Jul 2014 21:08:16 |
 |
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2014 : 21:16:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Shemmy is expressing disappointment, not writing off 5E. And I share Shemmy's sentiments, here -- after promising to incorporate older stuff, they explicitly failed to do so, even though using pre-4E tieflings and 4E tieflings together would have been very easy.
So when preview material shows a failure to adhere to the promises WotC has made, yeah, people are justified in expressing disappointment. WotC is not living up to their word.
This is not the most promising sign, but I personally don't think this is nearly enough to write-off 5E. And I'm still going to encourage people to give it fair shakes.
I'm sorry but there is a great big difference between showing disappointment (I've mentioned already several things that I dislike with the Sundering) and then there's going "They didn't change back this thing, so 5E isn't looking good."
People are just looking for excuses to whine. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
Edited by - Tanthalas on 12 Jul 2014 21:17:50 |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2014 : 21:18:42
|
dazzlerdal: I think its kinda early to say whether Tyranny of Dragons is proof of one thing or another. It's not out yet.
Until we see actual 5E Realms product it's too early to really say... |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2014 : 21:44:27
|
I've recently made the decision to just stop caring about what will be or what could be possible for the Realms. I'm just done with it.
The main aspects of the Realms that I loved are almost entirely gone, and truthfully they started eroding with 2nd edition. Too many things that I truly dislike have been so firmly incorporated into the Realms now that there just isn't any "going back" to what it once was.
If I want to accept the Realms as they are, that means I now have to accept what they've done with and to the gods, to magic, and the planet itself. And all of these things took root in 2E-3E, without even considering what happened in 4E.
There's just too much of what I call "overlay" for the Realms now. The gods of different nations, even races, are revealed to be aspects of some kind of primary pantheon. They "die" but return, which makes their deaths meaningless. Are they really even gods, or just massively overpowered novel NPCs that push their noses into everything?
Magic is revealed to be some kind of filter or web with anchor points, like a tarp laying over the planet and tied down at various points. Controlled by a deity that dies more often than Kenny on South Park, magic can be changed just, you know, whenever. It's not mysterious or special, it's just some other source of energy to be manipulated.
Even the planet itself has been "twinned" by some kind of Overgod that never really needed to exist (and didn't) in the first place. Land masses "swap" around like puzzle pieces.
I'm aware some people love these things, these additions to the original Realms. But honestly, I hated the Time of Troubles and idiot mortals rising to become greater gods in an instant - with nothing remotely organic at all happening in history or the lives of mortals to support this. I despised the concept of AO because it replaced the original origin story. Even worse, I can't stand this avatar nonsense where Talos is really Gruumsh and gods act like mentally deficient children.
None of the horrible things I hated post 2E have been "fixed" with this second nuking of the Realms. In fact, those things have been enhanced and embellished such that the Realms is no longer enjoyable. It's vaguely nice that they're bringing some of the gods back, and that geography is going back, but these were all minor things compared to the major thematic tones that have been destroyed. So I'm just done.
Thing is, before 4E at least, I could sort of just ignore the whole ToT and much of the nonsense RSE stuff going on in the novels. I could happily buy products and leave out things I didn't like, and it still felt like I was part of the living Realms.
But recent events have truly, finally cemented in all of the 2E-4E additions that I hated. Those things are impossible to ignore now, because they're so fully woven into planetary history, magic, and cosmology. And they're so pervasive, retconning or dramatically altering how it was presented in 1E, that they quite frankly spoil the original itself.
Truly, I do hope there are some people out there who still get something positive and fun out of the Realms and really do enjoy it for what it is now. I won't be joining you on the journey, though. The truth is, the Realms haven't been what I loved for a long time now, and it's well past time for me to leave them behind.
I'll still fondly remember the Realms that I loved in 1E, including small bits and pieces of 2E-3E.
Good luck to all of you.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2014 : 23:33:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
If I want to accept the Realms as they are, that means I now have to accept what they've done with and to the gods, to magic, and the planet itself. And all of these things took root in 2E-3E, without even considering what happened in 4E.
There's just too much of what I call "overlay" for the Realms now.
I agree with this, and I was complaining long before 4th Edition came around. The Realms started going off the rails a long time ago, and when 4th Edition came around that's when I finally decided to get off the train.
For me, personally, I handled it by divorcing my Realms from canon completely. I no longer even pretend that my Realms is anything remotely like the Realms read about in novels or source books - it's mine. It's basically homebrew with Realms elements stirred into the mix. Honestly, I think this is the approach everyone should take.
I'm allowing myself to feel excited for 5th Edition, not because I intend to toss my Realms into the trash and go back to following the lore. No, it's my hope that they produce some interesting things that I can use in my home Realms. The things that I can't use? Well, those go into the trash.
I'll support the setting because I want to see it continue. I'm so invested at this point that it makes no sense to walk away. |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 01:38:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So, yes. We now have two editions that invalidate the prior tiefling lore, and we have them all given roughly the same appearance.
But it's explained (how good the explaination is is arguable).
It's not just a ret-con ala "Why? Tieflings always were this way." but "In 13XX Asmodeus cast some might ritual with his new deific powers and since then all Tieflings are this way."
So it's acknowlegded that they were different in the past. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 01:44:35
|
4th Edition Forgotten Realms did not appeal to me. Upon reflection, I think it was both the abruptness of the change and the lack of detail and explanation concerning the changes. If there is one thing that feels very Realmsian to someone that has been a fan from the beginning, its deliberateness and attention to detail. Given enough time and the right people to fill in the gaps, many of the 4th Edition changes might have been more to my liking, but not as it was rolled out. That is my taste, and I don't expect anyone else to share my taste.
That said, just from the snippets I've seen so far, I like the feel of 5th Edition. I can't put my finger on it, but the little details are appealing to me, and I like the Realmsian details that are sneaking in, because the details are the Big Ticket things from the setting (Plane of Shadows! Gods at War!), but the "medium" importance things, like the differences between subraces and ethnicities. I'm excited and I'm willing to give it another whirl, and I never thought I'd feel that way.
WOTC did almost rope me back in before 5th edition when they released the Neverwinter Campaign Setting book, mainly because I felt it was a step in the right direction. Instead of doing a quick surface treatment in a Player book and a GM book, a specific region was getting some examination. Granted, I was likely going to use 13th Age to run the campaign, but as it turned out, I was too embroiled in 40K RPGs to make a return visit at that time.
Next Saturday I'm going to start running Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, and I'm really enjoying the opportunity to add some extra Realmsian details to the campaign. I don't know if WOTC will hit all the right notes, but I missed the Realms, and I'm hearing a tune that sounds vaguely familiar in the song WOTC is singing at the moment. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 02:05:54
|
+
Lost Mine of Phandelver may be the best Realms scenario since 1992.
I mostly like the direction of fifth-edition D&D, think it looks like a good match for the Realms, and am confident that we'll get material that contributes constructively to Realmslore and that's relevant to the 1300s DR.
–
'The Forgotten Realms is big enough to allow that kind of story—to absorb the devastating blows that these amassed evil forces deliver and survive.' (Steve Winter)
Ilmater wept. That could have been the justification of every tluining RSE. One Realms builds things, the other knocks them down, uses them up and passes them by. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 02:12:52
|
One thing I will say for the Tyranny of Dragons adventures--with this event being introduced as an adventure, at least this will not contribute to anyone arguing that the PCs aren't important because NPCs do all of the important things in the setting. If the past is any indication, this almost might mean that the event is only going to be referenced in broad strokes outside of the adventures themselves, due to the variability of outcomes.
Plus, it's nice to have an event that's cultists and dragons and power groups maneuvering against one another, rather than "an ancient evil awakens, and a long dead empire comes back to the modern day," which was unfortunately became a theme in 3rd edition. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6662 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 03:11:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
But it's explained (how good the explaination is is arguable).
It's not just a ret-con ala "Why? Tieflings always were this way." but "In 13XX Asmodeus cast some might ritual with his new deific powers and since then all Tieflings are this way."
So it's acknowledged that they were different in the past.
Oh, you can explain away any changes - although the quality of the explanation is variable as you note. What has always concerned me re the Realms was the underlying basis for the changes proposed. I have only ever had input into one FR edition change, which was the change from 2E to 3E. There were things I liked and things I didn't. There were things I got to give an opinion and that we're changed and things that weren't. My thinking during the whole process was "why do you want to make this change?", "is the change consistent with the existing realms lore?" and "how does that change benefit the setting?"
What I've since come to believe is that from 3E onwards the setting was being shaped to write fiction and sell novels. Sure, you could game there all you wanted but the big changes were being made to give writers grist for the fiction mill. Big grist. In fact as big as you could get because let's face it, FR fiction is many things, but rarely subtle in recent times. In looking at Thayan lore just yesterday I was taken once again by the masterpiece that is "The Simbul's Gift" and how Lynn Abbey didn't need to blow up the world, kill of any major FR NPC, ravage a region or contort the Realms to shoehorn in her 'great idea' so as to write a beautiful, complex and thought-provoking FR novel.
She didn't need WotC to do anything to Thay to enable her to write a good novel set in that realm. So why the powers that be needed to make it a land of undead to write and sell novels in 4E there has utterly escaped me all these years. That's just one example of changes to the setting that were done for fiction and fiction alone.
The Shades is another example (I'll go on the record to state that I argued uselessly for Shade to appear, crash into the ground and for it's surviving arcanists to scatter to the winds, working desperately and literally from the shadows to grab power and influence in the Realms - to be used as the fiction and gaming lines needed) where the temptation of unleashing a "big bad" clearly overwhelmed WotC.
In saying all this I note that the bigger is better and blow up the moon fanbase is large and worth catering to. The fact that my and others vision for the Realms doesn't tally with that approach, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be catered to. My point is that in the 3E and 4E Realms, I feel that they were the only group that really got catered to.
I was of the view that based on some intelligence and anecdotal evidence that the 5E Realms was going to be a return to localised stories, small-scale events, "meet in the tavern" gaming and nuanced novels aka "The Simbul's Gift". The Tyranny of Dragons has let me know all about what I can expect from the 5E Realms. My prediction is that the campaign release will be all about gods and will be closely followed by something featuring the drow. After that, it will be a return to the undead of Thay and then an ancient evil (elves again most likely - a rehash of the fey'ri is the bet) and then back to dragons. We'll be about ready for 6E by then.
I'll be buying the books - I always do - but it's clear that my imagination will remain rooted in 1370 DR.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 05:42:03
|
perhaps in 6e the realms will get a reboot from 1e and the role of years would have to be edited to allow only a few novel sets and stuff.......
but who are we kidding, if 5e dnd and 5e realms fails then its game over as dnd will go down the toilet and the once icon of table top gaming will crash and burn. Ed will get custody of the realms and it would be modified for use with Pathfinder ruleset with several FR authors making novels for it and being distrubuted through Margret wies's site.... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 07:24:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I don't really understand the problem here? Is there anything invalidating 2E lore that somehow disables any attempt at making 2E-like Tieflings OR is it just flavor and backstory to a portion of the Tiefling race that only adds to the continuing lore?
Basically looks don't need to be 100% matches of what the books say. I like Tieflings to be both like the Prince of Darkness in Legend, or the Tiefling in the preview posted above or like THIS or THIS. Does it honestly matter in the context of the game how Tieflings are portrayed when there are other sources that give other reasons for their being?
The 5E description of tieflings gives them a more-or-less uniform appearance. They all have horns. They all have tails at least 4 feet long. They all have solid-colored eyes and sharp teeth. And they are all related to Asmodeus.
Sure, there is room for customization within those parameters, but the description given does not mention the possibility of not having any of those features. And the description does not mention any other possible heritage.
It's a one-size-fits-all approach. It does not allow for non-Asmodean tieflings, or for ones that have a more human appearance. You can't mix and match features like before, to have a tiefling that could pass for human if he kept his mouth closed or if you didn't get a good look at her eyes or if they stayed covered in robes and a hood. The 5E tiefling is, like the 4E tiefling, kin to Asmodeus and immediately revealed as such with even a casual glance.
I guess it only really matters in games where the DCI is relevant, but I'd think that most home games wouldn't care if your Tiefling looked more human but had a brimstone odor about them or had reddish skin or any number of other traits that were prevalent in 2E. We know that there are albino Drow but they're not listed (so far) in the PHB. Does that exclude my decision to play an Albino Drow at someone's table (that isn't sanctified by a WotC referee)?
I guess I look at it like the "rules" of appearance doesn't really matter to me because it has no mechanical rules that back it up. It's all flavor and looks.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The way the description is written, saying you want to play a tiefling without horns would be the rough equivalent of saying you wanted to play an elf without pointed ears, or a halfling that stood 6'3". It is a base racial description, describing physical features common to all members of the race.
While I'd be perfectly fine with the Elf thing, the Halfling being 6'3 sorta defeats the purpose of playing a "small" race and interferes with the mechanics of the game. Flavor =/= Mechanics 100% of the time. It can, at times, but doesn't necessarily have to. I think it's more akin to saying "Humans are usually 4'10 + 2d6 ft. tall and I want to play a really short Human so I just write down 4'7 on the Height_______ line of the character sheet. Does this, in any way, impair my character? Or make them not human? Does a Tiefling not having a tail or horns not make them a Tiefling? I'd think not.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So, yes. We now have two editions that invalidate the prior tiefling lore, and we have them all given roughly the same appearance.
I think think it invalidated anything, I just think it subsumed a superior role within the framework of the setting. Nothing in the 4E Tieflings said that the "prior" tieflings all died or were removed or changed (unless it was written somewhere and I'm mistaken?) so who's to say that my Tieflings don't look like a sun-burned human with a faint odor of Brimstone and why does it matter?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Part of the appeal of most of the plane-touched races was that because of their mixed heritage, no two members of the same race would have identical features. The 5E tiefling ignores that.
You mean the Asmodeous-linked Tiefling ignores that. The Planetouched one, however, wouldn't. And again, why do we need a whole new set of rules just to cover flavor? Why is it bad to say "Yea, my Tiefling looks like <insert 2E-style here> and has a mixed heritage." You still use the same Tiefling stats and are under the same rules, just one version looks different while the other isn't. |
|
|
|
CylverSaber
Seeker
95 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 07:59:58
|
I'm one of those horrible people they write all those Realms-Shaking Events in the novels for. I do find massive, dramatic events that drastically alter the status quo fun to read. And I don't really understand the objection to having one every few years; keeps things exciting, in my uneducated opinion.
I would think the joy of creating small-scale stories would come from your home campaign, and when a publisher puts out a major new release, it would only make sense to come with a major, setting-changing development. So yeah, they probably keep producing those because of people like me. Sorry 'bout that. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
CylverSaber
Seeker
95 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 12:04:09
|
I think they moved away from 4e because it got too far away from what fans liked about the Realms, not because most people are against RSE's or find things like the appearance of tieflings to be make or break.
From my perspective (Realms fan for more than 20 years), the "return" of Abeir and the Spellplague provided a good shakeup and short term storyline (though I would have argued against the 100 year time jump) that enabled them to pull off a triumphant return of the heroes against Netheril, Shar, and the other forces of darkness that seemed to have taken over the Realms. You can't do that kind of storyline unless you've already taken things to the brink of disaster. That's what many fans don't understand; in fiction, things have to get truly bad in order to savor the victories. Stability means the death of a fictional world. |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 13:20:39
|
| In my opinion, The Realms isn't something you can change lightly and expect it to be the same. Unless they did a reboot and ignored 4th edition completely, Highlander 2 for example, then it won't be the same. Halruaa is toast, NPCs like Mirt and Durnan are all dead, and a huge chunk of the underdark had a cave in. A half ass reboot without an actual reboot will not save the Realms for a lot of us. I'm sure it will draw in new fans, maybe, but I think the damage has already been done. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 13:25:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by CylverSaber
I think they moved away from 4e because it got too far away from what fans liked about the Realms, not because most people are against RSE's or find things like the appearance of tieflings to be make or break.
From my perspective (Realms fan for more than 20 years), the "return" of Abeir and the Spellplague provided a good shakeup and short term storyline (though I would have argued against the 100 year time jump) that enabled them to pull off a triumphant return of the heroes against Netheril, Shar, and the other forces of darkness that seemed to have taken over the Realms. You can't do that kind of storyline unless you've already taken things to the brink of disaster. That's what many fans don't understand; in fiction, things have to get truly bad in order to savor the victories. Stability means the death of a fictional world.
Emphasis mine. This is a belief shared by many writers, editors, and consumers/fans, but it is neither a fact nor is it true. The entire premise of "stability means the death of a fictional world" is in fact total BS.
Believe it or not, stability of a fictional world or setting is essential for both serialized fiction and the types of adventures that most gamers play. Younger writers and editors tend to rely on the flash and awe of world-ending RSEs because they are shocking and often involve massive explosions - which always get attention.
But day-to-day stories, and ongoing adventures that require a fairly stable core setting (or series bible), often make a bigger impression on people. Think of all the serialized fiction that has been massively popular. Here are a few:
The Three Musketeers
The Count of Monte Cristo
Sherlock Holmes stories
every soap opera ever
every serialized Western ever
The Last Avatar, and the Korra series
X-Men (serials, TV and comics)
Superman (serials, TV and comics)
Gunsmoke
Kung Fu
Flash Gordon (serials, TV and comics)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series, and comics)
Tarzan (serials, TV and novels)
Conan (series, TV and novels)
Dark Shadows
Doctor Who
Star Trek (the various TV series)
Stargate (the various TV series)
Babylon 5
Game of Thrones
Batman (the serials, TV and comics)
... and any other weekly-format show that has ever been produced.
Bear in mind, I am NOT including made-for-theater movies, because those often are specifically designed to draw audiences that expect flashy explosions and "epic" stories to fit into an hour and a half. Quite often, when movies are made for well-loved and stable, serialized settings, things go massively wrong. You end up with terrible plots, poor internal consistency, shaky cameras, and excessive lens flares. Such things are cheap tricks - and at the end of the day, your audience knows they're cheap tricks.
Ultimately, a stable world allows people to not only tell amazing stories that hold peoples' attention for decades, it is the best method for creating campaigns that are deep, long-lasting, and meaningful over multiple levels. Stable worlds also lend themselves to deeply loyal fandoms.
Stories that blow up the world, or threaten to, should only be told once in a blue moon (if ever) because they tend to massively change things - or become jokes, which erode the overall setting. Look at how the RSE has become such a massive joke for the Realms. RSEs blow things up for temporary shock value, but they end up diminishing the overall setting when they're done too frequently.
The original core Realms of 1E was built to be a place to tell ongoing, serialized stories. And Krashos absolutely has the right of it: the Realms were changed for the fiction side: it's flashier and seems "bigger" to write giant explosions and world-ending threats. It's easier for younger, inexperienced authors and writers to create stories built around an RSE. It's also cheaper: once an author gains a following, they (rightfully) want bigger contracts. You can pay a writer peanuts if you hand them an RSE idea and tell them to "fill it in" with dialogue and minor plot twists. And so that's what happened with the Time of Troubles and every other RSE. Those things have entirely been for the benefit of the fiction side.
But the problem is that too many RSEs spoil the soup (and the setting) for serialized stories and ongoing campaigns that are core to the gaming experience. As I noted above, too many RSEs and you eventually get a massive amount of "bad overlay" which is where the Realms is right now. None of the god-killing, weird god drama, changes to world magic, twinning of the world (with Abeir), swapping entire land masses, and blowing up nations would have been necessary if they'd stayed with a world suited for serialized, ongoing stories and long-term campaigns. None of it. There's so much overlay that it now spoils the setting IMO.
You can only blow up Vulcan once (cf. Halruaa, Thay, Neverwinter, etc). Sure, it's shocking and grabs attention, but what then? You have flashy fireworks in the moment (ah, brief sales spike!), but then you're left with a planet-sized corpse and a ton of displeased fans once they start thinking about the longer-term ramifications.
I can't speak for Ed, nor would I presume to, but if I had to place a bet I'd imagine that his Realms are a place designed to tell serialized, ongoing, localized, highly personal, and deeply meaningful stories.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 13 Jul 2014 14:33:37 |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 14:48:40
|
| The way I look at it, it's like building a massive lego structure that took you ages to build but one day you get this urge to demolish it. While it was fun for a few seconds, the sudden realization hits you that you just destroyed something that took you ages to build for just a few seconds of excitement. Sure you can just build it back, but most of the time you either wouldn't bother, or you honestly don't remember how you built it. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1624 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 16:37:28
|
4e had novels like that that were of a more personal nature.
The Gilded Rune, The Dawnbringer, Venom in her Viens are all examples in 4e of a novel in a simular vien as The Simbul's Gift.
|
|
|
|
CylverSaber
Seeker
95 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 17:14:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
But day-to-day stories, and ongoing adventures that require a fairly stable core setting (or series bible), often make a bigger impression on people. Think of all the serialized fiction that has been massively popular. Here are a few:
The Three Musketeers
The Count of Monte Cristo
Sherlock Holmes stories
every soap opera ever
every serialized Western ever
The Last Avatar, and the Korra series
X-Men (serials, TV and comics)
Superman (serials, TV and comics)
Gunsmoke
Kung Fu
Flash Gordon (serials, TV and comics)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series, and comics)
Tarzan (serials, TV and novels)
Conan (series, TV and novels)
Dark Shadows
Doctor Who
Star Trek (the various TV series)
Stargate (the various TV series)
Babylon 5
Game of Thrones
Batman (the serials, TV and comics)
... and any other weekly-format show that has ever been produced.
Virtually all of those that you list have had instability and dire, setting-shaking situations as core ingredients. The Three Musketeers were trying to prevent all out war and preserve the integrity of the kingdom!
This becomes even more true if you narrow your list down to just those franchises that are still ongoing commercial ventures, such as the X-Men; their world has been destroyed, their reality has been reshaped, and their team has been slaughtered more times than can be counted. Why? Because when things become too settled, people lose interest. So your choices as a creator of fiction are to A) Plan for your own conclusion B) Keep things unstable enough to keep the audience's interest or C) Wait till they lose interest and you are forced to end your stories at a time and manner that may not be of your own choosing.
As someone who enjoys the ongoing adventures of the Realms, I don't see the problem with an RSE every few years to keep the setting commercially viable, and allow for the smaller stories to be continued in-between. |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 17:55:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by CylverSaber
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
But day-to-day stories, and ongoing adventures that require a fairly stable core setting (or series bible), often make a bigger impression on people. Think of all the serialized fiction that has been massively popular. Here are a few:
The Three Musketeers
The Count of Monte Cristo
Sherlock Holmes stories
every soap opera ever
every serialized Western ever
The Last Avatar, and the Korra series
X-Men (serials, TV and comics)
Superman (serials, TV and comics)
Gunsmoke
Kung Fu
Flash Gordon (serials, TV and comics)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series, and comics)
Tarzan (serials, TV and novels)
Conan (series, TV and novels)
Dark Shadows
Doctor Who
Star Trek (the various TV series)
Stargate (the various TV series)
Babylon 5
Game of Thrones
Batman (the serials, TV and comics)
... and any other weekly-format show that has ever been produced.
Virtually all of those that you list have had instability and dire, setting-shaking situations as core ingredients. The Three Musketeers were trying to prevent all out war and preserve the integrity of the kingdom!
This becomes even more true if you narrow your list down to just those franchises that are still ongoing commercial ventures, such as the X-Men; their world has been destroyed, their reality has been reshaped, and their team has been slaughtered more times than can be counted. Why? Because when things become too settled, people lose interest. So your choices as a creator of fiction are to A) Plan for your own conclusion B) Keep things unstable enough to keep the audience's interest or C) Wait till they lose interest and you are forced to end your stories at a time and manner that may not be of your own choosing.
As someone who enjoys the ongoing adventures of the Realms, I don't see the problem with an RSE every few years to keep the setting commercially viable, and allow for the smaller stories to be continued in-between.
I can't stand it when people compare D&D to movies and novels. Selling a one time movie, or even a few sequals, is not the same thing. The Realms is something that continues to live, movies are nothing but a 90 minute piece of entertainment that may have a sequal or it may not. Movies that are based on comics have a harder time when it comes to comic fans than it does to the general population. Non fans couldn't give two shakes whether or not they stick with canon. I think Michael Bay has destroyed Transformers, but there are many people who go and just want to watch it and be done.
This does not work in D&D. Earth shattering events are not what you use to keep people interested, besides, the Realms didn't need to change - it was doing just fine. All you have to do is look around you and you will see the evidence. There are already more than enough people who were interested in the Realms so I find that excuse to be BS. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
CylverSaber
Seeker
95 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 18:15:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I can't stand it when people compare D&D to movies and novels. Selling a one time movie, or even a few sequals, is not the same thing. The Realms is something that continues to live, movies are nothing but a 90 minute piece of entertainment that may have a sequal or it may not.
The X-Men are ongoing serials. Same for soap operas, Superman, Batman, and Doctor Who, just from Eltheron's list.
quote:
besides, the Realms didn't need to change - it was doing just fine. All you have to do is look around you and you will see the evidence. There are already more than enough people who were interested in the Realms so I find that excuse to be BS.
Well, it's certainly valid to say "I liked things the way they were so it was doing just fine." But I would surmise that those with access to sales figures saw otherwise, and sales ultimately determine the fate of any commercial venture. |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 18:33:32
|
First, I have to point out that the RSE novel phenomenon during 3e through the 4e transition was more frequent than once every few years.
From 2000-2008, in order, we had the end of the Threat From the Sea (Sea Devil's Eye, 2000), King Azoun's death (Death of the Dragon, 2000), the Return of Shade (Return of the Archwizard's trilogy, 2001-2002), Lolth's silence (War of the Spider Queen, 2002-2005), the rise of the Kingdom of Many Arrows (Hunter's Blade trilogy, 2002-2004), the Rage of Dragons (Year of Rogue Dragons trilogy, 2004-2006), the (apparently complete at the time) reclamation of Myth Drannor (Last Mythal trilogy, 2004-2006), Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun's death (Blackstaff, 2006), Shade's conquest of Netheril (The Twilight War trilogy, 2006-2008), Lolth becomes the only drow god (Lady Penitent trilogy, 2007-2008), Szass Tam takes over Thay (Haunted Lands trilogy, 2007-2009), and, of course, the Spellplague (multiple series and novels).
Even tossing out the two deaths as being less RSE-like, that's 10 major impact novel series in less than a decade, and in something like 15 years of Realms time (counting the Spellplague), leaving aside the Spellplague and Thay's actual falling the rest of those events (plus a number of smaller stories) happen in the space of about 7 or 8 Realms years.
Aside from that I disagree strongly with the idea that only massive explosive changes keep a setting interesting and instable. I would argue that deep seated, long lasting plots and troubles are far better for a setting than flashes in the pan that, as often as not, are ignored the next time a big boom comes along and shakes things again. See, you can have instability, dire situations, and struggles without it being a "save the world" megaplot where cities are razed, gods are slain, and the entire fabric of reality changes. Those stories can be very entertaining, and I'm sure they sell well (though given that the Driz'zt books are such major sellers and don't tend to tell RSE size tales it's obviously not the only thing that does), but after the deluge of such tales Faerun has been subjected to I think it's long past time the Forgotten Realms stopped being constantly shaken. |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 18:36:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by CylverSaber
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I can't stand it when people compare D&D to movies and novels. Selling a one time movie, or even a few sequals, is not the same thing. The Realms is something that continues to live, movies are nothing but a 90 minute piece of entertainment that may have a sequal or it may not.
The X-Men are ongoing serials. Same for soap operas, Superman, Batman, and Doctor Who, just from Eltheron's list.
quote:
besides, the Realms didn't need to change - it was doing just fine. All you have to do is look around you and you will see the evidence. There are already more than enough people who were interested in the Realms so I find that excuse to be BS.
Well, it's certainly valid to say "I liked things the way they were so it was doing just fine." But I would surmise that those with access to sales figures saw otherwise, and sales ultimately determine the fate of any commercial venture.
And X-Men got a retcon because of all the damage it did.
I don't want to hear about sales figures, the failure of 4th edition and abandonment of the WoTc boards is evidence that sales figures were not the cause. FR got changed to fit the 4th edition system. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 19:26:46
|
The problem arises that most of the franchises mentioned are predicated on following specific characters or groups of characters, while the draw od the Realms is to follow an entire setting.
That said, I think the term RSE can be a bit overly broad. The devil, literal or not, is in the details.
The first looming issue is detailing events where the world truly is at stake and then having it saved my character that are Not Player Characters. Less of a problem for novel only fans, but grist for the mill for critics of the setting as a setting.
Thematic erosion is the thing that bothers me. Cormyr is suppose to be the rlatively stable "home base," Netheril is suppose to be the lost empire from whence dangerous magics of old come, Imaskar is suppose to be "those long dead guys that opened all of the portal," and Myth Drannor was suppose to be that lost city of hope where buried treasure lies and vile monsters lurk. The more your concepts drift, the more you lose the core of your setting.
Dragons should rampage and orc hordes should threaten cities, but there really isn't a need for such events to be precipitated by gods or the Chosen. I have a feeling if the Horde books were written in the 3rd edition era Yamun Khahan would have litterally been told to start his conquest by a god.
|
|
|
|
CylverSaber
Seeker
95 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 19:42:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
First, I have to point out that the RSE novel phenomenon during 3e through the 4e transition was more frequent than once every few years.
From 2000-2008, in order, we had the end of the Threat From the Sea (Sea Devil's Eye, 2000), King Azoun's death (Death of the Dragon, 2000), the Return of Shade (Return of the Archwizard's trilogy, 2001-2002), Lolth's silence (War of the Spider Queen, 2002-2005), the rise of the Kingdom of Many Arrows (Hunter's Blade trilogy, 2002-2004), the Rage of Dragons (Year of Rogue Dragons trilogy, 2004-2006), the (apparently complete at the time) reclamation of Myth Drannor (Last Mythal trilogy, 2004-2006), Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun's death (Blackstaff, 2006), Shade's conquest of Netheril (The Twilight War trilogy, 2006-2008), Lolth becomes the only drow god (Lady Penitent trilogy, 2007-2008), Szass Tam takes over Thay (Haunted Lands trilogy, 2007-2009), and, of course, the Spellplague (multiple series and novels).
Even tossing out the two deaths as being less RSE-like, that's 10 major impact novel series in less than a decade, and in something like 15 years of Realms time (counting the Spellplague), leaving aside the Spellplague and Thay's actual falling the rest of those events (plus a number of smaller stories) happen in the space of about 7 or 8 Realms years.
Aside from that I disagree strongly with the idea that only massive explosive changes keep a setting interesting and instable. I would argue that deep seated, long lasting plots and troubles are far better for a setting than flashes in the pan that, as often as not, are ignored the next time a big boom comes along and shakes things again. See, you can have instability, dire situations, and struggles without it being a "save the world" megaplot where cities are razed, gods are slain, and the entire fabric of reality changes. Those stories can be very entertaining, and I'm sure they sell well (though given that the Driz'zt books are such major sellers and don't tend to tell RSE size tales it's obviously not the only thing that does), but after the deluge of such tales Faerun has been subjected to I think it's long past time the Forgotten Realms stopped being constantly shaken.
I guess I just don't have the same definition of an RSE as you; of the ones you mention, the only ones I'd consider truly Realms-Shaking are the Return of Netheril, the death of the drow gods, and the Spellplague, because those wreak havoc far beyond the locales in which the stories are set. The Return of Netheril I would argue has been a good thing, storywise, for the Realms-- the Realms needed some fresh, credible villains, and great authors like Troy Denning, Paul Kemp, Ed Greenwood, and Bob Salvatore have gotten a lot of mileage out of them.
The death of the drow gods I wasn't crazy about (particularly that whole, "Oh these are the demon-tainted drow who can't be saved" bit). Hopefully that will be reversed assuming Eilistraee is returning, and Salvatore has hinted at addressing these issues in terms of Drizzt, Jarlaxle, and Lolth.
The Spellplague-- well, like I said earlier, I don't like the time jump. And there were obviously some changes that messed too much with the flavor of the setting that they are now correcting. But on the plus side, I think we got some great Elminster stories out of it, because he could no longer count on magic to solve all the world's problems, which enabled us to see more of his clever, trickster side. I also think we got some great Salvatore stories with interesting new characters, because without the Companions, and left with Entreri as his only connection to the past, Drizzt is forced to reexamine himself and his relationships in a way he wouldn't have otherwise.
All of this is to say that change is healthy and necessary. The issue isn't that WOTC should ban all future RSE's-- it's that they should be more selective, and only do those that lead to more storytelling possibilities. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 20:26:59
|
Story is built by conflict, not massive shake ups. Conflict can certainly come as a result of massive shake ups, but it isn't necessary. A conflict can even be internalized.
It's the difference between a plot driven story and a character driven story.
Plot driven stories tend to be externally focused, involve plot twists, action, and goals such as trying to escape, win or obtain something, or change a specific situation. These are things that are external to a character. In the Realms, these types of stories are generally going to lead to RSE style events. Things have to shake up and change in order for the story to move forward. Gods have to die, cities need to be threatened, new evils need to arise out of nowhere, etc.
Character driven stories tend to be internally focused. These are stories about characters and the people around them. They focus on characterization and relationships. Stories tend to unfold based on a characters decisions.
It's possible to have some blending and overlap, of course. The Drizzt Books are largely, I would argue, character driven stories. They don't really break anything in the Realms - with a few notable exceptions. At their core they are stories about Drizzt and his friends, and the struggles he faces and how he deals with those struggles.
If we get more books with Drizzt-style characters, especially if they're more like the earlier works, then we avoid the problems we face with RSE's. And people can't say that Drizzt-style books do not sell, because he is perhaps one of the most iconic fantasy characters in the world - even to people who might not know anything really about the Forgotten Realms or D&D. |
|
|
|
CylverSaber
Seeker
95 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 22:14:51
|
| As much as I like Drizzt, I'm not sure creating a bunch of Drizzt-style characters is the way to go. For one thing, the audience tends to see through such attempts and they'd rather go for the original. I think one of the things RSE's do well is that they get people to take a look at authors and characters they might not have before. If you read The Companions for Drizzt, but were intrigued by the Netherese and why they were after Chosen, you might discover Troy Denning's Return of the Archwizards, which might lead you to Paul Kemp's Erevis Cale books. If you read the Neverwinter Saga for Drizzt, you might be led into Erin Evans' Brimstone Angels. So these big events play an important role in sustaining and expanding the line, and for a big chunk of us, they can be pretty fun too. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 22:32:17
|
I believe Aldrick's example, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is not to make characters "like" Drizzt on a surface level, but rather, develop adventurers native to a given region of the Realms, dealing with local problems and adventures, rather than a string of adventuring parties you have never seen before and will never see again who run into the end of the world and stop it, but not until it tore up a big chunk of the Realms and spit it out.
|
|
|
|
CylverSaber
Seeker
95 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 22:50:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
rather than a string of adventuring parties you have never seen before and will never see again who run into the end of the world and stop it, but not until it tore up a big chunk of the Realms and spit it out.
I honestly don't see WoTC doing that with the Sundering or 5E. I think they've been pretty good about letting the Realms authors develop their own ongoing characters and having them deal with the changes to the setting in their own way. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Has WOTC committed to fixing the Realms in 5E
