| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 04:33:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
We'll use the Spellplague as an example:
What I feel happened was that when Mystra was murdered and the weave was destroyed, it brought Returned Abeir closer to Toril. I think of it as the weave also acting like a magnet that has its repelling side facing Abeir. Remove that and the two worlds collide. This pulling brought planes closer to the prime material plane such as the Feywild and the Shadowfell and how races like elves, due to being closer to the inherent magics of Faerie (spelling?) now gaining the ability to teleport or Shadar-Kai not havi.g to be in constant pain to remain outside the plane of Shadow.
These changes, while drastic, can still be considered natural and organic.
It can't be considered natural or organic, because neither the Spellplague nor Abeir have previous setup in the lore. In fact, we know for a fact that Abeir was pulled completely out of thin air, and the Realms after the death of Mystra invalidates previously established lore on what is supposed to happen without the Weave.
Basically, if we were talking about natural and organic change here... the only organic and natural change is the fact that Cyric and Shar had motive and desire to whack Mystra. Everything that happened after that point is well... it's stuff WotC just pulled out of their ass without any real regard for previously established lore.
The moment the Weave ceased to function pretty much everyone who relied upon the Weave to use magic should have been completely without magic. The Realms should have become one giant dead magic zone. Other magical traditions did indeed exist outside of the Weave, but the ones that were developed with the 4E rules? No. Those would have taken literally centuries in setting time to develop.
So, the Realms would have went from a high magic setting, to a pretty much no magic or a very, very, low magic setting pretty much immediately. It's debatable whether or not the Shadow Weave would have survived, as the lore surrounding the Shadow Weave has been retconned numerous times, but considering the outcome of events that happened in canon chances are it would have been lost as well. So you would have seen Shade pretty much come crashing to the ground in the Fall of Netheril 2.0.
And the whole Abeir thing... it doesn't even make sense. It's a complete concoction that clearly had no basis in previously established lore. |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 04:53:55
|
| I appreciate your opinions and I had a lengthy response written about how Mystra's deaths were never committed the same way or on the same plane and that if things like Abeir being introduced is considered bad then how can one add to the setting at all? But, in all honesty, I think I'll bow out now to remove the possibility of turning this discussion into something negative. |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 05:00:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
We'll use the Spellplague as an example:
What I feel happened was that when Mystra was murdered and the weave was destroyed, it brought Returned Abeir closer to Toril. I think of it as the weave also acting like a magnet that has its repelling side facing Abeir. Remove that and the two worlds collide. This pulling brought planes closer to the prime material plane such as the Feywild and the Shadowfell and how races like elves, due to being closer to the inherent magics of Faerie (spelling?) now gaining the ability to teleport or Shadar-Kai not havi.g to be in constant pain to remain outside the plane of Shadow.
These changes, while drastic, can still be considered natural and organic.
So, retcons are natural and organic? The 4e explaination of magic does not line up at all with 3e explanation of how magic works. IMO it would be similar to Star Wars saying the Force blew up, but still having Jedi and Sith that gain their power from ley lines. It doesn't serve to make the setting more interesting, it just removes one of the most iconic features of the universe.
3e FRCG page 54 "Mortals cannot directly shape raw magic. Instead, most who wield magic make use of the Weave. The Weave is the manifestation of raw magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. Without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible-an
archmage can't light a candle in a dead magic zone. But, surrounded by the Weave,a spellcaster can shape lightning to blast her foes, transport herself hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye, even reverse death itself." The section goes onto describe that all magic(arcane or divine in nature) spells, magic items, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities require the weave to function. There is even a sidebar that covers runic magic, shadow magic, gem magic, elemental magic and elven high magic that mentions all of those require the weave. The only option to use magic outside of the weave is the shadow weave which is covered on page 57.
Also, I think that 4e's explanation of how magic works wasn't particularly long lasting.
Let's take a look at D&D basics explanation of how magic works in Faerun/the multiverse. Take a look at chapter 10 page 81. It looks like the entire explanation of the weave being completely destroyed and magic working was retconned. This chapter draws heavily on the previous explanation of magic "Mortals can't directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface. By any name ,without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible; the most powerful archmage can't light a candle with magic in an area where the Weave has been torn. But surrounded by the Weave, a spellcaster can shape lightning to blast foes, transport hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye, or even reverse death itself."
The section again goes on to explain that all magic whether arcane or divine uses the weave as an interface to cast spells.
I think it is a shame that WotC is now shoehorning the weave concept across the multiverse. I certainly wouldn't blame a group running Planescape,or another setting for completely ignoring that addition. I fully expect your group to complete ignore this as well. For me, it provides a convenient explanation for how FR characters can travel around the multiverse and still use magic. It also restores the interesting take on magic that attracted me to FR over say another fantasy setting like Dragonlance or Greyhawk. I understand there are plenty of posters on the internet that don't care for the FR magic system. There is no reason why they couldn't ignore it, or use one of the other great campaign settings D&D has to offer. I don't find WotC's newest attempt to standardize magic use anymore appealing than 4e's. I like the fact that FR gets its unique flavor back instead of the IMO the incredibly generic raw magic stuff of 4e. I will certainly take advantage of it. However, I am not going to spend my days on Dragon's foot telling Greyhawk fans that they should accept it.
Because it is late and I am not sure if the previous paragraph clearly states a point. I am a huge fan of restoring FR's take on magic to the setting. I don't think that WotC should have covered other settings in the explaination. Using a blanket explanation robs the other settings of a chance to come up with/use their existing explanation for magic. Also, I think that the 4e's retcon of how magic works in FR doesn't come off as organic in the slightest. It is ridiculously jarring and doesn't serve to add anything unique or flavorful to the setting. The setting had to lose 4 deities to achieve it and didn't gain anything interesting in return. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
Edited by - Tarlyn on 18 Jul 2014 05:04:03 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 05:28:33
|
I'm don't understand why people object to the fact that authors and game designers (creatives) pull ideas out of thin air, as though there's some rule that says the Forgotten Realms is already fully and completey realized (it isn't), therefore no ideas spun up strictly from a creative's imagination are allowed.
No doubt "thin air" ideas have made their way into the Realms quite a bit, and to good effect. I mean it should be no mystery where ideas come from, much less that the direction and course of the Realms is planned out in advance.
As for Abeir itself, I think it's a great idea and entirely plausible. The Realms has always been connected to countless other worlds. Why can't it be the case that the Realms is connected to one world more than any other, and that perhaps that world and the reason it exists are why the barriers between worlds are so thin in the Realms?
It's not that the idea of Abeir was bad, it's that the presentation was bad--that is, the concept wasn't as well grounded in Realmslore as it could have been.
The is why the notion that Abeir, etc., is all a big retcon doesn't make sense. It's just not true.
For it to be true, then there would have had to be a statement prior to 4E saying, "There's no such thing as Abeir in the Realms," or something else that definitively and with no wiggle room proclaims something like Abeir is impossible. (EDIT: The same thing could be said for rules about how magic and the weave functions when the caretaker of the Weave dies or succumbs to injury.)
To my knowledge, such a statement doesn't exist.
Ultimately, there's still a lot about the Realms that we don't know. When people insist on "organic" changes to the setting, they'd be wise to remember this, just as current and future Realms creatives would do well to entertain all ideas that come to mind, and do their best to ground them in the Realms in lieu of unleashing them straight from their brains into a sourcebook. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 18 Jul 2014 05:34:16 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 05:35:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I appreciate your opinions and I had a lengthy response written about how Mystra's deaths were never committed the same way or on the same plane and that if things like Abeir being introduced is considered bad then how can one add to the setting at all? But, in all honesty, I think I'll bow out now to remove the possibility of turning this discussion into something negative.
I don't really think it's negative. I'll explain the difference.
For me, what's important is the following: When a major change is being set into motion in the Realms, that it be built upon existing lore, or at the very least that it does not contradict or invalidate existing lore but compliments it instead.
Let me use an example that hasn't happened. Let's say there is a novel trilogy written in which Cormyr falls to the Aboloth Sovereignty. Every noble is dead or enthralled, as is the entire royal family. The people of Cormyr are all enslaved.
This could conceivably happen because the Aboloth Sovereignty does exist in the canon. However, the change invalidates existing lore of Cormyr.
A better way to handle things would be to start smaller. You instead tell a story where the Aboloth Sovereignty gets a secret foothold in Wheloon. Well, that's more reasonable. You've put down the groundwork to build something on in future stories.
So, another author or designer comes along, and decides to carry that story a little further. By the end of that story the Aboloth Sovereignty have secretly gained control of some of the major political forces in Wheloon, they are effectively pulling the strings in the city. Things seem more dire for Cormyr now.
Then another author or designer comes along, and decides to build upon what was laid down by the others previously. So now by the end of that story the Aboloth Sovereignty has started to extend it's reach and influence beyond Wheloon. The situation grows more dire for Cormyr.
...and basically this goes on and on over time. People pick up these threads and they Weave them together into a story. Over time Cormyr may collapse into a civil war manipulated by the Aboloth Sovereignty, which does indeed eventually kill or enslave most of the nobility and royal family, while enslaving the population. That may be where that story ends. Of course, the person who laid down the original thread might not have anticipated it. But the Realms is a shared world and evolving setting. Things can happen like this.
The big difference is that this is something that took place over the course of numerous real life years. Many different people influenced the story. The change happened gradually over time, there was no sudden or major shift, and everything was built upon what was already previously established.
That's what organic growth looks like...
An example where the lore may not invalidate things, but doesn't compliment things very well - such as what happened with the whole Abeir situation. Let's say someone comes up with a really great idea for a city they want to add to Cormyr, and they go through with it. This city is the largest city in Cormyr by far - a city on par with Waterdeep.
Now, you could always say that the city was there, but just never discussed or talked about in the lore previously. However, it's jarring and doesn't fit - it doesn't compliment the existing lore. You could easily add more towns and villages to Cormyr that have never been discussed. Cormyr certainly has quite a few of them, and the lore would likely be enriched for it. However, a major city is hard to justify.
To me that's what natural and organic change looks like - so it's unlike pretty much any RSE we've ever seen. It's not something that can be solved and wrapped up in a few novels by a single author or designer. It's something that compliments and builds upon existing lore. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 05:49:27
|
Jeremy Grenemyer -
There is a difference between pulling an idea out of thin air (i.e. "I have a great idea for a new character to add to the setting"), and creating major shifts in the Realms that does not compliment the already existing lore.
Should some of the Abeir stuff have been handled differently? Yeah. Like you said, the Realms has always been connected to other worlds. It's how the Elves ended up in the Realms, for example. There is no reason that they could not have told an Orc Gate war style story which heralded the arrival of the Dragonborn to the setting, as an example. They could have come from their own world which is pretty much identical to Abeir - just not Toril's twin.
A story like that is reasonable to tell, basically recrafting the entire back story of the Realms by adding in previously unknown information... well, that's like adding a city the size of Waterdeep to Cormyr and claiming that it's always been there, it's just never been discussed. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 07:15:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
A story like that is reasonable to tell, basically recrafting the entire back story of the Realms by adding in previously unknown information... well, that's like adding a city the size of Waterdeep to Cormyr and claiming that it's always been there, it's just never been discussed.
I've more I'd like to say, but it's late and I'm ready for bed.
For now I'll say this: if the back story of the Realms going all the way back to creation is a map, and each event in that story is a geographical feature or city, then there's a whole lot of map that we haven't seen yet.
Abeir was not, in my opinion, a recrafting. Rather, it was a revelation of different portions of the map that we've never seen before.
And much like the 4E map of the Realms, WotC didn't do as good a job as they could have on it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6662 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 07:57:32
|
Execution really is everything. Good execution can sell any change, no matter how "Realms-shaking".
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 07:59:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I appreciate your opinions and I had a lengthy response written about how Mystra's deaths were never committed the same way or on the same plane and that if things like Abeir being introduced is considered bad then how can one add to the setting at all? But, in all honesty, I think I'll bow out now to remove the possibility of turning this discussion into something negative.
I don't really think it's negative. I'll explain the difference.
For me, what's important is the following: When a major change is being set into motion in the Realms, that it be built upon existing lore, or at the very least that it does not contradict or invalidate existing lore but compliments it instead.
Let me use an example that hasn't happened. Let's say there is a novel trilogy written in which Cormyr falls to the Aboloth Sovereignty. Every noble is dead or enthralled, as is the entire royal family. The people of Cormyr are all enslaved.
This could conceivably happen because the Aboloth Sovereignty does exist in the canon. However, the change invalidates existing lore of Cormyr.
I don't think that invalidates anything. See, here the story as just changed. It's like saying the Klingon fleet rolls in, decimates Starfleet, and now Starfleet is practically a defunct collection of systems with no central order. It doesn't invalidate what's previously been written. It just alters the status-quo going forward. In the Aboleth-controlled Cormyr, it means that running games there has a strongly different feeling, but ALL the info leading up to that scenario is still there. AND you can use that info going forward. How useful it can be is entirely up to the individual.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
A better way to handle things would be to start smaller. You instead tell a story where the Aboloth Sovereignty gets a secret foothold in Wheloon. Well, that's more reasonable. You've put down the groundwork to build something on in future stories.
While I wouldn't be opposed to such a scenario or adventure path, going that particular route isn't inherently any better or worse than Aboleth-Cormyr, it's just that there's a path you like more.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
So, another author or designer comes along, and decides to carry that story a little further. By the end of that story the Aboloth Sovereignty have secretly gained control of some of the major political forces in Wheloon, they are effectively pulling the strings in the city. Things seem more dire for Cormyr now.
Then another author or designer comes along, and decides to build upon what was laid down by the others previously. So now by the end of that story the Aboloth Sovereignty has started to extend it's reach and influence beyond Wheloon. The situation grows more dire for Cormyr.
...and basically this goes on and on over time. People pick up these threads and they Weave them together into a story. Over time Cormyr may collapse into a civil war manipulated by the Aboloth Sovereignty, which does indeed eventually kill or enslave most of the nobility and royal family, while enslaving the population. That may be where that story ends. Of course, the person who laid down the original thread might not have anticipated it. But the Realms is a shared world and evolving setting. Things can happen like this.
I guess I've never seen a FR story like that ever come to fruition. Most of the dealings that go on are often created, pushed, and then either left open to the void OR finished up in a novel or supplement.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
The big difference is that this is something that took place over the course of numerous real life years. Many different people influenced the story. The change happened gradually over time, there was no sudden or major shift, and everything was built upon what was already previously established.
That's what organic growth looks like...
I think the big difference is that once is abrupt while the other is longer in the making. If BOTH have the same exact result due to novels and supplements....? Or is it because it's a more collaborative attempt rather than 1 or 2 people making the decision? Because that's really all I see, that one change takes effect immediately while the other takes years.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
An example where the lore may not invalidate things, but doesn't compliment things very well - such as what happened with the whole Abeir situation. Let's say someone comes up with a really great idea for a city they want to add to Cormyr, and they go through with it. This city is the largest city in Cormyr by far - a city on par with Waterdeep.
Now, you could always say that the city was there, but just never discussed or talked about in the lore previously. However, it's jarring and doesn't fit - it doesn't compliment the existing lore. You could easily add more towns and villages to Cormyr that have never been discussed. Cormyr certainly has quite a few of them, and the lore would likely be enriched for it. However, a major city is hard to justify.
To me that's what natural and organic change looks like - so it's unlike pretty much any RSE we've ever seen. It's not something that can be solved and wrapped up in a few novels by a single author or designer. It's something that compliments and builds upon existing lore.
Then, basically, we've never really seen organic and natural growth within the Realms. Since I've been apart of the Realms anyways. To me it looks more like this: Stuff is the same, few pieces move, a novel has a minor shake in an area...*BOOM - RSE - BOOM*....pieces fall down and get moved around a bit, but things stay static, a novel shakes up a town or small area....*BOOM - RSE - BOOM*.....pieces fall down and things get moved around a bit, but things stay static, a novel shakes up a small town or village......*BOOM - RSE - BOOM*.....
This is pretty much the Time of Troubles.....a lul......Shade's Return, the rebirth of Bane, and the shake up of the Western Heartlands (the Silver Marshes, Kingdom of Obould, restoration of Anauroch, rebirth of Myth Drannor).........a lul........Spellplague.........a lul.......the Sundering......
Nothing really changes much in the way of the setting other than the RSE's. No over-arching plots are really accomplished or gained. Most notorious villance remain in power (until the time jump anyways). Most heroes and heroic organizations do their thing like it's day-to-day.
I've not seen anything close to your *admittedly cool concept* Aboleth-Controlled Cormyr idea that spans real life years and is added to with supplements and novels. Nothing except, maybe, the Underdark and Menzoberranzan. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 17:06:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then, basically, we've never really seen organic and natural growth within the Realms. Since I've been apart of the Realms anyways. To me it looks more like this: Stuff is the same, few pieces move, a novel has a minor shake in an area...*BOOM - RSE - BOOM*....pieces fall down and get moved around a bit, but things stay static, a novel shakes up a town or small area....*BOOM - RSE - BOOM*.....pieces fall down and things get moved around a bit, but things stay static, a novel shakes up a small town or village......*BOOM - RSE - BOOM*.....
This is pretty much the Time of Troubles.....a lul......Shade's Return, the rebirth of Bane, and the shake up of the Western Heartlands (the Silver Marshes, Kingdom of Obould, restoration of Anauroch, rebirth of Myth Drannor).........a lul........Spellplague.........a lul.......the Sundering......
Nothing really changes much in the way of the setting other than the RSE's. No over-arching plots are really accomplished or gained. Most notorious villance remain in power (until the time jump anyways). Most heroes and heroic organizations do their thing like it's day-to-day.
I've not seen anything close to your *admittedly cool concept* Aboleth-Controlled Cormyr idea that spans real life years and is added to with supplements and novels. Nothing except, maybe, the Underdark and Menzoberranzan.
EXACTLY! This is the core of my frustration with the Realms and the RSE's, and the reason I've been bitching all these years. It's the reason that I say the problem with the Realms didn't really start with 4th Edition, it pretty much stretches all the way back to the Time of Troubles.
What I mean by invalidates previous lore isn't the same thing as a retcon. Basically, it means that setting information that has already been published is no longer valid if you want to set an adventure or a campaign in that region. For example, I can open the Unapproachable East and read the information regarding Thay. Post-Civil War how much of that information is even valid? I'd wager 90% to 95% of it is invalid. You can't use it if you want to set an adventure or a campaign in the canon timeline of the Realms. This makes the whole shared world experience invalid.
Now, obviously, even small changes can invalidate some portions of that material as it just falls out of date. That's the nature of an advancing timeline. However, there is a big difference between 90% to 95% of the information sitting before you being invalid, and the information regarding one town or city needing a bit of an update because of a local power shift there. That's a big difference, even changes larger than that a reasonable person using the information before them, can reasonably extrapolate out from what is published to get a general idea of what things look like... that's because enough of the other information there is still relevant enough to provide a proper context.
This is also the reason I said previously, that once a major event in a region has ended, a source book needs to be published regarding that region to give everyone up-to-date information. You're creating a new baseline with that source book, letting everyone know what the region looks like after the event, so they can set stories there and continue using the canon of the shared world.
One of the major selling points of the Realms is that it's a shared world. People want to feel like they are participating in that shared experience. This is not possible if huge sweeping changes are being made abruptly, and previous setting information is being invalidated quicker than WotC is willing to publish updated setting lore. |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 17:34:20
|
quote:
I guess I've never seen a FR story like that ever come to fruition. Most of the dealings that go on are often created, pushed, and then either left open to the void OR finished up in a novel or supplement.
My feelings exactly.
quote:
This is also the reason I said previously, that once a major event in a region has ended, a source book needs to be published regarding that region to give everyone up-to-date information. You're creating a new baseline with that source book, letting everyone know what the region looks like after the event, so they can set stories there and continue using the canon of the shared world.
Something like that was hinted at in the introduction to 3e FRCS - there was a sidebox about the passage of time and how the RL time related to the timeline changes. Sadly, it never came to be. |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 19:50:17
|
I really dislike the mentality of any given setting being a sacred cow where no notable changes happen over time. The idea of "rolling back" the Realms really rubs me the wrong way. The most sensible thing to do would just to have been continuing to rebuild post spellplague, which would have restored some of the older locales but made some new ones too.
I hate the universal assumption that 4E was hated and was a failure. It got me back into D&D when I wasn't particularly into older versions. |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 19:58:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People are free to like or dislike what they will. And as long as they are not being disrespectful of others -- such as by utterly dismissing their opinions -- then they are free to share their opinions.
Something that I've noticed a lot around here is that if people "dismiss the opinions" of the pre-3e/4e crowd they're labeled as being disrespectful, but I don't see that claim being made as much when the opinions of the post-3e/4e crowd are being "dismissed". Hell, they're often treated as being non-existant.
WotC has a really big problem in their hands because they're trying to get the fans that lost interest in the FR (won't talk about the game itself, just the setting for the novels which is the only thing I'm familiar with) while not alienating the current fanbase. And to do this they're bringing the setting as close as possible to the geo-political status of 100 years ago, which ultimately will solve nothing since (as evidenced in this very scroll) at least some of the fans that left FR and kept paying attention to the setting demand everything post-3e/4e to be made non-canonical, thus alienating most of the current fanbase (which is "kind of" a lot more disrespectful).
I'll be honest here, I really don't like a lot of the changes being made with the Sundering because they're getting rid of a lot of cool stuff. The Shade Empire, Many-Arrows, Reclamation of Myth Drannor, spellscars, Tymanther and Akanul. And no, it's not that I have a problem with change, since I thought that the upheavel of 3e and 4e was really entertaining, I have a problem that this time "change" is nothing more than a regression to the past status quo. It's nothing new. And what makes it worse is that I know that this "change" is being done to appease a part of the fanbase that will never be appeased.
The sad part of all this is that the section of the fanbase that was fine with the transitions to 3e and 4e are also the section of the fanbase most likely to accept the transition to 5e, since they're a lot less resistant to change.
Pretty much this, especially the second to last paragraph. I know I'm going to be hated for saying this, but I think 4E was the deneckbearded D&D and that's largely why it was hated.
I think 4E fans will be pissed off either way though because they'll see it as a slight.
I really liked the idea of magical mutants, it was something new and now there's no rules for it it's kinda bleh. |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 21:23:50
|
I got the impression that the 5E team is trying to shephard an edition for everyone.
There's a chance that the 5E Realms might have a little something for everyone as well. Inclusiveness seems to be one of the buzz-words for this edition.
Roseweave: Alot of what you articulate in your posts about what you are feeling is very similar how some realms fans felt about the 4E realms switchover.
|
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jul 2014 : 21:29:04
|
An awful lot of what I see in 5E is just scrapping things they did in 4E.
Personally I liked the distinction of Eladrin, the old Eladrin didn't make a ton of sense to me, though I like the idea of Celestial Fey-like entities, they could have adjoined them better. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 02:54:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by CylverSaber
I think this logic is kind of contradictory; if having everyone on the same page is important (let alone even possible, given that the moment Ed turned the Realms over to TSR, it inevitably would depart from his home campaign, just as it would from the home campaigns of people buying the setting in stores) then wouldn't the best thing be for WoTC to stop making Forgotten Realms products altogether? That way no new canon would be established, and they wouldn't put people in the awkward position of having to change their campaigns to match up with that new canon.
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I think there's a big difference between lore being invalidated and lore simply becoming outdated, which is what happens when a RSE comes along.
I personally believe that RSE's are needed once in a while to shake things up. Otherwise there's no way to make credible threats to the world since we know from the start that they're doomed to fail since the setting is immutable.
Do all stories need to be RSEs? Obviously not. In fact a lot of my favorite novels are far from being RSEs, but a setting without RSEs is a stagnant and dead setting.
I certainly don't believe that the Realms should forever be stuck to adhering to whatever sourcebook player a or player b prefers.
You're (non-specific you) making the false assumption that new canon and "progress" can only gained via Realms Shaking-level Events.
Or that the general seasonal progression of the nasty backstabby mercantile wheeling and dealing and the gradual conquests by this or that ambitious leader or tyrant with the occasional magical mishap does not make for an intriguing (indeed a more intriguing) setting on its own.
Or you know, there's always the option of a run-of-the-mill succession war. I heard this little unknown show on TV is essentially that if you strip out the already minimal fantasy elements. No Godswars and Avatars there. No parallel worlds colliding. A few dragons, some winder walkers, but overall no fantasy nukes going off annually and twice on a leap year.
quote:
Originally posted by CylverSaber
To add to this, I must say I find the idea of a campaign that feels it has to adhere to canon incredibly boring. To me, TSR/WoTC/Hasbro are and always have been in the business of selling ideas. If I like those ideas, I will use them. If not, I will make up my own. That, to me, is the joy of RPGs. Your mileage may vary.
Then take the ideas you like from the new new Realms and make up your own stuff. Why get into this discussion about RSEs and canon events? Why argue against others liking a different sort of idea? Of course we all care to some degree, or we wouldn't be here.
You're not fighting for the promotion of progress or change. You're against change just like the rest of us, it's just change of a different sort. That's the thing. What's good for the goose, is never good for the gander. Once someone starts changing things in the direction you don't like, it rubs you the wrong way. Just like all of us "anti-changers". People are asking for a change in the way Wizards handles the Realms and for the setting to change to something resembling the Grey Box or somewhere in 2E. You're the one who's arguing they should stay the course, keep pulling the gimmicks they're pulling. Who's the regressive now? ;P
As for WotC being about ideas. Wizard's last great RPG idea was buying TSR (out of game it was the OGL). And TSR's last great idea was Planescape. I'm talking ideas that makes one go "Whoa".
I don't look to the Realms for big new ideas. It's not a very original setting when one breaks it down to its components. I like the Realms for its execution of classic fantasy ideas (at points, the execution is unparalleled).
Lately, Wizard's ideas of what the Realms should be have sucks compared to what it earlier renditions, imo. For that reason I stopped buying their stuff and sent my business to other companies. Many people felt the same way and it may be having an effect.
quote:
Originally posted by CylverSaber
We do need more successful characters, of course, but the question is how do they become successful? It's harder now than it's ever been with so many different forms of entertainment vying for the audience's attention. There are so many great stories out there that have been published but never noticed. We even have talented authors who write for the Realms who aren't even getting their books published in print form. So you can write a great story, but how do you get people to notice it? RSEs (or their equivalents in other contexts) are one tool in the toolbox. It shouldn't be the only tool, and it shouldn't be overused or misused, but to throw away a tool that works is foolish.
The tool has been overused to the point it's nothing more than a dull bludgeon and still Wizards is hammering away at the setting looking to extract some specks of wealth. I just think they're making an eye-sore of a mess and causing a noxious racket, but YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I don't think that invalidates anything. See, here the story as just changed. It's like saying the Klingon fleet rolls in, decimates Starfleet, and now Starfleet is practically a defunct collection of systems with no central order. It doesn't invalidate what's previously been written. It just alters the status-quo going forward. In the Aboleth-controlled Cormyr, it means that running games there has a strongly different feeling, but ALL the info leading up to that scenario is still there. AND you can use that info going forward. How useful it can be is entirely up to the individual.
That happened in an alternate universe episode on DS9. Good for a visit as a "what if" but not a suitable replacement for the main setting.
Alter the status quo too much and it does invalidate the old lore. It moves the pre-existing information from active setting to background history. It can serve as an inspiration for the new setting or as link/reference to the past setting, but it no longer serves as the main presentation of the setting.
Take the Klingon example. Say they bombarded San Francisco. Starfleet Academy is a series of deep craters. The Golden Gate bridge is slag. What use is the lore on the Starfleet Academy of yesteryear if nothing is left standing in the current post-Starfleet setting? What use is information on the Golden Gate if the connection/history/symbolism of it provided no longer applies.
In the 4E Realms, we could use some stuff for Cormyr and other 'core' areas, but for many parts of the 'periphery' Realms, they were violently destroyed, flooded, disrupted, sunk, shifted to another world, overtaken by spellplague, or outright overwritten by entire kingdoms from an alternate world.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I've not seen anything close to your *admittedly cool concept* Aboleth-Controlled Cormyr idea that spans real life years and is added to with supplements and novels. Nothing except, maybe, the Underdark and Menzoberranzan.
Indeed, thus the argument that Wizards is into change for the sake of change. They're enthralled by the idea of change, the big boom that causes it, but really don't give a hoot for any lasting impact or an engrossing story beyond the initial event. That we have any is probably more due to individual author/designer initiative than any directive from on high. |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 03:40:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
[quote]Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People are free to like or dislike what they will. And as long as they are not being disrespectful of others -- such as by utterly dismissing their opinions -- then they are free to share their opinions.
snip
I think 4E fans will be pissed off either way though because they'll see it as a slight.
.
no more so than everyone else did when they gave us the 4e realms
comes around and goes around.
you can: please some of the people some of the time
please most of the people most of the time
you can't please all the people all the time.
if the 4e realms likers get pissed because they felt slighted, well thats good/bad/both/all/in between depending on how one looks at it.
and as I said elsewhere, for all what 4e did right, it did an equal amount of things wrong, even more so if it did part of that number wrong in the 3 published settings of Eberron, DArk Sun and the Forgotten Realms.
I for one did not like the make moon/sun/star elves of the realms into eladrin, nor did I like the 4e lore of the core setting of nentire vale shoehorned into the realms, nor did I like a good many things about 4e and the 4e realms, but I wont go and dicuss that.
and I digress and I'm sure I've took enough time with my thoughts that might be to mangled to make any since of.....
well regardless, I hope that when 5e comes out, it makes a better pc game than 4e did........ Dont get me wrong, Neverwinter is fun but..... |
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 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 04:39:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
I really dislike the mentality of any given setting being a sacred cow where no notable changes happen over time. The idea of "rolling back" the Realms really rubs me the wrong way. The most sensible thing to do would just to have been continuing to rebuild post spellplague, which would have restored some of the older locales but made some new ones too.
Sacred cows was so last edition. We're down to goats and chickens now. You get one or the other, we have to save the blood sacrifice of the other animal for D&D 6E.
Let's not consider it rolling back so much as returning to a classic setup and not moving forward with losing ideas. Remember sometimes new is not better, else only New Coke would be sold in stores ( probably New New New Coke after inflation), classic cars wouldn't cost more than new ones, and Superman #1 would still be worth the pennies printed on the cover. Also keep in mind, big boomy RSE plot is not always progress and lack of such does not equate to no future plots or a halt to all stories in the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
I hate the universal assumption that 4E was hated and was a failure. It got me back into D&D when I wasn't particularly into older versions.
I'm merely amused there's an assumption it's not half as bad as people say it wasn't. Nothing against the 4E rules, but WotC never should have allowed a competitor in the same field to come as close to second as Paizo has, let alone exceed their current game like Pathfinder eventually did, and recently FFG's SWRPG and Evil Hat Productions' Fate Core. That's right, D&D was #4 in stores according to ICv2 Fall 2013. I'm sure those other games are counting their blessings for this brief opportunity to better establish themselves.
Or create the perfect storm to fuel a revival movement to celebrate older editions of their game... without their involvement. Some of the consultants for 5E are advocates of other edition styles of play.
Or cede CRPG and transmedia opportunities to other franchises (media they were once synonymous with).
Whatever the hell with 4E rules or 4E Realms, it feebleminded Wizards from acting as a competent and competitive company. The writing was on the wall early. I would say for sure sometime around when Wizards decided they spread the poo on Tyr a bit too thick and decided to axe him. Wizards was too busy basking in its own awesomeness to read the signs otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
Pretty much this, especially the second to last paragraph. I know I'm going to be hated for saying this, but I think 4E was the deneckbearded D&D and that's largely why it was hated.
The 4E side was too busying to be neckbeards, busy "slaughtering sacred cows", "killing them and taking their stuff", being "cool", and assured in their self-righteous smugness that the new system was superior to all that had come before, perfectly "balanced", doesn't have the linear fighter and quadratic wizard problem, gnomes are monsters rawr, has kewl new races like diabolic tieflings (with boobs) and dragonborn (new and improved with reptile boobs), was a true system for a theater of the mind due to its freeform non-combat aspects, we have better art, and dozens of other totally non-neckbeardy claims.
Right, 4E is the 100% neckbeard-free D&D, now with added Vitamin WC and fortified with Triestoohard.
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
I think 4E fans will be pissed off either way though because they'll see it as a slight.
Haven't sensed their nerd-rage enough. Those light-weights aren't even trying. Or not enough people seem to try. Or care period.
Personal anecdote, aside from the people who think 4E is the second coming of sliced bread. I've seen more blogs and discussions about playing 4E for a time and then moving on to other games than anything else really (except for those non-neckbeards 4E fans hilariously making pitch perfect imitations of their neckbearded foes but turning the arguments for 4E, ingenius no?).
As with any old edition, hold outs will remain. Don't feel too bad, soon, my disenfranchised as yet non-neckbearded friend, you too will rejoice and season your Doritos with the dessicated tears of future D&D players left in the wake of yet another new edition. I sense the fibers of a throat carpet pulsing beneath your skin. Feed your hate. Feel the power of the dark side.
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
I really liked the idea of magical mutants, it was something new and now there's no rules for it it's kinda bleh.
Been told there's enough 4E-ism in 5E that conversion might work.
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
An awful lot of what I see in 5E is just scrapping things they did in 4E.
Personally I liked the distinction of Eladrin, the old Eladrin didn't make a ton of sense to me, though I like the idea of Celestial Fey-like entities, they could have adjoined them better.
Odd, since old Eladrin were exactly fey-like celestials, who were too busy being awesomely chaotic good to give two dustings of faeire powder about elves. No wonder they could have been adjoined better, considering they weren't meant to be adjoined to begin with. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 04:57:40
|
Jesus Christ, Dark Wizard...you've been waiting a long time to let all this out, haven't you?
I suppose if you're fiending to get your licks in, now is the time. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 06:14:45
|
| We're starting to stray from the original topic, folks, and we're heading toward the overly familiar path of bashing editions. I should like to see us get back on course, please. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 06:21:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People are free to like or dislike what they will. And as long as they are not being disrespectful of others -- such as by utterly dismissing their opinions -- then they are free to share their opinions.
Something that I've noticed a lot around here is that if people "dismiss the opinions" of the pre-3e/4e crowd they're labeled as being disrespectful, but I don't see that claim being made as much when the opinions of the post-3e/4e crowd are being "dismissed". Hell, they're often treated as being non-existant.
Perhaps from your self-identified sense of persecution. I'm seeing a lot more of the inverse, especially over the course of time. If anything, defenders of 4E have at times taken on common tactics used to silence dissension by equating any criticism of the 4E Realms into an attack on the 4E fan or the 4E designers/authors, regardless if it did or not, or if it was warranted. Conversely, the pre-4E side mostly just allows uninhibited criticism of everything, even pre-4E Realms.
Typically how it goes is both sides would get heated before someone from the post-4E side would say people wanting a restart to the earlier editions to be disrespectful of the designers and the new fans of the 4E setting (as if either were elevated on a pedestal above the 3E peons). This has been said many times and is happening now.
As for treating one side as non-existent. When I read a 4E post, I think "That's nice, I have nothing to add because the new stuff is so far removed from my own experience with that area of Realmslore."
I have a few options:
1) "Awesome stuff, keep it up." Which is just false encouragement, which would be stupid and fake, because I don't think that.
2) "I liked how 2E had it." Which would be my accurate sentiment, but there's enough of that going around without even trying and too much criticism is seen as disrespectful. No one every pulled that one when this was all pre-4E Realms, maybe we should have tried it. it would have prevented the whole coming of 4E Realms because criticism from the various anti-3E-Realms groups, like the 'wah wah' I wanna be the special ones, or to many gods, Kill-Drizzt and Kill-minster groups.
3) "That's not bad, I would have liked to see more of this though." Borders on the pre-4E sentiment again and some people take that also as 4E bashing.
3) Say nothing. Unfortunately one of the safe choices that comes across as ignoring, because if everyone constructively criticized a 4E post, it just naturally comes across as a pile on. I can't help it if there's a lot to criticize about 4E Realms and that many share the same sentiment.
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
WotC has a really big problem in their hands because they're trying to get the fans that lost interest in the FR (won't talk about the game itself, just the setting for the novels which is the only thing I'm familiar with) while not alienating the current fanbase. And to do this they're bringing the setting as close as possible to the geo-political status of 100 years ago, which ultimately will solve nothing since (as evidenced in this very scroll) at least some of the fans that left FR and kept paying attention to the setting demand everything post-3e/4e to be made non-canonical, thus alienating most of the current fanbase (which is "kind of" a lot more disrespectful).
To which I say, get in line since the 4E changes were in their own way disrespectful to all the work designers and authors put into the old Realms. In one edition switch, their work is rendered obsolete, if the area still exists at all. Don't do unto others what you wouldn't do unto yourself.
Since 4E pretty much pushed the reset button, many wouldn't have qualms about doing it again for the next edition, for real this time cause we're not wimps like the should we, shouldn't we 4E design team.
And therein lies the slippery slope of excessive super-RSEs that act like virtual reboots. The genie is out of the bottle either way. Blame not the fans, but WotC for using the nuclear option in the first place. Figure this, if we can collapse pantheons, skip a century, Spellplague-coat entire realms, and Abeirify sub-continents all in one edition, a simple reboot seems almost mundane (also, prior precedence in Dark Sun 4E).
A reboot wouldn't invalidate anything either. Fans of the 4E Realms can still choose to implement that version of the setting. The 4E FRCG would even be more readily accessible than the 3E FRCS or the 1E/2E boxed sets due to sheer recentness of publication.
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I'll be honest here, I really don't like a lot of the changes being made with the Sundering because they're getting rid of a lot of cool stuff. The Shade Empire, Many-Arrows, Reclamation of Myth Drannor, spellscars, Tymanther and Akanul. And no, it's not that I have a problem with change, since I thought that the upheavel of 3e and 4e was really entertaining, I have a problem that this time "change" is nothing more than a regression to the past status quo. It's nothing new. And what makes it worse is that I know that this "change" is being done to appease a part of the fanbase that will never be appeased.
Take this paragraph and edit it from the pre-4E perspective looking at the drastic clusterflog that was an impending 4E but dialed to '11' and you'll have an idea of how some fans felt when faced with 4E.
Trade out the locations for the Island Kingdoms, the Shining South, the Old Empires, Maztica, the Vilhon Reach, the Great Rift and the Shaar, the lands around Chult, the Lake of Steam, parts of the Sea of Fallen Stars.
Instead of 'regression', we have change for the sake of change, because what real integrative and new aspects did the changes bring, none, things were plopped down and the archetypes were retreads of existing ideas in the Realms. Still nothing new.
The change was being done to appease whose who will never be appeased. Those who always hated the Realms, because they hate:
- That the Realms displaced Greyhawk
- It wasn't old-school enough
- That it's not Eberron
- Elminster
- Drizzt
- The meddlesome pantheon and/or NPCs (same diff)
- Too packed with lore
- Ed Greenwood, because he's: Elminster, not Gary Gygax, an unfocused/poor novelist, likes too much setting details, a dirty old man (joke's on them, he's barely middle aged and had pieces of Realmslore published in Dragon by age 20), and/or Canadian.
- Too Tolkien or vanilla fantasy.
- Is munchkiny, too high-powered, too high-magic
- Makes no sense (Kitchen sink fantasy, Earth analogues)
- Insert own reason
Imagine taking something and modifying it for the use of those who swore they would never use it, that they would always hate it. That required so many changes to be made to cater to them, but in the end still didn't deem the thing worth.
WotC did just that. It's not happening now. It already happened in 4E.
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
The sad part of all this is that the section of the fanbase that was fine with the transitions to 3e and 4e are also the section of the fanbase most likely to accept the transition to 5e, since they're a lot less resistant to change.
This assumes "change" is all that's drawing the fanbase. That's a big assumption, one not supported by past trends and not remotely mirrored with other settings.
|
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 06:48:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Jesus Christ, Dark Wizard...you've been waiting a long time to let all this out, haven't you?
I suppose if you're fiending to get your licks in, now is the time.
What did you expect from a neckbeard. :P
I skim these posts on break, but don't have time to respond. Was going to leave this alone, but Diffan dragged me in with 'Klingon'.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We're starting to stray from the original topic, folks, and we're heading toward the overly familiar path of bashing editions. I should like to see us get back on course, please.
We return to our regularly scheduled program.
5E is making some positive waves so far, it might be 5E bashing prior editions soon enough. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 08:25:06
|
More seriously than my snarky posts:
- "Klingons win" was an alternate universe story line on DS9, might not be the best example to use for arguing against a reboot/reimagining/etc. especially when some fans are arguing for establishing an alternate universe.
- The issue of "disrespect" has flown both ways and six days on Sunday on the internet in general. Poster saw it one way, I see it another. We can agree to disagree, but I made my point as to why I think the way I do. All that huff about lack of history annotating the edition wars, perhaps true, but much of my posts weren't about the edition issues. It was about being able to reciprocate perspectives and is tied very much to the discussions and posts here and now.
A couple of things were quite silly in the recent post and the snarky side of me took them to task.
- 'Sacred cow' is a slimy term and what's sillier is parroting the idea in 2014 when it was used in the early days of supporting 4E. Not against any rules and it's a free country (several countries in fact), but I get to snark it because it is so silly.
- 'Neckbeard' isn't nice either. I make fun of myself and the poster with it (they started it), but to imply those who like older editions, without provocation, had neckbeard attributes was unkind. I returned the favor seeing as the term isn't the worst anyone has been called.
We were talking about mercy to 4E fans? Damn, with the way they roll, I should probably toss them a few boxing gloves so they don't hurt anyone. No wonder why 'they' won 4E to begin with, mobilize the catch phrases.
- Love of WotC. Given them plenty of love by buying recent modules and preordering the 5E PHB.
Slight hyperbole with the whole lack of 'great' ideas thing with WotC. However, I did not say they didn't have 'good' ideas. The setting contest and picking Eberron was a good one. Shy of great because it simmered in somewhere in the middle of the steampunk craze, but wasn't actually steampunk itself. Neither here nor there. Felt the whole 'Pulp' gimmick was kind of light. Still good and I've extolled on Candlekeep on some of the aspects I thought they got right and where FR could learn a thing or two from.
Edit: In case some of this reads strangely, some of the replies in this post were made to another post, but since the post was withdrawn, I removed the quotes of that post from my own. |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 20 Jul 2014 02:14:29 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6662 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 10:31:30
|
Wow, I just found out what a "neckbeard" is. #yesIamold
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 15:47:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Dark wizard is my new hero
I know right? |
“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*. |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2014 : 20:49:49
|
Well, has anyone heard anything new about what WOTC plans to do?
More and more 5E rulebook information is coming out it seems like everyday but I haven't seen any FR info. |
Edited by - hobbitfan on 20 Jul 2014 00:47:13 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 00:52:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by hobbitfan
Well, has anyone heard anything new about what WOTC plans to do?
More and more 5E rulebook information is coming out it seems like everyday but I haven't seen any FR info.
It seems to follow the 3rd edition plan more than the 4th edition plan. In 3rd edition, there were adventures supporting the setting, but the actual campaign setting book came after all of the "core" 3rd edition books came out, so I'm not too surprised. |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 01:00:08
|
It seems strange to me to go from big changes in novels (i.e. Sundering) to adventures straight away.
|
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 01:08:29
|
| "The King of Cormyr is dead at the hands of an extra-dimensional dragon and her horde of invaders from a pocket dimension. Now you can mop up the stragglers and maybe salvage some treasure before the demi-plane closes while you are waiting until next year for the Campaign Setting in this exciting adventure that takes place right after all of the important stuff." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Has WOTC committed to fixing the Realms in 5E
