| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
302 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Dec 2020 : 19:11:09
|
The closest thing to a standard portal in the Realms is the two way framed keyless portal. A framed portal is one with a physical boundary, like a door frame or a stone ring. Many of portals in the Realms are of the two way framed keyless type. Realmslore has a lot of portals.
Secrets of the Magistrer from 2E contains a small chapter on portals, and has the second worst thing Ed ever wrote: The silly "one person or group can only control two portals" rule. A "rule" that is broken like a hundred times in Realmslore, most often by Ed himself.
SotM even has a wizard that loved portals so much, that he turned himself into a portal. |
 |
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2020 : 21:14:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
The closest thing to a standard portal in the Realms is the two way framed keyless portal. A framed portal is one with a physical boundary, like a door frame or a stone ring.
In 3rd/3.5 edition the frame doesn't have anything to do with the portal other than some people build some sort of frame or marker to help with locating the portal. In that edition anything can be a portal really. Touch the right thing or stand in the right spot and it works. Also keys can be a certain circumstance, like time of day, weather or anything really. Just a circumstance that needs to be fulfilled for the portal to activate. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2020 : 22:03:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
In 3rd/3.5 edition the frame doesn't have anything to do with the portal
This is true only in 3X and if you are a rule lawyer type player.
It does not really change the lore, the bulk of 2E lore, that does have most portals having frames.
So sure if you play only 3X and are obsessed with the rules, can can say "frames have nothing to do with portals, that book over there says so!"
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2020 : 22:27:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
In 3rd/3.5 edition the frame doesn't have anything to do with the portal
This is true only in 3X and if you are a rule lawyer type player.
It does not really change the lore, the bulk of 2E lore, that does have most portals having frames.
So sure if you play only 3X and are obsessed with the rules, can can say "frames have nothing to do with portals, that book over there says so!"
A Standard portal was not under discussion to start with. Discussion about moving portals as one non standard was mentioned.
It would not surprise me at all that most portals (standard or not) would be clearly marked by with a frame of wood, a stone circle or other clear marker for identification. , no matter what edition one is discussing (Even 6th Edition -likely on drawing board if not in alpha). |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2020 : 22:47:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
In 3rd/3.5 edition the frame doesn't have anything to do with the portal
This is true only in 3X and if you are a rule lawyer type player.
It does not really change the lore, the bulk of 2E lore, that does have most portals having frames.
So sure if you play only 3X and are obsessed with the rules, can can say "frames have nothing to do with portals, that book over there says so!"
I respectfully disagree. It's not the rules in 3rd/3.5 that change that. It's the lore, because the rules permit it. Portals in pools of water, portals in mid-air, portals on a rock with just a faint trace of a carved border, a portal built with a frame for the purpose of the construction that afterwards have the frame torn down to disguise the fact that there is a portal there at all. So many variants that aren't relying on a frame in any way. Basically setting a restriction in the rules, like portals requiring a frame, prevents variety, and in my opinion stifles creativity. So removing such a restriction from the rules gives more freedom to authors and DMs to create a greater variety of portals. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2020 : 23:10:20
|
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red,
Please forgive in advance if my question seems daft, but why is it quote:
...true only in 3X and if you are a rule lawyer type player.
?
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2020 : 23:28:48
|
Great Reader Kentinal,
Greetings good sir!
quote:
A Standard portal was not under discussion to start with.
While you are of course correct that Acolyte Returnip did not mention 'standard' in his original post, and on all of page 1 of 3 of this discussion there is no mention of the word 'standard', it did become relevant upon the inclusion of its use when Master Rupert invoked it on 05 Dec 20 @ 06:07:42. Additionally, Master Rupert went to demonstrate through the use of standardization, the relevance of 'standard', on 06 Dec 2020 @ 03:35:44. My point for mentioning that is that while the OP didn't mention it initially, he accepted its validity when Acolyte Returnip stated, quote:
I'll agree with that, Wooly Rupert. However, I feel that drifting portals are presented as another standard version. (06 Dec 2020 @ 09:22:27)
So, the additional questions and statements which were posted, which included one from myself among others, and which are:
quote:
So, to make sure I understand you correctly, when you say "standard" portals, are you defining standard as (FRCS, 3rd Edition, p.60-2) (Master cpthero2, 06 Dec 20 @ 04:01:59)
quote:
he closest thing to a standard portal in the Realms is the two way framed keyless portal. (Learned bloodtide_the_red, 06 Dec 20 @ 19:11:09)
I think it is quite relevant to consider the conventions and standards of portals as they inform us on the nature of Art and the Power as it relates to such powerful instruments/assets.
quote:
Discussion about moving portals as one non standard was mentioned.
Discussion about moving portals is necessarily inclusive of standardization in order to determine whether or not there is something to indicate that such a spell is a one-off like spell, or if it can be replicated, and if it can be replicated, how so? I believe the was the intent. Acolyte Retunrip, is that correct, or have I gone off base here in my analysis?
quote:
It would not surprise me at all that most portals (standard or not) would be clearly marked by with a frame of wood, a stone circle or other clear marker for identification. , no matter what edition one is discussing (Even 6th Edition -likely on drawing board if not in alpha).
Perhaps. I think the issue with that is the value of said portal. I believe that goes back to the original point of detecting portals through spells such as Analyze Portal, or some other means. A great way to hide such a powerful asset is to use Discern Location, and/or mundane means to locate a landmark, then use a spell such as Analyze Portal to find the portal, to keep it secret.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2020 : 04:18:40
|
Many of the portals listed in the Realms are of the the two way framed keyless type. So that is why I say they are the most common "standard" portal.
A portal is a two-dimensional,a 5 to 15 foot circle, but not limited to it both in size and shape, area that was both intangible and invisible. Due to this, a freestanding archway or frame, of some kind usually was built to identify the location of a portal, so those who could not detect magical auras did not stumble into them accidentally |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2020 : 11:13:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Discussion about moving portals is necessarily inclusive of standardization in order to determine whether or not there is something to indicate that such a spell is a one-off like spell, or if it can be replicated, and if it can be replicated, how so? I believe the was the intent. Acolyte Retunrip, is that correct, or have I gone off base here in my analysis?
Well, to be fair the thread did expand to include other aspects of portals than what was my original query, but that is as it should be in my opinion. All those aspects inform the answer (or opinion) on the original question in one way or another. Like you point out, understanding how it works is the subject here. I'm a science nerd and as such I like my escapist worlds to follow a rule set, physics if you will. In a world where magic exist, what rules govern those magics? Is it physics different from ours? Is it the whim of a god or gods? Is it pure chaos and if so, is that chaos truly random or does it have a higher order?
On the subject of magic in 2nd vs 3rd ed I looked up this little snippet in the FRCS that I feel sets it apart from 2nd ed, for better or worse:
"Magic items
Magic is not technology. Wizards and clerics do not manufacture levitating elevators or mass-produce magic portals for simple convenience or crude commerce. These things do exist, but they are almost always built somewhere for a very good reason, since they take a great deal of time and money for a highly skilled and uncommonly gifted spellcaster to create."
(Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, p 94)
The text goes on to describe what is basically the level of magic in the world. Now I have not read a similar statement in 2nd ed (if anyone can quote it I'd be happy to read it however) so my feeling on the level of magic in 2nd ed is only based on the few sources I have on hand. And the feeling might be wrong, but that's where I'm coming from with my view. I'm happy to have my opinion changed by more facts. In the end it seems to me it's a matter of taste, and you wouldn't tell someone they're wrong or stupid for liking blueberry icecream anyway.  |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2020 : 18:34:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
"Magic items
Magic is not technology. Wizards and clerics do not manufacture levitating elevators or mass-produce magic portals for simple convenience or crude commerce. These things do exist, but they are almost always built somewhere for a very good reason, since they take a great deal of time and money for a highly skilled and uncommonly gifted spellcaster to create."
(Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, p 94)
3E made a silly attempt to tone down magic in the Realms as all non Realms fans thought the Realms had too much magic. And with typical wrong company thinking Wizards tried to pander to the Realms haters. The problem was, the D&D rules make everything too easy. To create a portal does not take a "great deal of time and money for a highly skilled and uncommonly gifted spellcaster to create." The rules have the creation take a short time, only a little money and any spellcaster can do it. Basically the 3E rules failed to live up to the hype of the fluff.
Though this is part of the bigger problem of the Three Realms. Depending on the writer and editor there are three very distinct Realms:
1.The Generic D&D Rule Realms: This Realms describes a fairly generic campaign setting with just Realms names added on top. The cross out 'big city' and write Waterdeep and cross out 'evil mage' and write Red Wizard. This Realms uses the default setting rules of D&D and only has 'core' D&D stuff in it...with maybe a sprinkle added Realms content. This Realm has very low magic and fantasy. This Realms would have an arch mage every thousand miles or so and be like 9th level and know the spells from the 'core ' rules. This Realms has like only 12 portals worldwide.
2.The Powerful Realms: This is the default Realms right here. People, places, things and magic are very powerful. Nations have thousands of spellcasters, cities have hundreds of spellcasters and the world is full of magic, spells and spellcasters. This Realms leaves all the 'core' stuff way behind with powerful custom Realms magic and spells. This Realms has something like a dozen arch spellcasters in most cities, and maybe twelve or less in smaller places. And the spellcasters will be 15-20 th level or beyond and have access to Realms spells and some custom ones too. This is the Realms of the 3,000 portals on Toril alone.
3.The Greenwood Realms: This is basically number two, cranked up to 11...or infinity. This is where a simple tavern keeper is a great wyhm song dragon 25th level wizard that uses timestop to freeze theives in time and catch them. This is where an evil spellcaster can touch a 'small' island and distengerate the whole island. This is the Realms where an evil spellcaster kills seven lover archmages, turns them into floating head liches and then walks around with them......so she can use eight high level spells in one round. This is the Realms where the god Bane gets mad, and across the Realms thirteen of his most powerful worshiping wizards are turned into piles of salt(no save). Portals here are infinite.
A lot of writers and editors only do the type one Realms: Even if the population says there are 30 spellcasters in a city NONE of them will cast continual flame/light even once in their life time to light up the dark city streets. The two Realms has cities full of magical night lights and everything else. Three Realms have things like Myhtrals. |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2020 : 20:48:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
3E made a silly attempt to tone down magic in the Realms as all non Realms fans thought the Realms had too much magic. And with typical wrong company thinking Wizards tried to pander to the Realms haters.
Do you have a source on this? An interview or similar? I'd be very interested in reading about how they were thinking when they made such drastic changes to the setting. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2020 : 22:32:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
3E made a silly attempt to tone down magic in the Realms as all non Realms fans thought the Realms had too much magic. And with typical wrong company thinking Wizards tried to pander to the Realms haters.
Do you have a source on this? An interview or similar? I'd be very interested in reading about how they were thinking when they made such drastic changes to the setting.
Honestly, IIRC, they didn't really try to explain much of anything -- they just hyped how awesome it was going to be and how much people would love it.
And they did the same thing with the 4E changes, which is -- in my opinion -- where they were blatantly trying to appease those people who would always find some fault with the Realms, because it either wasn't Core enough or wasn't Greyhawk.
I think the changes of 3E were more "let's just do this and not worry too much about what came before."
I recall a statement somewhere, I believe from Rich Baker, saying they didn't go with an RSE to explain the in-setting changes from 2E to 3E because they asked the fans and the fans said they didn't want an RSE. I am HIGHLY skeptical of this one, though -- I was checking their site daily, at the time (sometimes multiple times a day) and I never saw anything resembling an inquiry to the fanbase. AND when I was still active on the WotC forums, one of their staffers made the statement that they didn't need to ask what fans wanted, they had their own metrics for figuring that out. AND despite the supposed "fans don't want an RSE" thing, they started 3E off with one and kept them coming.
Also, late in the game for 3E, they swore there was no such thing as 4E and they weren't working on a new edition -- and then announced it 6 months later and said they'd been playtesting for 18 months.
So I am highly skeptical that they asked anyone about an RSE for the in-setting changes to 3E... Or if they did ask, they slanted it in such a way to get the answer they wanted -- like asking, without any context, "Hey, should we do an RSE?" |
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!  |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2020 : 23:44:47
|
| Well, it's obviously not profitable to make the same game forever, so making new versions of D&D is what they're gonna keep doing no matter what official sources say. I just don't get why there's so much hate. I didn't dislike 2nd edition back when we played it. I just liked 3.x slightly better when it released. To be fair I'm not big on rules heavy systems like D&D at all. I much prefer the extreme of open endedness, like Unisystem (if we're looking at systems in a vacuum). But D&D and the realms is their own thing in my opinion and if someone would ask me to play 2nd with them I'd definitely do that. And if someone else asked me to play 3.x I'd do that. I'd try out 4th and 5th too if given the opportunity. So I really don't get why some people are so upset that money making corporations consider their products to have a life cycle. It's just money in the end. Nothing personal. And you can still play 2nd edition or even 1st if you like. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 00:17:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Well, it's obviously not profitable to make the same game forever, so making new versions of D&D is what they're gonna keep doing no matter what official sources say. I just don't get why there's so much hate. I didn't dislike 2nd edition back when we played it. I just liked 3.x slightly better when it released. To be fair I'm not big on rules heavy systems like D&D at all. I much prefer the extreme of open endedness, like Unisystem (if we're looking at systems in a vacuum). But D&D and the realms is their own thing in my opinion and if someone would ask me to play 2nd with them I'd definitely do that. And if someone else asked me to play 3.x I'd do that. I'd try out 4th and 5th too if given the opportunity. So I really don't get why some people are so upset that money making corporations consider their products to have a life cycle. It's just money in the end. Nothing personal. And you can still play 2nd edition or even 1st if you like.
It's not the changing rulesets (though 4E seemed to have as many detractors as fervent supporters), it's the changes that they make to the setting because of the changing rulesets. I don't mind changes, I just want those changes to make sense and to be explained. A lot of the things they changed from 2E to 3E, they just handwaved away with "it's always been like this, just no one knew about it." And then some of the changes to 4E were flat-out nonsensical -- like the sea level of the Sea of Fallen Stars dropping by 50 feet, without coastlines changing, and in the process revealing to air a city that was at least 300 feet below the surface at its tallest point. |
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! |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 01:10:30
|
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red,
Greetings good sir!
quote:
3.The Greenwood Realms: This is basically number two, cranked up to 11...or infinity. This is where a simple tavern keeper is a great wyhm song dragon 25th level wizard that uses timestop to freeze theives in time and catch them. This is where an evil spellcaster can touch a 'small' island and distengerate the whole island. This is the Realms where an evil spellcaster kills seven lover archmages, turns them into floating head liches and then walks around with them......so she can use eight high level spells in one round. This is the Realms where the god Bane gets mad, and across the Realms thirteen of his most powerful worshiping wizards are turned into piles of salt(no save). Portals here are infinite.
I about had a hernia reading this, I was laughing so hard! lol
If I were not fearful that the sarcasm that dripped like honey it was so thick were not something born in a Talona cult chamber, I would have tried to get a jar of it. haha That was hilarious. The simple tavern keeper was the best one, though right behind was the floating head liches. Whole-grain goodness right there.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 02:33:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red,
Greetings good sir!
quote:
3.The Greenwood Realms: This is basically number two, cranked up to 11...or infinity. This is where a simple tavern keeper is a great wyhm song dragon 25th level wizard that uses timestop to freeze theives in time and catch them. This is where an evil spellcaster can touch a 'small' island and distengerate the whole island. This is the Realms where an evil spellcaster kills seven lover archmages, turns them into floating head liches and then walks around with them......so she can use eight high level spells in one round. This is the Realms where the god Bane gets mad, and across the Realms thirteen of his most powerful worshiping wizards are turned into piles of salt(no save). Portals here are infinite.
I about had a hernia reading this, I was laughing so hard! lol
If I were not fearful that the sarcasm that dripped like honey it was so thick were not something born in a Talona cult chamber, I would have tried to get a jar of it. haha That was hilarious. The simple tavern keeper was the best one, though right behind was the floating head liches. Whole-grain goodness right there.
Best regards,
The floating head liches is canon Realmslore from Ed's pen. Tashara of the Seven Skulls. Shaan the Serpent Queen was the one who disintegrated the island, though I don't think that one is published Realmslore. |
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! |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 02:37:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I about had a hernia reading this, I was laughing so hard! lol
If I were not fearful that the sarcasm that dripped like honey it was so thick were not something born in a Talona cult chamber, I would have tried to get a jar of it. haha That was hilarious. The simple tavern keeper was the best one, though right behind was the floating head liches. Whole-grain goodness right there.
Well, assuming your not up on your Realmslore or your just making a funny post......but: These are all "real"(aka fictional) examples from Realmslore. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 02:38:03
|
Master Rupert,
Well, that just makes it even funnier for me then. I'll have to look that up. It is so weird for me, but I've come back to things later, such as the novel The Simbul's Gift, and literally don't remember much of anything about it. Granted, it has been such a long time since I've read it, but it is unfortunate that I've just completely forgotten some of that stuff.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 02:51:13
|
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red,
It very well could be I am missing some lore there. I am going to go look those up and see if it is even something that I've read before. I just don't recall at this point.
Best regards,
EDIT: So, I checked out the Tashara of the Seven Skulls. I'm surprised I don't recall that from the Lands of Intrigue, but alas: I do not. I've even read that several times. Very weird.
As to Shaan of the Serpent Queen, I've definitely not read Spellstorm (and I won't as it is post-Spellplague), and I've not read the article from Dragon #219.
I'm definitely going to go back and reread Lands of Intrigue for that part, and also read that article in Dragon #219 though.
So, thank you and to Master Rupert for pointing that out. :) |
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
Edited by - cpthero2 on 08 Dec 2020 03:13:19 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 05:40:39
|
Learned Scribe bloodtide_the_red and Master Rupert,
Thanks again for pointing that out. I just read both Dragons 206 and 219, as well as the small blurb from Lands of Intrigue. Funny, I do not recall the Tashara of the Seven Skulls at all. I for sure had not read the Dragon articles though.
Disintegrating an entire island: that is pretty dang powerful. Geez.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:02:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not the changing rulesets (though 4E seemed to have as many detractors as fervent supporters), it's the changes that they make to the setting because of the changing rulesets. I don't mind changes, I just want those changes to make sense and to be explained. A lot of the things they changed from 2E to 3E, they just handwaved away with "it's always been like this, just no one knew about it." And then some of the changes to 4E were flat-out nonsensical -- like the sea level of the Sea of Fallen Stars dropping by 50 feet, without coastlines changing, and in the process revealing to air a city that was at least 300 feet below the surface at its tallest point.
Hey, if you want to sell a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree, and I'm sure you know that they don't sell core books by selling the realms, but rather the other way around.
But I'm starting to get the idea here. This is not a realms community. This is a 2nd edition realms community, and if someone don't think 2nd edition realms is the bomb and every other edition is crap they're not a realms fan and should be derided. Duly noted. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:16:30
|
Seeker Returnip,
Well, I can and only will speak for myself here: I loved 2e and 3e Realms.
As a business consultant (marketing and economics in my foci), the idea you mention regarding selling "a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree,..." is true; however, if the reinvention effectively destroys the connection between an entire market segment in an effort to gain another market segment, that's a big problem. In fact, it was such a big problem, that 4e got smoked like a piece of salmon waiting for the hungry-hungry hippo to come by for a snack. 5e hasn't faired well either, and that is largely because the amount of lore they've released is very minimal. These kinds of products, when they are setting specific, are psychographically dominated, i.e. lifestyle, values, culture, and more.
I didn't mind the jump from 2e to 3e, in terms of lore, or mechanics. In fact, I loved the mechanical change. The lore was perfectly fine for me. That (100) year gap though that came along was just getting crapped on by WotC for many people, and that's why I haven't purchased a single thing from them since 2006. They've frankly produced not very good lore products, hence at least my decision not to purchase since then.
So, to be clear at least from my perspective anyhow, I'm good with any edition, as long as good story develops, and the story hasn't been good thus far.
I'd love to hear more from you though, truly. I've really enjoyed your posts here at the 'Keep quite a lot, and I think it really helps the community to have different viewpoints and robust discussion! :)
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:23:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Seeker Returnip,
Well, I can and only will speak for myself here: I loved 2e and 3e Realms.
As a business consultant (marketing and economics in my foci), the idea you mention regarding selling "a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree,..." is true; however, if the reinvention effectively destroys the connection between an entire market segment in an effort to gain another market segment, that's a big problem. In fact, it was such a big problem, that 4e got smoked like a piece of salmon waiting for the hungry-hungry hippo to come by for a snack. 5e hasn't faired well either, and that is largely because the amount of lore they've released is very minimal. These kinds of products, when they are setting specific, are psychographically dominated, i.e. lifestyle, values, culture, and more.
I didn't mind the jump from 2e to 3e, in terms of lore, or mechanics. In fact, I loved the mechanical change. The lore was perfectly fine for me. That (100) year gap though that came along was just getting crapped on by WotC for many people, and that's why I haven't purchased a single thing from them since 2006. They've frankly produced not very good lore products, hence at least my decision not to purchase since then.
So, to be clear at least from my perspective anyhow, I'm good with any edition, as long as good story develops, and the story hasn't been good thus far.
I'd love to hear more from you though, truly. I've really enjoyed your posts here at the 'Keep quite a lot, and I think it really helps the community to have different viewpoints and robust discussion! :)
Best regards,
As have I appreciated your happy little inquisitive posts all over the place. It's nice to be able to have adult conversations like this. That's why I was surprised to be called a rules lawyer and a realms hater in quick succession and told things I like are silly.
That felt like kindergarten all over again.
EDIT: I can't speak for any of the changes they've made since and including 4th ed, and personally I'm stuck back in time using 2nd and 3rd/3.5 source material for "my" world. However I see people being really upset by business decisions all over the world (and like you say their decisions may be problematic, but it's their decision to make unfortunately. Are you going to be mad about it for the rest of your life, or are you going to make the best out of it and move on and be happy in your life?). People being upset that Games Workshop releases new editions of their games making it unbalanced, the scale creep in their models making old miniatures not fit in with newer ones. People being upset over the remake of a movie not being exactly as the original, or the adaptation of a book into a movie or series not being exactly like the original (despite them being two distinctively different ways to tell stories). Or the eternal lamentations over how videogame movies are so bad.
This is business. As the customer you are not always right. That's a myth. All you are is welcome to partake of the product for a fee. That is all. Don't like it? Too bad.
EDIT 2: On the upside, in the information age with the internet being widespread and basically a human right in many countries it's so easy for people to join forces and make their own product. Finding likeminded, or close to, individuals all over the globe and create the product you want. Sometimes these projects even include the original creators of an IP for example. And there are crowdfunding if one wants to go big. So there's really no point in lamenting the decisions others makes no matter how bad one might think they are. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
Edited by - Returnip on 08 Dec 2020 09:37:00 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2286 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 09:44:33
|
Seeker Returnip,
Fantastic to have your quick reply as always good sir! :)
quote:
As have I appreciated your happy little inquisitive posts all over the place.
I appreciate the kind words. I like to think myself relatively well-versed in the Realms, but heck, there is so much to know it is easy to either a) forget some, b) not have read it yet, or c) be misinterpreting it.
Hubris is the very enemy of deep learning. I learned years ago that if I cannot laugh at my own mistakes, accept other people's correct statements, etc., then I'm just making the whole learning thing a lot harder on one person: me. So, to the best of my ability, I try to approach things that way at least. Also, I love Candlekeep. I want to see the community grow here, so I think adding some good ole fashioned politeness to the mix (not implying anyone is not polite here: just speaking for myself only!), can help. At least, I hope it does! :)
quote:
It's nice to be able to have adult conversations like this.
I agree. I love having robust, challenging, and learning kinds of conversations, debates, etc.
quote:
EDIT: I can't speak for any of the changes they've made since and including 4th ed, and personally I'm stuck back in time using 2nd and 3rd/3.5 source material for "my" world. However I see people being really upset by business decisions all over the world (and like you say their decisions may be problematic, but it's their decision to make unfortunately.
Well, my view on this has been that knowing the origin of fan, being fanatic, helps me understand better the rather robust response from some people (to be clear, not all, but some indeed). I was pretty dang upset at the lore destruction (my view as a customer) and that is why I stopped giving them my money. Others like it, and went with it: cool. Good on them to do what they like, minus illegal stuff. :)
quote:
Are you going to be mad about it for the rest of your life, or are you going to make the best out of it and move on and be happy in your life?.
Mad about it for the rest of my life? Nah. Not buy their products unless they start doing a better job of production? Yeah, for sure. However, that is fine, I've got it all up through 2006 at this point. :)
quote:
This is business. As the customer you are not always right. That's a myth. All you are is welcome to partake of the product for a fee. That is all. Don't like it? Too bad.
That's a fact on the customer is always right belief. haha That's what competitors are for, if it is really that bad. :) Competition is good!
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 10:07:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I like to think myself relatively well-versed in the Realms, but heck, there is so much to know it is easy to either a) forget some, b) not have read it yet, or c) be misinterpreting it.
Sounds like we're coming from a similar background. I used to be able to quote a lot of the realms by heart. I consider myself knowledgable but there's always more to learn. And that's why I came here, because I know this is the place to find those who know more.
The day you stop expanding your knowledge you're dead. At least that's what I try to live by. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 11:54:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not the changing rulesets (though 4E seemed to have as many detractors as fervent supporters), it's the changes that they make to the setting because of the changing rulesets. I don't mind changes, I just want those changes to make sense and to be explained. A lot of the things they changed from 2E to 3E, they just handwaved away with "it's always been like this, just no one knew about it." And then some of the changes to 4E were flat-out nonsensical -- like the sea level of the Sea of Fallen Stars dropping by 50 feet, without coastlines changing, and in the process revealing to air a city that was at least 300 feet below the surface at its tallest point.
Hey, if you want to sell a product again you have to reinvent it to some degree, and I'm sure you know that they don't sell core books by selling the realms, but rather the other way around.
But I'm starting to get the idea here. This is not a realms community. This is a 2nd edition realms community, and if someone don't think 2nd edition realms is the bomb and every other edition is crap they're not a realms fan and should be derided. Duly noted.
Wrong, all the way around.
And you're doing what you accuse others of: casting people as haters because there's a difference of opinion.
First, we have plenty of people here who like the 4E Realms, the 5E Realms, or earlier editions. We are most certainly not a 2E Realms community.
Second, you don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any explanation or thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
Again, no one -- not a single person -- has complained because things were changed. We've complained because changes didn't make sense -- like Ras Nsi, a human, suddenly becoming a yuan-ti necromancer -- or because there was no explanation at all, like sorcerers suddenly being a thing, in setting, or the NPC who went from good to evil because a designer thought more evil NPCs were needed but didn't feel like actually adding one.
Wanting to maintain the continuity of a setting is NOT hating change. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 08 Dec 2020 12:35:38 |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 12:31:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wrong, all the way around.
You don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
I respectfully disagree. To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product. While you might be able to sell a bit more while still having it compatible with an old product it's not what most big companies are going for. They want to maximize their sales. And they exploit the fact that the fans will either opt out or open their wallets combined with the new customers they gain through marketing the product which make up for the fans that opt out. At least in theory. They don't ask "how do we get the fans to buy more?". They ask "how do we get more people to buy our product?"
Neither of that has anything to do with the things that are changed and why. That is just design. And I certainly understand your opinion on the design decisions. I'm just saying that it's common business practice, like it or not. Fans are never valuable enough to not be thrown under the bus if it's somehow possible to sell more in total by directing the product to a new demographic.
EDIT: I'm not saying I like it. Or that WotC are doing it right. I'm just saying that is the strategy that most big companies use. They drop enough fan service in there to put a smile on the long time fans' faces, like a cameo in a movie. They generally don't care about those fans if they can find a new fan base that is larger. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
Edited by - Returnip on 08 Dec 2020 12:38:45 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 12:43:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wrong, all the way around.
You don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
I respectfully disagree. To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product. While you might be able to sell a bit more while still having it compatible with an old product it's not what most big companies are going for. They want to maximize their sales. And they exploit the fact that the fans will either opt out or open their wallets combined with the new customers they gain through marketing the product which make up for the fans that opt out. At least in theory. They don't ask "how do we get the fans to buy more?". They ask "how do we get more people to buy our product?"
Neither of that has anything to do with the things that are changed and why. That is just design. And I certainly understand your opinion on the design decisions. I'm just saying that it's common business practice, like it or not. Fans are never valuable enough to not be thrown under the bus if it's somehow possible to sell more in total by directing the product to a new demographic.
Your words are true for physical products like video game consoles or cars, but not for purely intellectual properties, like video game franchises or any works of fiction. Any setting -- whether it's a movie setting or a video game setting or a comic setting does not need to make new content incompatible with old content. They just need to make new content that is different.
You don't sell more Superman comics by suddenly making him a little old Peruvian lady whose only unusual ability is being a crack sniper... You sell more Superman comics by giving him new friends and enemies and new challenges to overcome -- whether those challenges are keeping up with the Daily Planet becoming online-only, or a new bad guy that threatens Metropolis, or marital problems with Lois. You build on what you had before, while adding more to it. You don't ignore what came before or make drastic changes that contradict earlier material, and when you make some change, that change needs to be explained. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 08 Dec 2020 12:50:09 |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
222 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 13:10:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Your words are true for physical products like video game consoles or cars, but not for purely intellectual properties, like video game franchises or any works of fiction. Any setting -- whether it's a movie setting or a video game setting or a comic setting does not need to make new content incompatible with old content. They just need to make new content that is different.
I think the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, and that might cause confusion, is "need".
I agree that they don't need to change it up a lot to continue selling to the fans, but if they want to expand their customer base there is a lot that "needs" to be changed. The reason for this is that after a certain time the current incarnation of the product can be considered to have reached its maximum number of fans. To appeal to new fans change is needed. And unfortunately for fans the amount of sales a limited group can result in is limited, and the number seldom equates to the expected yearly growth percentage of the bigger companies. Take for example the aggressive policies of Games Workshop. For some time they had an expected growth rate of 20% per year. That's an insane number, and it also resulted in some really insane business practices, all to please the shareholders. Eventually they alienated enough fans for it to be unsustainable and they went back a bit on it trying to regain some of what they lost.
quote:
You don't sell more Superman comics by suddenly making him a little old Peruvian lady whose only unusual ability is being a crack sniper... You sell more Superman comics by giving him new friends and enemies and new challenges to overcome -- whether those challenges are keeping up with the Daily Planet becoming online-only, or a new bad guy that threatens Metropolis, or marital problems with Lois. You build on what you had before, while adding more to it.
Yet they changed Superman quite a lot over the years. They've changed his powers from being able to jump incredibly high to being able to fly. They've killed him and brought him back. They've removed his powers, given him new powers and so on. They even cancelled the comic and then brought it back.
quote:
You don't ignore what came before or make drastic changes that contradict earlier material, and when you make some change, that change needs to be explained.
This happens all the time though. Look at Wolverine in the Marvel Universe. It's been retconned several times.
I don't have an opinion on whether that's a good thing or not. I am simply stating that is how it's done. They have plenty of reasons for doing it, but it's mostly because they want to make more money. Not because they want to appeal to fans. It's a risk taking for sure. Sometimes you alienate the whole fan base. But as long as you retain enough fans to spread the word you're in the positive. Positive here meaning making money. However if you do manage to alienate the whole fan base it will be a lot harder to sell your product to a new demographic, and when that happens you either blame the fans or you suck it up and return to something closer to the previous product. Both approaches are often seen in several businesses. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
Edited by - Returnip on 08 Dec 2020 13:16:14 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11827 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 15:50:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Discussion about moving portals is necessarily inclusive of standardization in order to determine whether or not there is something to indicate that such a spell is a one-off like spell, or if it can be replicated, and if it can be replicated, how so? I believe the was the intent. Acolyte Retunrip, is that correct, or have I gone off base here in my analysis?
Well, to be fair the thread did expand to include other aspects of portals than what was my original query, but that is as it should be in my opinion. All those aspects inform the answer (or opinion) on the original question in one way or another. Like you point out, understanding how it works is the subject here. I'm a science nerd and as such I like my escapist worlds to follow a rule set, physics if you will. In a world where magic exist, what rules govern those magics? Is it physics different from ours? Is it the whim of a god or gods? Is it pure chaos and if so, is that chaos truly random or does it have a higher order?
On the subject of magic in 2nd vs 3rd ed I looked up this little snippet in the FRCS that I feel sets it apart from 2nd ed, for better or worse:
"Magic items
Magic is not technology. Wizards and clerics do not manufacture levitating elevators or mass-produce magic portals for simple convenience or crude commerce. These things do exist, but they are almost always built somewhere for a very good reason, since they take a great deal of time and money for a highly skilled and uncommonly gifted spellcaster to create."
(Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, p 94)
The text goes on to describe what is basically the level of magic in the world. Now I have not read a similar statement in 2nd ed (if anyone can quote it I'd be happy to read it however) so my feeling on the level of magic in 2nd ed is only based on the few sources I have on hand. And the feeling might be wrong, but that's where I'm coming from with my view. I'm happy to have my opinion changed by more facts. In the end it seems to me it's a matter of taste, and you wouldn't tell someone they're wrong or stupid for liking blueberry icecream anyway.
On this particular topic of portals, one thing I've not noticed written, but that I had a strong feel would exist are portals at any Thayan trade enclave. These would be specific portals allowing only non-living materials to transfer through (so some of them might be able to transport undead or constructs in a pinch). The idea was that red wizards/Kossuth priests trade minor potions or scrolls for quantities of raw materials that take up lots of space. Somewhat similar to our world, I then picture that these portals then connect back to a handful of hub locations (which may be isolated, or may be at another trade enclave that is larger and is known for selling all kinds of things). Thus, lumber might be collected, and then all this lumber is sent to one place where there's a constantly working saw mill operated in part by very clean skeletons. They might buy dead goblins, gnolls, etc.. and send the bodies somewhere where they used magic to separate the bones from the flesh, and feed pigs, chickens or somesuch the flesh... and use the skeletons as replacements at the sawmill for those that accidentally get crushed, lose a hand, etc.... The same basic concept works for ores of metals, wherein priests of Kossuth would be more than happy to operate a foundry around the clock to smelt down ores and make metal trade bars out of precious and non-precious metals (gold, silver, copper, but also iron, tin, nickel, etc...), and they could use the bark from the sawmill to fuel the foundry fires.
In this way, you could be just travelling in the wilderness and suddenly find yourself at a Thayan warehouse/factory that's outside of any particular realm's influence. To note, these warehouses might be in extremely odd and hard to reach areas. For instance, they could be in the underdark, in an undersea cave system, or even in wildspace.
One of the concepts I had as well involves a canon Netherese enclave called "Doubloon" that went missing during the times of Netheril. This was a "rogue" enclave that was criminal, committed forgery of coins, and was rumored to be able to "turn invisible" per the Netherese campaign setting. The storyline I would use with it is that it had multiple MINOR mythallars with different power sources (for instance shadow energy for one, drawing on elemental radiance <star power> for another, and the weave for another), and that it was used following Karsus' Folly to transport Netherese citizens to Halruaa. When the exodus of Leirans happened, this enclave was stolen from Halruaa and transported many Leirans under cloak of invisibility to Nimbral.
For a time, the Nimbraii invaded the old Netherese facility known as Yeoman's Loft. They recovered a few helms and spelljamming ships, but they also recovered a lot of its library (including books about helm design concepts). They eventually build a small fleet of spelljamming vessels, and in coordination with the elves of Nimbral, they explore the moon (note, in my personal realms, the moon already has shadow elves (i.e. the Arak of Ravenloft, only a different group of them not tied to Ravenloft) on it when they get there). The Nimbraii eventually study a dwarven forge helm focused around using "creating mundane objects" to fuel the movement of a large dwarven citadel. With their own knowledge of flying enclaves already, combined with knowledge of helm crafting, they make a helm that can bring the flying enclave of Doubloon into the Tears of Selune using the efforts of alchemists and potion makers where the dwarves used forging. This new helm is incredibly inefficient, so the enclave moves exceptionally slowly, but it established a secret colony for spelljammers that wasn't on the moon, but which could trade with traders who came there.
Eventually, the inhabitants of this colony break away from Nimbral over some falling out, and new inhabitants are incorporated into the citizenry over time. Hundreds of years later, the enclave is discovered by Zulkir Mythrell'aa, who also discovers the concept of spelljamming in her research of the enclave. She eventually takes over the enclave, renames it "Luneira", and helps found the Guild of Foreign Trade. With profits from the guild, she begins research on helm creation with the head of the Guild of Foreign Trade to design the "Quad of Thay".... an exceptionally fast vehicle, but one which can't exit the crystal sphere. The Zulkir of Illusion fits these vehicles with "cloaking devices", enabling them to land at known Thayan warehouses and transport goods onto Quads. The Quads could then transport large amounts of goods to Luneira, where she built even more huge warehouses to store these goods, sawmills, foundries, paper mills, etc... WITHIN the interior of the flying enclave. Though this was inefficient compared to simply establishing a portal from the surface to Luneira, it allowed Luneira to still periodically move its location under invisibility, and made it much harder to "track down" by use of magics to track portal endpoints. When Mythrell'aa "Died" just before the spellplague, she had actually cast a spell making everyone think her name was Mythrellan, and had allowed a false version of herself to be destroyed, and she'd hidden herself away in Luneira. When the spellplague hits, Luneira goes to Abeir, and with its warehouses full of resources, its able to help some other trade enclaves setup in the Maztica/Anchorome/Lopango area by delivering emergency supplies via their quads. I may post a lot of the timeline I've created in the brainstorming anchorome thread now that I think about it.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 08 Dec 2020 15:52:44 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Question re: one-way portal detection and analysis
