They said they hated the realms and knew nothing about the setting..so yeah not a good group to let write the book"4E Realms - Made by people who hate the Realms for people who hate the Realms!"
Pretty much... I like that line I may have to place it somewhere
If so many actually play in the 4gotten Realmz, why don't we see any of those PbPs, discussion threads praising 4th edition realms, and so on?
Well, at least I haven't seen it.
Some decisions, a company only later understands were faulty. Often it's by then far too late to turn back.
The Forgotten Realms had a massive, loyal following dating back to 1987. So many of these people, though they might grumble from time to time, bought EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT published in the FR line. You don't get that kind of customer base easily, it's questionable if you get it AT ALL these days. It's usually not a problem, people like this stay, more or less no matter what you do to them.
However... that "more or less" is important. If you DO manage to turn them away, you've lost them. They find other products to follow (some might say obsess over).
This was what WotC did. The consequences are here already. The fans have turned to Pathfinder and Golarion. Heck, it's not even like they lost anything, they already have all that the old realms could offer, and new stuff isn't forthcoming.
I'll say it again: They should have hired Ed to the decision-making group for FR.
no I am attacking a badly made product , shoddy ill-thought out junk. And yes you did say I attacked 4e...or D&D 4E players. I see no issue with saying wotc screwed up big time on the 4orsaken realms or madmax beyond waterdeep
You realize that adding the numeral 4 to things like "4orsaken realms" completely undermines what you just said, right?
If you don't want to make this about editions, don't make it about editions.
Well, at least I haven't seen it.
I have. Also, organized RPGA play has never been more active than it has been under Living Forgotten Realms. Tons of people are playing in the new Realms.
But I'm sure they're not "true Realms fans".
Well, at least I haven't seen it.I have. Also, organized RPGA play has never been more active than it has been under Living Forgotten Realms. Tons of people are playing in the new Realms.
But I'm sure they're not "true Realms fans".
I say most are there for org play, they could care less if it was grayhawk, FR, eberron of dune. The setting has no meaning to many org players.
I recall the mass whinning when they announced the switch, no most care nothing for the setting
no I am attacking a badly made product , shoddy ill-thought out junk. And yes you did say I attacked 4e...or D&D 4E players. I see no issue with saying wotc screwed up big time on the 4orsaken realms or madmax beyond waterdeepYou realize that adding the numeral 4 to things like "4orsaken realms" completely undermines what you just said, right?
If you don't want to make this about editions, don't make it about editions.
Well I can't call it FR as it confuses folks 4orsaken realms works as you know what FR I am talking about. I could say that new setting, madmax beyond waterdeep, or a dozen other things. But 4orsaken realms works just as well
You can Blame wotc for the name confusion you should never use the same name for 2 different settings
Every time somebody who likes 4e tries to say anything positive about it in a thread bashing 4e or WotC, posters show up from every corner to say they should leave because it's not in the 4e section
Balance is everything, right?
I've been repeatedly told to stay away from the 4e boards because I had nothing positive to say. I was insulted by several people, who were breaking the rules to chase the non-4e fans away, just so they could continue imagining that everybody likes 4e or something.
Really sucks when it happens to you, eh?
Hey at least you guys still have a supported setting *As crappy as the new support is* Us Greyhawk fans have nothing :-(
"The muggers never notice me" ;-P
Be happy. Be very happy. They haven't noticed GrayHawk yet. You want Oerth overrun by dragonborn and ugly tieflings?
To date, there have been over 100 pages of Dragon and Dungeon magazine content dedicated to the Realms since the campaign setting's release less than a year ago.
Isn't that part of that DDI think that you totally don't need at all?
|
To me it boils down to this; I don't care for Dark Sun campaign setting but I also wouldn't want them to turn it into Final Fantasy 7 just to make ME happy when I could make another setting work for my taste.
If I'm not mistaken, before 4th edition's changes to the Realms (and not 4th edition itself JUST to be clear) the Forgotten Realms was probably the most popular setting D&D had going for it. Novels out the ying yang, long running successful lifespan, and a (in my opinon) very solid line up of Video Games (Baldur's Gate 1-2 series, Neverwinter Nights 1-2 series, Icewind yadda yadda yadda).
Yes, there were people that didn't like it ... but we're not in friggen high school anymore. Not everyone HAS to like it. If you wanted easy to get into as well as new and shiny, Eberron is right there. Heck, make a new place. But I can see no real reason for them to have changed the Realms SO drastically as they have done.
I've heard some people compare it to being similar as the Time of Troubles.
The Time of Troubles was a pimple.
The Spellplague was Aids.
All I can see is that Wizards was hoping to open the FR up to new players while believing the old fans of the realms would jump on board no matter WHAT it was because it has the Forgotten Realms logo and they threw out Greenwood's name on a page.
Since it happened though, I don't think it's worked out completely as planned. I think HALF of it MIGHT have worked but a lot of the old fans (such as myself) became disenchanted and moved away from it. As I've posted before, I can't even pick up an FR novel now which really sucks.
|
The thing about the Realms is that a lot of its appeal is its history and backstory. While that hasn't necessarily gone away, big dislocations like the Spellplague and accompanying time shift (or the Time of Troubles, which was also very controversial) are very disruptive to that continuity, so I can understand how long time Realms fans would be very upset by the changes. Throw in a controversial edition change, and you have a recipe for extreme polarisation. A lot of interesting stuff with potential will have been junked in a fairly heavy-handed revisionist cataclysm.
I came to the Realms with 3e, and have virtually none of the previous stuff, so I'm not terrifically bothered by anything previous to that. The stuff that was well-documented in the books (Cormyr, Silver Marches, Waterdeep) has, by and large, emerged resonably intact (Thay is probably an exception) compared with that version. Where there have been large changes is in the more marginal areas, like the Shining South, half of which was sunk, blown up or otherwise generally destroyed. However, I also think it is fair to say that a lot of the areas that were blown up were also fairly dull with limited gaming appeal. Taking the example of the Shining South - I remember reading the 3e volume on that region and, while it was an OK read and all, the big problem was that each of the areas (with a few exceptions) were run by xenophobic regimes who didn't welcome adventurers (and Luiren is a bunch of halflings who are, well, happy and contented - not so exciting). That made things a bit tricky to find something useful to do with the volume, since the party would probably be locked up, expelled or executed in virtually every place there was was. The newer version in 4e has wiped out virtually all of those regimes in one way or another, and I have to say that while it was a bit of a shock compared to see what I was accustomed to changed that radically, the new version is, well, more usable to me as a DM. The scope of possible adventures is now broader.
I can understand that for people with long and deeply-held attachment to the old version of the Realms that these changes are very unwelcome. I'm not trying to convert anyone. But, overall, based on my view of the changes between 3e and 4e, on the whole I would say the new version is more playable. I am disappointed with the sketchy nature of some of what is there in the 4e version (the new continent seems a bit of an unnecessary addition and I would have preferred those pages to be recycled into detailing the stuff in Faerun in more depth) but overall I'm reasonably content.
|
Tons of people are playing in the new Realms.
But I'm sure they're not "true Realms fans".
I have EVERY SINGLE [D&D] PRODUCT EVER MADE for FR (save the 4e books), I consider myself a "true" fan of FR...
I have just the CS book for Eberron, and while I like the setting, I DO NOT consider myself a "true" fan...
Is it possible to be a "casual" fan of any given setting (or game system) and only have one book? Absolutely...
But let me ask you this; how many "true" fans of D&D do you personally know who ONLY own the core three books (any edition)?
My point is, we gamers tend to be obsessive when it comes to our hobby. If we find a game/setting we REALLY like, we buy most (if not all) of the books for it, and we buy just one or two books for those games/settings that we like, but we don‘t consider to be "our favorites"..
Example: I bought and liked the d20 Wheel of Time CS book, but not enough to buy the one supplement that later came out for it. Why? Casual fan vs. "true" fan...
I found the same to be true for Eberron. Great setting, I just don't like it enough to buy more than what I have...
Do you call yourself a "true" fan of EVERY SINGLE game (or setting) that you like but own just one book for (when more than just one book is available)?
I don't...
Because I think there is a difference between a "true" fan, and a casual one...
And I don't think I'm alone in that...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
I say most are there for org play, they could care less if it was grayhawk, FR, eberron of dune. The setting has no meaning to many org players.I recall the mass whinning when they announced the switch, no most care nothing for the setting
Not always true, I am not playing RPGA games because it is Forgotten Realms. I want to play the Org play, but not until they have another setting, Once they add Eberron back I will play again.
|
|
Tons of people are playing in the new Realms.
But I'm sure they're not "true Realms fans".
I have EVERY SINGLE [D&D] PRODUCT EVER MADE for FR (save the 4e books), I consider myself a "true" fan of FR...
I have just the CS book for Eberron, while I like the setting, I DO NOT consider myself a "true" fan...
Is it possible to be a "casual" fan of any given setting (or game system) and only have one book? Absolutely...
But let me ask you this; how many "true" fans of D&D do you personally know who ONLY own the core three books (any edition)?
My point is, we gamers tend to be obsessive when it comes to our hobby. If we find a game we REALLY like, we buy most (if not all) of the books for it., and just one or two books for those games we like, but we don‘t consider to be "our favorites"..
Do you call yourself a "true" fan of EVERY SINGLE game (or setting) that you like but own just one book for (when more than just one book is available)?
I don't...
Because I think there is a difference between a "true" fan, and a casual one...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I think if you are saying you have to buy every piece of product in order to "get" the Realms, I think that is a bit of a hurdle. To some extent, this thread is allowing people to vent and that is fine. But none of this really encourages anyone with a casual interest to dig any deeper. The number of true fans, by your definition, is probably pretty small and it is debatable whether they represent a viable market. I remember a few years ago a poster here bemoaning some changes or lack of support (I think it was Greyhawk on this occasion) and they were clearly a "true" fan, but they also hadn't bought anything since 2e - for WotC such a person simply will not show up in their commercial calculations. Your situation is somewhat different, since you clearly (until recently) bought everything, but you are clearly unusual in that, and now you have stopped buying you basically have no sway.
Realms has name recognition, and so it is a valuable brand (maybe the most valuable in D&D apart from "Dungeons and Dragons" itself). So it made sense for them to make it the first setting they tackled. But it is also the case that they don't necessarily want to appeal solely to a coterie of Realms-obsessive fans, but to achieve a wide audience - i.e. a casual interest that might develop further. One of the things which has tended to hold FR back to newcomers is the tremendous depth of canon and history - I didn't realise it existed at first, but in the 3e book there were lots of references to stuff that I didn't understand in certain areas, espacially in the Dales, Cormanthor, the different empires, and so on. And I also tended not to actually play in those areas, because it was tricky to align my ideas with a (largely mysterious) canon, and the ambiguity and partial information made the areas unappealing. I could have just ignored it, of course, but then would that really have been very Realms-y? So I was most often in the Silver Marches, which is fairly generic. In addition, a (in my view, somewhat bogus but nevertheless often repeated) notion that the dominant NPCs do all the interesting stuff, leaving the PCs in the cold, is also mentioned. And some bits of the place were, frankly, not that exciting.
The Realms were cropped a bit in the move from 2e to 3e, though they were editied out rather than catastrophically exploded as in the change from 3e to 4e. Personally, I dislike the mechanism of the Spellplague + time shift but I'm not entirely dissatisfied with what they achieved. For someone new to the Realms, you can argue that that made it easier for someone new to the setting to get into it more easily and more interest to use (or you can disagree on that - I suspect it is a matter of preference, memory, taste and play style) and as such makes commercial sense for WotC to do that. Grognards (in the best sense of the term) are not a great commercial proposition for a company which is looking to aggresively push its brand and derive the maximum interest and sales.
I think if you are saying you have to buy every piece of product in order to "get" the Realms,Tons of people are playing in the new Realms.
But I'm sure they're not "true Realms fans".
I have EVERY SINGLE [D&D] PRODUCT EVER MADE for FR (save the 4e books), I consider myself a "true" fan of FR...
I have just the CS book for Eberron, while I like the setting, I DO NOT consider myself a "true" fan...
Is it possible to be a "casual" fan of any given setting (or game system) and only have one book? Absolutely...
But let me ask you this; how many "true" fans of D&D do you personally know who ONLY own the core three books (any edition)?
My point is, we gamers tend to be obsessive when it comes to our hobby. If we find a game we REALLY like, we buy most (if not all) of the books for it., and just one or two books for those games we like, but we don‘t consider to be "our favorites"..
Do you call yourself a "true" fan of EVERY SINGLE game (or setting) that you like but own just one book for (when more than just one book is available)?
I don't...
Because I think there is a difference between a "true" fan, and a casual one...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
No what I think he meant was there is a difference between a fan who want to know everything he can about a setting and one who is fine with just the core book or a basic over view. I don't own every book but I do know a great deal about the setting, a damned lot. So yeah I think that puts some difference between me and say someone who just knows basic stuff. I am not looking down upon them it's just a fact I know more of the setting and have a bigger investment in time , effort and pure enjoyment of knowing the setting that well. then they do
|
|
What WoTC did to the realms equates to the owners of the Dallas Cowboys saying "Hmm, we would like to attract hockey fans, I know lets turn the Cowboys into a Hockey team!" never mind the fact that it will no longer be the football team that so many people love, I mean we'll get new fans!
It doesn't make sense to alienate a HUGE portion of your fan base just to attract new fans. I would've bought 4R just because it's Realmslore, but the thing is, it isn't Realmslore. Not by any stretch could this new setting be considered Realms IMO. I have no problem with 4e I do have a problem with this "They'll buy whatever we tell them to buy" mentality that WoTC seems to have taken with a setting that they seem to not be able to grasp.
|
|
What WoTC did to the realms equates to the owners of the Dallas Cowboys saying "Hmm, we would like to attract hockey fans, I know lets turn the Cowboys into a Hockey team!" never mind the fact that it will no longer be the football team that so many people love, I mean we'll get new fans!
It doesn't make sense to alienate a HUGE portion of your fan base just to attract new fans. I would've bought 4R just because it's Realmslore, but the thing is, it isn't Realmslore. Not by any stretch could this new setting be considered Realms IMO. I have no problem with 4e I do have a problem with this "They'll buy whatever we tell them to buy" mentality that WoTC seems to have taken with a setting that they seem to not be able to grasp.
A huge proportion? I'm not alienated, and I bought it, and I certainly bought virtually everything in 3e FR. A proportion of diehard fans, certainly, but how many are there really? I don't believe that the Paizo boards are very representative of the gaming community as a whole, most of whom probably don't care even if they are fairly passionate about D&D - my players fall exactly into that category, and they have never expressed any comment either way. In the end it is a commercial decision of WotC but simply because you don't personally like something and want nothing to do with it doesn't mean it is a bad idea for a company - I totally dislike reality TV and it is everywhere.
|
|
I think if you are saying you have to buy every piece of product in order to "get" the Realms,No what I think he meant was there is a difference between a fan who want to know everything he can about a setting and one who is fine with just the core book or a basic over view. I don't own every book but I do know a great deal about the setting, a damned lot. So yeah I think that puts some difference between me and say someone who just knows basic stuff. I am not looking down upon them it's just a fact I know more of the setting and have a bigger investment in time , effort and pure enjoyment of knowing the setting that well. then they do
But it doesn't necessarily follow that WotC should tailor its output to "true" fans, however you choose to define it. Otherwise they will never get any "new" fans, and as the supply of true fans dwindles that is simply not a commercial proposition. And there is more than a whiff of elitism about the notion of a "true" fan. I think it is valid to be proud of having a good understanding of a setting, and to be disgruntled when a lot of that is suddenly swept away by a unilateral revision. But WotC do own the Realms, and they are entitled. If what they did was to try and make the Realms more accessible, then fair enough - a setting only open to the cognoscenti is not going to be a lot of use commercially. In the end, it arguably doesn't really make that much difference on an individual basis - you can simply choose to ignore the changes, as many people have already. There seems plenty of scope within pre-4e Realms for lots of adventures without the timeline progressing.
One other thing. In world history, big stuff happens that is very disruptive. For example, the Black Death, the Industrial Revolution, WW1, WW2, the rise of communism, the fall of communism. Big, heavy stuff that really impacts the world. It is tempting to think that history progresses in a steady incremental way, but it doesn't - there are periods of stability and dislocation in succession. Change is constant. Given that the Realms is a setting in which its history is quite central, to me a sudden and massive dislocation like the Spellplague isn't necessarily a massive violation of continuity but more of a recognition of how history tends to work - it simply doesn't stop, and new stuff happens all the time. My beef with the Spellplague is its relative deus ex machina feel rather than a problem with it actually happening, as such. And the flipside is that I quite like the idea as being a big event that is actually magical instead of mundane, given the setting. I guess it all boils down to taste, but I'm curious as to how much change is too much in a setting in which big changes have happened historically.
|
What WoTC did to the realms equates to the owners of the Dallas Cowboys saying "Hmm, we would like to attract hockey fans, I know lets turn the Cowboys into a Hockey team!" never mind the fact that it will no longer be the football team that so many people love, I mean we'll get new fans!
I like this post. This is a great point.
|
|
All I can see is that Wizards was hoping to open the FR up to new players while believing the old fans of the realms would jump on board no matter WHAT it was because it has the Forgotten Realms logo and they threw out Greenwood's name on a page.
Right. And, this community is smarter than that. Seems like they've got some old fuddy-duddies in the marketing department who can't let go of their own "consumers are sheep" mentalities.
The 4e realms are a f*&*in' insult!
T-Shirt slogan #13 ?"4orsaken realms"
Actually, try this one:
"Don't waste your time tring to bring WotC down! Build your preferred setting/system up!"|
|
And the flipside is that I quite like the idea as being a big event that is actually magical instead of mundane
Interesting view, Aubrey, as always. I too like the verisimilitude of a catastrophe, but this was so heavy handed and poorly developed, that the catastrophe may have well been located in Renton.
I also like the idea of a magical catastrophe. And your point is well taken. In fact, had Ed consulted more, and the a team of experience professionals handled the catastrophe, there may not have been an issue.
But as every player knows...... we players can smell a crappy railroad comin' a mile away. And writ large, its kinda like.... as DMs.... they suck.
That is, our whole game involves story - why would you send a 1st level adept in to do the work of a 9th level lord? Why did they mishandle.... and MANGLE the realms so badly.
So, again, its not really about the historical % chance of widespread incident, war, pestilence, or catastrophe..... so much as it is a friggin META-GAME Marketing ploy that smells of bad gamemastery, poor form, ill-advised design, and manipulation - all at the expense of a finely tuned, sophisticated setting, simply the best of its kind for what it offered.
So, I hope you can appreciate that I generally agree with you about the use of a magical catastrophe, but this was not the right time/place/setting/method to do so. They just ended up hosing the fans and gamers in a big way.
And.... if this were representative of an actual game session... I would walk away from that GMs table thinking, "What kinda crap was that?"
Its like they pissed on an historical grave.
Its like they played frisbee with a spiritual symbol.
Its like a complete disregard, and disrespect - and from what they have actually said in interviews, its even more s+!%ty that they intended to distance themselves.
That's partially why they've lost a lot of credibility with a vast number of gamers.
|
|
I agree that the catastrophe as such is not the problem. I feel the metagame reason for the catastrophe - to introduce the new ruleset - is a clear problem. I don't see why it was necessary from that perspective - warlocks and warlords could surely have been slotted in without any massive world-changing disasters, in the same way that sorcerers somehow arrived in Faerun without, I dunno, Thesk vanishing into a wormhole. That certainly feels arbitrary and - especially if the 4e ruleset doesn't enamour - having a cherished setting so radically altered in what can be construed as a lazy, cop-out sort of way could certainly get one's goat, so to speak. I'm also bothered that the actual quality of the books is clearly lower than it was for, at least, most of the 3e stuff on the Realms - certainly the amount of content and detail is lower. That said, the actual subsequent changes to the setting bother me less than they probably would someone with many more hours (and pounds/dollars) invested in it.
|
|
I think if you are saying you have to buy every piece of product in order to "get" the Realms, I think that is a bit of a hurdle.
*SIGH*
While I did indeed say that "I" personally have every single FR product ever made, I did not say that everyone needed to do so in order to be a "true" fan:
we buy most (if not all) of the books for it.
What I meant was that (IMO) if someone was more than just a "casual" fan, that person would have more than just say one or two books...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
What WoTC did to the realms equates to the owners of the Dallas Cowboys saying "Hmm, we would like to attract hockey fans, I know lets turn the Cowboys into a Hockey team!" never mind the fact that it will no longer be the football team that so many people love, I mean we'll get new fans!
It doesn't make sense to alienate a HUGE portion of your fan base just to attract new fans. I would've bought 4R just because it's Realmslore, but the thing is, it isn't Realmslore. Not by any stretch could this new setting be considered Realms IMO. I have no problem with 4e I do have a problem with this "They'll buy whatever we tell them to buy" mentality that WoTC seems to have taken with a setting that they seem to not be able to grasp.
I like this post. This is a great point.
Agreed. I think this says it all.
They said they hated the realms and knew nothing about the setting..so yeah not a good group to let write the book"4E Realms - Made by people who hate the Realms for people who hate the Realms!"
Can we get a list of all of the quotes, if possible?
|
|
I think if you are saying you have to buy every piece of product in order to "get" the Realms, I think that is a bit of a hurdle.*SIGH*
While I did indeed say that "I" personally have every single FR product ever made, I did not say that everyone needed to do so in order to be a "true" fan:
we buy most (if not all) of the books for it.What I meant was that (IMO) if someone was more than just a "casual" fan, that person would have more than just say one or two books...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I have a pretty big library of 3e FR on my shelves - I think there are maybe two volumes I don't own from 3e FR. Arguably that makes me a true fan of FR on some level. But actually, I suspect the definition of "true" fan on this thread is someone who abhors the changes they have made for 4e. I don't mind people really hating the changes - some are crap and badly executed, after all, and people are entitled to their views. But I think it is also quite possible to have a big lot of stuff from 3e and still be happy enough with the 4e version. I can see where a lot of the 3e stuff is still relevant, even in a post-Spellplague environment. Silver Marches is basically the same, so is a lot of the Unapproachable East and bits of the Shining South (and I don't really miss the bits of the latter which sank beneath the waves, as I mentioned above) among others. In the same way that 2e stuff was interesting and useful in the 3e Realms. I find plenty of continuity as well as change.
|
|
I agree that the catastrophe as such is not the problem. I feel the metagame reason for the catastrophe - to introduce the new ruleset - is a clear problem. I don't see why it was necessary from that perspective - warlocks and warlords could surely have been slotted in without any massive world-changing disasters, in the same way that sorcerers somehow arrived in Faerun without, I dunno, Thesk vanishing into a wormhole.The catastrophe was neccessary for reasons below.
4eWizards/Clerics/etc. ARE not the same as their 3.5 counterparts. Where as sorcerers were nothing more than one-trick variety of wizard. And the areas that were hardest hit, like Halruaa were for the most part the ones that were the heaviest on the old style of magic. It's like suddenly flipping the Earth's magnetic field, it's going to have a major effect.
Also it's going to be very hard to convert old characters into knew so a Hamlet-Act 5 style of solution is the easiest road to follow, plus advance the storyline a century and a half so that most of these are already legends to the new generation.
Mechanically, yes - but in terms of story? I can't see how much of this couldn't be hand-waved - they have for Eberron, after all. If you call a guy a "priest" I'm not too bothered about what armour he wears and what spells he can cast in a short paragraph describing him as the ruler of the local theocracy. Of course, character conversion is a problem, but frankly if you adopt a new ruleset then you can't expect an instand one-for-one conversion and you didn't get that in 2e to 3e either. Arguably, they have created the problem in order to inflict the Spellplague, rather than the change in ruleset necessitating it, in my view.
|
|
But actually, I suspect the definition of "true" fan on this thread is someone who abhors the changes they have made for 4e.
Not as far as I am concerned. In fact I think that someone can be a true fan of the setting just for having played the BG series, so I definitely don't think in book counts.
What I have to admit, though, is that nearly all people (and that's quite a lot) I considered to be Realms fans before 4e was even announced heavily dislike the 4E realms whether they like the rules system or not. So there seems to be a bit of a correlation at least.
|
I don't think you have any grounds for supporting that kind of statement. I think that, in reality, it's exactly the opposite case - most Realms fans are playing the Realms in 4th Edition, but I have no real way of backing this up.
We're playing pre-spellplague Realms using 4e rules. It works fine.
(we're c. 1374 - Zhent invasion of Dalelands)
Tiefling have always been around, now you can play them. You could play them and genasi before 4e.
devas = aasimars
dragonborn are from Chessenta/Unther area
Mulhorand,still exists
Lathander = Lathander, etc
sure, i've been converting old 2nd ed (Steelheart) and 3.5 adventures (Mysteries of the Moonsea, Sons of Gruumsh, Cormyr, Shadowdale), but it still works.
|
|
In the end, it all comes down to the fact that there was NO NEED to annihilate the realms of the late 14th DR century in a catstrophe.
There was a perceived need to offer a 'Points of Light' setting with a rationale for the 4th Ed.'s cosmology and power sourcing. It was felt that capitalizing on the brand recognition of the Forgotten Realms was of value to the merchandising of the product.
That's all that was required.
Consider some of the ways that could have been accomplished:
-A Forgotten Realms setting in -30000 DR, prior to the rise of Netheril and home to the scions of the Creator Races (Dragonborn, Tieflings, etc.) and operating under rules of power that arose from the primal energies in play before Mystryl's Netherese embodiment.
-A Forgotten Realms setting on another planet of the same solar system, one where Ao took a more direct hand and 'experimented' with shaping a world by his hand directly. (Glyth, for the spelljammers out there, would seem the best candidates; a little tweaking of either would create the points of light necessary. A little mighty magic improving the atmosphere, perhaps due to the arrival of dragons in numbers from Faerun, using their dragonborn servitors to drive the illithid into the depths.)
-A Forgotten Realms setting far in the future, not just a couple hundred years, but a few THOUSAND years, where the geographical features are the same and no torment of the planet itself was required, simply allow the passage of time to exceed the recording capacity of the world. Because of the lifespans of dragons and elves, a few thousand years would be required, not the shorter jump of the new Realms.
As a bonus side-effect of any of these three options, the Forgotten Realms would become a brand name with meaning again. While Ed offered the initial conceit that our world and Abeir Toril were once known to each other but forgotten by our world (an idea adapted by the history of Mulhorand and Chessenta, btw) it was never fixed in time or place. In any of those three ways, we could have meaning for what was 'forgotten' in the Forgotten Realms.
The Age of Thunder (4th ed) was forgotten by the the inhabitants of the Present Age (AD&D, 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed). Or perhaps the life of those humans on Glyth is the Forgotten Realms from the perspective of those on Abeir Toril, with a spelljamming guide from Toril serving as Marco Volo to bring folks up to speed on this Forgotten Realms. Or perhaps the Realms of the Present Age is what was forgotten by the moderns who emerge, from a much more recent catastrophe that shattered their world while leaving the survivors to seek out their future by unearthing the past, a past that was once much more populated.
Even if you don't like any of those three options, a fourth, slightly less elegant one remains avaiable thanks to the precedent of the FR: A new continent where the 4th Ed Points of Light construct plays out. Put it to the SW of Maztica, separated by a vast sea from Kara Tur, an Australia for the 4th Edition to develop. This has been done before, and done to accommodate new game rules that seem to challenge the Faerunian baseline. The rules for Al Qadim were dramatically different from core D&D and yet the region was situated in the FR without major tension. Similarly, true OE rules are very different from baseline D&D, and yet Kara Tur could co-exist with Cormyr. Why not place the new FR rules in another far corner of the Abeir Toril? FR fans are used to the fact that the world is crowded. Why couldn't there be another continent out there for the 4th ed. to rule?
In the end, having read most of the new FR stuff, I keep coming back to the feeling of flagrant waste in the new Realmslore. Creating on Overgod Ao in order to (net result) eliminate the God of Murder and trade an evil God of Death for a neutral one while adding in a Loki-light god of malice seems like a reasonable deus ex machina. (In my own FR, I have taken that farther, restoring Myrkul as well so that I can keep a Cyric without having to let him reign over the dead or take on Kelemvor as a god.) On the other hand, concocting an entire soap opera drama to eliminate a handful of gods in brutal deicide (and having melodrama provide the motivation for most of it) seems callous. Smashing entire nations out of existence and eliminating a continent (Maztica) whose story (like that of Al Qadim or Kara Tur) was exotic and filled a unique niche was brutal and unnecessary.
There was simply no elegance in what WOTC did in this transition. It was a brutal attack on all aspects of the Realms that they could not justify as a current moneymaker. Thus Drizzt and Elminster stay but anyone from Maztica is gone.
As a DM, I find it part of my obligation to try, whenever possible, to respect the ideas of my players for their fantasy world and (when I use a prepared setting, like the FR) to try and respect the image they have of the world their characters inhabit. Extending that obligation to the game designers who are trustee of these Forgotten Realms does not seem unreasonable. It is a bit hippocratic, I know, but RPGs are not the sole property of the owner of the brand: it is a shared exercise between designer, novelist, player, and DM.
First, do no harm seems to have been a rule that was cast aside by this design team.
But that wasn't what WOTC did. That's why I am disappointed with the new Realms. They subtracted options from this big world we have imagined together for decades.
(And I would have loved to see 4e pick one of the three more elegant options, that would have had me opening my wallet just to expand my Forgotten Realms collection. I don't play Al Qadim or Oriental Adventures and only briefly played Maztica, but I bought all 3 just so my big crowded Abeir Toril could get even bigger! Heck, I even bought the Arcane Age stuff just to fill in that fourth magical ruleset to my quiver of storytelling tools. I don't run a 4e game but I would happily make room for a 4e setting in the context of a vibrant Forgotten Realms.)
A proportion of diehard fans, certainly, but how many are there really?
Almost none, now that they have died out.
The catastrophe was neccessary for reasons below.
No, it wasn't. It was done because the authors were either to incompetent or too lazy (or too both) to explain the Realms with the new rules.
4eWizards/Clerics/etc. ARE not the same as their 3.5 counterparts.
And that affects the world how? They're still wizards and clerics in the Realms. The game mechanics might be different, but that's all.
And if the differences are really so huge that the Realms - formerly *the* vanilla fantasy D&D setting - cannot work with them, it just proves that 4e is not D&D. Not even remotely.
Because I think I'd be able to play the Realms with Cortex or WoD/Storyteller or Dark Eye or GURPS or anything. If 4e cannot worth when games like that can, it's really far out.
But I doubt it. As much as I consider 4e to be unrelated to D&D and RPGs, I doubt it wouldn't have been compatible. In fact, there are several people posting in this thread playing Realms in 4e (and I mean the actual realms, not the xxx-treme power rangers version)
Also it's going to be very hard to convert old characters into knew so a Hamlet-Act 5 style of solution is the easiest road to follow, plus advance the storyline a century and a half so that most of these are already legends to the new generation.
I don't pay authors to follow the easiest road. I can do that myself for free, without any effort. If they want my money, they better go the extra mile.
The catastrophe was neccessary for reasons below.
4eWizards/Clerics/etc. ARE not the same as their 3.5 counterparts. Where as sorcerers were nothing more than one-trick variety of wizard. And the areas that were hardest hit, like Halruaa were for the most part the ones that were the heaviest on the old style of magic. It's like suddenly flipping the Earth's magnetic field, it's going to have a major effect.
Also it's going to be very hard to convert old characters into knew so a Hamlet-Act 5 style of solution is the easiest road to follow, plus advance the storyline a century and a half so that most of these are already legends to the new generation.
No it was not. Beside braking the setting rules, which it so did... this would have been hadwaves as something like Mystra combines the 2 weaves..magic changes...
Drgonborn were already there. Not the same type but hell FR had a damned lot unexplored lands and , you can't throw a wizard without hitting a portal...
Tiflings..already there
Ya know with the spellplaque if Halruaa was wiped out waterdeep, the dalelands and every mythal in the realms should have went, so should have silvermoon and the big floating city of MAGIC.
And without a goddess of magic..there is no magic it does not go wild it stops forever.
Badly thought out.
|
|
Sutekh said a lot of really articulate things.
Including: "First, do no harm seems to have been a rule that was cast aside by this design team.
But that wasn't what WOTC did. That's why I am disappointed with the new Realms. They subtracted options from this big world we have imagined together for decades.
"
And that's a dirty rotten shame on them. Flagrent disregard for everyone involved. May the spellplague thingy be on their house, and their heads. Let's see how it feels when the gaming community "REIMAGINES" the role of WOTC. Let's see how they feel when we "erase" any allegience to 100% official content." Let's see how they feel when we rally in favor of the END of their leadership of our game.
OGL and the open game movement are forever.
Apparently integrity and trust in the IP owners is not forever, since our stories, settings, traditions and editions are highly subject to highjacking and destruction by poor design and the twisting of arms by m4rketing greedlords.
|
|
Almost none, now that they have died out.
A proportion of diehard fans, certainly, but how many are there really?
The question was more how many were there before the 4e Realms, rather than after. The point was that WotC could have pitched the setting at people wth a deep understanding of it - which quite possibly would have led to no sales outside a diminishing core fan base that might well have not even bothered with 4e anyway (Greenwood didn't even get to 3e) - or try to broaden its appeal by de-emphasising the back history. While I can agree the means they went about it was cack-handed, I can't really argue with the commercial logic.
The question was more how many were there before the 4e Realms, rather than after. The point was that WotC could have pitched the setting at people wth a deep understanding of it - which quite possibly would have led to no sales outside a diminishing core fan base that might well have not even bothered with 4e anyway (Greenwood didn't even get to 3e) - or try to broaden its appeal by de-emphasising the back history. While I can agree the means they went about it was cack-handed, I can't really argue with the commercial logic.Almost none, now that they have died out.
A proportion of diehard fans, certainly, but how many are there really?
I can. Most of the "small core" bought 10 or 20 books each of FR. Even if they get 10 times as many new fans - which I do not believe - selling 1 or 2 books each to everyone would barely make up for the loss.
|
|
commercial logic.
Note: this post isn't directed at you, Aubrey - just the idea of commercial logic.
This sounds like a riddle from dungeonmaster in the old cartoon series...
DM: "You must save the realms by destroying it."
Cavalier: "Oh, great! Another one of Dungeonmaster's crazy riddles!"
And... and see, with one sentence we can spin everything to make the WOTCI look like heroes. Maybe they are.
Perhaps the world would have been saved from Communism through carefully executed mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.). This meant that were the U.S.S.R. ever to launch a nuclear strike, the U.S. would counter with another devastating strike, assuring that the attackers were thoroughly destroyed, rather than left in tact to spread Communism over the remaining radio-active inhabitants of earth. Thus, everything was destroyed, and it resonated with a certain ideological military logic.
But with regard to an imagined, and shared world since 1987, and accounting for the scribes at Candlekeep, and the recently published trove of investment (looks at over 25 hardcovers about 10 feet away), I think we could have, call me crazy but we could have just created a new setting rather than destroy one.
There are no limits to the imagination. There is no shortage of planets or planes. There wasn't even a geographical constraint on the land acres in Abeir-Toril. They could have respected the Forgotten Realms community.
|
|
Stuff
Only two problems: Tieflings were, for the most part, a Thayan thing. They started showing up in Faerun when the Thayans started getting it on with lower planar beings, apparently.
The "Abeir" in Abeir-Toril was the name of the planet, and Greenwood didn't come up with the name "Abier", Jeff Grubb did (Abeir was the name of his homebrew, and was added to FR in '87 when he and Ed worked on the first boxed set together). Furthermore, the "Abeir" being a separate world is specifically a 4e thing, since, apparently, the 4e Realms designers didn't KNOW it wasn't two worlds.
To be fair Derek the 4e team didn't know much about the setting at all.
If I recall the Abeir was added to make Toil come first in alphabetical order
|
|
Toril was the name of Jeff Grubb's campaign world, and it was adopted as the name of the planet with the continent Faerûn when he and Ed Greenwood were designing the original Forgotten Realms Boxed Set in 1987. Abeir- was added as a prefix so that the world's name was placed at the beginning of an alphabetical encyclopedia.
|
|
Toril was the name of Jeff Grubb's campaign world, and it was adopted as the name of the planet with the continent Faerûn when he and Ed Greenwood were designing the original Forgotten Realms Boxed Set in 1987. Abeir- was added as a prefix so that the world's name was placed at the beginning of an alphabetical encyclopedia.
Hmmm, you seemed to find that rather quickly. I wonder what the new Realms designer's excuse is?
But, you did get that from wikipedia, maybe they thought wiki was as accurate on that as they are on some other stuff...
:)