|
-Well most of the designers are from Eberron now so...
-If alot of the older designers were still working for WotC and not using the OGL to make a living I really dont think that this would be happening to The Forgotten Realms.
-Now we get the Forgotten Realms 'shoehorned' into Eberron. Instead of the other way around.
18DELTA
|
-Well most of the designers are from Eberron now so...
-If alot of the older designers were still working for WotC and not using the OGL to make a living I really dont think that this would be happening to The Forgotten Realms.
-Now we get the Forgotten Realms 'shoehorned' into Eberron. Instead of the other way around.
A lot of this also comes from the fact that they're trying to make all the settings "the same", to the extent that they all have the same monsters, themes, etc, and can print materials for all of them, rather than having to do setting specific stuff.
While there's something to be said for this, it also detracts heavily from those things that make one world special and interesting in the first place, and also forces you to take on aspects of other worlds (Warforged, etc) that you might not actually want.
|
A lot of this also comes from the fact that they're trying to make all the settings "the same", to the extent that they all have the same monsters, themes, etc, and can print materials for all of them, rather than having to do setting specific stuff.
Have they stated this somewhere? The reason I ask is that for a core book you want to have it generic as possible to support the widest range of playstyles. Then you have very specific books for specific "regions" such as for Forgotten realms or Eberron. As far as I can tell, this is actually what they are doing. now I may not care much for the rules and setting as I see it in 4.E, this doesn't mean they are totally going to nerf everything in forgotten realms and make them all cookie cutter. If they do that then we have a lot to complain about in a few months but please lets all just take a wait and see attitude on things like this till they are actually out.
|
|
Have they stated this somewhere? The reason I ask is that for a core book you want to have it generic as possible to support the widest range of playstyles. Then you have very specific books for specific "regions" such as for Forgotten realms or Eberron. As far as I can tell, this is actually what they are doing. now I may not care much for the rules and setting as I see it in 4.E, this doesn't mean they are totally going to nerf everything in forgotten realms and make them all cookie cutter. If they do that then we have a lot to complain about in a few months but please lets all just take a wait and see attitude on things like this till they are actually out.
It's been stated by the designers posting on the WoTC forums and in various interviews, by Rich Baker and others, though I don't recall the specific posts off the top of my head. They basically wanted to make all the core books and adventures usable in all the settings, including having all monsters present in all settings.
The impression that I got was definitely one of the Realms being shoehorned somewhat to fit with the overall 4E ideal, though perhaps not to the degree that would constitute a 'worst-case' scenario.
While there's something to be said for this, it also detracts heavily from those things that make one world special and interesting in the first place, and also forces you to take on aspects of other worlds (Warforged, etc) that you might not actually want.
See, even with this, I'd be ok. I don't think it's a good idea, mind you - they should leave the distinctions between the settings, or else why even have more than one? But If they wanted to bring warforged and dragonborn and such into FR, I can accept that.
But why couldn't warforged have been an ancient soldier-automaton race that was created by the Netherese and disappeared with them, only to be returning since the reappearance of Shade? Why couldn't the dragonborn be the result of a sarrukh lich's insane experimentation gone awry, and just appearing as a fledgling people trying to carve out a niche for themselves? Isn't that more plausible than "oh, plus, a continent from another world just appeared suddenly on yours, and there's this empire of dragon-people. Have a nice day."
|
|
It's been stated by the designers posting on the WoTC forums and in various interviews, by Rich Baker and others, though I don't recall the specific posts off the top of my head. They basically wanted to make all the core books and adventures usable in all the settings, including having all monsters present in all settings.
The impression that I got was definitely one of the Realms being shoehorned somewhat to fit with the overall 4E ideal, though perhaps not to the degree that would constitute a 'worst-case' scenario.
I'd love to see a link on that.
There might be some precedent for the distinction in medieval Norse paganism, from which elves or álfar come. Snorri Sturluson, who wrote the Prose Edda in early 13th century Iceland (after it had become Christian) distinguished between ljósálfar (light elves) and døkkálfar (dark elves). Earlier sources make reference to svartálfar, or black elves, with no apparent connection to Snorri's døkkálfar, but with connection to the dvergar, or dwarves, which also come from Norse paganism.
I had to cut this part out to thank you for a correction. I had mentioned in another thread (now I forget which one) that I didn't believe "døkkálfar" was found in Old Norse, but my current resources are only the older poetry. I don't have an original language version of the Prose Edda any longer, and if I was thinking correctly, I might have considered it was introduced later by Snorri. So thanks. Now I need to find that other thread and make a similar correction...
It seems to me that WOTC is doing exactly what TSR was famous for: putting out a new addition when one was not needed, and going against the wishes of the D&D community in getting rid of every campaign setting that had a magnificently rich history. I do not know about everyone else, but I will be keeping my campaign settings and my D&D 3.5 books and campaign up and running!! To Hell with 4e, where it obviously belongs!
It seems to me that WOTC is doing exactly what TSR was famous for: putting out a new addition when one was not needed, and going against the wishes of the D&D community in getting rid of every campaign setting that had a magnificently rich history. I do not know about everyone else, but I will be keeping my campaign settings and my D&D 3.5 books and campaign up and running!! To Hell with 4e, where it obviously belongs!
Easy there, partner. Let's all play nice in the Paizo sandbox. Such commentary isn't necessary. I'm not fond of the changes to FR in 4E that I've heard about (interpret "not fond of" as "despise"), but I'm not going to declare 4E as being a necessary recipient of a one-way trip to the netherworld. From my viewpoint, a 4E FR was doable without utterly annihilating the map. I can understand some of the possible motives for the changes and still dislike them.
|
|
Unfortunately it seems that the WotC staff blog posts from last year aren't up anymore (or at least, I can't find anything past about March of this year for the individuals in question).
This reposting of Chris Perkins's blog probably comes closest, at least at a glance. I know there were multiple discussions of that particular aspect of it (i.e., "I don't want Warforged in my FR!", etc) on the FR boards, which is why I sort of take it for granted now.
I'm actually looking forward to the first 4E Drizzt book.
I did not pay to much attention as I don't do FR but their is a podcast devoted specifically to FR which might shed some light on what the official position was in terms of the FR and what their motives were for the varous changes.
|
|
I'm actually looking forward to the first 4E Drizzt book.well since it is going so far into the future I assume that our favorite dark skinned elf will either be dead or decrepit.
Nope. In fact, the last book released has a forward, written by Drizzt, set in the time of the new campaign. It was actually what first clued everyone in to the 100 year time jump of the new setting.
|
|
But why couldn't warforged have been an ancient soldier-automaton race that was created by the Netherese and disappeared with them, only to be returning since the reappearance of Shade? Why couldn't the dragonborn be the result of a sarrukh lich's insane experimentation gone awry, and just appearing as a fledgling people trying to carve out a niche for themselves? Isn't that more plausible than "oh, plus, a continent from another world just appeared suddenly on yours, and there's this empire of dragon-people. Have a nice day."
Because the people in charge of the broad outlines of the revamp had no real understanding for the properties, nor any sort of appreciation for how freaking easily dragonborn, tieflings, warforged, warlocks, warlords, wardonkeys, warpuddings and warwerewombats could be folded into the setting, due to it's incredibly rich background. Shades re-envisioned as tieflings, tainted by their sojourn in the Shadowfell, Dragonborn spawn of Sarrukh, Warforged of ancient Netherese design (or more contemporary Thayvian manufacture...), Warlocks making shadow pacts with Shar for power not available in the traditional ways, Warlords marching from Zhentil Keep, striving to use their superior command abilities to spread the dominance of Bane over the Heartlands, all would fit elegantly into the setting, had someone who actually cared about the setting spent two minutes thinking about it.
It seems that the decision was made by someone higher up, quite likely at Hasbro, to whom the entire brand was some distant and uninteresting thing, hopelessly diverse and 'confusing' and 'had too much detail' and lacked the necessary homogeniety to be described in the 30 second info-blurbs that seem to be all that execs can understand these days before they get bored and tune you out.
Like all-too-many sales-dudes I've worked with, I imagine that the execs in charge of these decisions had not the slightest idea how the Realms actually worked, and how *easily* it could accomodate their mandate and still remain identifiable as the Realms. If there's been one constant since the Dales first appeared in the '80's, it's that the Realms are always growing and changing.
I'm actually looking forward to the first 4E Drizzt book.well since it is going so far into the future I assume that our favorite dark skinned elf will either be dead or decrepit.
Why? Don't elves live for centuries anymore? ;-)
|
Nope. In fact, the last book released has a forward, written by Drizzt, set in the time of the new campaign. It was actually what first clued everyone in to the 100 year time jump of the new setting.I'm actually looking forward to the first 4E Drizzt book.well since it is going so far into the future I assume that our favorite dark skinned elf will either be dead or decrepit.
Not to mention he stands tall and proud on the cover of the Campaign Setting (though it isn't called that anymore...).
That would go over well:
"Cool! That elf on the cover is awesome! Oh yeah, apparently it's Drizzt, that guy I heard about from my gaming friends."::opens book::
"Hmm. That sucks, apparently he is also dead."
Oh, and I think it is pretty obvious that the design team cares more for attracting new players to a popular campaign setting than for the reason for liking the campaign setting in the first place. I love the fact that when I make a Paladin, I can choose from a handful of deities who represent subtle nuances of the LG ethos. Nope, now you get cookie-cutter Lawful Stupid.
Technically, in the 4E Realms, your Paladin can worship ANY god!
Cheers! :)
Edit: I've just noticed that despite Gary's name change, the thread's original title still appears in the URL address. Interesting. I'm surprised the threadname and the URL can be decoupled so.
|
|
Oh, and I think it is pretty obvious that the design team cares more for attracting new players to a popular campaign setting than for the reason for liking the campaign setting in the first place. I love the fact that when I make a Paladin, I can choose from a handful of deities who represent subtle nuances of the LG ethos. Nope, now you get cookie-cutter Lawful Stupid.
Technically, in the 4E Realms, your Paladin can worship ANY god!
Cheers! :)
Edit: I've just noticed that despite Gary's name change, the thread's original title still appears in the URL address. Interesting. I'm surprised the threadname and the URL can be decoupled so.
Finally, I can make the Paladin of Cyric I have secretly wanted all these years!
Failing that, I'm gonna make a Paladin of Helm...what?! NOOOO!
Finally, I can make the Paladin of Cyric I have secretly wanted all these years!
Failing that, I'm gonna make a Paladin of Helm...what?! NOOOO!
Lol! :)
|
|
I just sat there, thinking.... and thought whether others would agree with just how nasty and diabolical this event actually is? So would you agree? If so, should this act go quietly unnoticed?
It definitely didn't go unnoticed. There was a LOT of very heated discussion in many places once some of the changes were made obvious (or even hinted at, for that matter). And yes, there was some outrage that Eberron escaped the nonsense while FR was destroyed and made anew into something that only vaguely resembles the pre-4e setting.
Basically, after a lot of angry posting, I think that people went on their way thinking either "Hm, oh well, I'll just carry on as I have been, playing in the Realms at the year I choose, and ignore all other FR work from WotC as though it's a new world that has nothing to do with MY FR" or "Fine, I just won't play in FR anymore" (and I have recommended Golarion in place of FR for those folks, just as I'm doing). There will be some new people who come to check it out, but I don't think this "reboot" has done anything to help, honestly. The history is all still there... and you can bet that long-time Realms players will still incorporate that history into their post-Spellplague campaigns (for those who make the jump), and that will still "alienate" the newcomers.
Doesn't matter to me. As much respect as I have for Ed Greenwood and his continued efforts to try to salvage something from 4e Realms, I don't think it's worth the effort for me. I liked it how it was, and if I'm going to learn and get into a new setting it might as well be something totally different - like Golarion. :) If ever I play/run a Realms campaign again, it won't be set in 4e Realms.
|
|
Because the people in charge of the broad outlines of the revamp had no real understanding for the properties, nor any sort of appreciation for how freaking easily dragonborn, tieflings, warforged, warlocks, warlords, wardonkeys, warpuddings and warwerewombats could be folded into the setting, due to it's incredibly rich background. Shades re-envisioned as tieflings, tainted by their sojourn in the Shadowfell, Dragonborn spawn of Sarrukh, Warforged of ancient Netherese design (or more contemporary Thayvian manufacture...), Warlocks making shadow pacts with Shar for power not available in the traditional ways, Warlords marching from Zhentil Keep, striving to use their superior command abilities to spread the dominance of Bane over the Heartlands, all would fit elegantly into the setting, had someone who actually cared about the setting spent two minutes thinking about it.
Excellent ideas, all!
It seems that the decision was made by someone higher up, quite likely at Hasbro, to whom the entire brand was some distant and uninteresting thing, hopelessly diverse and 'confusing' and 'had too much detail' and lacked the necessary homogeniety to be described in the 30 second info-blurbs that seem to be all that execs can understand these days before they get bored and tune you out.
That's where you and I differ on who we hold accountable for this. I, as much as I despise Hasbro (they're also killing Scrabulous!), don't think they have the level of control to dictate changing a sub-section of a sub-section of a sub-section of WotC. I place the blame/responsibility for this squarely on the staffers at WotC. A couple in particular, but no names need be mentioned (lest I break the messageboard rules :).
That's where you and I differ on who we hold accountable for this. I, as much as I despise Hasbro (they're also killing Scrabulous!), don't think they have the level of control to dictate changing a sub-section of a sub-section of a sub-section of WotC. I place the blame/responsibility for this squarely on the staffers at WotC. A couple in particular, but no names need be mentioned (lest I break the messageboard rules :).
I have to agree with you here. The idea that anyone at Hasbro with enough influence to mess with such a specific brand has any understanding of that brand seems very unlikely.
WotC did this for whatever reasons that WotC has. Hasbro is, in all likelihood, blameless.
|
I do not know about everyone else, but I will be keeping my campaign settings and my D&D 3.5 books and campaign up and running!! To Hell with 4e, where it obviously belongs!
Its possible that thousands more feel the way you do, perhaps millions. This is another reason for this community to break away from wotc, in favor of a company that is in-touch with us, and will continue to support 3.5+ in a way that honors the traditions of our game's history.
Has anyone else decided to continue 3.5, especially during those weeks when wotc were actually suggesting gamers wrap up their campaigns? Was anyone offended with this request to "wrap up" your campaigns? Especially if a Forgotten Realms one?
|
|
I don't think it's worth the effort for me. I liked it how it was, and if I'm going to learn and get into a new setting it might as well be something totally different - like Golarion. :) If ever I play/run a Realms campaign again, it won't be set in 4e Realms.
Quoted for complete agreement.
That's where you and I differ on who we hold accountable for this. I, as much as I despise Hasbro (they're also killing Scrabulous!), don't think they have the level of control to dictate changing a sub-section of a sub-section of a sub-section of WotC. I place the blame/responsibility for this squarely on the staffers at WotC. A couple in particular, but no names need be mentioned (lest I break the messageboard rules :).
I agree that I don't think this was entirely the fault of Hasbro. Honestly, I don't even think that the designers or staffers 'responsible' can necessarily be blamed in any sort of malicious way. That is, I don't think anyone set out intending to destroy the Realms, or intending to try and give the existing Realms fans the proverbial finger. I know for a fact that some of the more vilified designers (well, vilified on the WotC FR boards) worked on some cool 3.5 stuff with several of the Paizo guys that I like - for instance, Fiendish Codex I. Designers? Two of the three include James Jacobs and Erik Mona. Design Manager and one of the Editors? ...Chris Perkins. :P
I think, really, that the 4e FR design team set out with the best of intentions. They wanted to improve FR, and open it to more people. From everything I've read, I get the strong impression that they tried asking the following questions, or something like them:
"What do/don't you like about the Realms?"
"What do you feel to be the strongest barrier(s) to playing/starting games in the Realms?"
"What would make the Realms feel more accessible to you?"
None of these are bad questions. Where I think they may have gone wrong is perhaps in some combination of focusing more on addressing the people who had problems/gripes/grudges with the Realms, and less on being attentive to those who liked existing aspects. Granted, this is easy to understand, in that those who are content don't usually complain, especially not vocally.
However, I think that they may have failed to shop/playtest proposed changes out to a wide enough audience - and that by the time many of these things were hinted at, it was too late for there to be any changes made, as too many novels/adventures/sourcebooks were tied in to the coming sweeping changes.
If there is one other thing that left me feeling slightly unsettled, it was a comment by one of the designers (might be Chris Perkins, though I don't quite remember whom exactly) in an interview about the coming changes with Gamer Radio Zero (and posted to WotC's site), wherein the designer noted that 'none of us really play FR anymore'. The comment was likely meant more to indicate a feeling among those staffers/designers that FR was broken and in need of fixing. To many of the diehard fans (myself included) on the FR boards at the time, though, it was just evidence that those individuals did not have an understanding of FR, or why we liked it.
|
Video of Chris Perkins calling Forgotten Realms history, "30 Years Of Baggage."
Gee, wasn't that inspiring to watch :-(
Great link and all, but depressing content...
Video of Chris Perkins calling Forgotten Realms history, "30 Years Of Baggage."
I love the part where he says as if it's ridiculous (which it is) that they're not just going to drop tiefling on the Realms and suddenly they're all over...and then that's exactly what they did with the dragonborn. -_-
|
|
I'll admit im no expert on game desighn but from what ive heard Eberron background more closly resembles the 4E rules than Forgotten realms. So would it not have made more sence for them to do Eberron first (Since they are supposedly more compatable and there is a lot less background to cover and fit together) and then have an entire extra year to work on the Forgotten realms background to make it fit a lot better and with less butchering of the setting?
|
Oh MAN! Mystra died?! ... AGAIN?!
How many times is that now?
Oh wait maybe Drizzt will become the next Mystra. Dryztra!
FR is so full of info that it's nigh impossible for a DM without a degree Realms Lore to run a game esp. with FR hungry players. I had a group of players want me to run a FR game a while ago (and I've played all the Baldurs Gates and read the Salvatore novels) but I just felt underprepared. I understand why WotC felt the need for the reboot +100yrs - hell it works for star trek (and starwars novels) - but anything with that much of a fan base is going to get hot when you try to mess with it.
Still it's not nearly as bad as DC's crisis or whatever Marvels doing from week to week. And I'm playing a PbP FR Phlan based game set pre Time of Troubles and it seems to be running pretty well without messing with the setting. In the end with fluff books (like settings) who cares what they change ... it's your fluff and it's not like there is not enough of it.
Why care?
Well...maybe because you're like me, and your love for FR is at least as much for the novels as for the gaming in it. I can't very well houserule away the butchering of settings for novels, now can I? I mean...I could write my own, but a) it'd suck and b) it'd be a far different experience than reading them.
Maybe because we like FR the way it was, the way we came to know it. If we wanted to make our own setting, we could do that - we always could. If we wanted to take part of FR and use it for our own setting, we could do that too. But we want the real FR, the FR that's rich, detailed, nuanced, and thick with lore.
People say FR was inaccessible, that it was too much information to absorb just to set your game there. I say, if you don't want all that detail, all that richness...why do you want to play an FR campaign? And if you -do- have a good reason for that, and you want a simpler, less detailed, less rich Forgotten Realms, why not tell your players "hey, we're playing in FR, but things may be different than what you've read about because I haven't read every novel." It's much easier to cut parts that don't fit for you than it is to develop new ones completely to try to bandage up the setting and keep it feeling like -real- FR.
And from a business standpoint...let's do a little experiment. How many of you in this thread have more FR novels than FR game books? How many have more novels by a -large- margin? I'd bet it's quite a few of you - I know I do. Now...how many of you want to read novels set in the new, burned-out husk of FR? Well, my hand went down - I don't know about the rest of you.
This aspect is even -more- pronounced when you consider WotC only plans on publishing 3 4th edition FR books. How many FR novels do you think will be published over the life of 4e? A -lot- more than 3, I guarantee you. And again...the novels are the part that people can't just go "oh, well not in -my- FR!" Well...they -can-, but that means not reading the novels, which is sorta self defeating for the argument, don't you think?
|
|
I do not know about everyone else, but I will be keeping my campaign settings and my D&D 3.5 books and campaign up and running!! To Hell with 4e, where it obviously belongs!Its possible that thousands more feel the way you do, perhaps millions. This is another reason for this community to break away from wotc, in favor of a company that is in-touch with us, and will continue to support 3.5+ in a way that honors the traditions of our game's history.
Has anyone else decided to continue 3.5, especially during those weeks when wotc were actually suggesting gamers wrap up their campaigns? Was anyone offended with this request to "wrap up" your campaigns? Especially if a Forgotten Realms one?
I have so many games going at once that their "request" was impossible to fulfill. I wasn't offended, I just thought "whatever" and shrugged my shoulders.
The whole issue of accessability, which DrowVampyre touched on, is a huge problem. Remember when the NHL introduced the glowing puck to attract viewers in the states who couldn't follow the game? Yeah, that went over really well up here in Canada - it didn't last. Sorry for the hockey reference, obligatory Canadian shout-out.
To restate for those who don't follow hockey, it is like saying a symphony orchestra is too inaccessable because there are too many instruments to follow at once. Let's just make it four. You know what they call that? Not an orchestra, it is called a quartet. FR used to be the D&D symphony. Quartets are nice too, but I want a symphony.
|
|
...The whole issue of accessibility... it is like saying a symphony orchestra is too inaccessable because there are too many instruments to follow at once. Let's just make it four. You know what they call that? Not an orchestra, it is called a quartet. FR used to be the D&D symphony. Quartets are nice too, but I want a symphony.
...
"Too many notes, my dear Mozart."
--Emperor Joseph II
|
|
...The whole issue of accessibility... it is like saying a symphony orchestra is too inaccessable because there are too many instruments to follow at once. Let's just make it four. You know what they call that? Not an orchestra, it is called a quartet. FR used to be the D&D symphony. Quartets are nice too, but I want a symphony....
"Too many notes, my dear Mozart."
--Emperor Joseph II
And that was back in the Classical Era! Imagine what he would have thought of a Wagnerian or Mahlerian orchestra.
|
|
Why care?
Well...maybe because you're like me, and your love for FR is at least as much for the novels as for the gaming in it.
But we want the real FR, the FR that's rich, detailed, nuanced, and thick with lore... It's much easier to cut parts that don't fit for you than it is to develop new ones completely to try to bandage up the setting and keep it feeling like -real- FR.
Yeah good point ... I'm reading the old Douglas Niles Moonshae novels for kicks at the moment and yeah I'll miss some old realms - I love Salvatore's FR stuff better than his other stuff (yeah with horrible faux fantasy names and all). The rich tapestry of the realms gaming wise is the clincher though.
Legit question here (whether 4E realms sucks or not):
So what does moving the timeline do to wreck things for you (besides novels)? Is it that there was still alot to discover and write about in the realms? Is there something you wanted detailed in that era that wont be anymore? Does knowing what's comming wreck the old timeline for you?
Genuinely intrigued
|
|
Yeah good point ... I'm reading the old Douglas Niles Moonshae novels for kicks at the moment and yeah I'll miss some old realms - I love Salvatore's FR stuff better than his other stuff (yeah with horrible faux fantasy names and all)The rich tapestry of the realms is the clincher though. Legit uestion here though (whether 4E realms sucks or not).
So what does moving the timeline do to wreck things for you (desides novels)? Is it that there was still alot to discover and write about in the realms? Is there something you wanted detailed in that era that wont be anymore? Does knowing what's comming wreck the old timeline for you?Genuinely intrigued
As I seem to agree with Dark_Vampyre on this issue, I'll have a shot at answering. It's because pretty much all the characters we've grown attached to are now dead. The Icewind Dale crew (with the exception of the mopey Drow)? Dead. The Urveskans (sp)? Dead. The Moonshae Royal Family? Dead. Alias, Dragonbait and Olive Rustkettle? Dead. The Knights of Myth Drannor? Dead. Danillo Thann and Arilyn Moonblade? Dead. And so on and so forth.
Secondly, the sheer nonsensicalness of the latest set of novels that bridge the gap (I mean, the Lady Penitent series ending WTF?????) hardly inspires us with great hope for what's to come. This also applies to the "drop in another world haphazardly into the Realms for giggles" aspects like the Dragonborn Empire as it doesn't inspire much hope that the people who will be hired will 'get' the setting.
Thirdly, and this might just be me, but if the writers don't even know that Helm was not part of the Triad (which was Tyr, Torm and Ilmater, the LG gods of Faerun), or that Tyr murdering him ovre the love of Sune????) then I hardly trust them to get any of the little details that I enjoyed about the Realms correct.
So I'll finish off the current trilogies (although I might not bother after Lady P) but after that, I really have no interest in revisiting the corpse of the setting I enjoyed.
EDIT: Sorry abut the rather long rant, but basically, i's not just the timeline. The timeline is a necessary side-effect of the sweeping changes being made, so it's those changes that I don't like.
Legit question here (whether 4E realms sucks or not):
So what does moving the timeline do to wreck things for you (besides novels)? Is it that there was still alot to discover and write about in the realms? Is there something you wanted detailed in that era that wont be anymore? Does knowing what's comming wreck the old timeline for you?Genuinely intrigued
For me? The timeline jump isn't that big of a deal, honestly. I hope they continue to write novels in that 100-year gap, so that I might have a few more to read before I have to forsake them entirely, but other than that, it doesn't bother me.
It's the killing of major deities and near-entire pantheons in the name of simplicity and in asinine ways that upsets me. And dragonborn. I -despise- dragonborn. Not the race itself - I'm not a fan of dragon-people, personally, but I have no real issue with them - but the way that they're just dropped in with their own major fracking country...on top of a previously major country. If they wanted to add them, fine - like I said earlier, make them the experimentation gone awry of a sarrukh lich, or an undiscovered race in a less-detailed part of Toril that's, well, newly discovered and just now joining the grand scheme of things.
And the "points of light" concept. FR is notnot-NOT- a "points of light" setting. It's just -not-. But y'know, if they -reaaaaally- wanted to make it fit that, it wouldn't have been -that- hard. Thay's already trying to take over the world, the Zhents are always interested, Shade is in the market to rebuild Netheril...it's not like they didn't have plenty of options to make it darker and more oppressive while staying true to the setting. But the way they decided to do it is like...handing a 2 year old the keys to your Lamborghini and telling him to park the car and be careful not to scratch the paint.
EDIT: And yes, as Paul said above, the killing of our favorite characters, though that's less pronounced in my case as most of my favorite characters are long-lived if not immortal (mostly elves, along with Erevis Cale and, especially, Drasek Riven).
EDIT THE SECOND: Also...kinda this - "Is there something you wanted detailed in that era that wont be anymore?" I -really- wanted to see how the Netherese expansions would play out, and the Thayan war, and Szass Tam's great scheme. And the elven return to Cormanthor and rebuilding of Myth Drannor, and a few other things. I hope against hope I'll get more than the one book left in each of the Twilight War and Haunted Lands trilogies to answer the questions I have about them, but...I'm not optimistic.
FR is so full of info that it's nigh impossible for a DM without a degree Realms Lore to run a game esp. with FR hungry players. I had a group of players want me to run a FR game a while ago (and I've played all the Baldurs Gates and read the Salvatore novels) but I just felt underprepared. I understand why WotC felt the need for the reboot +100yrs - hell it works for star trek (and starwars novels) - but anything with that much of a fan base is going to get hot when you try to mess with it.
Urm. What? Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars have made a reset in the way you are comparing it to the 4-gotten Realms. Star Wars used other time-settings, but their main timeline still is going strong ( although being handled incompetently by Del Rey ).
Also, unless you are incorporating stuff from the past or are planning a around-the-world campaign, you don´t need to study all the Realms lore, just the part where your campaign plays out. You are stressing yourself much too much if you think that for a campaign in the Silver Marches you´d need to know about, say, Halruaa.
|
|
FR is so full of info that it's nigh impossible for a DM without a degree Realms Lore to run a game esp. with FR hungry players. I had a group of players want me to run a FR game a while ago (and I've played all the Baldurs Gates and read the Salvatore novels) but I just felt underprepared. I understand why WotC felt the need for the reboot +100yrs - hell it works for star trek (and starwars novels) - but anything with that much of a fan base is going to get hot when you try to mess with it.Urm. What? Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars have made a reset in the way you are comparing it to the 4-gotten Realms. Star Wars used other time-settings, but their main timeline still is going strong ( although being handled incompetently by Del Rey ).
Also, unless you are incorporating stuff from the past or are planning a around-the-world campaign, you don´t need to study all the Realms lore, just the part where your campaign plays out. You are stressing yourself much too much if you think that for a campaign in the Silver Marches you´d need to know about, say, Halruaa.
And to touch on Star Trek: It frequently goes out of its way to overlap the timelines so people can have their cake and eat it too. There are so many examples it is pointless to list them all. Even when they go so far that a crossover is impossible, they at least respect or tip their hat to the other continuities (see Arik Soong on Enterprise being linked to Noonian Soong on TNG and Khan on TOS).
|
|
The saddest part of all of this is that, according the the Chris Perkins interview, Ed Greenwood is an active participant in this travesty.
While Ed is writing some material for the 4e campaign setting, and likely will, by contractual means, be producing more information for 4e Realms (as part of the licencing deal he worked out he has to have his name on the cover of so many books per year), I made the same mistake you did. He's not complicit, in that he wouldn't have done any of this had it been up to him (he said as much in several places on the internets). He doesn't control the Realms any more than any other freelancer does at this point. As he's said, he burned that bridge in 1986 when he sold it to TSR (which, I'm sure we will all agree, was an excellent idea at the time or we would never had had all the years of enjoyment from it we have). Part of his rationale for continuing on with the 4e Realms is that he'd like to try to make sure there is still some element of the old Realms (at least in feel if not in plot continuity) that lives on in the new Realms. I think the expression he used in one forum was "it's better to be on the boat helping to steer than to be in the water wondering where the boat is going." And think about it... this is something he's had in his brain for much longer than any of us, and even though he has little control over where it goes now he started it all. It's a product of his labour and imagination. Could you just turn your back on something you'd created? I'm sure some will say "yes" but you would also have to admit that it would be a very drastic manoeuvre and not one undertaken lightly.
That said, however, and as I said before I have the utmost respect for Ed and his decisions regarding what to do as it relates to 4e Realms, I don't think even his influence is enough to overcome what I've considered to be the very poor design decisions of the people in charge of the Realms now. That's why I won't be paying for it, for sure, and why I will heartily encourage everyone I know who is disgruntled with the way FR has been changed to conform to 4e rules to check out Golarion - which Ed Greenwood has also contributed to.
Rich Baker took a real lambasting over the changes when they first started trickling out. Chris Perkins, after some time, stepped up and said, "If you don't like it, don't blame Rich. I'm the boss, blame me. Rich is just the one who chooses to talk to you folks." That's not a real quote, but a paraphrase. So people have taken responsibility for it... I just hope those same people are held responsible for the outcome.
|
|
It will be interesting to see if frantic back-pedalling of the FR pedallo is forthcoming if the FR novel-lines take a hit in sales as a result of the 4E rendition.
There are many, many people who read the FR books that have little to no concept of D&D other than "it's some game played by geeks and nerds".
And to these people, as long as there's a good story involved, they could care less about what actually happens to the backdrop of the story.
Which is unfortunate...
So no, I do not think the novels line will take enough of a hit for any "back-peddling" to happen (because from what I've noticed, there are just as many readers of the setting as there are us gamers in the setting)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
So no, I do not think the novels line will take enough of a hit for any "back-peddling" to happen (because from what I've noticed, there are just as many readers of the setting as there are us gamers in the setting)...
It depends, really. Drizzt? I don't know if there's going to be so big a hit there. Other novels? Harder to say. I am/was an avid reader of the novels, as well as someone who used the setting for gaming. In some ways the changes hit me far more on the 'novel' side of the house than they do the gaming.
I can easily change or ignore things that happen on the gaming side. It's my world, after all (well, and that of the friends I play with). There's a wealth of information out there, and we don't need further sourcebooks to continue playing in the existing Realms. It is rather annoying, and leaves me without any real interest in 4th Edition, but that is a separate matter.
The novels, though, are inextricably tied to the official storyline. If I want to read more about the adventures of the characters that I've come to know and love, I have to turn to the novels - where, sadly, they're more and more just getting killed off or left in the dust.
The closest parallel to this whole situation, I think, lies in the Dragonlance Fifth Age change. I was an avid reader of the novels prior to this, even to the point of reading all of the ones that amount to little more than scraping the bottom of the barrel for prequel stories about some of the major NPCs.
Then Dragons of Summer Flame came out. I was excited, as it was the first new book in the storyline in a long time. To say that I was horribly disappointed would be an understatement. Lots of major characters were killed, seemingly just for the sake of killing them, and the world itself felt turned upside down. No more Gods? Evil Knights? Etc... Combine that with introducing an entirely new system to be used with the campaign setting, and I found myself left with zero interest in either the novels or the game supplements. I wasn't the only one, either - and though many others have gone back to it, especially after the campaign books were released back under the 3.x rules, I never really felt the desire to go back, myself.
There are many, many people who read the FR books that have little to no concept of D&D other than "it's some game played by geeks and nerds".
And to these people, as long as there's a good story involved, they could care less about what actually happens to the backdrop of the story.
Which is unfortunate...
So no, I do not think the novels line will take enough of a hit for any "back-peddling" to happen (because from what I've noticed, there are just as many readers of the setting as there are us gamers in the setting)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I don't know about that. I'd expect, actually, that people who read the novels and don't play in the setting are -more- likely to have a "wtf?" moment and stop reading - that's where I'm at, at least. I mean, think about it...let's say you're a fan of the Wheel of Time. You've been reading every book, loving them, waiting for the next. Then all of a sudden, book 8 comes out, and Rand, Mat, and Perrin all die, and Hogwart's suddenly falls out of the sky onto the White Tower. Now, tell me...would you read book 9?