Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Canon Fodder

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 08 Jul 2010 : 18:26:32
Canon Fodder

Interesting Blog post from Chris Sims on the nature of Canon and D&D Settings.
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Mr_Miscellany Posted - 15 Jul 2010 : 20:56:05
I'd like to see actual years specified, since specific terms will already indicate what era the bit of clack we're writing is in. Doesn't seem to be much point in being vague about it.
Markustay Posted - 15 Jul 2010 : 19:44:11
I see and concede your point.

'Current Clack', to me, was always a type of adventure-hook. I felt that as long as a location was provided, the rest could fit anyone's campaign (since no two FR campaigns take place at the exact same date, AFAIK). However, with canon Current Clack, we did indeed have a 'target date' for the entry, if only by the date in which the source itself fit into FR's continuity.

So the entry above is very much like some of those in the Old Grey box, with no specific date set, but unlike those entries, no target-date is implied by the tome in which it appears (which is none, for the above).

Depending on how you spin it, that could be pre-plague, post-plague, or 'new era'. And if I had said the chamberlain was from Athalanter, that would shift the time frame about a 1000 years into the past (and make the use of the word 'Sembia' anachronistic). I could also have began it "About a decade past, around the time of Elminster's death,..." - what period would it be then? 1480? 1592? 2365?

Ergo, my suggestion for the CKC tome is that we use a hybrid of clack and adventure-hooks. Clack is normally locale-specific and contains some background (like above), but adventure hooks are usually more free-form, so as to fit anywhere the DM finds them useful.

In an official source, that wouldn't be possible, since all things become canon, we need to know when they happened, but since our work is non-canon, the time-frame becomes irrelevant.

So yeah, there is a difference, and I see that now - I suppose instead of 'Current Clack', we could use a different term like "Goings-on". Leave 'Current Clack' for canon bits of lore.
Brace Cormaeril Posted - 15 Jul 2010 : 16:58:10
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

About a decade past, in the small fishing village of Cargoon on the coast of Sembia, the Mage Sraulthond built himself a keep. He hired the Dwarven engineering company of Moradin's Anvil for the project, and they in turn hired some of the locals to help with the manual labor. At first the villagers hated the idea that some spell-hurler was to live among them and ruin their community, but the influx of coin into the normally impoverished settlement was welcome, so they held their tongues. Once complete, The Mage kept a few of the locals on to help with the keep's day-to-day maintenance, gardening, and cooking. His Chamberlain, however, was a dark and dour fellow who hailed from somewhere 'to the west', and ran the household with an cold efficiency.

The villagers grew used to their new neighbor, mostly because Sraulthond kept to himself, but also because of the greater prosperity they enjoyed by the needs of the Keep. Some even began to feel the Mage helped to keep them safe from outside threats... until recently. In the past few weeks, dark and mysterious figures have been seen on the outskirts of town, and just two days past Ol' Skory, the town drunkard, swears he saw a shadow rise in an alley when there was no-one about.

Rumors abound now, about 'dark experiments' conducted at the keep, or that evil forces are out to steal Sraulthond's secrets. Some say it is old enemies of his, while others claim it is a group of assassins after the chamberlain, for abandoning whatever post he formerly held. Some of the more level-headed oldsters of Cargoon say it is nothing more then desperate wolves, who have come close because the harshness of last winter depleted their usual prey. Whatever these strange goings-on may be, the townsfolk are considering hiring a group of adventures to find their source.

quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril

...it is a wholly appropriate to ask what year is considered 'current', regarding a 'Current Clack' project.

Not really.

What year did the above happen in?



There are no details in the above passages that definitively date the passage.
Do you mean to say that 'Current Clack' refers to a series of Adventure Hooks, wasichu?
Or does 'Current Clack' refer to something besides ambiguously designed adventure hooks?
Alystra Illianniis Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 19:35:47
I'd use em! That was pretty cool, MT.
Kyrene Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 18:44:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

About a decade past . . . the townsfolk are considering hiring a group of adventures to find their source.
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril

...it is a wholly appropriate to ask what year is considered 'current', regarding a 'Current Clack' project.

Not really.

What year did the above happen in?

Bravo! Great one, MT. You should start writing "Steal This Hook" articles for Wizards.
Markustay Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 17:20:06
About a decade past, in the small fishing village of Cargoon on the coast of Sembia, the Mage Sraulthond built himself a keep. He hired the Dwarven engineering company of Moradin's Anvil for the project, and they in turn hired some of the locals to help with the manual labor. At first the villagers hated the idea that some spell-hurler was to live among them and ruin their community, but the influx of coin into the normally impoverished settlement was welcome, so they held their tongues. Once complete, The Mage kept a few of the locals on to help with the keep's day-to-day maintenance, gardening, and cooking. His Chamberlain, however, was a dark and dour fellow who hailed from somewhere 'to the west', and ran the household with an cold efficiency.

The villagers grew used to their new neighbor, mostly because Sraulthond kept to himself, but also because of the greater prosperity they enjoyed by the needs of the Keep. Some even began to feel the Mage helped to keep them safe from outside threats... until recently. In the past few weeks, dark and mysterious figures have been seen on the outskirts of town, and just two days past Ol' Skory, the town drunkard, swears he saw a shadow rise in an alley when there was no-one about.

Rumors abound now, about 'dark experiments' conducted at the keep, or that evil forces are out to steal Sraulthond's secrets. Some say it is old enemies of his, while others claim it is a group of assassins after the chamberlain, for abandoning whatever post he formerly held. Some of the more level-headed oldsters of Cargoon say it is nothing more then desperate wolves, who have come close because the harshness of last winter depleted their usual prey. Whatever these strange goings-on may be, the townsfolk are considering hiring a group of adventures to find their source.

quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril

...it is a wholly appropriate to ask what year is considered 'current', regarding a 'Current Clack' project.

Not really.

What year did the above happen in?
Mr_Miscellany Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 16:29:47
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril

Agreed. Hence the need for clarification.
I think the point Sage is getting at is that there is no official year or whatever, project or no project.

Just pick a year that suits your interests and go for it.

The Sage Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 04:23:48
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

Don't they announce it every year at GenCon now?
Pretty much. Though the '08 GenCon was the first time we had any real and definitive info/confirmation about a 4e DLCG. There wasn't much said last year, beyond who would likely be working on it.

Maybe this year's GenCon will offer something different in terms of news about 4e DRAGONLANCE. Or at least hint that it will indeed be the next setting published by Wizards.
Brace Cormaeril Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 04:18:30
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril

However, considering the vehence issued by Candlekeep's scribes regarding the timeline, it is a wholly appropriate to ask what year is considered 'current', regarding a 'Current Clack' project.

I think it would be more appropriate to note that, given some intent among scribes here to keep their games in a pre-4e setting, the very definition of an era-specific "Current Clack" series becomes somewhat vague for them.



Agreed. Hence the need for clarification.
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 04:14:41
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

So they did leave the Pentad series canon? Interesting...

I never read those books, but I had friends that ran a DS campaign and know they were upset over how much those novels changed the setting.

Have you heard anything about a 4e DL? Last I read, they had extended Weis' 3e license for at least another year, but that should be up real soon.


Actually, Margaret's 3E License expired in 2008. The last supplement they published was Dragons of Spring

Indeed. The DRAGONLANCE IP is now largely back in the hands of WotC.


It wouldn't surprize me if Dragonlance was the 2011 setting. No reason in particular, just a hunch.

That seems to be the current belief among most DL rumour-mongers. Though it's strange that we've not heard much about the next setting.

I suppose Wizards might be holding back on any particular info re: the next setting, for now at least, until this year's setting has been released.


Don't they announce it every year at GenCon now?
The Sage Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 02:09:09
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril

However, considering the vehence issued by Candlekeep's scribes regarding the timeline, it is a wholly appropriate to ask what year is considered 'current', regarding a 'Current Clack' project.

I think it would be more appropriate to note that, given some intent among scribes here to keep their games in a pre-4e setting, the very definition of an era-specific "Current Clack" series becomes somewhat vague for them.
The Sage Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 02:05:43
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

So they did leave the Pentad series canon? Interesting...

I never read those books, but I had friends that ran a DS campaign and know they were upset over how much those novels changed the setting.

Have you heard anything about a 4e DL? Last I read, they had extended Weis' 3e license for at least another year, but that should be up real soon.


Actually, Margaret's 3E License expired in 2008. The last supplement they published was Dragons of Spring

Indeed. The DRAGONLANCE IP is now largely back in the hands of WotC.


It wouldn't surprize me if Dragonlance was the 2011 setting. No reason in particular, just a hunch.

That seems to be the current belief among most DL rumour-mongers. Though it's strange that we've not heard much about the next setting.

I suppose Wizards might be holding back on any particular info re: the next setting, for now at least, until this year's setting has been released.
Caolin Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 01:54:09
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Why indeed?

I 'believe' (as in, this is more of my opinions) that 4e was designed from the ground-up to do what 3e was supposed to do, before a poorly-worded OGL allowed them to lose control of their source code.

3rd edition D&D was supposed to remain in the hands of WotC, while allowing 3rd party vendors to create modules and possibly settings for those rules. Unfortunately for them, the OGL allowed the re-printing of rules when necessary, without defining how much could be re-printed, and what they wound up with is other companies re-printing THEIR rule books wholesale.

As great as 3rd edition was/is for the fans, it never really met the goal of wotC - that is, to create one set of rules that everyone else has to play by, so that they could concentrate on building and perfecting those rules.

And continue selling those rules, of course, to everyone, no matter what setting, from what company, they happen to be using. It was brilliant play to eliminate rival rule-sets (like GURPs), that were starting to build momentum. Like I said, the OGL did not go far enough in maintaining that control, which is why they went so overboard with the GSL.

The failure on the part of the 4e was that, unlike 3e, they couldn't get anyone else to support their rules. The incredibly restrictive GSL had a big part in that, but I believe it was the amount of resources most small companies already had invested in 3e that played a much larger role.

So, 4e was a 'second attempt' to control the rules that all RPG's would use, and it was a much worse failure then 3e in that regard.

The guys at WotC don't want to write sourcebooks - that much is obvious - they want to create rules. That is why they created the LFR to write most of the lore for them. Get others to do for free what they are getting paid to do - its Huckleberry Finn all over again. Why should they 'waste' all their cool ideas in sourcebooks, when they can 'double-dip' and sell them as novels?

Now they are stuck creating more fluff then they bargained for, because no-one else is creating it, and the low-output of the DDi and meager fluff in the setting books is the result of that.

So what we have is a bunch of guys left over there, who know less about the setting then many of us here, who are aggravated by our (and other groups) existence, because we catch all their mistakes and won't let them write whatever the hell they please.

Instead of using us (which is what I would do) to 'fill in the blanks', they would rather just see us all 'go away'. They do not want any lore created that may someday contradict something they write in a novel. The setting serves the designers-made-authors better, if left blank. Proof of that is them 'firing' their LFR team, who were probably creating some really great lore, which is not what they wanted. They just wanted bare-bones modules, to be run at conventions, to showcase their new rules.

ALL my opinion, of course, and like I said earlier, I am biased, so take it with a grain of salt.







Wow, I never looked at it that way. I totally agree with that opinion.
Brace Cormaeril Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 00:51:10
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

You both know he was trying to steer this thread into yet another edition-debate, right?

I'm sure Brace knows exactly what 'Current Clack' means - he just wanted to know what year Sage meant.

For me, 'Current Clack' would be whatever year I am writing in, and folks can adapt that to whatever year they are running in. As a firm supporter of 4e, I believe it is the DM's job to figure out everything else.



@Marky Mark and his Grognard Funky Bunch:

I don't do edition-debate, wasichu, such concerns are below me. However, considering the vehemence issued by Candlekeep's scribes regarding the timeline, it is a wholly appropriate to ask what year is considered 'current', regarding a 'Current Clack' project.
Markustay Posted - 14 Jul 2010 : 00:21:36
LOL

Oh, I'm pretty damn sure they want ME to 'go away'.

You should read my mails.

But I did clearly state that all of that is how I look at it - everyone is going to see things differently.

But the thing about them losing control over 3e was discussed somewhere, awhile back, so I didn't just make that up. One company went as far as to re-produce the PHB and the DMG, without adding anything new to the game. All they did was slightly re-word it.

And many of the setting books were 'complete', meaning they came with the basic 3e rules, alleviating the need for anyone to buy a WotC book, which again, is a fact, and clearly something they would have found distressful (and rightly so).

Mental powers? Not really... I'm more like that guy on Lie to Me, or better yet, The Mentalist. Years ago I was a 'psychic' on the AOL boards... everyone thought I was the genuine article. Cold-reading without seeing a person is a pretty nifty trick.
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker

Markus = Glenn Beck

That paints a picture....although in Markus's defence, I dont think he breaks down in tears after every rant like beck does!

I finally got curious and looked him up - he doesn't even look familiar.

I tried to watch one of the videos and my browser crashed - damn CIA keeping me from the truth!
Mr_Miscellany Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 21:55:17
It's like pouring water on a weed. Water it a bit and watch whole paragraphs sprout up out of seemingly nowhere.
:::::::::::
Anyway, the 3E OGL was very explicit about what rules could and could not be reprinted, and in what form.

I've not seen one written word that WotC's goal with 3E and the OGL was to overrun competition.

What we do know for a fact was that the OGL was designed as a medium *for* fans and others who’d already shown an interest in borrowing the 2E rules and posting things online in the early days of the internet (all of whom TSR aggressively went after and discouraged from posting anything online).

Instead of prohibiting it outright, WotC gave us a medium (read: set of rules) by which to use their stuff and thus promote it.

LFR doesn’t exist to “write the lore” for the Realms. The adventures are (well, were) required to be lore-light on purpose. Besides, it’s not like what little lore actually produced by LFR is collected and distributed to non-LFR players.

I’m not sure where your magical mind reading powers come from, but I think we can safely dismiss anything about game designers being aggravated and supposedly wanting us all to “go away”.

I’m pretty convinced at this point Markus that you’re writing stream-of-thought ideas just to see how much time I’ll spend happily refuting them and ribbing you in the process.
Markustay Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 20:20:03
Why indeed?

I 'believe' (as in, this is more of my opinions) that 4e was designed from the ground-up to do what 3e was supposed to do, before a poorly-worded OGL allowed them to lose control of their source code.

3rd edition D&D was supposed to remain in the hands of WotC, while allowing 3rd party vendors to create modules and possibly settings for those rules. Unfortunately for them, the OGL allowed the re-printing of rules when necessary, without defining how much could be re-printed, and what they wound up with is other companies re-printing THEIR rule books wholesale.

As great as 3rd edition was/is for the fans, it never really met the goal of wotC - that is, to create one set of rules that everyone else has to play by, so that they could concentrate on building and perfecting those rules.

And continue selling those rules, of course, to everyone, no matter what setting, from what company, they happen to be using. It was brilliant play to eliminate rival rule-sets (like GURPs), that were starting to build momentum. Like I said, the OGL did not go far enough in maintaining that control, which is why they went so overboard with the GSL.

The failure on the part of the 4e was that, unlike 3e, they couldn't get anyone else to support their rules. The incredibly restrictive GSL had a big part in that, but I believe it was the amount of resources most small companies already had invested in 3e that played a much larger role.

So, 4e was a 'second attempt' to control the rules that all RPG's would use, and it was a much worse failure then 3e in that regard.

The guys at WotC don't want to write sourcebooks - that much is obvious - they want to create rules. That is why they created the LFR to write most of the lore for them. Get others to do for free what they are getting paid to do - its Huckleberry Finn all over again. Why should they 'waste' all their cool ideas in sourcebooks, when they can 'double-dip' and sell them as novels?

Now they are stuck creating more fluff then they bargained for, because no-one else is creating it, and the low-output of the DDi and meager fluff in the setting books is the result of that.

So what we have is a bunch of guys left over there, who know less about the setting then many of us here, who are aggravated by our (and other groups) existence, because we catch all their mistakes and won't let them write whatever the hell they please.

Instead of using us (which is what I would do) to 'fill in the blanks', they would rather just see us all 'go away'. They do not want any lore created that may someday contradict something they write in a novel. The setting serves the designers-made-authors better, if left blank. Proof of that is them 'firing' their LFR team, who were probably creating some really great lore, which is not what they wanted. They just wanted bare-bones modules, to be run at conventions, to showcase their new rules.

ALL my opinion, of course, and like I said earlier, I am biased, so take it with a grain of salt.



Mr_Miscellany Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 18:49:27
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Since MANY people are using the 4th edition rules in the old Realms (probably just as many, if not more, then anyone using the new material), I stand by my statement that the fact that FR was changed 'for the rules' is patently false.
If WotC can see into the future (that is, know in advance the 4E rules would be used mostly in the pre-Spellplague Realms), then why even publish anything?

Clearly they should be working for the US Government or the Department of Defense.

The Red Walker Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 18:09:37
Markus = Glenn Beck

That paints a picture....although in Markus's defence, I dont think he breaks down in tears after every rant like beck does!
Markustay Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 17:54:10
Sadly, I think the next release of DL will be greeted with the same... ummmm... enthusiasm... as the 3rd edition release of Greyhawk was. I never really got to know that setting, but I think it reached its zenith long ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Not my opinion, mind you, just the condensed version of everything that was stated in the 4e podcasts.
I used to get really annoyed with misinformation like this.

But now I pretend I'm reading Glenn Beck. Thus, it's entertainment.
I've never heard of him... sounds like a brilliant fellow.

Fine.

That is what I got out of them, filtered through my obviously biased perceptions. I suppose different folks concentrate on different parts of the podcasts, and hear different things - to each his own.

Since MANY people are using the 4th edition rules in the old Realms (probably just as many, if not more, then anyone using the new material), I stand by my statement that the fact that FR was changed 'for the rules' is patently false. I can remember at least one designer saying they "wanted to make the setting easier for new fans coming into the Forgotten Realms" - that's a direct quote.

So the gist of what I said is correct, even if I did condense it in a not-so-flattering manner.
Brimstone Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 17:11:21
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

So they did leave the Pentad series canon? Interesting...

I never read those books, but I had friends that ran a DS campaign and know they were upset over how much those novels changed the setting.

Have you heard anything about a 4e DL? Last I read, they had extended Weis' 3e license for at least another year, but that should be up real soon.


Actually, Margaret's 3E License expired in 2008. The last supplement they published was Dragons of Spring

Indeed. The DRAGONLANCE IP is now largely back in the hands of WotC.


It wouldn't surprize me if Dragonlance was the 2011 setting. No reason in particular, just a hunch.
Mr_Miscellany Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 16:38:51
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Not my opinion, mind you, just the condensed version of everything that was stated in the 4e podcasts.
I used to get really annoyed with misinformation like this.

But now I pretend I'm reading Glenn Beck. Thus, it's entertainment.

::::::

I have a gaming buddy who like DS a lot. He's not pleased with DL as it stands now. He doesn't much read the novels anymore.

Another buddy of mine doesn't care and reads whatever WotC publishes. This won't stop him from complaining, but he still bought up the books.
The Sage Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 04:10:29
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

So they did leave the Pentad series canon? Interesting...

I never read those books, but I had friends that ran a DS campaign and know they were upset over how much those novels changed the setting.

Have you heard anything about a 4e DL? Last I read, they had extended Weis' 3e license for at least another year, but that should be up real soon.


Actually, Margaret's 3E License expired in 2008. The last supplement they published was Dragons of Spring

Indeed. The DRAGONLANCE IP is now largely back in the hands of WotC.
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 03:45:23
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

So they did leave the Pentad series canon? Interesting...

I never read those books, but I had friends that ran a DS campaign and know they were upset over how much those novels changed the setting.

Have you heard anything about a 4e DL? Last I read, they had extended Weis' 3e license for at least another year, but that should be up real soon.


Actually, Margaret's 3E License expired in 2008. The last supplement they published was Dragons of Spring
The Sage Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 02:38:18
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

So they did leave the Pentad series canon? Interesting...
So far as I know. But I should also note that these designer notes were back from when 4e DS was first announced. I've not heard of anything further regarding changes to the setting, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the overall impact of the Pentad series upon the 4e DS setting, has been altered somewhat -- according to either the whims of the designers, or the direction of the 4e setting.
quote:
I never read those books, but I had friends that ran a DS campaign and know they were upset over how much those novels changed the setting.
Eh. I enjoyed the novels as alternate tales of Athas. I didn't incorporate any of the major changes from those books into my version of DS, mostly because of the pre-existing changes that I'd already made to the setting. Allowing for some of what we'd learned from the novels would've likely negated a few of the more defined alterations I'd made to my interpretation of DS, and since I already had some pretty significant history backing my own changes, I chose to leave it at that.
quote:
Have you heard anything about a 4e DL? Last I read, they had extended Weis' 3e license for at least another year, but that should be up real soon.
The last solid and official information I heard, was back from last year's GenCon. The possibility of a 4e Dragonlance Campaign Guide was still confirmed, and a tentative production team was being put together. I suspect that we'll probably learn more about the progress/fate of 4e DL at this year's GenCon.
Markustay Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 02:26:21
So they did leave the Pentad series canon? Interesting...

I never read those books, but I had friends that ran a DS campaign and know they were upset over how much those novels changed the setting.

Have you heard anything about a 4e DL? Last I read, they had extended Weis' 3e license for at least another year, but that should be up real soon.
The Sage Posted - 13 Jul 2010 : 01:59:45
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

From what I understand, Dark Sun was actually pushed-back! A lot of people didn't like what happened in the Pentad trilogy, so 'I think' they re-booted Dark Sun to it's initial release year.
From what I recall of the early designer notes presented in the DDI for 4e DARK SUN, Rich Baker told us we'd probably only see that a few weeks of time had past between the end of the 2e revised boxed set, and what will be presented in the 4e Dark Sun Campaign Guide.
Markustay Posted - 12 Jul 2010 : 23:24:43
From what I understand, Dark Sun was actually pushed-back! A lot of people didn't like what happened in the Pentad trilogy, so 'I think' they re-booted Dark Sun to it's initial release year.

This is what I gathered from what little I read, BTW, so take it with a grain of salt. DS is cool, but certainly wasn't in my 'top five' settings, so my knowledge of it is sparse.

Dark Sun and Eberron were already perfect, but the Realms were a broken mess (not my opinion - the opinion of the designers clearly stated in all those wonderful 4e podcasts). The Realms needed to be 'fixed', because people crave giant catfish and DL draconians - this is what the intended demographic wants (supposedly).

Ergo, the Realms were NOT change for the rules, which has been proven patently false, but rather to appeal to a new group of players; people who found it too hard and confusing to run previously.

Not my opinion, mind you, just the condensed version of everything that was stated in the 4e podcasts.

I'm just wondering if any of the folks in-charge ever gave any consideration to just how much disposable income 13-yr-olds have.
coach Posted - 12 Jul 2010 : 23:16:06
but i thought the realms were advanced forward to make them more compatible with 4e rules? (at least that was what we were told right?)

(even though Eberron and Dark Sun weren't moved forward)
Markustay Posted - 12 Jul 2010 : 08:40:28
You both know he was trying to steer this thread into yet another edition-debate, right?

I'm sure Brace knows exactly what 'Current Clack' means - he just wanted to know what year Sage meant.

For me, 'Current Clack' would be whatever year I am writing in, and folks can adapt that to whatever year they are running in. As a firm supporter of 4e, I believe it is the DM's job to figure out everything else.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000