| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jan 2012 : 16:33:39
Okay, these forums are more active then I've seen them since I first joined, but it doesn't seem like we are coming to any sort of consensus on anything, other then most of us want a new edition. I even use the word 'most' tentatively (4e fans are grossly under-represented on this site).
So, if we do get a reboot (and it looks pretty certain, but we shall see), what would you like to see change? Or would you rather they just reprint all the old material as-is?
And BTW, don't just give simple, one-word answers (or snarky ones). If you want to see them 'modify' (walking on eggs with the terminology here) things, what pieces of canon or parts of the setting would you like to see receive this treatment, and why, and examples of how you would resolve the perceived problem.
Also, I would like to touch-upon the interconnectivity of the Realms with the greater D&D universe - should the cosmology represent this, or would folks rather we revert to a simpler, FR-only model? Please offer an opinion on this as well.
I am not looking for just a list of thing we don't like in this thread - I expect everyone to suggest SOLUTIONS. This is a golden opportunity we are being handed - lets not waste it. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 09:49:04
I would like to keep many of the features of 4e such as returened Abeir but perhaps a few of the goodly gods could be resurrected in order to stabalise the realms. At least Mystra should be brought back ,we need a proper weave of magic. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 17:38:49
I thought as much - its been awhile since I've been over at the WotC site. Thanks Sage.
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
both I want both can I have both???
and return the avariel....
Of course.
And merge them with the redundant Raptorrans. The Raptorran lore is very good, and should not go to waste, but the very last thing FR needs is another humanoid 'flyer race'. We've got so many already.
For just a moment, lets put the 'Elves do not evolve' argument aide. That would mean that on different worlds, different off-shoots of the Elves could look (and behave) radically different. Now we know that the Avariel pre-dated the High-Elven exodus to Faerun (if a handful of people can even be called an exodus), which means they were 'probably' of the Green (Sylvan) Elven culture, and most-likely worshiped the Fey pantheon (as the Green did, as per the GHotR), and not the Seldarine.
Once again, we can use the lore to fix the lore - the Raptorran philosophy and culture is VERY Sylvan/Fey-like, We also know that many fey and Elves can change their physical nature at-will (size, looks, and even environment-of-choice - just look at sea Elves). Ergo, we do not have to choose; different groups - on different worlds or even different parts of the same world - could look more or less human. In some regions, perhaps the avariel choose a more 'birdlike' path, while others preferred to stick closer to their Elven heritage (and appear more like angels).
If an Elf can 'ascend' to the tier of Eladrin, and an Eladrin can grow wings, why the heck would anyone have any problem at all with different (regional) groups looking differently? Elves can grow gills, for goodness sakes! Just say the raptorrans are Avariel, and both types of physical specimens exist.
If we can do this for bearded dwarven women, why not? Not every human group looks like every other - compare the African Watusi and Pygmy tribes. their societies are similar, but they look very different (and they are of the same race, regardless - human).
Instead of redundancy, render-down the excess and instead give us dozens of detailed races, with differences, rather then hundreds upon hundreds of races with little more then monster manual entries. Using Raptorran lore for Avariels is just one of the many things we can achieve with this method of reduction. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 01:22:40
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Someone (I believe a regular on this site - can't remember) did a series of articles on the Wizbro site that used this method of presentation of core material in regards to the Realms (that was a very ugly sentence!)
Was it Eytan?
I think you're referring to Eytan's "Class Chronicles" series:- http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/frcc |
| Jakk |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 00:15:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Someone (I believe a regular on this site - can't remember) did a series of articles on the Wizbro site that used this method of presentation of core material in regards to the Realms (that was a very ugly sentence!)
Was it Eytan?
Anyhow, like that. Don't say the Realms have Warforged; give us an article that describes 2-3 regions that have 'races' (Warforged aren't really a race at all) similar to Warforged, like Bloodforged, Gondforged and Deathforged (a concept I came up with regarding the creation of Helmed Horrors). Hell, even Thaaluds (Tomb-Tappers) could be considered a type of Warforged (but I wouldn't use them as PCs). Thats what I want - CHOICES. Don't shoe-horn us into anything. It would also be nice of these types of articles contained differences between the 'core' versions, and the various Realms versions (for instance, a Tomb-Tapper Warforged would have a 'swallow whole' feat). Little tweaks like that would go a long way in smoothing rumpled (grognard) feathers.
Anyhow, great idea, for everything, not just races. I believe they were already going this route anyway, with this proposed 'modular' approach (nothing new at all, really - they are just stressing something everyone was able to do with the settings before). Its even something they were hoping to achieve with 4e (the "one size fits all" approach).
The problem is, it became more of a "one style fits all" approach, and that's patently absurd. I'm really looking forward to seeing what comes of the 'modular' concept... as are, I hope, many others. Between Castles & Crusades and several other "retro" clones we've seen in the past three years, not to mention the continued existence of Tunnels and Trolls, it seems to me that there's a good market out there for a modular system that includes the older rules (or lack thereof).
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And I don't want the thread closed. I was just having a bit of a self-directed temper tantrum (in other words, I can't help being me, no matter how hard I try).
The lore I was thinking was 'canon' was actually a bunch of stuff I wrote for the Elven Netbook Project (based on all available canon lore), regarding dark Elves, and their magic. I basically took what we had, and did what I thought was best with it, and someone else went a different route, which set-off all sorts of 'internal alarms' in me. Weird, I know.
If you had stuff published in only two Realms Netbooks, and both of them were almost immediately retro-actively invalidated by official sources/authors, you'd almost think someone 'had it out for you' as well. I guess I got grumpy when someone poked my sore spot. No worries - this thread is still contributing in a positive way.
And I STILL like my versions better. 
Thank you for the reassurance, and I can understand your feelings re: the Netbooks and canon... and I like your versions better too. Maybe WotC *should* hire you, and not just for cartography...
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
New Idea: Rather then just keep creating new threads, we can stick all the random edition stuff in here (IDEAS, not complaining... unless the complaining is to reinforce the 'why' point of your argument). So here is my first 'random thought' regarding 5e -
Its pretty obvious they are going to reprinting all the products, because they have begun this process already, as long as they see their is a market for this (and I am sure there is). However, I had hoped they were going to do more then simply reprint stuff (the old material - especially the pre-2e stuff, was loaded with errors). Are they going to keep all the spelling and grammatical errors? It seems really.... cheesy... to be doing that (I was actually thinking 'cheap', like the recycled art in GHotR).
Regardless (I do tend to ramble  ), would people want to see an OGB reprint, or would you rather see an OEG product instead? OEG = 'Old Ed Greenwood', as in, HIS Realms, as HE envisioned them. I know I'd pay dearly for THAT. They won't really be fixing anything if they simply reprint stuff, and we'll have lost a golden opportunity to fix all the ugly.
Of course, that would force them to find a consensus on what is 'bad', and if these threads the past two weeks have proved anything, its that they'll never get one. 
So whats better? Simple reprints (which is the 'safe' approach), or should they even try to correct some things? Or would people rather see the Realms as they were meant to be, before they got straddled with all the extra baggage? (and this might be our only chance to see some of that buried Ed-lore).
Absolutely! I want Ed's original Realms! Complete with all the missing heraldry... oh, and, of course, the *complete* Cormyr Lineage... at least up to DR 1357, depending on what they decide to do about subsequent material.  If they give me that in a 5E Realms Campaign setting, I might even buy copies for all of my friends who don't play FR.  |
| Apex |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 23:10:11
It appears that perhaps WoTC is going to gauge the real interest in "old school" gaming, as they are re-printing the 1st edition PHB, DMG, and MM as "collectables" due out THIS April. Only a guess here, but I am thinking if sales go over very well, we may be seeing part of D&D Next already in action.
http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/Sales/Solicitations/2012_04_17_dd_1stED_Solicitation_en_US.pdf
So maybe they are testing retro/reboot after all. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 23:06:28
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
snip
Regardless (I do tend to ramble ), would people want to see an OGB reprint, or would you rather see an OEG product instead? OEG = 'Old Ed Greenwood', as in, HIS Realms, as HE envisioned them. I know I'd pay dearly for THAT. They won't really be fixing anything if they simply reprint stuff, and we'll have lost a golden opportunity to fix all the ugly.
Of course, that would force them to find a consensus on what is 'bad', and if these threads the past two weeks have proved anything, its that they'll never get one.
So whats better? Simple reprints (which is the 'safe' approach), or should they even try to correct some things? Or would people rather see the Realms as they were meant to be, before they got straddled with all the extra baggage? (and this might be our only chance to see some of that buried Ed-lore).
both I want both can I have both???
and return the avariel.... |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 23:06:03
And because 'rabid fanbois' (most of us) tend to get mad when core craps all over our canon. A few pages in a well-thought out article can really help to smooth things over with the fanbase, and what price would you put on happy fans? (READ: Consumers)
I put stuff from other settings in my Realms all the time - its barely recognizable - but that was MY CHOICE. I wouldn't want those choices made for me (and yes, I realize that is a false perception, because what they canonically say, and what I use, can always be two separate things, and are).
But people still think like that, so why not appease them? In the long run its easier on the pocket then an edition war. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 22:51:37
would you rather spend 3 pages on two races or spend 3 pages on fluff..... dont answer this
it is.... but mind you I thought of it as a compromise for those who wanted said race in said setting and those who would not want it to become a part of the setting no matter how easy the designers could add it.
and its not a rule ,its a compromised addition.... and a sub section under rule 0. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 22:46:21
Someone (I believe a regular on this site - can't remember) did a series of articles on the Wizbro site that used this method of presentation of core material in regards to the Realms (that was a very ugly sentence!)
Was it Eytan?
Anyhow, like that. Don't say the Realms have Warforged; give us an article that describes 2-3 regions that have 'races' (Warforged aren't really a race at all) similar to Warforged, like Bloodforged, Gondforged and Deathforged (a concept I came up with regarding the creation of Helmed Horrors). Hell, even Thaaluds (Tomb-Tappers) could be considered a type of Warforged (but I wouldn't use them as PCs). Thats what I want - CHOICES. Don't shoe-horn us into anything. It would also be nice of these types of articles contained differences between the 'core' versions, and the various Realms versions (for instance, a Tomb-Tapper Warforged would have a 'swallow whole' feat). Little tweaks like that would go a long way in smoothing rumpled (grognard) feathers.
Anyhow, great idea, for everything, not just races. I believe they were already going this route anyway, with this proposed 'modular' approach (nothing new at all, really - they are just stressing something everyone was able to do with the settings before). Its even something they were hoping to achieve with 4e (the "one size fits all" approach).
And I don't want the thread closed. I was just having a bit of a self-directed temper tantrum (in other words, I can't help being me, no matter how hard I try).
The lore I was thinking was 'canon' was actually a bunch of stuff I wrote for the Elven Netbook Project (based on all available canon lore), regarding dark Elves, and their magic. I basically took what we had, and did what I thought was best with it, and someone else went a different route, which set-off all sorts of 'internal alarms' in me. Weird, I know.
If you had stuff published in only two Realms Netbooks, and both of them were almost immediately retro-actively invalidated by official sources/authors, you'd almost think someone 'had it out for you' as well. I guess I got grumpy when someone poked my sore spot. No worries - this thread is still contributing in a positive way.
And I STILL like my versions better.
New Idea: Rather then just keep creating new threads, we can stick all the random edition stuff in here (IDEAS, not complaining... unless the complaining is to reinforce the 'why' point of your argument). So here is my first 'random thought' regarding 5e -
Its pretty obvious they are going to reprinting all the products, because they have begun this process already, as long as they see their is a market for this (and I am sure there is). However, I had hoped they were going to do more then simply reprint stuff (the old material - especially the pre-2e stuff, was loaded with errors). Are they going to keep all the spelling and grammatical errors? It seems really.... cheesy... to be doing that (I was actually thinking 'cheap', like the recycled art in GHotR).
Regardless (I do tend to ramble ), would people want to see an OGB reprint, or would you rather see an OEG product instead? OEG = 'Old Ed Greenwood', as in, HIS Realms, as HE envisioned them. I know I'd pay dearly for THAT. They won't really be fixing anything if they simply reprint stuff, and we'll have lost a golden opportunity to fix all the ugly.
Of course, that would force them to find a consensus on what is 'bad', and if these threads the past two weeks have proved anything, its that they'll never get one.
So whats better? Simple reprints (which is the 'safe' approach), or should they even try to correct some things? Or would people rather see the Realms as they were meant to be, before they got straddled with all the extra baggage? (and this might be our only chance to see some of that buried Ed-lore). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 22:29:16
But.....why is this required as a rule? I mean, wouldn't it be the DM's job just to say this without requiring the space/word count? |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 21:48:54
a few others on the wotc forum liked the idea too...
|
| Jakk |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 21:40:27
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
for 5e's core
:
I'd put in this line in each phb:
RACES:
Not all player races are going to be represented in each setting.
and in each setting
Races:
The following races are NOT native to this world, but here are some options to play as such race.
<snip>
I like this idea... very much. I've seen some very good backstories for warforged in the Realms, and with places like Imaskar and Netheril in the history of the Realms, they're probably the easiest non-Realms race to justify the inclusion of. Let the players know what's "standard" for each world, then give the DM options if the players want to play races other than the "standard" ones. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 21:35:08
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
<chop>
Problem: Harpers (& Chosen)
Reasons: There (percieved) monolithic nature makes the 'heores' (PCs) feel 'inferior, as if the spot-light isn't on them. This seems to be one of those 'false' problems engendered by a long novel series about the group, and their constant appearances in other novels.
Solutions: In both source and novel, do NOT show the Harpers 'solving every little problem' - avoid series dedicated to them all together. If used in other stories/sources, stress the fact that the Harpers (& Chosen) work in the background, and find others to accomplish their goals. Ergo, the Harper didn't 'save the town' - the Harper (disguised as a trapper they meet 'by accident') merely told them about the problem, and perhaps suggested a course of action ("Them folks would be a might grateful to anyone who'd find out whats been'a stealing their livestock"). Don't make them 'the heroes', make them manipulators, or patrons (in disguise), but don't place them in the lime-light.
Like my fi[r]st example I gave at the beginning of the thread, this isn't really one of my major quips - I'd just figure I'd mention this one, since it does seem to be an issue a lot of folks disagree on (on how the Harpers appear, and what they are really supposed to be).
<snip>
I agree entirely, Mark... I don't know why I missed this post earlier. This is exactly what I would like to see done. I've always thought that the best FR novels were the ones that focused on "minor" characters. That being said, I still want Ed to be able to give us at least a novel each for Alustriel, Laeral, and Syluné.
In the last 2nd edition campaign I ran, I used the Harpers extensively... largely because the PCs were seeking membership. The campaign storyline was driven half by the PCs proving themselves worthy of the silver pin, and half by things that came up involving the backstories of individual PCs. It was absolutely the best campaign I have ever run, and I've found it difficult to get back to that kind of epic flavour with RSE after RSE. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 21:21:55
The sticking-point: If we're going to keep the Chosen for those who want them, *some* canon (primarily involving the Spellplague) needs to be either retconned or given an alternative to. Personally, I was only happy with the way Khelben's death was handled; the deaths of Alustriel, Laeral, and others were simply stated or hinted at, with no real explanations. First of all, let me restate for the record that I HATE retcons. Second, there are ways of restoring what was lost without resorting to retcon, although it admittedly strains one's suspension of disbelief. Third, there are aspects of the Spellplague that make perfect sense... and then there's Halruaa. That's been discussed elsewhere, and I won't go into it here. Fourth, we'll probably have to wait for Ed's next Elminster novel to see what happens with Mystra before we can suggest any real solutions, unless we're going to take the approach of divorcing the novels from the game setting canon. If we do this, it should be retroactive, and the point has already been made that this would result in a large amount of game setting history being invalidated. If anybody else has anything *constructive* to suggest on this matter, let's hear it. If it's not constructive, don't post it. If you don't believe that the old Realms and the new Realms can coexist, that's fine, but I don't want to hear about it here, and neither does Mark. [/rant] |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 21:04:28
for 5e's core
:
I'd put in this line in each phb:
RACES:
Not all player races are going to be represented in each setting.
and in each setting
Races:
The following races are NOT native to this world, but here are some options to play as such race.
this way we would not see the it's the phb you have to let me play it
and we would not see
oh not any more world Xyz stuff shoe horned into setting Abc
which means to those who cant live without the warforged in the phb can have it, it still won't be canon in the realms.
just like no drow in dragonlance.... |
| Jakk |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 21:01:57
To further contribute some (hopefully) productive discussion, I have to agree with Old Man Harpell's comment that Points of Light doesn't fit with the Realms. That doesn't mean that, without it, there isn't still loads of evil for the PCs to deal with, nor does it mean that the Chosen can deal with it all. The Chosen will only subordinate the PCs if the DM allows them to; killing them off only reduces the options for the DM in terms of NPCs for the PCs to seek advice from... they're way too busy dealing with their own cosmic concerns to physically assist the PCs, and that's the way it should be. If you want to use them another way, for instance as target practice for a munchkin campaign, that's your choice as a DM, but don't then come back and say "they ruined my game!" If you as a DM use the Chosen as DMPCs, they will ALWAYS ruin the game, and as I've said elsewhere, if you don't like the Chosen, then don't use them. There's no rule saying that you have to use everything that's published... but, as Mark has already said, everything that *is* published should be consistent, and that was certainly not the case in 4E and late 3E. Heck, even 1E and 2E had their inconsistencies, but people like Krash (Impiltur, many others) and the Keepers of the Cormyr Lineage (the age of King Duar) came up with good explanations for the inconsistencies. It's things like this that are needed... although there is one big sticking-point that I've commented on in other scrolls; see my next post for that. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 20:36:40
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This topic is going nowhere at this point, and redundant with Erik's thread. If we can't agree on what needs to be fixed, then we might as well just keep living with 4e and not even get a 5e. Obviously, they won't be able to please everybody no matter what they do. I tried to erase my OP, but the site won't let me.
Please lock the thread - just let everyone post in Erik's from now on. I probably shouldn't have come back.
I beg to differ, Mark... Erik's scroll has a very specific solution in mind, and having this scroll gives us a place to suggest ideas that may not fit with that specific solution. And yes, you did the right thing coming back; I've been away for a while too, but I've been here long enough to know that the Realms needs voices like yours; Ed and THO themselves agree that you "get" the Realms in a way that far too few of us do, and your opinions are valuable to the community. Whether they know it or not, I'd say said opinions are also valuable to WotC, so hopefully someone from there is reading this, or someone with connections can pass your thoughts along. Anyway, that's my two coppers on your presence here. I know it's a tough project; if it was easy, it wouldn't be worth doing. So stick around.
To the other scribes here: I know how divisive the edition wars were, and I'm not proud of my own not-insignificant role in them here. We need to use D&D Next as an opportunity, as Mark says, to heal the rift and produce a Realms we can all enjoy spending time in. Anyway, hopefully I've moistened some eyes somewhere, so we can get on with the business at hand.
Mods, again, please keep this scroll open unless it becomes obvious that disagreement is going to continue to overwhelm discussion. Thanks.  |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 19:19:09
quote:
Originally posted by Erendriel Durothil
I'm a fan of 4e for the most part- the game mechanics and the new Points of Light setting. However, I hate what they did to Forgotten Realms lore. And that's about it.
I also hate how most of the Fey creatures are always this sickening good type. I've always viewed the fey as neutral types. I have them completely neutral in my Realms.
In my Realms, the Tel'Quessir have goblin slaves, hate most humans, and want to retake back a lot of their old empires. I'll explain this in another thread
I'm neutral on 4th Edition mechanics - I just don't use them is all, nothing to do with any prejudices. Points of Light is tailor-made for Eberron, and worked really well there. Never played in that particular game world, , but I have seen no blistering criticisms of PoL from Eberron fans. Wizbro's only mistake was exporting it out of Eberron.
It was interesting reading your take on the Tel'Quessir. Have you ever taken a look at Birthright? It is the only TSR world apart from the Realms that I use, and apart from goblin slaves (which they have never really said exists there), the Sidhelien of Cerilia sound almost exactly like your interpretation of elven society in Faerun. It was one of the things I liked about it...for every 'nice happy elf', there's a dozen others who dislike you, hate your species, or are just downright homicidal around most other races (one of the epic Bad Guys is even nicknamed 'The Elf'). |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 13:36:07
I'm a fan of 4e for the most part- the game mechanics and the new Points of Light setting. However, I hate what they did to Forgotten Realms lore. And that's about it.
I also hate how most of the Fey creatures are always this sickening good type. I've always viewed the fey as neutral types. I have them completely neutral in my Realms.
In my Realms, the Tel'Quessir have goblin slaves, hate most humans, and want to retake back a lot of their old empires. I'll explain this in another thread |
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 02:15:04
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, now that I got my nerd-rage under control, and am no longer made uncomfortable by the backwards-engineered, force-fit 'Shadoweave' (c'mon - you know my way looks kewler), I think its actually a nice addition to the Realms.
I only ask that they fix the plethora of disparate lore surrounding it. Each and every designer/writer had their own idea what it was/is, and none of them could agree - it kept waffling back-and-forth throughout 3e.
Is it part of the weave, separate from the weave, or the 'Shadow' of the Weave itself (like the way it was described as existing in the peace between the weave). I asked this point-blank of Rich Baker in the 'Ask the Designers" thread at WotC, and he said it was separate. I then quoted from a recent (at that time) source that said the Shadow Weave could not exist without the Weave (that they were intrinsically connected)... the source had his name on it.
When I ask him to explain, he said that part was written by someone else.
HELLO!!!  WTH?
First off, two designers in one source completely disagreeing on the nature of the main plot-point within the source?
Second, he admitted not reading the parts he didn't write.
Ummmmm... I like Rich and all, I really do, but.... c'mon... really? REALLY?
What if, as he said "it's different" meaning that it acts, appears, and is channelled differently than normal "weave" magic? Then, as more supplements came out and Shadowmagic got more fleshed out, it became that the Shadowweave worked off of the normal weave? Does it still act differently? Yes. Does it have different effects and appear differently in application? Yes. Is it's Source the "Weave"? Well.....kinda. Yes, because it's the shadow-side of the "Weave" but functions differently. I feel that if the real Weave would fail, so too would the Shadow-weave but that doesn't mean they're one in the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And I don't even blame him - that seems to have been the attitude of most - if not all - in-house designers throughout most of 3e, and was responsible for the disjointed presentation of 4e. I got the impression that things would get discussed at weekly meetings, everyone would bring up their own concepts, and then everyone would walk away from those meeting developing their own concepts. Thats not a team - thats anarchy. Where the hell was the editing? How do two incompatible ideas wind-up in one sourcebook?
3e-4e was literally a 'chicken without a head'. It ran everywhere, and got nowhere. Cities that got destroyed in one novel 'reappeared' in the next - where is the accountability? Or the continuity?
I think a lot of designers wanted to make the post Spellplague Realms accessable to anyone new trying it. Keeping things the same as it was in 3E would've made this more difficult. It's easy for us, coming from a lore-enriched background and lots of older supplements to back up our campaigns, but for someone brand new, it's intimidating. The only reason we run it at our table is because I know a good bit of lore that's applicable and my friend ran Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights games. Big suprise that we stick with the Sword Coast, Neverwinter, Western Heartlands, and Cormyr heh.
But, I think the designers also knew that any continunity problems wouldn't be found by newer generations, really how could they unless they went digging? And a good portion of the changes was so that they wouldn't have to go digging. But for me, I'm not shackled to Canon. I use it how I like, when I see fits, and anytime in between. It's great source for info and starting up imagination, but not really THAT important that I don't fudge things....well a lot in my campaigns.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So I guess my point is, 'new lore' in and of itself is not a bad thing, but sloppy presentation is. The Shadoweave is fine - just decide on what the hell it is, OFFICIALLY, and stick with that. If they didn't know what it was, how the heck were we supposed to?
I guess the bottom line is, stand firm on any decisions you make, don't waffle back-and-forth on just about everything (logo/no logo, book size (Essentials), detailed/undetailed, no 'Wailing Years novels"/ then contradict yourself within the same podcast, etc, etc). It was all so... unprofessional.
So decide what the Shadoweave is, and present it in all the material, alongside the Weave, and explain their relationship, from the beginning (of the first setting book, depending on when you reboot 5e from). I firmly believe newer lore must be backward-sown into the older products, so that newer fans won't have the same conundrums we ran into. If you need to do a ST-style reboot, then so be it, but make it consistent.
Of course we want things to be consistant and build upon continunity. And I agree that it's important to keep that tradition going strong with future supplements with the next iteration of D&D, but if/when they mess up *meh* I'll just fix it how I see it and move on. |
| Therise |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 01:45:54
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
...Why are we even debating it?
Eh, I don't know really. Just pointing out that faerzress isn't the only "radiation" magic in the underdark, I guess.
It's not like they've ever shown us the procedure for making drow items (the ones that (used to) degrade).
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 00:27:37
This topic is going nowhere at this point, and redundant with Erik's thread. If we can't agree on what needs to be fixed, then we might as well just keep living with 4e and not even get a 5e. Obviously, they won't be able to please everybody no matter what they do. I tried to erase my OP, but the site won't let me.
Please lock the thread - just let everyone post in Erik's from now on. I probably shouldn't have come back. |
| Super Wizard |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 00:12:05
OH YEAH, THERISE!
I remember that from the Liriel books...
boy, I sure would like to read some more about Liriel. Dang she as really an awesome character! I wouls be ripping SWEEEEET if Elaine Cunninham would do more Liriel!! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 00:00:53
Ack!
I didn't mean they were the same (why is everyone so literal around here? What a bunch of grognards!)
What I meant is that they were quai-magical, in that they derived their power from an external source, just like Netherese Quasi-magical items.
'Quasi-magical' simply means that the device is created much more easily because they rely on an outside power source (and I would assume its an AoE in all cases, but maybe not). Drow don't need mythalars - they had the Faezress - I thought that much was obvious. Its established canon that Drow items rely on Faezress for their power, and that entry just relates the exact nature of that relationship. By using the term 'quasi-magical' (seen only in the Netherese source, AFAIK), it established a non-self-powered magical item (which is easier to create).
The Drow relationship between Faezress and their magic is clearly established since the very beginning. Nowhere did it ever say Faezress was 'Drow-Nip'; you'll note Liriel was sitting on top of a pile of the stuff, with no effect. Drow have never been 'attracted' by it - it was always considered dangerous, but useful (the same way they view other Drow).
I don't understand how the Liriel story invalidates anything... unless you think the 'place magic' wasn't Feazress, which is just plain silly, in light of all past lore. Faezress IS the place magic of the Underdark.
The simplest solution is often the correct one. Saying that the Drow's unique power (source) was actually two separate sources is just adding unnecessary redundancy to the lore. Faezress is what it always was - not some sort of weird 'Drowish Fly'. It powered their items, plain and simple.
Its a non-issue anyway. I don't know too many people that like the series, or use the lore; most choose to just ignore it. Why are we even debating it?
For 5e I want less excuses, and more results. If we choose to just keep sweeping these things under the rug, we wind up with an even bigger mess the next time out. |
| Therise |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 21:35:15
Thanks, I liked the purple too. I suspect that the drow draw upon Node magic. We know that Faerzress has one type of quasi-magic radiation, and it has several specific magical effects (limiting teleportation and scrying). But there are also deep earth nodes and the like that give off magical radiation of a different sort, and the magic-capable drow certainly would have found and learned to tap into those power sources as well.
There's a whole section in one of the Windwalker books where Liriel gets close to a glowy rock formation. It recharges her piwafwi and other drow equipment that had lost their power as she had been in sunlight. She muses on how fast it recharges her stuff, that it would ordinarily take longer but this is a more powerful region. She also uses a chip of that same stone (and it is stone, not a piece of faerzress) in conjunction with the Windwalker Amulet artifact. To me, that says "Earth Node" type magic.
It's definitely not mythal- or mythallar-like, whatever they're doing to craft items. I think it's similar to Table Magic, in the sense that it's most likely a unique magic that they guard jealously and keep secret among the masters of the craft.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 19:47:50
The purple is nice. Incidentally, I very much doubt drow quasimagical items are related to ancient Netherese quasimagical items, since to my knowledge the drow have never fashioned any mythallars.
[Edit]
Judging by ye olde description, the drow simply have access to ceramic Kevlar composites, Vectran mesh, UHMW polymer/aramid weaves, and ABS engineering thermoplastics. Not magic at all! |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 19:36:33
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Markus, I think the claim of "Realms ignorance" about Smedman is grossly unfair. She's written 9 Realms novels, and many of them were very well researched not to mention very enjoyable by lots of fans. She would not have been asked back otherwise. I seriously doubt that you'd attach "Realms ignorance" to some of the current "newbie" authors, would you?
I have enjoyed her short Realms stories, but to handle a novel series the importance of LP you would have to be a Realms EXPERT - you would need to consult EVERY single Drow source ever written, all the way back to the beginning. Elaine did this for the Elves (you can tell by her sweeping history), and only made one minor mistake, which is easily reconciled (the use of the term 'gray').
I can tell you right now she either did not research EVERYTHING about Faezress, or simply ignored past lore. I sincerely doubt she looked in more esoteric sources like the 2e Monstrous Manual, which details the relationship of Drow Weapons and Faezress (Faezress, in 2e, worked in much the same way that Mythalars worked for the Netherese - Drow items are psudo-magical)...
It doesn't say that at all, at least not in my copy of the Monstrous Manual. It says this:
"The drow produce unusual weapons and clothing with quasi-magical properties. Some scribes and researchers suggest that it is the strange radiation around drow cities that make drow crafts special. Others theorize that fine workmanship gives their wonderfully strong metals and superior cloth its unique attributes. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that the drow have discovered some way to make their clothing and weapons without the use of magic."
And Liriel didn't capture the "magic of Faerzress" with the Windwalker Amulet, she captured "Place Magic".
Maybe Smedman's research was better than your memory?
I like the purple Therise |
| Therise |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 18:32:00
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Markus, I think the claim of "Realms ignorance" about Smedman is grossly unfair. She's written 9 Realms novels, and many of them were very well researched not to mention very enjoyable by lots of fans. She would not have been asked back otherwise. I seriously doubt that you'd attach "Realms ignorance" to some of the current "newbie" authors, would you?
I have enjoyed her short Realms stories, but to handle a novel series the importance of LP you would have to be a Realms EXPERT - you would need to consult EVERY single Drow source ever written, all the way back to the beginning. Elaine did this for the Elves (you can tell by her sweeping history), and only made one minor mistake, which is easily reconciled (the use of the term 'gray').
I can tell you right now she either did not research EVERYTHING about Faezress, or simply ignored past lore. I sincerely doubt she looked in more esoteric sources like the 2e Monstrous Manual, which details the relationship of Drow Weapons and Faezress (Faezress, in 2e, worked in much the same way that Mythalars worked for the Netherese - Drow items are psudo-magical)...
It doesn't say that at all, at least not in my copy of the Monstrous Manual. It says this:
"The drow produce unusual weapons and clothing with quasi-magical properties. Some scribes and researchers suggest that it is the strange radiation around drow cities that make drow crafts special. Others theorize that fine workmanship gives their wonderfully strong metals and superior cloth its unique attributes. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that the drow have discovered some way to make their clothing and weapons without the use of magic."
And Liriel didn't capture the "magic of Faerzress" with the Windwalker Amulet, she captured "Place Magic".
Maybe Smedman's research was better than your memory?
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 18:25:51
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Well, on the topic of magic:
Why the Weave and the Shadow Weave? I mean, that's as ridiculous as Canada having two official languages, and you can say what you want I'll tell you that my experience is that it just doesn't work.
Walk to any corner in NYC (Manhattan), and listen to the conversatioons around you. TRY to find an English-speaker.
Two languages? I laugh at your simplicity!
Anyhow, now that I got my nerd-rage under control, and am no longer made uncomfortable by the backwards-engineered, force-fit 'Shadoweave' (c'mon - you know my way looks kewler), I think its actually a nice addition to the Realms.
I only ask that they fix the plethora of disparate lore surrounding it. Each and every designer/writer had their own idea what it was/is, and none of them could agree - it kept waffling back-and-forth throughout 3e.
Is it part of the weave, separate from the weave, or the 'Shadow' of the Weave itself (like the way it was described as existing in the peace between the weave). I asked this point-blank of Rich Baker in the 'Ask the Designers" thread at WotC, and he said it was separate. I then quoted from a recent (at that time) source that said the Shadow Weave could not exist without the Weave (that they were intrinsically connected)... the source had his name on it.
When I ask him to explain, he said that part was written by someone else.
HELLO!!! WTH?
First off, two designers in one source completely disagreeing on the nature of the main plot-point within the source?
Second, he admitted not reading the parts he didn't write.
Ummmmm... I like Rich and all, I really do, but.... c'mon... really? REALLY?
And I don't even blame him - that seems to have been the attitude of most - if not all - in-house designers throughout most of 3e, and was responsible for the disjointed presentation of 4e. I got the impression that things would get discussed at weekly meetings, everyone would bring up their own concepts, and then everyone would walk away from those meeting developing their own concepts. Thats not a team - thats anarchy. Where the hell was the editing? How do two incompatible ideas wind-up in one sourcebook?
3e-4e was literally a 'chicken without a head'. It ran everywhere, and got nowhere. Cities that got destroyed in one novel 'reappeared' in the next - where is the accountability? Or the continuity?
So I guess my point is, 'new lore' in and of itself is not a bad thing, but sloppy presentation is. The Shadoweave is fine - just decide on what the hell it is, OFFICIALLY, and stick with that. If they didn't know what it was, how the heck were we supposed to?
I guess the bottom line is, stand firm on any decisions you make, don't waffle back-and-forth on just about everything (logo/no logo, book size (Essentials), detailed/undetailed, no 'Wailing Years novels"/ then contradict yourself within the same podcast, etc, etc). It was all so... unprofessional.
So decide what the Shadoweave is, and present it in all the material, alongside the Weave, and explain their relationship, from the beginning (of the first setting book, depending on when you reboot 5e from). I firmly believe newer lore must be backward-sown into the older products, so that newer fans won't have the same conundrums we ran into. If you need to do a ST-style reboot, then so be it, but make it consistent. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Jan 2012 : 18:00:43
I broke my last post in half...
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
You're very optimistic.
Sometimes, there is no place to go but up.
And I don't want this to degrade - I was just making a point of one of the things I happen to think is major on-going problem with the Realms (NOT a 4e problem - I think this began at the outset of 2e and snowballed). I am not trying convince anyone else here - this thread is not for that - and if no-one else agrees with me I'd be surprised, but I would still go along with the consensus when it comes to 5e.
We are supposed to be discussing our perceived problems with the Realms, to help them fix them. This thread is more along the lines of Marvel's 'No-Prize' - tell them (WotC) what you think is a problem, and then suggest a fix. If you don't suggest a fix, then you are just complaining, not helping. Here another random example -
___________________________________________________________________________________
Problem: Harpers (& Chosen)
Reasons: There (percieved) monolithic nature makes the 'heores' (PCs) feel 'inferior, as if the spot-light isn't on them. This seems to be one of those 'false' problems engendered by a long novel series about the group, and their constant appearances in other novels.
Solutions: In both source and novel, do NOT show the Harpers 'solving every little problem' - avoid series dedicated to them all together. If used in other stories/sources, stress the fact that the Harpers (& Chosen) work in the background, and find others to accomplish their goals. Ergo, the Harper didn't 'save the town' - the Harper (disguised as a trapper they meet 'by accident') merely told them about the problem, and perhaps suggested a course of action ("Them folks would be a might grateful to anyone who'd find out whats been'a stealing their livestock"). Don't make them 'the heroes', make them manipulators, or patrons (in disguise), but don't place them in the lime-light.
Like my fist example I gave at the beginning of the thread, this isn't really one of my major quips - I'd just figure I'd mention this one, since it does seem to be an issue a lot of folks disagree on (on how the Harpers appear, and what they are really supposed to be).
Address the problems - real or not - and fix them. Obliterating everything did not fix anything - it just created a new slew of problems. If I wanted 'bare bones', I'd break-out my circa 1983 World of Greyhawk - that setting was ideal for the beginner DM to develop with his own HB material. FR was not designed that way (and the few areas left 'vacant' for DMs were quickly filled-in anyway - it attracted writers like moths to a flame). |
|
|
