| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 07 Aug 2013 : 20:42:38
I'm curious to know whether you think the new 5E Realms Campaign Book should spend any significant amount of time filling in the 100 year gap?
If no, why not?
If yes, how much of the book (that is, what % of say, a 300 page book) should be set aside to fill in the history? And what level of detail would you want? Grand History of the Realms-type historical rolls with entries, or something less? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Therise |
Posted - 09 Sep 2013 : 18:31:24
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
How about a series, a'la The Harpers - unconnected, except for a very superficial 'frame' (which would be the Wailing Years themselves).
I'd also like to see some novels back-fill much earlier FR history, including an era-spanning 'Old Empires' one (perhaps with different authors writing each one). If you are going for a 'support for all eras of play' format, you have to support that with the novel line.
I agree, I'd be interested in seeing a novel or two dealing with old Jhaamdath, or the Imaskari Empire. Wouldn't it be fun to see the Mulhorandi Empire at it's height?
After all, they did that whole "Arcane Age" series with Netheril. Seemed like it was pretty popular at the time.
Heck, I'd love to see the elvish wars that originally drove the drow into the underground - I bet it would be fantastic, and it would also open it up for people who would like to play in that era.
|
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 09 Sep 2013 : 18:26:59
quote:
I'd also like to see some novels back-fill much earlier FR history, including an era-spanning 'Old Empires' one (perhaps with different authors writing each one). If you are going for a 'support for all eras of play' format, you have to support that with the novel line.
I would like this (and JG's idea of filling in the 100-year gap) but I doubt we are going to get it. For me, the older the lore, the better/more interesting it is. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 09 Sep 2013 : 16:10:14
A series would be iffy for me because I am not sure of the level of interest for books that go back in time. I figured an anthology of short stories would be a good starter. Something to measure the interest level through sales. But if it turned into an open ended series, I wouldn't mind.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Sep 2013 : 14:04:02
How about a series, a'la The Harpers - unconnected, except for a very superficial 'frame' (which would be the Wailing Years themselves).
I'd also like to see some novels back-fill much earlier FR history, including an era-spanning 'Old Empires' one (perhaps with different authors writing each one). If you are going for a 'support for all eras of play' format, you have to support that with the novel line. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 09 Sep 2013 : 07:41:58
Some spoilers about Vangerdahast follow.
Ye've been warned.
======================
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I don't see it as enriching 4e or any edition in particular, but rather supporting THE REALMS as a whole.
Here you've touched on one of the reasons why I ask Ed questions related to his Eye on the Realms articles.
And you're right, too. Objectively speaking, filling in the Time Gap supports the Realms, not just any particular edition.
When I think about the Time Gap, my thoughts focus on Alusair and her life away from the throne at the end of her regency, on the Dowager Queen maintaining power during the regency of her daughter and the rule of her grandson, and on Vangerdahast and how he went from dragon to a head with spider legs (eek!). There stories haven't been finished, just bookended and with a portion at one end waiting to be filled in.
Those stories need to be told.
If I won the Powerball Jackpot then I'd be on a plane to Redmond ASAP with my checkbook in hand, ready to write one out for whatever amount WotC would need to handle all production and manufacturing costs for an anthology focused on the Time Gap, that told stories about those three characters plus whatever other parts of the Realms WotC would care to include.
A novel anthology covering the Time Gap--if it had those stories--is something I'd pay good money for because it's something I'm sure as hell interested in.  |
| Emma Drake |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 18:50:27
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Because that's what the Expanded Grand History of the Realms is for.
Cheers
Expanded Grand History of the Realms? Be still my heart...
Also, I agree with most of what you say here. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 18:40:35
I've only skimmed all the posts above, though it's obviously a very good discussion. I wish I had more time, but alas, professional author with a day job here.
I will offer what *I* think WotC should do on this point, just to add fuel to the conversation. I've already discussed in another thread what I want their publishing plan to look like, and I want to clarify that my vision of a 5e FRCG does NOT include a timeline to fill in the century gap. Why?
Because that's what the Expanded Grand History of the Realms is for.
We need a book of dates (or maybe just a web enhancement, with the option to buy an actual book with it added to the existing GHotR) to link the various editions. At the moment, 1e/2e/3e is effectively severed from 4e/5e, with a few tenuous threads (Drizzt novels, Backdrop: Cormyr, a few others of us authors). But we're left with all sorts of questions, about how--for instance--the royal line of Cormyr proceeds, unbroken, between editions. Brian Cortijo (Garen Thal) has written this (it's called the Royal Lineage, and trust me, it's amazing and very well researched) but WotC has not (yet) published it.
I firmly agree that the game needs to focus on the Realms going forward, but I firmly believe that the strength of the Realms is its lore, and the century gap is just an open sore that needs to be patched, at least in this regard. It should be treated like any other historical period, like, for instance, 800-900 D.R. Does anyone know what happened then? We know a little, because it's in the GHotR and you can extrapolate other pieces of info. That's all I want to see in the century gap--lore and information, but plenty of space to develop any sort of story one wants--and it hearkens to my design aesthetic: provide more lore than you'll need, and you can choose what to ignore, rather than provide too little and force you to make something up.
I don't see it as enriching 4e or any edition in particular, but rather supporting THE REALMS as a whole.
Cheers |
| Emma Drake |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 18:00:25
I like the idea that the novelists write in any of the eras - 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e. There should be a focus on the current edition, but there is a whole world of interesting possibilities in any one of those eras and I'd love to learn more. If they only wrote in the current era in the past we'd have missed on some great books like Cormyr (which, admittedly was a mixed era book).
As for the 100 year gap in future sourcebooks, I'm less interested in a chapter that lays out what happened in the 100 years.
What I AM interested in is that when there are discussions of places, groups, and NPCs, that we know what was happening with them before, during, and after that 100 year jump. Elminster's entry (should he have one) shouldn't say "Sage of Shadowdale, now lives in Cormyr." It should delve into his existence during the period in between, even if only briefly, because that period is now part of what makes him who he is. The Harpers suffered in the Spellplague era and are now being rebuilt. There should be at least a line or two about that. That isn't further developing 4e, but showing how people and places are who they are and provides a spring-board from which to move them into the future.
Even dark periods have their place and ignoring them makes them more glaringly obvious than integrating them into the whole and moving on. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 19 Aug 2013 : 04:28:26
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
We can only hope right?
It will be interesting to see them try this out.
WotC's stated more than once that moving the setting forward is the core of their ability to keep selling novels, but we also know WotC is now saying there will be no more RSEs.
Hopefully this means they plan to produce novels that focus on the smaller scale (i.e. without the fate of some meaningful part of the Realms always hanging in the balance), but that are still meaningful and interesting to read.
I'm looking forward to more Cormyr novels, myself, and I hope Brian Cortijo gets a shot at writing them. I'd like them to be in a style similar to Ed's Cormyr novels, in that they touch on Cormyr's long history and reveal the answers to some mysteries, while bringing to light new secrets and mysteries of the Forest Kingdom. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 18 Aug 2013 : 17:48:33
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
...or WOTC does something truly inspired and let's authors write in whatever time period they like.
THIS
We can only hope right? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Aug 2013 : 05:01:50
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
...or WOTC does something truly inspired and let's authors write in whatever time period they like.
THIS |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 18 Aug 2013 : 04:58:26
They've already said they're not reconning the Spellplague out of the universe. So that's out, and anyone and everyone that died during the time leap will remain so unless more authors come up with silly ways to bring their characters back......... or WOTC does something truly inspired and let's authors write in whatever time period they like.
I have NO reason to believe D&D Next will have any more support for the Realms then 4e had in terms of supplements and gaming material, which means EVERY page in the campaign setting will be precious.
For me personally I want them to waste as little space as possible on the 100 year gap and just move forward with this "new" Realms for people that decide to play in it, buy the supporting material, and read the current book lines. Since I have no intentions of EVER playing 4e Realms and likely NEXT Realms, I can't even begin to imagine how they'd create a balance that supports all eras of play as claims have been made (and still leave room for the 100 year gap in any relevant manner.) |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 18 Aug 2013 : 02:59:17
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
I suspect they will do a reboot to 1E for the next iteration.
To make sure it really fails by just about losing every fan gained in the last 20 years or so
While I don't think they'd just reboot back to pre-ToT Realms (they just have way too much invested in their present efforts to do that), I must disagree that it would do the mass amounts of damage that is implied. Right now, they're not involving themselves in anything so much as a massive repair effort.
What they could do is release a Realms book based on Ed's campaign. Now I know you're saying "Already been done, geezer man!" But that's not what I mean. I mean something along the lines of the FRCG, with a possible Player's Guide as well. That might be all the 'reboot' they need.
- OMH |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 22:14:51
quote:
Originally posted by TheriseI suspect they will do a reboot to 1E for the next iteration.
To make sure it really fails by just about losing every fan gained in the last 20 years or so |
| Therise |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 21:56:06
quote:
Originally posted by Lilianviaten
You objected to Xxiphu not really serving any purpose, but you ask for Lantan, Luiren, and other places to come back (presumably Unther and Mulhorand). But WOTC doesn't do anything with those places either.
There's a gigantic difference between areas that were created to "star" in a novel series (like Xxiphu, which has had it's entire story played out) and places that were specifically designed to be left open far DMs to develop.
quote:
The Abolethic Soveignty has been active though.
Arunika? Apart from her supposedly representing their interests, nothing has been done for the Soverignty in any real way. What are their goals, exactly? Neither series has truly explored what they want, or even why she serves them. It's nonsense to even have them around.
|
| Lilianviaten |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 21:48:44
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
As to a huge freaking aboleth city in the Fallen Stars...I still fail to see the point in leaving it there. It doesn't actually do anything, apart from...just sort of sit there with flying aboleth thingies...flying...all around it. Okay, yes, it has a small role in the Neverwinter book, but assuming they make changes there as well, it serves...what function?
Send the goofy thing back to Abeir where it belongs. Maybe leave a remnant outpost or something, to continue the meddling in Neverwinter Wood or whatever, but...meh...it was an addition that made little sense in 4th Edition, and makes absolutely no sense now.
Technically, I don't think its home was ever Abeir. IIRC from the novels, it originally came from the "Outer Void" which is some kind of buffer zone between reality and the Far Realm. Time doesn't work the same there, and there were all sorts of completely unexplained reasons for the hundreds of other Xxiphu-like towers that were there, surrounding a weird gateway / place of power. It was supposed to be mysterious and creepy, but it was just oddness for no particular reason.
Anyway, when it first came to Toril -before many of the gods existed and before the original Sundering- it landed and buried itself in the underdark. Again, for no particular reason. And it waited there, sleeping for untold millenia, again for no particular reason. Except: Far Realm is Mysterious and Unexplainable! Or something.
It's a gigantic McGuffin that never saw enough development to actually make it scary or even remotely interesting. And now it's flying over the sea, with menacing lightning and storms and creatures flying around it. Again, for no particular reason. And it's still done nothing for decades since it rose out of the underdark.
My memory could be off for some of the above, but seriously, there's nothing I hate more than gigantic McGuffin PlotDevices placed smack-dab in the middle of everyone's business and then have them be completely useless and pointless.
The worst thing about Xxiphu is that I don't think any additional explanation or lore will help make it any better. Furthermore, this "Order of the Cerulean Sign" is a dead entity. The novel made it very clear that the monk was the very last guardian. There aren't any more. So it's a completely dead story.
The Abolethic Soveignty has been active though. Read the recent novels of Evans and Salvatore, and you'll see that they have their claws (or maybe tentacles?) firmly entrenched in Neverwinter. The FRCG also mentions that they have conquered territory.
They were supposed to be one of 4e's primary threats, along with Shade, Thay, and the Drow. Shade ending up hogging all the limelight though. The others all hatched plots that failed miserably. Why Thay has yet to invade Rashemen is beyond me. This is easily Szass Tam's best chance for victory . |
| Lilianviaten |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 21:32:18
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
4E content, like all Realms content, doesn't just dwell on the "now" of the setting. It's very easy to take the "ignore 4E" attitude to mean "ignore all 4E content" attitude, which means all revelations and lore details printed in 4E about people, places, events and items that existed prior to the Spellplague are ignored.
You're either totally misinterpreting what was suggested or you're intentionally looking at it the wrong way.
I'm not saying "ignore all 4E elements" as if we pretend they were never there.
I'm saying, "don't develop any of the 4E elements any further, and don't spend time on fleshing them out." The 4E elements need to be diminished if their plan is to move forward, not ignored in a "LALALA, I can't see it!" kind of way. That's just stupid.
Diminishing the 4E elements includes things like having most of the earthmotes come back down to the ground, having spellscars lose their power, and having pockets of spellplague finally disperse. It means shunting Tymanther and Akanul back to Abeir. It means having Xxiphu sink far beneath the waters of the Sea of Fallen Stars. It means returning places that were "wiped away" by spellplague, or at least showing clever methods of survival for interesting cultures like Halruaa, Lantan, Luiren, and other places.
What we don't need in 5E is for designers to spend time on enhancing any elements of 4E. Fleshing in details of the 100-year gap, or further expanding Akanul to be an even bigger metropolis -on- Faerun just shouldn't be done because those are things that are firmly rooted in the past - and we're not going to move forward by focusing on the past.
You objected to Xxiphu not really serving any purpose, but you ask for Lantan, Luiren, and other places to come back (presumably Unther and Mulhorand). But WOTC doesn't do anything with those places either. |
| Knightfall |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 07:43:25
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
AGREE with all of the above.
Me too. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Aug 2013 : 18:43:34
AGREE with all of the above. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 14 Aug 2013 : 15:13:23
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Wizards, like any business, succeeds and fails on the merits of it's marketing and sales -- derived almost wholly from their approach with R&D on whatever it is they're trying to sell to the consumer. I would think the approach with the development of 4e proved that something was lacking, and that a new marketing and developmental model would be required for 5e to succeed -- particularly in the areas where it was generally agreed that 4e failed.
I would maintain that 4th Edition failed because Wizbro failed to lay out a solid foundation for the setting to continue. It was, in my opinion, akin to giving a two-year-old a coloring book, and then trying to pass the result off as an engineering manual. They decided that they were "going to do this, this, and this"...with nothing, and I mean nothing approaching feedback from fans, authors, and worst of all, no serious feedback from Ed (if at all). You're bound to hit a few bullseyes here and there with this approach, but more often than not, the mess isn't worth it, and we saw the results.
This time around, they have the writers weighing in, Ed is on the team, and they've been prowling sites like this and others that have Realms-friendly communities to see what the fans want, as well as looking at sites devoted to splinter parts of the Realms. I mean, there's an eilistraee.com AND an eilistraee.org. I would lay odds if there were more viable internet suffixes, the Dark Lady's followers would have laid claim to those, too.
They know that they'll get home runs with certain elements, and those are the few glimpses we've had thus far. It's only served to show us that they're serious about product, and not offer up a slipshod toss in the bucket to shut us up. They have writers (and Ed) steering the train, the fans are shoveling the coal, and the Wizbro staff is playing conductor. This approach five years ago would have spared them (and us) the necessity of arriving at where we are today (unless, as some conspiracy-theorized, they were pulling a 'New Coke' maneuver).
In essence, this time around, we're actually getting some marketing, rather than having something dropped on our desks with a casual "Here ya go". And that means they'll have the sales as a result. In the olden days, the phrase was "breeding will tell" - but these days, it's "effort will tell." This is not a bash at 4th Edition (not intentionally, anyways) - but it is a remark about the effort and intent that, by all appearances, are being put into the Sundering.
- OMH |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 14 Aug 2013 : 04:59:38
There has been precedence for the kind of setting shift I think Therise is advocating. A number of plot hooks were shuffled under the carpet at the end of 2E when new enemies and the setting zeitgeist of 3E came to the fore (Shades, Shar vs Mystra, even more Drow, overtly mercantile Red Wizards). Through sheer brand focus, WotC could just as easily (and more effectively) pave over rough 4E ends in favor of the new vogue of 5E Realms (what ever that may be).
As demonstrated by 3E Realms it's amazing what a single-minded focus on a few key topics and perhaps a few strategic NDAs to bury old plots could do to alter the presentation of a setting (no need for a Spellplague or reboot style change).
Similar to Wooly, any one of the transition events (Spellplague, 100-year gap, miscellaneous (preceding or subsequent) changes) probably wouldn't have fostered my severe disconnect with the 4E Realms. Between the full set, I felt changes were implemented for the sake of change at the expense of coherence and setting potential.
One possible route to "fix" the Realms for a number of fans requires addressing the transition events. Since it seems we're stuck with the 100-year gap, the Spellplague and miscellaneous changes will be the likely targets. The Sundering deals with the former and some of the lesser changes have started to reverse even during 4E (increased mentions of Lathander, Helm, Mystra, etc.) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 15:48:31
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
But ultimately, and I've said this before, WotC is -hopefully- and presumably basing this "restructure" on more than just a principle of inclusiveness. One would hope that they've got a better understanding than we do about what fans would and wouldn't accept. Watching for people expressing their opinions is one way, but it's anecdotal.
I'm inclined to agree. But at the same time, I'm getting the impression that Wizards want fans of ALL the Realms to find something they can love with the 5e iteration of the world.
And that comes, again, from what little Ed has been able to share here at Candlekeep.
quote:
Hoping and praying for something to work, based on a belief, isn't exactly good business, though. I hope they've done more than that in terms of assessment.
No business model is ever one-hundred percent completely certain of success.
Wizards, like any business, succeeds and fails on the merits of it's marketing and sales -- derived almost wholly from their approach with R&D on whatever it is they're trying to sell to the consumer. I would think the approach with the development of 4e proved that something was lacking, and that a new marketing and developmental model would be required for 5e to succeed -- particularly in the areas where it was generally agreed that 4e failed. |
| Therise |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 15:24:21
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
4E content, like all Realms content, doesn't just dwell on the "now" of the setting. It's very easy to take the "ignore 4E" attitude to mean "ignore all 4E content" attitude, which means all revelations and lore details printed in 4E about people, places, events and items that existed prior to the Spellplague are ignored.
You're either totally misinterpreting what was suggested or you're intentionally looking at it the wrong way.
I'm not saying "ignore all 4E elements" as if we pretend they were never there.
I'm saying, "don't develop any of the 4E elements any further, and don't spend time on fleshing them out." The 4E elements need to be diminished if their plan is to move forward, not ignored in a "LALALA, I can't see it!" kind of way. That's just stupid.
Diminishing the 4E elements includes things like having most of the earthmotes come back down to the ground, having spellscars lose their power, and having pockets of spellplague finally disperse. It means shunting Tymanther and Akanul back to Abeir. It means having Xxiphu sink far beneath the waters of the Sea of Fallen Stars. It means returning places that were "wiped away" by spellplague, or at least showing clever methods of survival for interesting cultures like Halruaa, Lantan, Luiren, and other places.
What we don't need in 5E is for designers to spend time on enhancing any elements of 4E. Fleshing in details of the 100-year gap, or further expanding Akanul to be an even bigger metropolis -on- Faerun just shouldn't be done because those are things that are firmly rooted in the past - and we're not going to move forward by focusing on the past.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 12:57:18
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by ksu_bond
I don't want 4e to be ignored, rather I want a linkage between where the Realms was prior to 4e to where it is now in 5e...something that the 4e Realms never gave us.
To be fair, the 4E Realms did give us this, just in really small (smaller than bite size, sometimes) pieces. 
This is part of why I'm curious about people's views of the Time Gap, because there's so much (in terms of Realms history) yet to be uncovered--maybe "revealed" is the better word--and a lot of that doesn't depend one whit on the Spellplague.
As I've said before, the timejump wasn't the deal-breaker for me... But for the majority of folks who dislike the 4E Realms, it was. That's a lot of why I think the timejump has to be at least partially addressed. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 08:28:13
quote:
Originally posted by ksu_bond
I don't want 4e to be ignored, rather I want a linkage between where the Realms was prior to 4e to where it is now in 5e...something that the 4e Realms never gave us.
To be fair, the 4E Realms did give us this, just in really small (smaller than bite size, sometimes) pieces.
This is part of why I'm curious about people's views of the Time Gap, because there's so much (in terms of Realms history) yet to be uncovered--maybe "revealed" is the better word--and a lot of that doesn't depend one whit on the Spellplague. |
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 08:14:59
I don't want 4e to be ignored, rather I want a linkage between where the Realms was prior to 4e to where it is now in 5e...something that the 4e Realms never gave us.
Needless to say this was the most off-putting part of the 100 yr time jump for me. Not the new rules, not the new ideas. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 06:57:22
There's no doubt WotC will focus on 4E to some degree in 5E. They can't say they're doing their job otherwise.
4E content, like all Realms content, doesn't just dwell on the "now" of the setting. It's very easy to take the "ignore 4E" attitude to mean "ignore all 4E content" attitude, which means all revelations and lore details printed in 4E about people, places, events and items that existed prior to the Spellplague are ignored.
Nor is all 4E content somehow entirely connected to or otherwise dependent upon the Spellplague, as though every piece of lore written in 4E has a an addendum or asterisk saying, "and oh, by the way, Spellplague."
To think otherwise is to hold a bias, and not to look at the setting as it actually is.
Someone writing about the reformation of the Harpers into a Faerun-spanning organization in the post-Sundering Realms, for example, simply can't overlook the presence of the Harpers Under the Stars, the Harpers of Cormyr and the Dales or individual Harpers like Talarra Stargentle of Athkatla or Andremmos Skalander of Selgaunt, all of which/whom exist in the mid to late 1400s.
From the perspective of a writer, a writing team, a creative director or the VP/President that has to sign off on The Sundering (TM), an approach that involved ignoring 4E entirely, or that insisted on not referencing 4E content relevant to aspects of the Realms that are to be developed in 5E, would be best described as unprofessional.
You might say in response that there's still a lot of animosity towards the Realms out there, but you'd be, I think, wrong.
It's not an issue of animosity, it's an issue of lack of interest.
The majority of people who didn't buy into the post-Spellplague Realms to set their D&D games there aren't waiting for WotC to say sorry to them because they've already moved on. But they are, I believe, hopeful that WotC will give them a good reason to renew their interest in the Realms.
I think this can best be done by transitioning (not omitting or ignoring) out of 4E into 5E (and that means--unfortunately--removing the footprint of Abeir, which is what the Sundering appears to be all about) and then having WotC treat 4E like any other part of Realmslore: it existed, it happened (i.e. honor the lore), use it as needed, but focus on the now.
|
| Venger |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 06:46:22
quote:
But that's part of the problem. Not every long-time Realms fan disliked the same things about the 4e Realms.
Not everyone dislikes all the same things, but enough people have a dislike of enough elements in common that eliminating those elements will make a lot of people happy overall. And speaking for myself, most of the people I've seen with a dislike of the 4E Realms share many of the same complaints, so it's a pretty easy guess what changes would make a large chunk of the lost fanbase happy. |
| Veritas |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 04:46:49
I strongly suspect they're going to move on. No reason dwelling on a period that alienated enough of their base that they had to hit the closest thing they had to a reset button. Its a shame too because I would have liked to see a story on how Cyric and Shar murdered Mystra. |
| Therise |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 03:46:14
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
But that's part of the problem. Not every long-time Realms fan disliked the same things about the 4e Realms. So I can appreciate how difficult this kind of approach would be for Wizards, and it's partly why I don't think it will work.
True, it may not work. And if it doesn't, I suspect they will do a reboot to 1E for the next iteration.
But ultimately, and I've said this before, WotC is -hopefully- and presumably basing this "restructure" on more than just a principle of inclusiveness. One would hope that they've got a better understanding than we do about what fans would and wouldn't accept. Watching for people expressing their opinions is one way, but it's anecdotal.
quote:
No single Realms fan can agree with what they like and dislike about the 4e Realms. Sure, there are probably groups we can label as disliking "Abeir" or the "dragonborn." However, at the same time, there are probably just as many who like Abeir and the dragonborn -- whether they're long time fans or not. Where does Wizards draw the line?
Hopefully with statistically valid data that's been collected to assess interests -and- dislikes.
quote:
No. I think it far better for Wizards to simply take what is generally believed to have been good [and even some of the mediocre] stuff of the 4e Realms, and make it work with what we all loved about the pre-4e editions of the setting. Just as every edition has done -- taking what came before, and giving it new and interesting life in the next edition.
Hoping and praying for something to work, based on a belief, isn't exactly good business, though. I hope they've done more than that in terms of assessment.
|
|
|
