| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 02:50:25
As the main 'Earth-Realms crossover' fan around these parts, it once again annoys me to see WoTC get back seated by the good folks over at Paizo on the subject of official cross world linkage.
This month's Pathfinder Adventure Path entry (#80 in the series) "Mummy's Mask: Empty Graves" contains a run down of the 'Ancient Osirion' (Egyptian) pantheon which once again formally links the world of Golarion with Earth.
Two quote the two most relevant entries:
page 65: "
so the Ancient Osirian gods retreated to their divine strongholds in the Great Beyond; though they continued to guide and protect Osirion from afar, they turned their attention to a land on a distant world - the Old Kingdom of Kemet (the ancient name for Egypt)."
and (even more to the point) in the foreword on page 5: "We long ago established that Earth and Golarion exist in the same universe - and the Reign of Winter Adventure Path even connected them in time - so with a little bit of work you can make a pretty good guess as to why the gods of Ancient Osirion are remarkably similar to the gods of Ancient Egypt."
I get the general reluctance of WoTC to stress overt Earth-Realms links owing to the so called 'Satanic Panic' of the 80's and 90's, but come on folks we are twenty-five years out from that and clearly D&D's major competitor isn't afraid to go there. If they were getting any kind of substantial negative blowback from it, they wouldn't be doing so for the second time now!
I'd like to see the WoTC folks 'man-up' (or woman up as the case may be) and take the fight to Paizo on this issue. The Realms has ALWAYS had direct Earth connections (Lord knows the subject gets raised - and not just by me - on thread after thread around here) let's go back to our roots and see them made part of the mosaic again with 5E.
Who is with me? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| JohnnyGrognard |
Posted - 30 Apr 2014 : 12:04:30
Hehe, yea Kris I agree with you on a couple points. Especially the part about "roleplaying" a character and how it can be just as bad as acting against one's natural personality. You can only see so many elves and dwarves that are just....well, you know, heck, I think you and I know pretty well where I am going with this one. :) I guess my biggest beef as you already know is akin to Karyl's post in the other thread with your story. How the SCA or courses can give you a level of such and such a class. I have a big bone of contention with that. We always argued for proof! :)~
Now I won't argue with her that yes, there is a level of being an expert due to education and what not, as you have always done in the past and do it well. However, I think you know where I am coming from on the ranger (myself included), monk (ditto), fighter, stealth, etc arguments we've had in the past with certain folks.
Though I will say this, my favorite version of your pys was the early days where we had to slog about, barely getting by, being afraid of goblins. Now granted at the time, I was too young to appreciate it and fell into the category of what I loathe the most about play yourself games! Sometimes, and you know how sincere this is by saying this is, I do honestly wish, I can recapture those genuine moments. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 30 Apr 2014 : 04:32:28
Markustay - natch.
JG - you know my feelings on this one. I will say that I agree with you that FAR too many potential play yourselfers just can't seem to handle behaving in anything like a realistic fashion. Then again, people frequently front in and out of games. Lol. When faced with this, it is the job of the DM to do his/her best to bring them back in line with a dose of (fantasy) reality. The good games are the ones where the people you play with are secure enough in themselves to play it straight. Honestly, the thing that bugs me more is people who play elves, dwarves, half demons and the like horribly inaccurately, if you can't play a male human fighter or thief, the degree of pain I'm going to get in DMing you as 'Dugnor the Dwarven Hero' is far in excess of what I'll feel making you play you.
Diffan - I didn't know you were a PYSer. Great news! I'm glad you are having fun with it. It can be a great time.
One of the things it is particularly good for, and why I nag at WoTC to give it some play, is introducing new people (especially young people and female gamers) to the hobby in general and the Realms in particular. Playing a game whose mechanics you don't begin to get while also having to pretend to be a gnome druid is intimidating. Just imagining yourself as you in a new world is a tad easier. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 29 Apr 2014 : 17:51:33
what not in my realms???? I hate to tell you this but we dont say not in my realms in my realms......
sorry, couldn't resist |
| Markustay |
Posted - 29 Apr 2014 : 15:21:49
Pathfinder/Paizo is guided by a group of business-savvy people who give the fans what they want (no matter how silly/whatever that may be). People will eat it up, and they will make money and continue to be successful.
FR is guided by a SELECT few - designers and die-hard grognards - and is not geared to appeal to a wider audience, hence its continued floundering.
For everyone of you that says, "Not in MY Realms!", you are plunging a dagger ever-deeper into The Realms heart. I suppose you could look at it as a 'mercy killing'.
Its extremely hard to wrap 'commercial viability' and 'quality' in the same package. Once in a great while someone manages it (the OGB, for example, or GoT), but that is rare indeed. I am still hoping that 5eFR proves to be one of those rare exceptions.
|
| JohnnyGrognard |
Posted - 29 Apr 2014 : 02:49:32
The difference is if I want to make someone with a believable soldier, doctor, or other advanced background without calling shenanigans, it is easier to do so. D20 modern had a similar concept. Too many times someone argues for a skill, stat, or feat because they took a class, work out a few times a week, or ran track in high school, which really stretches the credibility of the goal of a play yourself game.
As for the point buy, all that is well and fine if your group plays fairly. That's my problem. Most groups don't hand out the stats in an honest manner. They gripe and whine as to why such and such should be at a certain number when they know it should be lower.
As for roleplaying I think you can have a sense of reliability. Sure you cannot take into account how one would certainly act in a danger situation, but some of the groups that have done play yourself that I've been in are downright ridiculous in their actions. They acquire what I call "Immediate BA Syndrome". Suddenly the idea of a goblin, giant spider, or zombie doesn't phase them the slightest and they are mixing it up immediately. Don't even get me started with how willy nilly religion can be treated.
I'd rather play a character any day and leave all the drama, infighting, and moral debates at the door. But to each their own, it is gaming after all. So whatever jives with you go for it, but certainly not for me. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Apr 2014 : 23:27:59
quote:
Originally posted by JohnnyGrognard
As for getting "myself" into a game I also generally don't like it. Play yourself games are generally not done fairly. No one picks stats that are a fair assessment of themselves nor do people play as they really would. Everyone turns into stat monsters who are goblin butt-kickers with no fear.
What we did was assign each other our stats and class. For example, I had said I really wanted to play a paladin but my friends kindly put it that I wasn't zealot OR righteous enough personally that they could see me being one. We settled with the Knight class from the Player's Handbook II. For the stats, we kept it all down to 30-point buy and rounded the differences. So after being assigned stats, we'd see how many points were left over and would bump up a stat 1 point.
As for roleplaying how we actually would act in such a circumstance, it's impossible to do this with ANY sense of reliability. Add in the fact that 95% of D&D games involve heroic PCs, it's not hard to see that at low levels, we had to plan VERY precisely if we were going to fight monsters and how, and as we progressed we gained confidence in our abilities to take on tougher challenges.
It's still our longest running Forgotten Realms campaign that my group plays in that has spanned two editions. We've had others, for sure, but none had the depth and immersion that our "Us in the Realms" games do.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnnyGrognard
Frankly, I'd rather create a "real world" character and enter him into a fantasy world for then there would be believable wiggle room. Otherwise it tends to be laughable.
I don't see the difference.... |
| JohnnyGrognard |
Posted - 28 Apr 2014 : 18:51:47
I am not a fan of real world cross overs. Frankly, it usually doesn't work well for most games. R.E Howard's and Tolkien's lands are about as "crossed" over as I like. I'd rather play a historical game with fantastic elements, such as Yggdrasil or Qin the Warring States. As for getting "myself" into a game I also generally don't like it. Play yourself games are generally not done fairly. No one picks stats that are a fair assessment of themselves nor do people play as they really would. Everyone turns into stat monsters who are goblin butt-kickers with no fear.
Frankly, I'd rather create a "real world" character and enter him into a fantasy world for then there would be believable wiggle room. Otherwise it tends to be laughable. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 23:03:08
quote:
Originally posted by Kris the Grey
Yikes but you lads are an anti-Earth/Realms bunch! Bah humbug indeed...
Sorry, it's not that I don't like the idea and it's funny because I actually do like that a character or person could supposedly be transported from Earth to Faerūn. In fact, it's the basis for one of my group's longest running Realms campaigns called "Us in the Realms" where the group is transported there in an 'Avatar-style' game. We created ourselves with stats and class levels and we even got a specific Realms-lore skill which was based on the amount of novels and Realms-specific video games we played on Earth. It's still going on and it's been a LOT of fun.
With that being said, it's the idea of the basis of an entire culture and deities taken from Earth that I don't necessarily agree with. Maztica's creation strikes me as a plot ONLY to sell a group of novels with a Conquistador-ish theme and angle, NOT because Maztica is special or unique in any significant way. Heck even the name sounds familiar to Mexico-Aztec mix up. Similar is the Mulhorand area, it seems as though they wanted to cram nearly every single genre they possibly could into one singular setting and that it wasn't really put there with any other purpose. It's why many people refer to the Realms as the Kitchen-sink of D&D settings. It literally is EVERY single Earth-based aspect all crammed into the setting. Western European (Cormyr, Dales, Western Heartlands), Asian (Kara-Tur, The Shaar), Egyptian (Mulhorand), Central-Americas (Maztica), South American / Jungle setting (Chult), Arabian / Desert setting (Calimshan, pre-Spellplague Anauroch), and even Russian / Tribal (Rasheman). I mean, some of these areas are distinctly "Realms" with a LOT of varying elements that make them extremely unique. Others, however, I don't get that feeling. I get the sense that they just want to put these areas in willy-nilly. But feelings are subjective and YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by Kris the Grey
Come now, if it works for Ed (and C.S. Lewis, and J.R. Tolkien, and Weiss and Hickman, and
well you get the idea) then surely the idea can have merit without being hokey. Look at the Reign of Winter adventure path (and their use of Baba Yaga) - Paizo did quite a classy job with their cross over work there.
The thread seems to have gotten a touch off topic by devolving into a 'just copying Earth cultures and slamming them down in the Realms is bad' discussion. Agreed, that concept, championed by TSR in the golden days of 2E, was a bit silly. I'm NOT saying to take whole Earth cultures and jam them into the Realms, I'm saying you take TRACES of history and use RARE gates and other cross world methods to provide linkage and a sense of wonder (Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe indeed) to the game.
if that were the case, I'd be more on board. Less near-Earth parallels and more subtle hints with a great deal of Lore background. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 21:05:28
Stargate didn't pioneer the idea of gods-and-cultures-of-ancient-Egypt-spanning-many-worlds, either. It has been done before, countless times, in sci-fi and fantasy. Although I do love Stargate and think they presented their peculiar twist rather well. The world needs more of this cheese, though perhaps less Halfling Death Cheese!
Back to topic, I agree (as always) with Shemmy on this. Paizo has been less constrained with touching the taboo, allowing themselves to publish creations which Wizbro won't touch. D&D's "indecencies" have suffered from knee-jerk scrutiny, bad press, and panic before - WotC inherited it all with the TSR brand, Hasbro carefully cultivates a "kid-friendly" image through corporate censorship and strict adherence to something almost resembling the outdated Hays Code. So D&D dares not overstep propriety with any references to race, religion, sexuality, politics, etc, which extremists might defame as proof of corrupting influences on our preciously tender and impressionable young minds.
The same young minds who can watch the sexual exploits of vampires and demons on TV. Or steal cars, hire prostitutes, and viscerally slaughter Nazi zombie hoards with chainsaws and shotguns and flamethrowers on their PlayStations.
I congratulate Paizo for growing up and offering entertainments more sophisticated than Walt Disney. (And I offer my apologies to FR authors and WotC game designers, no bashing intended, we all do what we gotta do to put bread on the table.) |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 07:09:33
quote:
Originally posted by Zireael
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Hmm, I donāt read too deeply into the OP source material.
Rather than assume Earthly corporations are involved in plot and counterplot I think the simpler explanation might be that the Egyptian deities (or their avatars) just happened to be ambitious and aggressively expansionistic travellers. In fact, thereās little proof they originated on Earth at all, the civilization of ancient Egypt may have been inspired from yet another world entirely unknown to Earth, therefore also unknown to Toril and Golarion.
This is a great idea!
That's my preferred explanation as well, and in my Multiverse the Imaskari were involved deeply in the cross-polination of worlds. I call it all the "Stargate Hypothesis" .  (I don't claim to have come up with the link either, it's been compared to it for a long time).
Hey, Stargate is cheesy, but it's awesome. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 06:10:26
quote:
Well, just because Pazio hasn't been hit by blow-back doesn't mean they wont be.
--
Who are you going to portray, and who are you going to exclude? Who, if anybody, will be portrayed in an unbiased light?
Linkage between Golarion's ancient Osirioni pantheon and the real world Earth is the least of Paizo's worries regarding potential blowback. And they don't seem to care, which is awesome.
I don't think Paizo has ever really been shy about certain topics that WotC probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll (mostly likely due to being part of Hasbro IMO).
Would you expect an FR module to contain a lesbian half-orc paladin and her transwoman partner as prominent NPCs like in a recent Wrath of Righteous AP module for Pathfinder? Controversial? Perhaps to some, but the inclusion isn't exploitative or made light of any more than if the NPCs had been human and a hetero couple. Paizo has done a really good job with being as inclusive as possible and also having it mesh with the setting at the same time.
As far as other real world linkages, a recent Pathfinder module 'Rasputin Must Die!' had the PCs travel to World War I era Russia to fight Rasputin. Various Lovecraftian entities show up with that implicit link to Earth where it applies (Cthulhu being on Earth for instance). I think they've handled it really well to be honest. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 03:35:53
there is this thing about doing it with class and then doing it poorly. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 03:01:51
Yikes but you lads are an anti-Earth/Realms bunch! Bah humbug indeed...
Come now, if it works for Ed (and C.S. Lewis, and J.R. Tolkien, and Weiss and Hickman, and
well you get the idea) then surely the idea can have merit without being hokey. Look at the Reign of Winter adventure path (and their use of Baba Yaga) - Paizo did quite a classy job with their cross over work there.
The thread seems to have gotten a touch off topic by devolving into a 'just copying Earth cultures and slamming them down in the Realms is bad' discussion. Agreed, that concept, championed by TSR in the golden days of 2E, was a bit silly. I'm NOT saying to take whole Earth cultures and jam them into the Realms, I'm saying you take TRACES of history and use RARE gates and other cross world methods to provide linkage and a sense of wonder (Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe indeed) to the game.
As to the Panic, while there may still be small groups of folks who think D&D is somehow evil incarnate, that's a LONG forgotten concept in my view. Society has changed PROFOUNDLY since the mid 80's (for good or for ill depending on your PoV), and whether D&D is the product of the devil is hardly a topic of hot debate these days. One only has to look at the social changes wrought by things such as the widening acceptance of gay marriage to see how small the potatoes are on this issue (noting that Paizo has also had openly homosexual NPC characters - one a Paladin to boot! - prominently featured in their last two adventure paths). If they are taking fire for their fantasy RPG + Earth = evil stand I've not heard a single peep about it. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:46:12
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Hmm, I donāt read too deeply into the OP source material.
Rather than assume Earthly corporations are involved in plot and counterplot I think the simpler explanation might be that the Egyptian deities (or their avatars) just happened to be ambitious and aggressively expansionistic travellers. In fact, thereās little proof they originated on Earth at all, the civilization of ancient Egypt may have been inspired from yet another world entirely unknown to Earth, therefore also unknown to Toril and Golarion.
This is a great idea! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:44:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I never had a use for Unther and Mulholand, but they were a part of the published Realms for a large chunk of its history, and for me, that reason alone is enough for them to remain a part of the Realms.
Just because I don't have a use for something isn't a reason to arbitrarily (and literally) wipe it off the map. That's the same logic that lead to the nuking of Halruaa.
Well it's why I never really complained that much prior to 4E, because WotC never offered a difference for those regions. Obviously any DM can go in and change stuff but that takes time and effort when it's just easier to ignore and focus on the areas that are already detailed (perhaps too detailed for my tastes, but all the same). It wasn't until they removed these parts and put in stuff that I actually like and use. Stuff that I find better in both terms of creativity and usefulness where there wasn't any. So now being told they're going back to stuff I didn't like or use is sort of irritating. Yes, I'll leave it as is in all my future Realms games, it just stinks that we were left with a cool idea that never really got the attention it deserved.
I obviously have nothing to base this on, but I am inclined to think that the places that fell from the sky in 4E will still be accessible, somehow.
Can't that work two ways however? Why can't Abeir stay and then portals to new Mulhorand and Maztica be found and opened? Ya'know, I think i'd actually play in a setting based on New Mulhorand because it's thrust into a new area with new threats and dangers not seen on Faerūn. The amount of stories that could be told from their perspective in a new and potentially hostile land would actually be original for the Realms and potentially create a larger fanbase for those areas (I'd certainly give it a look, unlike previously where Mulhorand stood).
Suffice to say that with their return, I'm left with a very small smudge of information and lore about Returned Abeir, Akanūl, and Tymanther. These were areas that the 4E team should've focused on rather than yet another Waterdeep DDI article OR Neverwinter (a book which I love, no offense Erik Scott deBie) but was not overly necessary when compared to the MUCH deprived areas of the Realms that WotC NEVER focuses on.
Just sayin', the Realms are bigger than the Western Heartlands, the Sword Coast, The North, Cormyr, Sembia, and the Dalelands. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 23:34:24
Damn, Ayrik beat me to it. Personally, I don't believe that the Mulhorandi and Untheric deities came from Earth. For instance, we have Gilgeam, not Gilgamesh. Personally, I'd prefer it if the story were that the Egyptians and Babylonians of Earth were a transplant of Toril (or the original world from which they were stolen).
I also agree that the original Mulhorand and Chessenta could have used a little more work, but then all the regions needed a little more work back then. The one thing that I actually didn't like was that they took the manifestations away from these countries whenever they first introduced them. That was a pivotal difference for the region, and I really liked the idea of them. However, I also see why they did so (i.e. people would say their NPC's killed the manifestation and killed a god). Personally, they need to go back to a mix of this, where they can summon the essence of the god into the rulers, and thus the God-Kings are very powerful and "guided" by their deities (but they aren't an actual avatar). Being a god-king could thus be like a template that's stacked onto a normal character, and it could be a really powerful template (it should also be a versatile template... so perhaps it gives the ability to cast spells from several different casting classes <as in casts as a 14th lvl spellcaster of 2 classes out of X list>) but the person picks which when he "bonds" with his god...... NOTE: one thing that could also be done with the template idea is say something like "casts as a 14th lvl wizard but with access only to X schools" and list 3 or 4 schools or similarly do the same thing for clerics but list domains.... or you might offer up alternate classes like beguiler and dread necromancer for God-Kings of Set. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 23:10:27
Hmm, I donāt read too deeply into the OP source material.
Rather than assume Earthly corporations are involved in plot and counterplot I think the simpler explanation might be that the Egyptian deities (or their avatars) just happened to be ambitious and aggressively expansionistic travellers. In fact, thereās little proof they originated on Earth at all, the civilization of ancient Egypt may have been inspired from yet another world entirely unknown to Earth, therefore also unknown to Toril and Golarion. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 22:10:51
-I, for one, am happy that the "Elminster travels back and forth to tell Ed Greenwood about Faerun" aspects were minimized if not ignored in 3e and 4e. Asides for just being a little too silly for me, it breaks the universe if you sit down and think about it.
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Well there is unique flavour in any of the areas of the realms if you look hard enough.
Yes Unther and Mulhorand may have been influenced by a real world culture but they have morphed into something else with the passage of time.
Yes you have to look a little harder for the clues in Unther, Mulhorand, and especially Chessenta, but that is only because there is much less information on those areas.
-Absolutely. Enough has been written about Mulhorand, about Unther, about Chessenta, about Kara-Tur, to make them feel like they fit where they were put, even if their origins aren't exactly organic. Enough products talking about trade links, cultural diffusion, cultural things, and so on, they become closer tied to everything around them and feel like they more organically belong. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 20:59:05
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I never had a use for Unther and Mulholand, but they were a part of the published Realms for a large chunk of its history, and for me, that reason alone is enough for them to remain a part of the Realms.
Just because I don't have a use for something isn't a reason to arbitrarily (and literally) wipe it off the map. That's the same logic that lead to the nuking of Halruaa.
Well it's why I never really complained that much prior to 4E, because WotC never offered a difference for those regions. Obviously any DM can go in and change stuff but that takes time and effort when it's just easier to ignore and focus on the areas that are already detailed (perhaps too detailed for my tastes, but all the same). It wasn't until they removed these parts and put in stuff that I actually like and use. Stuff that I find better in both terms of creativity and usefulness where there wasn't any. So now being told they're going back to stuff I didn't like or use is sort of irritating. Yes, I'll leave it as is in all my future Realms games, it just stinks that we were left with a cool idea that never really got the attention it deserved.
I obviously have nothing to base this on, but I am inclined to think that the places that fell from the sky in 4E will still be accessible, somehow. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 19:12:21
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
But twenty years of slow but sure development really did wonders to them and inextricably linked them to the rest of the world in my eyes.
That's a good point. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 17:01:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I never had a use for Unther and Mulholand, but they were a part of the published Realms for a large chunk of its history, and for me, that reason alone is enough for them to remain a part of the Realms.
Just because I don't have a use for something isn't a reason to arbitrarily (and literally) wipe it off the map. That's the same logic that lead to the nuking of Halruaa.
Well it's why I never really complained that much prior to 4E, because WotC never offered a difference for those regions. Obviously any DM can go in and change stuff but that takes time and effort when it's just easier to ignore and focus on the areas that are already detailed (perhaps too detailed for my tastes, but all the same). It wasn't until they removed these parts and put in stuff that I actually like and use. Stuff that I find better in both terms of creativity and usefulness where there wasn't any. So now being told they're going back to stuff I didn't like or use is sort of irritating. Yes, I'll leave it as is in all my future Realms games, it just stinks that we were left with a cool idea that never really got the attention it deserved.
What they need to do is give Faerūn a break for a while, focus on another continent like Osse, Katashaka, or the Land of Flying Monsters. Even exploring Zakhara would be nice for a change. And if/when they do flesh out these areas, they should steer FAR and AWAY from real-world cross-overs. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 16:39:12
"Original" is way overrated. There's nothing objectively good that can be said about being original, really.
By the way, if I were in control of the Realms, I would probably have dumped the Old Empires if I saw the sketch of it back in the TSR days. It just wasn't that well-made, in my opinion. But twenty years of slow but sure development really did wonders to them and inextricably linked them to the rest of the world in my eyes. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:46:15
Well there is unique flavour in any of the areas of the realms if you look hard enough.
Yes Unther and Mulhorand may have been influenced by a real world culture but they have morphed into something else with the passage of time.
Yes you have to look a little harder for the clues in Unther, Mulhorand, and especially Chessenta, but that is only because there is much less information on those areas.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:32:59
I never had a use for Unther and Mulholand, but they were a part of the published Realms for a large chunk of its history, and for me, that reason alone is enough for them to remain a part of the Realms.
Just because I don't have a use for something isn't a reason to arbitrarily (and literally) wipe it off the map. That's the same logic that lead to the nuking of Halruaa. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:25:36
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
and for one, I was glad when unther and mouluhan were gone.
and now they might come back again..... leave em gone.
death to horus-re
Yep, never liked or cared for the Forgotten Realms pseudo-Earth cultures and mythology. Seems very lazy in both design and content. Where are the ALL the Norse gods (besides Tyr)? Where are all the Roman/Greek Gods? Why isn't there a Greek / Sparta-style nation? Why aren't they playing up Chult and the southern lands more? Why don't they actually put a name and places on the other continents of the world instead of leaving them completely blank?
People may not like the Returned Abeir elements of the FR setting, but at least it was original (to the Realms).
Could not agree more. I'll take the Returned abeir stuff over the 'yet another pseudo historical human kingdom stuff' anyday. |
| Renin |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:06:49
I think the greatest reason for not 'establishing' a pure Earth-to-(fantasy realm) link would be the distinction that a game would purport that there are other gods-and there are many groups that will go after a game company for stating something so...heretical to their beliefs. Especially if this is a game that youth are supposed to play.
I hope I've said that with as much generalities as I could so as to not invite real-world politics or religious discussions. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 14:24:18
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
and for one, I was glad when unther and mouluhan were gone.
and now they might come back again..... leave em gone.
death to horus-re
Yep, never liked or cared for the Forgotten Realms pseudo-Earth cultures and mythology. Seems very lazy in both design and content. Where are the ALL the Norse gods (besides Tyr)? Where are all the Roman/Greek Gods? Why isn't there a Greek / Sparta-style nation? Why aren't they playing up Chult and the southern lands more? Why don't they actually put a name and places on the other continents of the world instead of leaving them completely blank?
People may not like the Returned Abeir elements of the FR setting, but at least it was original (to the Realms). |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 09:03:36
and for one, I was glad when unther and mouluhan were gone.
and now they might come back again..... leave em gone.
death to horus-re |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 08:27:32
I on the whole would prefer it if RW connections between FR and our Earth were downplayed. YMM(and clearly does)V.
-- George Krashos |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 05:24:35
And Ed did it right, imo. We had Earth-Faerun connections, without specific cultures crossing over. Ed's Mulhorand isn't Egypt. Crossovers can be cool on a small & scattered level. When you import cultures from one world into another, it's just lazy design.
Which isn't meant to criticize Paizo/Pathfinder/Golarion. I've never read any of their stuff, and from the quotes it sounds like they're developing their own material within a theme. More power to them.
I'm just agreeing with Mapolq; partly at least. I suspect that WotC axed the Old Empires, and Maztica, and Al-Qadim, because they felt that players were disinterested in regions that seemed to draw too heavily from Earth. Apparently Paizo is doin it right, at least so far.
Re: the "Satanic Panic" -- I'm not sure any amount of time is sufficient to make it irrelevant. Columnists still reference it because it's sensational, preachers still talk about it because fear is a great unifier, etc. The Panic is attached to the D&D name, and it doesn't matter how many people play and enjoy D&D; there will always be those who cling to paranoid delusions.
Our job, if playing can be called a job, is to enjoy and develop the game for ourselves, introduce our friends when we can, and ignore the dummies.
|
|
|
