| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 02:28:57
In the Sundering novel line, it looks like the authors were trying to fix the damage of the 4E mistakes and bring the Realms closer to the original grey box experience. At least, that's what their comments seem to indicate.
Has WOTC committed to the same thing on the RPG side?
I've been doing alot of research the last month or so and I can't find any clear indication of what WOTC plans to do or when they plan on doing it.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 28 Jul 2014 : 22:50:52
I pretty much agree with all of Dark Wizard's points in his last post.
|
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 28 Jul 2014 : 02:45:36
Diffan, don't get me wrong. With all my pointing out things I don't like about the 4E changes, I don't run the Realms as presented in the books, not now, not in the pre-4E eras, and I'm not entirely adverse to some of the 4E Realms ideas.
Then why all the effort to rile against WotC's decisions?
I think there's something to be said for consistency and continuity for a setting presented and sold as a living setting experience.
Now we're getting some pull back (possibly, the jury's still out) and I do think it's unfair to people who developed a liking for the new material. As unfair as getting rid of those earlier areas and aspects. It's this wishy washy meandering that made WotC blink in the staring contest that is the games industry. It's unfortunate for Wizards and us fans that we have to at all sit through this mess while it is being sorted through.
Of course, all this hubbub also means I can no longer be the same sort of positively supportive fan I was before, where books were bought sight unseen. I can't stand behind a product that the company that produces it will not stand behind. One where they sought to erase and minimize aspects and areas I liked, then bring them back again while annoying a number of new fans they might have gained.
This reeks of the worst of audience-chasing and all the stereotypes about design-by-committee. Earlier someone said they buy FR books for ideas. Ideas are cheap, everyone has awesome ideas, but it comes amongst a throng of garbage ideas. It's the execution that's difficult. I look for vision (and voice) in gaming books I buy, something presented with some semblance of a whole rather than a scatter-shot of cool ideas. I feel the Realms had it before, I felt they lost it, we'll find out if its regained it. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Jul 2014 : 13:21:54
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Almost anyone
I'd be willing to bet that some of my earlier opinions of 4th Edition would make the paint on the wall crack and blister. It took a long time, and some very patient people using calm arguments and reasoned opinion, to demonstrate the merits that some of 4th Edition possessed.
A lot of the credit goes to folks like Diffan, who (as I have said before) took the position of "Well, I can't change your opinion on A ('A' being the timejump, the single most ridiculous part of the entire 4th edition, in my opinion, and they'd be right, that opinion will never change), but here's what I did with B, which I think might fit your bill, plus, have you ever considered that C might be looked at in THIS manner?" (Explanation then followed.)
I don't imagine you'll change your mind simply because I said you should. But I'm going to give them (WotC) the chance to impress me - James Wyatt had much as said that 4th Edition had "gone off the rails" - I am very interested in seeing how they get the train back on the tracks.
- OMH
Thanks buddy! I do what I can 
@Dark Wizard:
- As far as Canon goes, I'm perfectly fine leaving what I don't like in the dust and moving on to stuff I do like and adding that to my games. It's how I've handled ALL the changes since becoming interested in the Realms a while ago. Further, I have discussed my displeasure for the return of Egypt and Mexico only because I felt they didn't do the Returned Abier part enough justice and content. Had we received more information on it, about it, etc. then I wouldn't honestly care if they brought the older places back. The difference here, however, is that I'm still going to buy / purchase / and play with the post-Sundering Realms and continue to use the content they produce as OPTIONS I can include in my games even though I don't honestly like the current direction they're taking. Even if they were to do something like bring Lantan back to the surface, that's OK by me because it might get detailed more AND I can still use my idea (of it being an underwater adventuring place) AND incorporate their ideas too as I see fit. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 25 Jul 2014 : 12:25:54
Even if i were to get what i wanted and WoTC just pretend anything after 1372 DR didnt happen. I would still only buy newly published material in pdf format. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 25 Jul 2014 : 11:58:25
Ghotr print run was tiny, and there was only one. No need to invest in a large print run until you know it will be successful.
PDF is a good choice. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 25 Jul 2014 : 07:21:20
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I have no idea what the solution is, but the fanbase can't even come to a consensus, let alone line developers. We can wish with all of our heart, but at the end of the day it's our wallets that speak volumes.
Personally? I'd have them do Kickstarter. It allows them to test the market to see if people actually want the product they're selling, and if the answer to that is yes then people will be willing to pony up. They can pretty much guarantee a profit that way. If people aren't interested, then people won't support it. So, it saves them from making a costly mistake.
I'd basically have three different versions of the source book offered. One would be the PDF and another would be a paperback version of the information in the PDF. Then I'd have a limited number of hardback collectors editions, which would contain bonus material.
Then of the collectors editions I'd have a very small few of those given to someone like Ed Greenwood. He'd write a personalized message to you within it, basically thanking you for supporting the Realms.
I'd love to see them try something like this with a regional source book, just as a test. If it works out for them, and they get the money they need... then hell, they should just keep doing it for as long as people are willing to fork over the cash and support the products.
But if it crashes and burns, and people aren't willing to support the setting, then well... At least we know where we stand. However, I'm pretty confident that people will support it, and that something like this could spark a renaissance for the Realms - at least as big as the one we saw in 2E. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Jul 2014 : 03:53:00
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Numbers game. Regardless of the reasons, there's simply not enough consumers of pure Realms fiction to support setting-only print sourcebooks. GHotR was a gamble for WotC. While one of the greatest sourcebooks ever (I'm obviously bias :p), it likely didn't earn any kind of profit.
I wonder. It sold out its print run(s), which presumably indicates at least a small profit. And if sourcebooks are less beholden to game rules -- not necessarily without any, but not based on them -- and if lore and history are consistently promoted as desirable and not the opposite, there is at least the potential of making them continually profitable in a less frontlist-driven way. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 25 Jul 2014 : 02:46:01
Pure realmslore in PDF format is likely the only cost effective means of providing consistent lore to the fans at a reduced price. Whilst I love having the actual sourcebooks, I'll take what I can get.
-- George Krashos |
| Matt James |
Posted - 25 Jul 2014 : 01:59:49
Numbers game. Regardless of the reasons, there's simply not enough consumers of pure Realms fiction to support setting-only print sourcebooks. GHotR was a gamble for WotC. While one of the greatest sourcebooks ever (I'm obviously bias :p), it likely didn't earn any kind of profit.
I have no idea what the solution is, but the fanbase can't even come to a consensus, let alone line developers. We can wish with all of our heart, but at the end of the day it's our wallets that speak volumes. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 24 Jul 2014 : 08:13:51
We'll know that we've turned a corner once WotC start posting updates on their website about the Realms to come.
If they do as good a job as they did with 3E (ala the Realms Roundtables, the "Ed Says" articles, and numerous other online previews), then we're in good shape.
Were I WotC, I'd busy myself reviewing what Ed's written about the "Lost Lands" (Halruaa, Lantan, etc.) and deciding which of these entries to divide up and start posting one per month as teasers in the months leading up to the 5E hardback/boxed set/whatever release.
Side note: previously I'd regarded "Ed Greenwood Presents: Elminster's Forgotten Realms" as a test book to see if a book that's somewhat edition/era neutral could sell enough copies to not only justify the expense, but make a profit.
But now I think it was a test to see if WotC could sell a book with no crunchy rules in it at all.
It used to be that WotC could sell Realms sourcebooks simply for the story. That's part of what allowed them to sell the sourecebooks at a premium (i.e. for more money than a similarly sized core/non-Realms sourcebook). But that thinking gave way to love of crunch, since you can make more money selling a book to all four or five players at the gaming table then selling a book that only the DM will use.
I hope EGP did well, because the more WotC see sales value in the story of the Realms, the more likely it is they'll pay attention to not screwing up Realmslore (i.e. pay freelancers who know the lore to write the sourcebooks), as well as include Realmslore around the rules they do put in the books.
WotC wants to sell its books to as many people as possible. If they come to believe that the story matters to all the players at the gaming table as much as it does to the DM, then even the crunch books (like Aldrick suggested above) will have some story in them.
This is a good thing.
EDIT: quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
I have to agree with Jeremy's assessment -
I'd like to point out that this doen't happen very often, so somebody needs to write the date down for historical purposes.  |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 23 Jul 2014 : 19:06:01
I've intentionally stayed away from this thread for numerous reasons (I've not read anything but the last few posts now). I'm just going to say that I want WotC to publish material set in multiple eras from 1st to 5th. I don't care about the rules part (I use my own and most of the games I play in are homebrewed anyway)...I just care about the 'tone' of the time period (1st & 2nd being my favorites).
I want them to ACTUALLY support all eras of the setting, not just make 5e rules 'backwards compatible' or something. I want novels set in all time periods (so we can see what happened to some characters and stories that were developing) along with new NPCs, new lore, new stories. Then, if the time comes that they must trim the fat...they will have sales records showing where to best make those cuts (though I would argue they already have those records).
Oh, and I don't want every book published to be hardback either. That needlessly raises the costs. I miss the old boxed set format, but there's no need to go back to that format either (takes up too much shelf space IMO).
My new campaign is set in 1356 and will feature none of the RSEs that followed save the Avatar Crisis...which will not lead to the crapload of dead gods it originally did. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 23 Jul 2014 : 15:51:21
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Almost anyone
I'd be willing to bet that some of my earlier opinions of 4th Edition would make the paint on the wall crack and blister. It took a long time, and some very patient people using calm arguments and reasoned opinion, to demonstrate the merits that some of 4th Edition possessed.
A lot of the credit goes to folks like Diffan, who (as I have said before) took the position of "Well, I can't change your opinion on A ('A' being the timejump, the single most ridiculous part of the entire 4th edition, in my opinion, and they'd be right, that opinion will never change), but here's what I did with B, which I think might fit your bill, plus, have you ever considered that C might be looked at in THIS manner?" (Explanation then followed.)
I don't imagine you'll change your mind simply because I said you should. But I'm going to give them (WotC) the chance to impress me - James Wyatt had much as said that 4th Edition had "gone off the rails" - I am very interested in seeing how they get the train back on the tracks.
- OMH |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 23 Jul 2014 : 15:40:13
Almost anyone |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 23 Jul 2014 : 15:36:45
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I disagree. What makes setting books great is their coverage of the setting, not wasting page count with Generic Niftyclass #17, which has no connection to the setting at all other than a brief line in the description. If I want to read page-long stat blocks which may or may not have errors, I'll buy a book that focuses on those things.
When I buy a Realms sourcebook, I want it to tell me about the Realms.
Ah, but you're making a false comparison here, while simultaneously ignoring a huge chunk of previously printed game rules that did precisely what you want a Realms sourcebook to do for you.
I think we can agree that nobody wants rules for the sake of rules in Realms sourcebooks. Endless prestige classes (ala 3E) that required all of one page for a full writeup aren't what we're after here.
What does work are rules that are wrapped around Realmslore (which is how PrC's were supposed to be written, before WotC's bean counters decided that less is somehow more), like those found in 3E's Champions of Valor, that required five and a half pages and actually told the reader something about the Realms in addition to class information.
Likewise for the Books of the Forgotten Realms section in the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms (out of the Old Gray Box). Plenty of new spells, all grounded in the Realms, along with a healthy side of mundane and magical book traps, cool book descriptions (imminently useful to a DM) and awesome NPC names.
Adding rules to sourcebooks is not black and white. It's entirely possible to add rules to sourcebooks while increasing the available knowledge of the setting, because it's been done before.
Goodness...go away for a while (not voluntarily), and the debates start in earnest...
I have to agree with Jeremy's assessment - there are ways to give the gentle reader all the lore he could ever want, and still manage to insert applicable crunch. Sidebars, greyblock, appendices, there's more than one way to accomplish this. And there are multi-system conversion charts out there, so inserting stats for one's own system (WotC's, in this case) is a non-issue, really. A little cyber-legwork is all that's needed to get the numbers you need.
Seriously - I am among the biggest, most intractable grognards of the Keep, and I'm willing to see what's coming up with a (reasonably) open mind. If a grouchy old bastard like me can approach this issue with some measure of a positive mindset, anyone here can. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 21 Jul 2014 : 17:28:41
I believe there is a lot of merit in trying to keep things relatively separate. I think it does make sense, on the face of it, to sometimes include crunch in a regional source book. However, when you start digging a bit deeper, I think there are better alternatives.
Let's take the Unapproachable East as an example. In this book there are 72 pages devoted primarily to crunch material. This includes some new races such as Hagspawn, numerous Prestige Classes, Feats, Spells, Magic Items, and Monsters.
Now, I'm making a shot in the dark here, but I'm guessing that most people who bought the Unapproachable East were not buying it to get information on three new types of hags, three new types of trolls, how to cast Bladebane, the Ice Troll Berserker feat, the Shou Disciple PrC, or how to play a Volodni. I'm guessing most people bought the Unapproachable East because they wanted lore and information regarding the nations and power groups of the area. I'm assuming that was the driving force behind that purchase.
Now, I'm not saying all the other stuff is useless and should just be discarded. I just think there is a better way of handling things.
WotC has to realize that - especially moving forward - there are going to be more competitors on the market. I don't think 5E D&D is really going to magically hit the restart button and bring D&D back to the heights of 3E. I just don't see it. Some people are going to want to stick with older versions of D&D, others with Pathfinder, and there will be some people using other gaming systems as well from GURPS to FATE.
It's in the best interest of WotC and the success of the Realms to present books containing lore as rules neutral. We want people from other systems buying those books, because everyone who buys those books are supporting the continuation of the Realms.
There is also a flip side to this as well. The people who would be driven to buy a book like the Unapproachable East specifically for the Feats, Races, PrC's, Spells, Monsters, etc. For those people the opposite is true. They are buying a book just over 191 pages, and they're only using the first 80 or so of those pages.
This is a situation of WotC trying to market to everyone with every book they sell. I think that's understandable, but I just don't think this is the best way to do it.
One of the reasons this is a poor reason to do it - look at the PrC's. Notice anything missing from that list? We have before us a book about the Unapproachable East which focuses on Thay, and there is no Red Wizard on the PrC list. That's because it's in the 3E FRCS.
So here we have a situation where there is relevant information, but organizationally speaking it's scattered over multiple books. And this is true for a lot of stuff.
It makes more sense to organize and present material in a better manner. So, on one side you have the books containing the lore which are primarily rules neutral. Then on the other side, you have the books containing the crunch which is extremely rules heavy.
My preferred method of dealing with the setting crunch, which I think should exist - I'm not advocating for it to disappear, is to re-think how it's presented.
So, I would like to see WotC produce multiple Player's Handbooks over time. So, basically, you have the first Forgotten Realms Player's Handbook. In this book is a supplement to the Core Player's Handbooks, and it's designed to help you build a character in the Realms. It's going to contain all the relevant information for that. In 3E terminology, it's going to contain Classes, PrC's, Feats, Spells, and Items. It would also contain a bit of useful lore regarding the setting that is useful for a player to know when creating a character. This is a hugely useful book if you're playing D&D, not just for Realms players but for everyone.
In the first Player's Handbook the focus regarding the information would be the core areas of the Realms, as well as some of the iconic stuff (such as the Red Wizard PrC). But mostly we're dealing with Cormyr, the Western Heartlands, the Dales, the Moonsea, and the North.
In future Player's Handbooks there would be a focus on other regions of the Realms.
Beyond the Player's Handbooks there should be Monster Manuals dedicated to monsters that would appear in the Realms. In addition to the obvious stuff that would appear there, we'd get information on Hags and Trolls and their many regional variations, and some lore information on how they are integrated into the setting as an example. All of this stuff is useful to people who don't even play games in the Realms.
Moving beyond the Monster Manuals and Player Handbooks, there should be a Spell and Magic Item Compendium. This should deal with magic in the Realms generally speaking (so a bit of lore). It would contain all the previously printed spell, magic items, magic related feats, and other stuff related to magic in one centralized book updated where necessary. It would also contain new spells, magic items, and magic related feats. In essence, if you're playing a wizard in the Realms, this is an essential book to own.
There should be similar books for the Realms devoted to other core classes, such as Fighters and Rogues.
Finally, I'd like to see a Heroes and Villain's Lore Book. This is a combination of lore and crunch, with a more heavy focus on crunch. This is where iconic characters of the past and present would be discussed and given statblocks. It would also deal loosely with some of the more iconic organizations of the Realms such as the Harpers, Zhents, and Cult of the Dragon. However, the selling point of the Heroes and Villain's Lore Book is having iconic NPC's from the past and present fully detailed and ready for use.
This is how I prefer to see things broken down for the Realms when it comes to source books. Most books should be primarily or entirely either crunch or lore, and there may be some - where appropriate - are a synthesis of both.
The goal being obviously to focus on what people are buying those books for, giving them what they want, and trying to keep the material organized for ease of use instead of spreading it out over numerous different books. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 Jul 2014 : 06:14:32
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I disagree. What makes setting books great is their coverage of the setting, not wasting page count with Generic Niftyclass #17, which has no connection to the setting at all other than a brief line in the description. If I want to read page-long stat blocks which may or may not have errors, I'll buy a book that focuses on those things.
When I buy a Realms sourcebook, I want it to tell me about the Realms.
Ah, but you're making a false comparison here, while simultaneously ignoring a huge chunk of previously printed game rules that did precisely what you want a Realms sourcebook to do for you.
I think we can agree that nobody wants rules for the sake of rules in Realms sourcebooks. Endless prestige classes (ala 3E) that required all of one page for a full writeup aren't what we're after here.
What does work are rules that are wrapped around Realmslore (which is how PrC's were supposed to be written, before WotC's bean counters decided that less is somehow more), like those found in 3E's Champions of Valor, that required five and a half pages and actually told the reader something about the Realms in addition to class information.
Likewise for the Books of the Forgotten Realms section in the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms (out of the Old Gray Box). Plenty of new spells, all grounded in the Realms, along with a healthy side of mundane and magical book traps, cool book descriptions (imminently useful to a DM) and awesome NPC names.
Adding rules to sourcebooks is not black and white. It's entirely possible to add rules to sourcebooks while increasing the available knowledge of the setting, because it's been done before. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Jul 2014 : 05:47:10
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
It should be the goal of WotC to reach as many people as possible with their setting books. That means largely keeping them rules free.
I was about to disagree with this, since the crunchy rules in the OBG to the rules in the 3E FRCS were big parts of what made them great, and leaving zero rules in setting books was a great way to turn off customers.
I disagree. What makes setting books great is their coverage of the setting, not wasting page count with Generic Niftyclass #17, which has no connection to the setting at all other than a brief line in the description. If I want to read page-long stat blocks which may or may not have errors, I'll buy a book that focuses on those things.
When I buy a Realms sourcebook, I want it to tell me about the Realms. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 21 Jul 2014 : 02:47:24
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Wow, I just found out what a "neckbeard" is. #yesIamold
-- George Krashos
Ummmm, please share, because I was wondering
Rather than sidetrack the thread I'll direct you to the Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neckbeard
-- George Krashos |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 23:45:17
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
It should be the goal of WotC to reach as many people as possible with their setting books. That means largely keeping them rules free.
I was about to disagree with this, since the crunchy rules in the OBG to the rules in the 3E FRCS were big parts of what made them great, and leaving zero rules in setting books is a great way to turn off customers.
But then you wrote something genius:
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
I still think they should publish a Player's Guide, and in there they can load that with tons of rules crunch. They can also publish a Forgotten Realms Monster Manual. If books like that are primarily devoted to crunch rather than lore, then they're useful to people who might not be interested in the Forgotten Realms, but who want to use that material for a different setting - so they're useful to everyone who plays 5E D&D.
For the longest time I couldn't figure out how WotC could straddle the line between crunch and fluff with 5E, but yours is the solution for it.
People need rules, and the Realms need rules that are presented as part of the setting. And not just for the crunch freaks that one might unsympathetically assume don't care at all about the Realms, but the players that like to meld rules and Realmslore to create awesome characters and great campaigns.
I have to say the 3E Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerun was one of the most useful little books WotC ever published. I have two of them for a reason.
The 3E FRCS was a great for the crunch it had. It's job was to demonstrate how the (new at the time) rules could be used in a campaign. It was a primer for DMs and players, and also a first look at the (still under development at the time) Epic Level rules.
So having rules in at least two of the three "core" rulebooks for the Realms is just a great idea.
Beyond the 5E Realms campaign book, player's guide and monster manual (assuming we get all these), the 5E Realms sourcebooks, whatever form they take, need rules in them.
Neverwinter and the Volo's Guides are examples I hope WotC follows in this regard, along with a crunchy book of spells and magic items every so often where the entries for items and spells are wrapped up nicely in Realmslore introductions and NPC quotes before you get to the crunchy goodness inside. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 22:47:19
and the end answer to the op's question is
wait and see |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 21:53:50
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
That's up to the individual to decide for themselves. Does it mean that ALL the history up to that point is now useless? If I'm playing a GURPS game set in Germany, does it matter that the Berlin Wall has been torn down or does it effect my game?
The history holds some relevance, but whether or not certain key points of history have occurred yet creates drastic changes in a setting.
For instance, taking the Berlin Wall example, before the wall fell, Germany was divided into East and West and the Soviet Union was in full swing. After the wall fell, the two parts of Germany were reunited as one (families were reunited, some who haven't seen each other for over four decades).
The fall of the wall signaled the end of the Soviet Union, gone was the traditional foe of the West in the Cold War. The 'Iron Curtain' was no more and the face of Europe changed practically over night as the Soviet satellite states (Warsaw Pact countries) gained full independence, and the various Soviet Republics themselves split from Russia.
With the collapse of the USSR and the reunification of Europe were huge implicates, massive economic issues, the question of borders (which is relevant to this day, almost 25 years later), issue of military equipment allocation including nuclear arms (and even things like decrepit incomplete carrier hulls, which Ukraine sold to China who refurbished it into a working vessel). Economic issues also affected countries like Cuba who traded with the USSR and possibly depended on aid from there.
The fall of the Soviet Union also played a part in the collapse of Yugoslavia and a slew of violence in that region as the component states fought each other for territory (there are some incidents of ethnic cleansing in the region).
While it's true Walled Berlin is not entirely different from post-Wall Berlin, much happened that affected the status quo for your statement to just gloss over that fact.
Even from a gamer perspective, games like Twilight 2000 and Fortress America using the USSR as the foe suddenly became less relevant.
Keep in mind the Wall's fall and the break-up of the USSR was a relatively non-violent transition, a far cry from Klingons bombarding Earth or Abeir exchanging regions with Toril.
Note this about game design. The past is nice to have, but it's the present and the implications it has for the future that has the most immediate, relevant impact for the game (and the players).
Shade Enclave was a historical footnote until it shifted back to Toril to re-establish Netheril. Imaskar is just a legend until the players break into a long lost tomb and discover active magical guardians from that era. A lineage of Cormyrean kings is just a list until one of their revenant corpses has risen to slay the current heir and threatens the entire kingdom.
The lore of a living setting from the pre-4E era is of limited use when the current living setting overrides large portions of it, removed either directly by catastrophic events or indirectly through the passage of in-game time.
The current clack of 1E/2E/3E was active in their era, not so much in 4E. Sure you could apply some of the stuff for Waterdeep, etc. with minimal conversion, but in the areas drastically altered, there is far more work involved. Later on in your post, you insinuate fans like me cannot or will not adapt material for our games.
Consider this, if enough has changed to required the efforts in conversion as the 3E/4E difference, then why bother? Why not stay in the 3E era or use other settings. Well, whole segments of fans did just that.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The point is, it only affects those trying to run a "Canon" game, but we know that it's impossible to do because the instant a character or NPC enters the setting that hasn't been officially documented turns the game away from Canon. Adhering to Canon in FR for playing games is factually impossible. And if your willing to create NEW content (ie. you have a un-official plot and characters) then you might as well just treat other aspect of the setting as a buffet.
Your canonicity argument is a strawman. We could go back and forth for decades this way - "No, the second Ed sold the rights to TSR, the Realms were non-canon" "Everything under the sun is canon." "Pre-ToT was the cut off point" "It's not until the characters cause a new event" "The microsecond the DM decides to start a game is the infinitesimal moment of canon divergence" et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
What if the DM has a single houserule, then is the group even playing "D&D". What of groups playing D&D 3E using the 4E setting, are they thus non-canon.
This gets really silly and not how anything really functions.
If we take the discussion this far, why market anything as the Realms at all, why not just offer up each region a la carte like Nentir Vale and the 4E Core pseudo-setting. WotC tried it and for whatever reason, they're going with something different this time. Just as they're implementing changes to the 4E Realms for some reason or another. Obviously they find value in a Realms branded item, whatever form it will take come 5E.
I see it as a spectrum represented by one of those graphs that approaches an infinite limit (perhaps a two-sided one). On one side are people who only play using the Grey Box and with each change we have different numbers of fans who feel the setting is still identifiable as the Realms. As we approach 4E, more and more fans feel it's not. Now, to be sure, some fans are new to the Realms via 4E so they'll counter the Not-Realms number somewhat.
Then there are people who feels anything can apply, say people who feel 'anthropomorphic space hamster psionic stormtroopers' fits perfectly in the Realms. They're your infinite limit where the line approaches but never intersects zero.
Somewhere in there is a sweet spot and that's the answer to the multi-million dollar question WotC is trying to get at. From the looks of it, full on 4E Realms wasn't that sweet spot. If it were, we'd skip all the Sundering pretense.
For all we know, the ideal position could lay in the future say 9E when Toril is long destroyed and the main Realms world is Lirot recently impacted by Rieba; an event that spawned deal for a #1 TV show lasting six seasons followed by a successful trillion dollar movie franchise.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So what? Who forced a gun to your head to use those areas in that specific direction in your games? Did WotC send the brute squad and tell you that YOU MUST claim Lantan is sunk or that Mulhorandi has vanished? Nope, pretty sure they didn't. Yeah, I'll agree that it sucks if you had a campaign there and they didn't "update" it to the current timeline. But, in all seriousness, not matter what they wrote I feel there's a good chance any change would've been considered "bad", "Terrible", "not thought through", "goes against previous canon", or all the other usual opinions that crop up when change occurs in the Realms.
Then why do you care if Wizards shifts back "fantasy Egypt" and "fantasy Mexico" and "fantasy Babylon". You have your template for suitable replacements, you don't need to stick to canon. WotC isn't going to come to your house and seize your 4E books for the Great 4E Book Burning at Renton. It sucks if you had a campaign there, but nothing says you must have the shift happen. In your Realms, Tymanther and Akanul could continue to exist along side the 5E Realms.
See how that works.
Really, WotC demonstrated around the time of 4E there were only two processes to get what we want. Either discuss it rampantly online (like the anti-Realms doomsayers who presaged 4E) and/or spend your money as appropriate to support or not support a product.
I'm not saying WotC held a gun to my head. I'm telling them flat out their new toys suck and I think a revision of the old toys would be better and something I would be more willing to buy. I put forth my reasons for it. Others put forth theirs. You put forth yours according to your reasons.
There wasn't much (if any) complaining about the Mulhorandi invasion of Unther, because it was a good change that altered the status quo and not only preserved the existing material of the region but used what was there to make the area more interesting.
The alternative offered in 4E was a wholecloth replacement using invented mechanisms (very out-of-left-field concepts). While not the worst thing by itself, they were part of a whole elaborate (but not really elaborate) process that broke immersion for a number of fans.
Your mileage varied and you feel you could go some distance with it, but for some of us, WotC siphoned fuel from our tanks with the 4E changes and transition. Seeing as you're stranded in the old location, we either set up shop where we stand and/or hitch a ride with another company, neither involves the new material or WotC. We're wary when the WotC tanker comes in offering us gas.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As opposed to TSRs change a thing every other decade? If TSR had it their way I daresay we'd be cresting 1362 DR as the current timeline and nothing would've changed the setting in any way, shape, or form. If that's what people want, I'd rather just have the novels be removed as Canon and EVERYTHING after the OGB be considered alternate.
Quite a few significant RSE type events happened on TSR's watch, including the Time of Troubles and the Invasion of the Tuigan Horde, all in the span of a few years. Some less dramatic but equally significant events also occurred such as the discovery of Maztica, the Reunification of Tethyr, even ideas like the Manshoon Wars and the Harper Schism were not (or should not have been) mundane events. If we're seeing those as "nothing" and it takes alternate worlds colliding and a century of time passing to feel like 'change', then I'd say we've become callous to RSEs.
If the fans want such drastic changes, then forget about restarting at the OGB, that wouldn't be enough. "Forgotten Realms" should become a brand of settings much like how Final Fantasy has a different setting for each game in the series. They can even have different lead designers for each setting. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 18:11:03
Fixing the realms to me, will involve, seeing some of the authors we love signed to new contracts. I hate seeing so many great authors in limbo right now.
|
| Demzer |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 17:18:23
Are there news regarding the fate of Dragon and Dungeon magazine?
Now that people has got the new rules (either for free from the Basic download or with the Starter Set) they could start pushing out the magazines again, right?
Seeing the magazines again would be a great step in the right direction.
Also on the topic of Monster Manuals, i was very pleased when i found the ones with "XXXXX in the Realms" and "XXXXX in Eberron" sections following the XXXXX monster stats and description (i think it started with 3.5E MM III). They could add small sections for all the settings they plan to support thus keeping the MMs setting neutral while giving setting information to all.
And yeah, i know "wordcount" but during 3.XE they published five (!!!) Monster Manuals and while there were hidden gems in each one, most things past the third were unpronounceable-named things with even more tentacles and basic monsters with class levels, so they can spare the space for some setting specific sections in the monster entries. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 17:05:14
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What I mean is that we need a setting book about the setting and not a book for TONS of extra mechanics. And I say this as someone who LOVES game mechanics. Looking at both the FRCS and FRCG they both contained WAAAY to much stuff about the rules of the system, instead of rules of the setting. Imagine how much space would've been opened up if the removed ALL the spells, feats, prestige classes, and races from the book and instead focused on stories that were going on, on a new area discovered, a new and emerging organization?
I agree with this 100%. WotC can't ensure that a suitable number of people will move over to 5th Edition. There will certainly still be people left over playing Pathfinder, 3.5 D&D, 4E D&D, AD&D, and tons of other rule systems too numerous to name from FATE to GURPS to Burning Wheel.
It should be the goal of WotC to reach as many people as possible with their setting books. That means largely keeping them rules free.
I still think they should publish a Player's Guide, and in there they can load that with tons of rules crunch. They can also publish a Forgotten Realms Monster Manual. If books like that are primarily devoted to crunch rather than lore, then they're useful to people who might not be interested in the Forgotten Realms, but who want to use that material for a different setting - so they're useful to everyone who plays 5E D&D.
Basically, I think this is one of the best ways to ensure as many people as possible buy the books; by creating the maximum amount of value for the maximum number of people. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 11:32:41
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Wow, I just found out what a "neckbeard" is. #yesIamold
-- George Krashos
Ummmm, please share, because I was wondering |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 08:35:13
I figured another reiteration of the topic, after Wooly's angry red face, might be in order.
And I agree with you Hobbitfan that WotC is taking much more care this time around to make both the game and setting like-able to as many people as possible. I think they'll have a success if they produce in-depth content that speaks more to the setting than the rules that the setting precariously clings to. What I mean is that we need a setting book about the setting and not a book for TONS of extra mechanics. And I say this as someone who LOVES game mechanics. Looking at both the FRCS and FRCG they both contained WAAAY to much stuff about the rules of the system, instead of rules of the setting. Imagine how much space would've been opened up if the removed ALL the spells, feats, prestige classes, and races from the book and instead focused on stories that were going on, on a new area discovered, a new and emerging organization? |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 07:46:39
I don't know what they're doing but I'm cautiously optimistic based upon what I've seen of 5E thus far. And I'm hopeful based upon some stuff some of the Sundering authors said.
As to restating the intial thread title in more positive language I mentioned that back on page 4. So I'm not sure why you are bringing that up now Diffan. You have been in this discussion in the pages between now and then. So you know how the discussion developed.
I know it's been rough and there has been some back and forth but I've tried to address that concern. I obviously did not do a good enough job then if its coming back up again. That's the first point. Now for the second...
My guess would WOTc is going to try and design the 5E realms to be frinedly to fans of all editions, like they are trying to do with the rules in 5E.
I'm understandably curious as to how this is going to play out.
edit: I like the idea of exploring parts of the Forgotten Realms not explored before.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 06:32:46
"Has WotC Committed to Fixing the Realms?"
A strange question considering that MANY don't feel the Realms need fixing to begin with. Now I think a better question is: Is WotC on the path of making the Realms more relevant with this new edition?
To that question, I answer yes. I think they took a look at what worked in 4E and the Spellplague and what worked previous to that. Certainly the plethora of deities was something people wanted, so we got many (if not all) back. Certainly people were mad that areas were removed, so I think we're getting them back. Now lets hope that WotC can both support the setting from that perspective BUT also acknowledge that people like NEW stuff too. There are HUGE areas of Toril that are unexplored. Well.....lets EXPLORE them! I feel if they want to keep post-Spellplague people happy then they need to start putting things in these areas that are new or unique or fun but don't insist on relying on decades of lore to contribute to. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 05:44:53
Folks, we are not heading anywhere close to productive right now. Back on topic, please.  |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 20 Jul 2014 : 05:28:30
edit: I had a post here but I think it better if you guys talk that last exchange over between yourselves without me getting in the middle.
No need for me to meddle... |
|
|
