| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 04:54:22
So the Sundering is rumored to be the last RSE, yes? What happens after that? If something "big" happens in a series/novel, I seem to remember reading somewhere that things return to the "status quo" by the end. Does this mean there will be no more RSEs? I'll admit I'm tired of the Realms being shaken up and turned over, but I don't want things to become "static", either.
Thoughts?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 20 Sep 2014 : 17:14:59
Wow... heated folder.... I'll just throw out my personal thoughts real quick
YAY Leira!
Myrkul? Yeah, if he comes back as a deity, let it be in the form of a planar bound deity tied to the Crown of Myrkul, such that if the crown were destroyed his priests would have difficulty granting power. Oh, and make it that he's NOT actively seeking godhood... he kind of just can't prevent it (not sure how to work that offhand).
Bring Back Velsharoon..... but with some twist. |
| Krafus |
Posted - 20 Sep 2014 : 14:04:19
Aldrick: What about the Crown's powers to create lesser and greater shadowraths under the control of the Crown's wearer, as seen in the Campaign Guide of the City of Splendors boxed set? I thought the ability to create unique undead creatures was a very nifty power. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 20 Sep 2014 : 03:52:46
Re: Crown of Horns & Myrkul's Return.
This is an easy situation to solve. The Crown of Horns simply becomes a divinely touched artifact. The powers and abilities of the Crown may shift a bit, but it should still exist and be fully functional UNLESS it was somehow destroyed / drained to fuel Myrkul's re-ascension to divinity.
Assuming the Crown of Horns was not destroyed / drained of power then it's only logical to conclude that it is now a very valuable divine artifact.
The way I'd personally choose to use it would be...
1. I'd assert that it is a highly prized holy relic of the newly re-founded cult of Myrkul.
2. That the Crown of Horns is to be worn by the 'High Priest' of the cult.
3. That the cult believes that Myrkul can directly commune with the High Priest, who then in turn relays the messages from the deity to the faithful. I would, however, always leave room for doubt here. I'd want the High Priest to at least appear a bit crazy, and have room for people to wonder if the power of the Crown has driven him mad or if he's really receiving visions / instructions from the deity.
Here are the powers I'd give the Crown:
- Non-faithful or those who reject Myrkul's re-ascension to divinity must make a very difficult will save, or be struck with fear and terror while in the presence of the wearer of the Crown.
- The Faithful of Myrkul must make a very difficult will save, or be struck with awe and reverence while in the presence of the wearer of the Crown.
- The Crown is 100% immune to all magic, whether beneficial or harmful to the Crown.
- The Crown is 100% immune to all known forms of damage, whether magical or mundane. It cannot be destroyed through any known means - though there may be a way to eventually accomplish it.
- Once every 10 minutes and at will, the wearer of the Crown may attempt to Destroy or Command all nearby Undead. This power bypasses all forms of resistance, and requires the Undead to make a difficult will save. Any Undead that are Commanded are held under the power of the Crown, and not the wearer of the Crown. However, they will obey the wearer of the Crown unless the Crown itself desires something different. They may only be commanded while the Crown is worn, but they cannot harm or retaliate against anyone who has worn the Crown once it's removed.
- Once every 10 minutes and at will, the wearer of the Crown may attempt to magically slay any living creature with the touch of his hand. The living creature must make a difficult fortitude save or die; falling to the ground screaming in agony before going into shock and dying. They cannot be resurrected; as once they are dead their soul is bound to the Crown. The wearer of the Crown may then summon anyone so slain as a Wraith which is under the control of the Crown (and therefore nominally under the control of the wearer of the Crown). Anyone slain by the Wraith is also bound to the Crown in an identical fashion.
- All Necromantic Magic is empowered while wearing the Crown. (Determined by DM.)
- Divine Spellcasters of Myrkul receive additional bonuses to their spellcasting abilities. (Determined by DM.)
Potential Drawbacks
- From the moment the Crown is placed on the head of a living creature it forms a bond with that creature.
- Through the bond with the creature it instantaneously knows all of it's memories, fears, ambitions, and other drives. The Crown will seek to manipulate the individual into doing it's bidding, using all of this knowledge against the wearer.
- Through the bond with the creature it begins to drain it's life force. If only worn for a brief time, it could take decades for the crown to fully absorb the life force of someone who has worn it. However, on average use it will take as little as two years (24 months). Using at will powers of the Crown drains the life essence of the wearer even faster (1d4 months are lost each use).
- Eventually, anyone who has worn the crown will have their life force completely drained, and at this point they will be transformed into a Lich. Their soul will become permanently bound to the Crown, which in turn will become their phylactery. All individuals such turned are fully under the sway and control of the Crown.
- When the life force is fully drained, and a new lich is created the Crown has two options. First, it may allow the lich to keep its sentience. Second, it may allow a previously created lich to be 'reborn' into the body of the newly created lich. In this way, those who once faithfully served the Crown may be reborn.
- The Crown has a 100% chance of sensing all living and undead creatures within 100 feet.
- The Crown has the ability to use Detect Thoughts on any sentient creature within 100 feet. It has a 100% chance of success in achieving this.
- The Crown can manipulate those it has Detected Thoughts of regardless of distance for 1d20 days. The manipulations are subtle, and it's goal is to attempt to encourage individuals to wear it and use it.
- Individuals who have worn the Crown begin to suffer from extremely life-like hallucinations. All hallucinations center around death and the dead. The longer the Crown is worn, or the more it is used the more the 'world of reality' and the 'world of the dead' merge together in the mind - to the point where it can no longer be mentally separated. This coincides with the life force draining ability.
Example 1: As a former wearer of the Crown walks down the street the people around him suddenly start to appear ill or dying. He notices some of them appear to break out in sores, while others appear to develop life threatening wounds, and while still others seem to age rapidly before his eyes - growing old and frail. He will instinctively realize that he's witnessing how each of them will die, those who have the sores will die of plague, those with the life threatening wounds will be murdered, and meanwhile those who appear frail and old will die of old age. Is it true? Is it a mere possibility? Or is it fate as the Jergalites would say? Or are they simply going mad? That's left up to speculation. To everyone else, everyone seen appears completely normal.
Example 2: As a former wearer of the Crown walks into a mortuary, one of the nearby corpses turns toward him and begins to speak. It talks to him about her life, the things she left unfinished, and other things of interest. He can carry on a conversation with her as if she were living, and standing right there next to him. In fact, she looks just as she did in life, and it's very difficult to tell that she's dead at all. Such beings always speak highly of Lord Myrkul, singing his praises, his glory, and his ultimate triumph. It is irrelevant whether or not they served him in life, or were even his most bitter enemy. According to them, all serve Lord Myrkul in the end. All such individuals, whether they knew the former wearer in life, will know intimate details about them. They will call him by his name, and speak to him as if they were friends and intimately familiar. All such beings are manipulative toward one goal or another, though it's usually unclear whether it's manipulative toward the ends of the Crown or toward the ends of the dead individual. To anyone observing these exchanges, it appears as if they're talking to a corpse and having a one-sided conversation. Are they going mad? Are these hallucinations really the dead speaking or is it all a trick by the Crown? This is all left up to speculation.
- Individuals slain by the powers of the Crown may appear from time to time as hallucinations to communicate to someone who has worn the Crown.
- As time passes, an individual who has worn the Crown will be drawn to places of mass death, such as battlefields and mass graves. Once there, the individual may witness spirits re-enacting their final moments, or screaming out in agony and pain from beyond the grave. Others may attempt to communicate with the individual.
- Over time an individual who has worn the Crown will develop a sixth-sense around death. He will sense when someone is dying nearby, or someone who has just recently died. He will be able to instinctively find his way to such locations, and should he visit such locations he will feel the power of Myrkul strongest there. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Sep 2014 : 00:00:39
We're I you, I would keep on expressing myself.
If you feel like you're being belittled, take it to the moderators. If that's not practical, take it to the website owner. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 22:07:06
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I think several people in this scroll need to stop acting like everyone hates the same things that they hate. Or trying to define what a FR fan is.
My apologies if I contributed to this. I know from experience that it's frustrating at least (and more often infuriating) to feel like my stance is being belittled or ignored, particularly if it also seems like nobody even gets my point of view. So I don't want to cause that feeling. 
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 21:18:52
quote:
Originally posted by Krafus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Godsbane was an avatar, not an artifact.
Then why couldn't WotC rule that after Myrkul's return in 5e, the Crown of Horns becomes an avatar shapeshifted into an object?
They could, but that would be a retcon, because it had been previously stated that the Crown of Horns was an artifact and that his remaining essence took refuge in it, after his near-demise on the top of Blackstaff Tower. |
| Krafus |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 20:45:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Godsbane was an avatar, not an artifact.
Then why couldn't WotC rule that after Myrkul's return in 5e, the Crown of Horns becomes an avatar shapeshifted into an object? |
| Irennan |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 20:37:23
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
Did I like everything about the each transition? Of course not. But I'd rather get some bad with the good than having a stale setting where nothing ever changes.
Yeah, but the point of the recent discussion is (I think) that changes should happen to tell a story, build upon it and enrich the setting, not because now wizards can cast 1 more spell/day and fighters can do some acrobatic fancy move, or because designers thought ''hey, lets get rid of this''. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 18:45:50
I think several people in this scroll need to stop acting like everyone hates the same things that they hate. Or trying to define what a FR fan is (mostly I'm seeing is that a true FR fan has to think exactly like the guy making the definition).
I've only been around the Realms since after the ToT. I was introduced to the setting with the Baldur's Gate PC games and I've been a big fan of the setting ever since. And yeah, I'm one of those fans that have actually liked the transitions from each edition to the next, something that a lot of people around here wants to pretend doesn't exist.
Did I like everything about the each transition? Of course not. But I'd rather get some bad with the good than having a stale setting where nothing ever changes. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 16:33:37
An idea i have stolen for the Masked Lady. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 16:21:59
quote:
Originally posted by Krafus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
He can't be an intelligent artifact and a deity at the same time.
Why not? For a while, Mask was both Mask and Cyric's gods-killing sword, Godsbane. This came back to bite Mask hard in Prince of Lies, when Cyric broke Godsbane's blade.
As for Myrkul and the Crown of Horns, when Myrkul returns in 5e, one could rule the Crown is similar to Godsbane: a sentient artifact invested with part of Myrkul's divine essence, which allows him do things gods normally cannot, but will result in a loss of divine power should the Crown somehow be broken/destroyed. This way, the Crown would be both an advantage and a weakness.
Godsbane was an avatar, not an artifact. |
| Krafus |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 15:33:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
He can't be an intelligent artifact and a deity at the same time.
Why not? For a while, Mask was both Mask and Cyric's gods-killing sword, Godsbane. This came back to bite Mask hard in Prince of Lies, when Cyric broke Godsbane's blade.
As for Myrkul and the Crown of Horns, when Myrkul returns in 5e, one could rule the Crown is similar to Godsbane: a sentient artifact invested with part of Myrkul's divine essence, which allows him do things gods normally cannot, but will result in a loss of divine power should the Crown somehow be broken/destroyed. This way, the Crown would be both an advantage and a weakness. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 15:26:56
All I'll say is that time and things change and not often for the better. What seems likea good idea at the moment, can flop later on.
|
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 07:21:00
Thanks George. I can only guess what your reactions would have been if they had told you anything specific about 4e. It would have been insanely difficult for any fan to keep quiet about that.
And I really wish more time had been available for the Grand History. It's a vital resource as-is, but a longer book with more detailed references would have been even awesomer. I also loved the profile/detail pages throughout, and more of those would have been great too. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 06:43:19
I won't comment overmuch on the 1E to 2E changeover as I was a fan just like everyone else back then. To me, that change in edition was clearly rules driven. The death of the Bhaal assassins was the clincher for me in this regard. Salvatore has an anecdote where he was told to kill off Entereri because he was an "assassin" (i.e. the 1E class) wherupon he told them that he was no such thing. Entreri was a fighter/thief who killed people for money! Salvatore, if anything, has always been able to look after his protagonists.
I can however give you a little bit of a quasi-insider's view of the 2E to 3E changeover as it applied to the Realms. Again, rules changes did act as a catalyst for some changes - the Thunder Blessing used as a reason for wizard dwarves etc. What was clear however was that there were some things that were set in stone, and were new because a whole bunch of FR fiction was going to revolve around them - the most obvious example was Shade. I sent more than a few increasingly pointed e-mails trying to argue that bringing back a full blown city full of Netherese arcanists was overkill, unbalancing and difficult to reconcile in the "greater FR scheme of things". As is their wont of course, WotC didn't bother to tell us "commentators" that The Return of the Archwizards novel trilogy was happening right behind us. Their decisions and lack of flexibility on some "issues" became clearer after the novels started rolling out.
In that regard I think that the OP's point about the importance of Cyric and co to the ToT has some validity, but not totally so. Gaming products and novels came hand in hand in those days. Each had a stint driving the bus by turns (I think the fiction line got behind the wheel a bit more during the 1E to 2E transition, but that's only supposition on my part).
The "running it past the fans" comment is an interesting one. I was at GEN-CON In 2007 when I was made privy to the FR changes that were looming in th 3E to 4E transition. When I say privy, I'm talking broad brushstrokes (i.e. basically the 100 year gap). The details (ala killing off Mystra, earthmotes, an even greater Rift, et. al.) weren't offered up. Heck, we smashed ourselves to get GHotR out in a 6-week time period (yes kids, 6 weeks from "we have a project ..." to "it's a wrap because we have no more time") not knowing what additional 3E to 4E "history" the staffers were planning on tacking on. Brian and I had a good catch up at GEN-CON this year where we talked about what we could have done if we'd only had three or so more months (think of a GHotR that's twice the size of the one you have now with product/page references to every timeline entry ...).
To get back on topic, I think that edition changes are seen as an opportunity to shake things up, introduce the new and the wonderful, add a bit of pizzazz to the staleness and (in some cases) blow up the moon. RSEs are not everyone's cup of tea, but there is one truism about them: they are dynamic and can be the catalyst and generator of significant gaming activity, whether fiction or straight gaming stuff.
And that's the kernel of why they occur: they impart energy to the brand and provide a justification and framework for both gaming and fiction opporunities. RSEs are here to stay I think. The powers that be have become comfortable in using them and have forgotten that there is any other way.
-- George Krashos |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 06:37:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Other than removing a couple of deities, I don't see that doors were shut. And with new deities, the followers of fallen deities, changes to magic, and the lesser effects of the ToT, I think it created a lot more doors than we had closed by not having a couple deities.
I can agree that new doors were opened. I think the door labeled Cyric was mishandled. Wild-magic and magic-dead zones, which you mention further down, were in fact spiffy ideas, and I like them enough to divorce them from the TOT and use them. We could have gotten the positive changes without the TOT. The negative ones are part of canon until WotC either admits they made a mistake and rectifies it (something they're not in the habit of doing) or finds a way to revert history without pissing off the fans of later settings. Hopefully the Sundering will accomplish the latter. No bitterness intended toward the fans of the 4e setting. I can't comprehend those of you who like both 4e and the earlier editions, but you're represented by some people I respect, so I'm still working on it. 
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You could say similar things about every single change that's ever been made in the Realms.
Quite so. Probably the majority of them, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But if it's all optional, then nothing is changing in the setting. And if nothing is changing, you're not selling anything.
Here we reach an impasse. You and I have fundamental disagreements on how to manage a setting, and neither one of us has convinced each other in the past. I have no interest in rehashing it or making either of us hot under the collar. We just have different wants and/or perspectives on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
By leaving the door open for who returns to the outer planes after the TOT, they would have made more money and failed nobody.
Except they would have failed everyone who wanted to see -- or enjoyed seeing -- things change in the setting.
I'm not advocating a lack of change. Just a different set of priorities. I don't think it would have to reduce their revenue (which obviously they wouldn't be willing to do) but I'm no expert. It would, however, mean more original work and more creativity, and maybe they're just not interested in expending that either. Or perhaps we the fans have not yet clamored effectively enough for the rest of Toril to be illuminated. Whatever the case, 5e is the dawn of a new era and I'm cautiously optimistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms
No, the entire point of the ToT was to provide an in-game explanation for the changes caused by changing from 1E to 2E. This has been stated many times in the past; it is the official statement from TSR. You may not like it, you may disagree with its necessity, but it is what TSR chose to do.
My problem with WotC's stated intent for the TOT is that it's not rational. So I guess if that really was their intent with the TOT then I can avoid accusing anyone of lying by calling them irrational.
What heralded the dawn of 3e? I mean other than huge jumps in a lot of population numbers. The 3e changes in the ruleset were just as dramatic as those in 2e. If changes in the rules require changes in the settings, then how did we get 3e?
If assassins were killed due to the rules change rather than the death of Bhaal --and assuming that Bhaal didn't get axed simply because assassins were already on the executioner's block, because that wouldn't have made any sense at all-- then why didn't all the cavaliers die off? They weren't a class in the 2e PH either. Yay for whoever liked Azoun IV enough to put his foot down and say "you're not killing off all the cavaliers." It's too bad that this didn't save assassins, because the logic behind their fate is a mystery. I'll get back to this below.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The overwhelming majority of us lost absolutely nothing, because this event happened far enough back that most of us were not Realms fans when it happened.
Should we stop teaching pre-1995 history, because nobody who's in K-12 schools today was alive when that stuff happened? If there's a sliding scale by which we judge Realmslore to be more or less valid/important based on when it happens, then I have even more to get pissy about.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So if Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul "weren't really there", then why complain about their removal?
The illustration I can think of has the potential to be inflammatory, and I'm guessing some might object that it's not at all the same thing. The logic of it is the same even if the emotional volatility isn't.
If you have a dog, who gives birth to a litter of several puppies, and one of them dies shortly after birth... does it not matter, because they were barely born anyway? Even if you're pragmatic about it, I'm guessing your dog has a bad day over it. And gods help the parents who lose newborn children.
I'm not going to call Leira, Bhaal, or Myrkul a puppy or a baby. I will say that they were part of the Realms as Ed presented it to TSR and subsequently to us, and it bugs me that (a) they were summarily executed, (b) the story used to remove them was poorly constructed, (c) we're not allowed to move past it because it's continually brought up in subsequent products, (d) we never even learned about them before they were taken away, and (e) the dolt who took their places is a dolt.
Now, in your mind, part D might mean that we lost nothing. I get that. To me, though, the pantheon and in fact the Realms took shape the way it did due in part to them, and that makes them relevant. Ed was almost undoubtedly thinking of Leira when he created Nimral... so it would be a different place if Leira didn't exist; she's part of the history and social structure of that land and its colonies. She's part of playing an illusionist. Bhaal wasn't just the god of murder, he was the god of assassins. Assassins exist in every world, but in Faerun they had a divine patron who actively watched them and pushed them, and they were skilled because they had to be... failure meant a hideous death and becoming a warning to other slackers. That affects the lives of every merchant and ruler who fears death, which means all of them. Nobody wants to meet Myrkul, of course, but that's a pretty abstract fear. The hands of Bhaal are a far more tangible and immediate threat. Myrkul wasn't a cold god of death like those in other worlds... he was a genius, perpetually calm and collected, and he actively terrorized the people of the Realms... not because it was his "job" but because he enjoyed it. I'm reading into the few sources we have a bit, sure, but Ed and THO are more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong... that would mean more lore.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?
And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?
Simply put, no explanation is needed. And they didn't just lose their special abilities; that would have been okay. They freakin died, and that introduces a huge inconsistency... which is in the next quote.
Regarding explanation of rules changes: DMs and players are divided into two groups with each new ruleset: those who will use the new rules, and those who will not. If you're going to use the new ruleset, you may translate a few favorite PCs into the new rules but for the most part you're going to be creating new characters with the new rules. If you're going to stick with an old ruleset, no translation is necessary and you make new characters using the old rules as the need arises. Neither group needs an explanation as to why X-edition characters of a particular class have a certain set of abilities and Y-edition characters have a different list of abilities, or why infravision suddenly changed to darkvision. If you're using the new rules, it's always been that way because you're translating everybody into the new rules. If you're using the old rules, then nothing changes in your world.
That being the case, an RSE to herald the new ruleset is at best wholly unnecessary, and it's worse for everyone using an old ruleset. Not that WotC has historically given any regard to players of old rulesets, but the point stands because they should have.
The question of whether or not you like a particular RSE is completely separate. I can understand your approval of the outcome of the TOT; I'm sure some others approved too. I get the impression some even like Cyric. Crazytalk! But that's fine; it changes nothing regarding the necessity of the RSE (none, zero, zilch) or the primary purpose of the RSE being to explain the rules changes (a bit of spin-doctoring).
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Also, removing the assassin class does not remove assassins from the game and it doesn't make a god of assassins useless. There's no blacksmith class, but obviously blacksmiths exist.
Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.
This was my response to this, from earlier:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The point of the event was to have an in-game explanation for changing the rules. Two deities were a necessary casualty of this (no assassins means a god of assassins is superfluous, etc)
I should probably have picked a better example. In spite of the fact that WotC killed off Leira, illusionists didn't drop dead in their tracks. Furthermore, wizards didn't die when Mystra blew herself up trying to get past Helm. Therefore, killing Bhaal didn't necessitate killing all the assassins.
If you're going to argue that the reverse was true --that Bhaal was killed because assassins were being removed from the PC class list-- then all barbarians, cavaliers, monks, and thief-acrobats, and their gods, would need to be killed as well since they were also removed from the PC class list. I conclude, from the fact that none of those classes keeled over en masse and none of their gods died, that there was no connection between getting rid of assassins and getting rid of Bhaal.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Again, TSR said that the point of the Time of Troubles was to explain changes to the setting. You may disagree with that, but doing so is calling everyone at TSR a liar.
Nah. Lying is an assertive, deliberate thing. I don't have the ESP or cc'd emails to prove that anyone was lying. I'm just saying that this stated reason doesn't work. If I were accusing anyone of lying, it would just be the one person telling everyone what to say. Nobody else would be lying... just doing their jobs.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
How could TSR have sold anything that was built around "yeah, so everything in this product may or may not have happened in the setting?" How could they have sold any future products, when they didn't have a definite baseline for what had changed before?
One interesting possibility is writing about characters in the Realms instead of writing about gods. A short story about gods here and there, or even a novel here and there, is great. Making it into a godswar is excessive; that's the kind of thing that should stay in individual home campaigns, much like my sarrukh takeover.
Also, many adventures are created around the idea that you can run them in your campaign, and the official material won't contradict whatever outcome your PCs reach. This is true for (I think) the majority of adventures. Certainly true for recent "core" non-specific adventures since they don't take place in an actual setting anymore. Also true for Dungeon magazine adventures, even those set specifically in the Realms, at least back in the day. So the idea that things won't sell unless they change things doesn't hold water (for me) either.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Changes to the settings are NOT written to force us to buy new setting material. They are made to advance the timeline, and/or accommodate changes to the rules, and/or to sell novels.
This makes no sense. The 4e jump in the timeline seems to be universally hated, the changes to the rules generally get a very mixed response in every edition, and novels will sell or not sell based entirely on how fans feel about the author. Changes in the setting should have either a negative effect or no effect at all on novel sales.
For example, I purchased every novel I could get my hands on during 2e; I haven't purchased a single novel produced during 4e. Jeremy has already encouraged me to check them out, and I'm sure others will too. And I want to support the authors. I want to be able to enjoy their work and have questions to ask them, because I think their presence here on Candlekeep is awesome and I want to encourage that. I just don't like any of the changes that were made in the world; my avoidance of the novels is a direct consequence of rejecting the 4e changes in the Realms.
Maybe a few people buy a novel based on its dramatic cover or the jacket's promise to really shake things up in a place that these fans want to see shaken up. In general, though, I'm guessing that an insignificant number of Realms fans buy novels without any regard at all to their feelings about the most recent changes in the world. This would mean that changes in the setting can only have a negative or negligible effect on novel sales. But I admit I'm making a couple of assumptions/guesses in there, and maybe I'm wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
How do you know how active the churches of Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira were prior to the TOT? They were never written about.
So why is it such a big issue? Ibrandul was never written about before his demise; ditto for Murdane or Valigan Thirdborn. I don't see anyone complaining about any of them.
There's a big difference between Bane and Ibrandul. The church of Bane is pretty active, at least in northern and western Faerun. We can assume that the churches of Leira and Bhaal were small and didn't really affect anything... but it would be an assumption. What about Myrkul? He was a bigger name, and there's every reason to think his church was just as active as Bane's. We just hadn't heard about it yet... the TOT came a whole whopping 2 years after the gray box.
It's a big deal in the same way that removing Shar would have been a big deal... look at what we know about her now versus what we knew about her when the TOT happened. Again, regardless of whether you like her or all of the material. She's a force to be reckoned with. At least equal to Cyric in terms of campaign usefulness. It's reasonable to think that Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira would each have been developed to an equal extent, making the judgment easy even on a simple numbers level. Four is better than one.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The stories that could have been told were replaced with others -- others that had more material to support them.
Are you saying that Cyric had more material to support him than Myrkul did, from the moment of Cyric's creation? If so... how so?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think any amount of feedback would have influenced the Spellplague. They were not listening to fans of the Realms when they did that.
Woohoo, something we agree about! And Cyric being pathetic; two things! 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
For the record this isn't true. The feelings of frustration people felt with WotC were very real, certainly, but it's not as though WotC turned a deaf ear to fans of the setting.
There is probably some truth to this. I know that WotC has at least received feedback on pretty much everything they've done. Probably mostly negative, because that's human nature; we're far more inclined to bash what we don't like than to promote what we like. Going the opposite way is a conscious effort, and many of us are too flippin lazy to do it most of the time. Myself included, obviously.
I guess my response to this would be that I really wish they had ignored the feedback they listened to, and listened to the feedback they ignored while crafting 4e. It will never be the case that they see every fan complaint or every bit of positive feedback, and it will never be the case that they do exactly what I want them to with everything and somehow work it out so that everyone else is happy too. First world problems, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, I'm utterly confused, now... How did we go from whether or not there was a purpose for the Time of Troubles to one for the Spellplague?
I think I had a running tangent regarding the Spellplague for most of my recent posts in this thread. Talking about Cyric tends to bring up both events for me. My apologies for the confusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Leira's demise was only connected to the ToT in that it happened at the hands of Cyric. It is otherwise utterly unrelated.
I guess we just disagree. To me, legitimizing Cyric rested on killing Leira, and this makes her extremely relevant to the TOT even though it was a footnote which didn't even see the light of day until after the TOT was over.
If Leira's death was not a foregone conclusion while the TOT trilogy was being written, then my nominal faith in the intelligence of the plotline's original author goes poof. (Note: not talking about the authors of the books. I had no objections to the writing itself; only the story.)
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira. She's 80% of his portfolio. And since Cyric is the heart of the TOT, Leira is the real heart of the story.
Incorrect. Cyric became a deity without anything happening to Leira. And Cyric was more about strife, which he stole from Bane -- he showed this in Crucible. And it's a stretch to say that lies and deception are 80% of his portfolio -- he got most of his strength from Murder, Death (until he lost it), and Strife. Lies and deception were just the icing on the cake; they certainly were not the entire cake.
A fair objection, since I was looking at the 3e deities list instead of the 2e list. I'll cite his blurb in FR Adventures instead. His portfolio in 2e was "death, murder, the dead, strife, tyranny, and lies." So in 1367, you're right that Leira's contribution was outweighed by those of Bane and Myrkul.
5 years later... not so much. 80% of his portfolio is derived from Leira. And I won't say you're overthinking my math, but I'm just looking at the number of entries in his portfolio. 4/5 are related to Leira, and he has nothing from Bane or Myrkul. He has the portfolios of two demipowers.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Since Cyric became a deity without Leira's portfolios, since he pursued his other portfolios a lot more vigorously, and since she wasn't slain until after the Time of Troubles was over and done with, Leira is not the heart of the story. She's not even the spleen of the story; at best, she's the appendix.
Your sense of humor is appreciated. I disagree about where he spent his vigor, though, and the thing about timing is mostly irrelevant. He was all about the strife and stuff immediately after the TOT, sure. But it had to be after offing Leira that he became the Prince of Lies. And his acquisition of deception and illusion expanded his repertoire with regard to strife. Strife without deception relies on brute strength and fear. With deception, much more flavorful mayhem is possible. That's why I said "Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira." He got the strength from Bane and Myrkul. Fine, but at that point he was basically just Bane 2.0, with an annoying responsibility for the realm of the dead. Certainly no better than Bane was, and actually a lot worse because he lacked Bane's experience. He matured into something useful when he acquired illusion and deception, but he was still inept and ultimately unable to handle the brainstrain. Catastrophic failure. Meltdown. Destruction of Zhentil Keep. Unable to hold onto death when Kelemvor surfaced as a god. Unable to hold onto strife when Bane returned. Reduced to washed-up has-been status. Insanity. Oblivion. (Inexplicably assassinate Mystra and become relevant again.)
Opening doors for new stories? Sure, whatever. Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira, please.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Honestly, the impression that I'm getting here is that this isn't as much about Leira, Cyric, or even the Time of Troubles -- I get the impression that this is more about objecting to change in general.
Nah, not really. I just take issue with change-for-the-sake-of-change, and especially with stupid change. I object to things that don't make sense from basically any angle... and happily stop objecting when someone can inject sufficient sense into it. I hate the destruction of lore, particularly when it's not balanced by an influx of better lore and particularly when we could have gotten the positive without the negative. I find it completely reasonable to hate the TOT (and several other plots) on this basis.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Two exact quotes:
"I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms"
"I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that."
Those statements are saying that the official stated reasons for the ToT are not what TSR said. Criticizing the decisions is fine. Saying the designers lied is something else.
Eh, fair point. I should have been more careful to avoid appearing to accuse anyone of lying. Jeremy is right about my intent. I think the decisions that led to the edition-introducing RSEs we've seen have been (insert favorite colorful expletive here). I also think "we have to change the setting because we have to change the rules" is inconsistently applied (yes in 2e, 4e, and twice in 5e, but not in 3e) and therefore... well, it just doesn't work. The success of 3e, in spite of no great worldbreaking RSE to introduce it, means that we do not in fact need RSEs to introduce ruleset changes. I'm not disagreeing that somebody said the TOT was intended to explain the 2e rules changes. I do question whether they believe it themselves. Ultimately, though, I'm just saying it makes no sense while another explanation makes a lot of sense... somebody had a dream about a guy named Cyric, and made it real.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You can't change things without explanation and maintain continuity. Bigger changes require bigger explanations.
Yikes. I should probably leave this alone. I'll just say this, and then drop it: WotC's "explanations" are precisely what breaks continuity. If that weren't true, our bitterest battles here on Candlekeep would be over whether Alusair thinks Drizzt or Wulfgar is sexier.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
But -as I said- rules are not a realistic description of people's skills in a setting (snip)
While you may feel that way, that's not necessarily how TSR saw the Realms, nor how they thought gamers saw the Realms. <snip> When the rules changed, the world had to change. That's just how they saw it.
This is pretty huge, and something I should keep more firmly in mind. I tend to look at WotC in terms of their responsibility to the setting... but their perspective is undoubtedly different and sitting at our keyboards we're all just people with opinions and priorities and often-flawed perceptions. It's easy for me to dehumanize corporations. Automatic, actually. So if you find my rants to run long or hot, just remind me that they're human.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
That's why I think that it is not wise to bend and change the world just because some game changed its rules, otherwise you're going to end up with stuff like Mystra dying every other edition.
Bingo. This is why it's important for everyone to say their piece and never let me monopolize a thread. Others say it better than I do.
Wooly: my initial purpose in gnashing about the TOT was to say that it would have been better as an optional campaign arc. It's become clear that you disagree, and our perspectives differ enough that agreement (on some points at least) is probably not possible, and that's fine.
Taking a step back, I suppose you, me, and Jeremy are a great little demonstration of how it's impossible to please everyone.
Best wishes to all in 5e. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 05:18:09
Edit: scratch all that. Danced this dance with Jeremy way too many times. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 01:25:11
quote:
While you may feel that way, that's not necessarily how TSR saw the Realms, nor how they thought gamers saw the Realms.
The Realms has always reflected the D&D rules set. A whole lot of flavor for the Realms has been written based off of D&D rules.
When the rules changed, the world had to change. That's just how they saw it.
As you said, some elements of various settings (mainly magic) take inspiration from the rules. If they reflected how the actual reality of the setting works, it would completely break suspension of disbelief (for me, at least).
You have huge monsters with like 40-50hp, while even tiny creatures can reach more than that (or even have more strength); you have people being stabbed, slashed, burned, electrocuted and surviving like it was a walk in the park; you have monsters like iron golems or elementals being destroyed by hits from daggers or slings (even mundane ones, in some cases, so it's not ''magic'') and so on. Even in fantasy this kind of stuff looks pretty ridiculous. You can now use the excuse of interpretation, but that's where the ''model'' part kicks in: the technical rules just don't reliably reflect the way things work, they are a guide to simulate and predict/find out the result of some action/skill. I tried to make my point clear on the matter of assassins or any other class, their skills remain the same whether or not there are rules for them, because rules are made to represent them in a mechanical way (in fact I think designers try to imagine how a class would act in battle/exploration/whatever first, and once they figured it out, they try to mechanically represent that flavor i.e. a model).
That's why I think that it is not wise to bend and change the world just because some game changed its rules, otherwise you're going to end up with stuff like Mystra dying every other edition. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 01:23:25
When the rules change, the world has to change.
I do agree with that statement, to a point. It seemed to be the governing principle behind much of AD&D 2E. Really, the only circa-1E/2E example I can think of which doesnt fit in would be the Moonshae novels: for them, the rules changed to accomodate the world.
But somewhere in the 3E era things got swapped around. Rules written to feature stuff introduced in FR novels.
As of 4E (and beyond?) there doesnt seem to be any meaningful distinction. Game design and fiction storylines appear engineered to support each other and are basically released to market simultaneously. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 01:00:26
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
But -as I said- rules are not a realistic description of people's skills in a setting (snip)
While you may feel that way, that's not necessarily how TSR saw the Realms, nor how they thought gamers saw the Realms.
The Realms has always reflected the D&D rules set. A whole lot of flavor for the Realms has been written based off of D&D rules.
When the rules changed, the world had to change. That's just how they saw it. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 00:58:40
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yes, I was an active fan of the setting when the Time of Troubles happened.
Interesting. I could have swore you’ve stated several times that wasn’t the case.
Regardless, I’d wager you were in the minority.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Two exact quotes:
"I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms"
"I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that."
Those statements are saying that the official stated reasons for the ToT are not what TSR said. Criticizing the decisions is fine. Saying the designers lied is something else.
No……the first statement starts with “I’m left with the feeling.” That’s a subjective statement, not an objective one.
The second statement is an opinion and one that flies in the face of the known history.
Last I checked, that’s not against the law or against the rules.
What neither of those two sentences say—literally do not say—is that the history is wrong or that TSR lied.
Those are your words.
How do you expect anyone to interact with you when you put words into their mouths, accuse them of something they didn’t do, then sit back and hit them over and over for something they never did?
Are you beginning to see why it is that interacting with you online can sometimes be a real pain in the ass?
Look at how he had to word it, “I stand by that.” He said it that way because you backed him into a corner.
How are we supposed to have pleasant, interesting discussions if anyone who disagrees with someone else’s opinion decides it’s his or her job to play the adversary and attack, attack, attack?
And before you claim you weren’t attacking, I’ll remind you that you kept repeating the same thing in several posts. If your goal had been simply to share useful information and then leave X to his opinions and suppositions, you would have done things differently.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That is putting words in my mouth.
No….that’s looking at your statement (as a claim it would be written, “If game designers listen to the fans then they have successful product launches.”) and then proposing reasons for how it could be true.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You can look at any number of scrolls here and see some very heated discussions, even pure vitriol, directed at the changes of the 4E Realms. That is not something you'd see if they had been listening to us.
That’s not proof of anything other than that people on the internet have opinions.
Candlekeep is not special vis-à-vis all other fans of the Realms. We’re not better or more important just because we choose to spend a slice of our free time interacting with and arguing with strangers on the internet who also happen to have an above average interest in the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
And you are again putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that if people were given what they wanted, they'd not be leaving the setting and/or turning to other rulesets.
See above. Plus, WotC did give people what they wanted. A lot of people.
There is this enduring fiction on Candlekeep that anyone who criticized the Realms prior to 4E hated it and wanted to burn it down, when the fact is there were a huge number of people who played in the Realms, found parts of it lacking and weren’t afraid to say so. They may not have been super fans, but they sure as hell were not haters.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I see no evidence in support of that. I see plenty of evidence to indicate that turning a deaf ear is exactly what they did.
You know as well as I do that the final roster of deities was revised in one instance based off of fan feedback. Rich Baker brought a post on his thread to the attention of the designers and in response they switched up the list. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 00:13:30
But -as I said- rules are not a realistic description of people's skills in a setting (and a setting is a world first, one that can be used to play games, not one that has to bend to them), they are a model (like the laws of physics are a model of how nature works), they have little to do with the continuity of the events in the Realms.
The skills of the ''assassin'' class are a model of what some specialized assassins can do (and I don't think those are granted by gods, rather by training), removing it from the game doesn't magically cancel such abilities. As I said, should WotC get rid of fighters in the rules, there would still be warriors in the Realms, and there would be no need to remove Tempus to explain the changes (in fact, it would be really stupid IMO).
Also I guess that there are many options that rules don't cover, that doesn't mean that they cannot appear in the world. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2014 : 00:06:36
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Actually, I think using a major event that shakes up the heavens themselves is the perfect way to explain a rules change. The Time of Troubles served quite admirably as an in-setting catalyst for the changes to rules.
Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?
And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?
Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Rules are just that, rules. By them, an halfling could outstrength a dragon or a giant, or kill colossal creatures with daggers, and that is just really stupid. Rules provide a game system, not a reliable rapresentation of how things work in the setting.
Fpr example, ''assassin'' is a profession, assassins are there whether the rules say so or not. Class abilities are rough models to represent what some people can do in the world, it's not like people's skills change according to rules. Should WotC decide to remove the fighter from D&D classes, would you expect all warriors to disappear and Tempus to die? The world doesn't change because we decided that some physics law doesn't fit anymore, same happens with fictional settings. The only problem I could see is with how magic is portrayed in novels (vancian/not vancian), but then you could simply say that the limited number of spells/day is due to fatigue or use other minor tweaks and be done with it: the story won't be altered because of that.
Blowing stuff up from on high just because some game rules changed isn't really some kind of story I would like to see and isn't soemthing that adds to the setting, unless you use such a tale as an excuse to do so (but then, I'd rather have a stroy focused on what it is meant to add and just leave out the ''changing the world because game rules'' part).
Furthermore FR can be used with systems different from D&D, should DMs set up huge RSEs just because they want to play with another kind of rules?
Assassin is a profession, but it was also a distinct class in 1E. Anyone could kill for hire, but only those with the Assassin class had specific abilities.
And then this was no longer an option -- the rules no longer supported those special abilities. If you want to maintain any kind of consistency in a setting that -- like it or not -- is a game setting, then you've got to provide an explanation for when the rules change and make a prior option unavailable.
Sure, blowing up the setting isn't the only option. But it is an option, and doing something on the same scale as the Time of Troubles can explain how abilities are lost and never again possible.
And no, DMs don't have to have RSEs to explain using non-D&D rules -- because DMs aren't publishing their version of the setting.
One of the strengths of the Realms has always been continuity. You can't change things without explanation and maintain continuity. Bigger changes require bigger explanations. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:59:53
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am a fan of the Realms. I like the ToT.
But you weren't around, as I understand it, when the ToT happened. When I say “fans of the Realms” I’m talking about active fans that experienced the ToT first hand.
Experiencing it vs. learning about it after the fact are two different things, as you well know.
Yes, I was an active fan of the setting when the Time of Troubles happened.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Whether or not someone likes something, it doesn't change the reasoning behind it being done.
I don’t think anyone, even xaeyruudh, is arguing with you over the reasons why the ToT happened.
From what I can tell, he’s criticizing the decisions TSR made.
You seem to be taking his criticism as an argument against your view of TSR history, and so you’re responding in kind. Could you maybe back off a little?
Two exact quotes:
"I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms"
"I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that."
Those statements are saying that the official stated reasons for the ToT are not what TSR said. Criticizing the decisions is fine. Saying the designers lied is something else.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And if WotC listened to fans of the setting for the Spellplague, why were so many fans of the setting so upset by it?
The concealed claim in your logic is that WotC should have run everything by “the fans” before making all their decisions. That’s not something they’re required to do.
That is putting words in my mouth.
You can look at any number of scrolls here and see some very heated discussions, even pure vitriol, directed at the changes of the 4E Realms. That is not something you'd see if they had been listening to us.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Your question also assumes that if WotC had done things the way you wanted them to that everything would have turned out great. But you know as well as I do there’s no guarantee of that.
And you are again putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that if people were given what they wanted, they'd not be leaving the setting and/or turning to other rulesets.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It’s simply not true that WotC turned a deaf ear to the fanbase.
I see no evidence in support of that. I see plenty of evidence to indicate that turning a deaf ear is exactly what they did. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:40:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Actually, I think using a major event that shakes up the heavens themselves is the perfect way to explain a rules change. The Time of Troubles served quite admirably as an in-setting catalyst for the changes to rules.
Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?
And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?
Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.
Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Rules are just that, rules. By them, an halfling could outstrength a dragon or a giant, or kill colossal creatures with daggers, and that is just really stupid. Rules provide a game system, not a reliable rapresentation of how things work in the setting.
Fpr example, ''assassin'' is a profession, assassins are there whether the rules say so or not. Class abilities are rough models to represent what some people can do in the world, it's not like people's skills change according to rules. Should WotC decide to remove the fighter from D&D classes, would you expect all warriors to disappear and Tempus to die? The world doesn't change because we decided that some physics law doesn't fit anymore, same happens with fictional settings. The only problem I could see is with how magic is portrayed in novels (vancian/not vancian), but then you could simply say that the limited number of spells/day is due to fatigue or use other minor tweaks and be done with it: the story won't be altered because of that.
Blowing stuff up from on high just because some game rules changed isn't really some kind of story I would like to see and isn't soemthing that adds to the setting, unless you use such a tale as an excuse to do so (but then, I'd rather have a stroy focused on what it is meant to add and just leave out the ''changing the world because game rules'' part).
Furthermore FR can be used with systems different from D&D, should DMs set up huge RSEs just because they want to play with another kind of rules? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:26:30
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am a fan of the Realms. I like the ToT.
But you weren't around, as I understand it, when the ToT happened. When I say “fans of the Realms” I’m talking about active fans that experienced the ToT first hand.
Experiencing it vs. learning about it after the fact are two different things, as you well know.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Whether or not someone likes something, it doesn't change the reasoning behind it being done.
I don’t think anyone, even xaeyruudh, is arguing with you over the reasons why the ToT happened.
From what I can tell, he’s criticizing the decisions TSR made.
You seem to be taking his criticism as an argument against your view of TSR history, and so you’re responding in kind. Could you maybe back off a little?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And if WotC listened to fans of the setting for the Spellplague, why were so many fans of the setting so upset by it?
The concealed claim in your logic is that WotC should have run everything by “the fans” before making all their decisions. That’s not something they’re required to do.
Your question also assumes that if WotC had done things the way you wanted them to that everything would have turned out great. But you know as well as I do there’s no guarantee of that.
It’s simply not true that WotC turned a deaf ear to the fanbase.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 23:15:03
I am a fan of the Realms. I like the ToT.
I would disagree that the loss of the Dark Three was a loss of flavor. I've been a Realms fan since that time period, and I've always thought that replacing them increased the flavor of the setting.
Whether or not someone likes something, it doesn't change the reasoning behind it being done. TSR said it was to update the settings for a rule change. Until someone can show me evidence otherwise, I'm sticking with the official statement made by the people who owned the setting, who wrote the changes, and who published the changes.
And if WotC listened to fans of the setting for the Spellplague, why were so many fans of the setting so upset by it? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 22:35:51
Wooly, your ability to see and summarize another person's point of view is astounding.
************
It goes without saying (or at least it should) that the deities of the Realms as presented way back in the OGB already had a history. You can say they hadn’t seen much print time up to that point, but that doesn’t mean they’re effectively the same as a new deity like Kelemvor or Cyric who had no history and no back story beyond their lives as mortals.
There’s a reason the Dark Three are still of interest to fans of the Realms to this day.
Further, their loss represented a real loss of flavor. Hand waving that off as insignificant is just an example of ignoring the sentiments of the people who experienced the ToT.
It doesn’t matter what the outcome of the ToT was because fans of the Realms didn’t like the ToT and that sentiment is every bit as true as any statement by TSR as to why they created the ToT.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think any amount of feedback would have influenced the Spellplague. They were not listening to fans of the Realms when they did that.
For the record this isn't true.
The feelings of frustration people felt with WotC were very real, certainly, but it's not as though WotC turned a deaf ear to fans of the setting.
Changes to the 4E Realms were made based on feedback from fans, after all. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 22:11:26
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
My point on the TOT is just that when you're designing an event which will be canon and will have broad and far-reaching consequences for many players --ie, this affects every single campaign in the Realms-- it's smart to leave as many doors open as possible for the DM, and it's not-smart to close as many of them as possible. In the TOT, doors were shut which definitely did not need to be shut.
Other than removing a couple of deities, I don't see that doors were shut. And with new deities, the followers of fallen deities, changes to magic, and the lesser effects of the ToT, I think it created a lot more doors than we had closed by not having a couple deities.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
If the TOT had been written as a campaign option, nothing would have been lost. You could still get rid of Bhaal and Myrkul, and keep Bane, and as a bonus you wouldn't have to lose Leira and Ibrandul and I don't remember who else, and you wouldn't have to gain Cyric, and you wouldn't have to transition from Mystra to Midnight. If you want Cyric and you prefer Midnight over Mystra, that's fine, they could be available. Other replacements could be available too.
You could say similar things about every single change that's ever been made in the Realms. But if it's all optional, then nothing is changing in the setting. And if nothing is changing, you're not selling anything.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm saying the TOT could have been a product line of a dozen adventures and a sourcebook on designing deities and pantheons for Realms campaigns. That book does not already exist... we can look at Earth's mythology for cues, but that's a pretty weird view based on many cultural slants. TSR/WotC could have published a book on how to write/balance deities/pantheons, and some percentage of us would have bought it because there's at least one god in the pantheon that each of us would like to tweak or replace. Some of that might appear in the various sourcebooks on gods that they have published, but my impression was that they were basically just descriptions of the gods and some snippets about the pantheons. I'm suggesting more of a how-to or DIY book. It could have sold well among GMs of other game systems too. There would also be room for a book detailing the Dawn Cataclysm, and each deity's arrival/creation and history in the Realms. By leaving the door open for who returns to the outer planes after the TOT, they would have made more money and failed nobody.
Except they would have failed everyone who wanted to see -- or enjoyed seeing -- things change in the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms... additions to Realmslore which might attempt to make up for the losses came primarily from Ed's adventure trilogy. We got some insight into Midnight and Kelemvor in the novels, but that was never built upon in subsequent published lore, because apparently only Cyric was deemed important. Someone just wanted to add their psychobaby to the pantheon, pulled rank and/or threw as many tantrums as necessary to get their way, and left Ed to make the best of it.
No, the entire point of the ToT was to provide an in-game explanation for the changes caused by changing from 1E to 2E. This has been stated many times in the past; it is the official statement from TSR. You may not like it, you may disagree with its necessity, but it is what TSR chose to do.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
So for the last 25 years, we've been stuck with the TOT. Sure, we can write it out of our own individual campaigns, if we have the time to come up with what the churches of the affected gods have been doing since 1358 (and before that too since there wasn't much written about them at all) but I'm guessing that for the overwhelming majority of us the TOT has resulted in a loss of potential Realmslore. This loss was totally unnecessary and avoidable.
The overwhelming majority of us lost absolutely nothing, because this event happened far enough back that most of us were not Realms fans when it happened.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That doesn't have any bearing on liking the overall changes to the setting.
What overall changes did the TOT bring beyond the removal of some gods and addition of Cyric? Part of the TOT's failure imo was the lack of foreshadowing and follow-through. Sure, we had the removal of the churches of Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul --which weren't really there to begin with because they hadn't been written yet-- and the addition of Cyric's church. But beyond this, the only change in the setting was a bunch of NPCs with assassin levels dropping dead... which turned out to be stupid when assassins were added back in.
So if Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul "weren't really there", then why complain about their removal?
The overall changes of the ToT included removing those (and other) deities. It introduced dead and wild magic areas. It caused a bunch of other, minor changes, too. Overall, though, it was a major event that shook things up, affected the entire setting, had lasting effects, and moved the timeline forward.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It wasn't about getting rid of deities at all. The point of the event was to have an in-game explanation for changing the rules. Two deities were a necessary casualty of this (no assassins means a god of assassins is superfluous, etc), and two more were sacrificed for the point of the story.
I didn't mean to say that removing deities was the point of the TOT. I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that.
You can stand by it, but the company that made those changes says you are wrong. And when a company says something about their motivations with their IP, I tend to believe them.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
There is no way to justify the TOT using rules changes. It just doesn't work. The assassin class could have been removed without killing off all the assassins in the world... they just lose some of the abilities they had before, and revert to rogues. Happens to paladins every day. We now have kits and nonweapon proficiencies? Fine, you're rewriting all the stat blocks anyway. If changes in the rules required killing NPCs, every single NPC in the world would have been killed with each ruleset, because every single stat block needed to be rewritten each time. Changes in the rules have never required changes in the setting, and they never will.
Actually, I think using a major event that shakes up the heavens themselves is the perfect way to explain a rules change. The Time of Troubles served quite admirably as an in-setting catalyst for the changes to rules.
Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?
And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Also, removing the assassin class does not remove assassins from the game and it doesn't make a god of assassins useless. There's no blacksmith class, but obviously blacksmiths exist.
Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I won't argue with the other gods being "sacrificed for the point of the story" because we're not disagreeing there. We're just looking at it from different angles. I'm saying the story was written in order to bring Cyric into the pantheon, and the portfolio that was given to him demanded getting rid of Leira and Bhaal. Bane and Myrkul were unnecessary casualties, regardless of our individual judgments of those deities.
Again, TSR said that the point of the Time of Troubles was to explain changes to the setting. You may disagree with that, but doing so is calling everyone at TSR a liar.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
And I'm not condemning unnecessary casualties; I'm saying (overall anyway) that which gods bite the dust in any given DM's Realms as a result of this event coulda shoulda been left up to that DM.
How could TSR have sold anything that was built around "yeah, so everything in this product may or may not have happened in the setting?" How could they have sold any future products, when they didn't have a definite baseline for what had changed before?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
This probably would have removed the novels from the picture, but if the point of the TOT was selling novels then it wasn't about explaining the rules changes. If the novels came about to explain the story, then that money would have been better spent improving the presentation of the story and creating more adventures and sourcebooks surrounding it... the novels department has hundreds of realms across Faerun, several unexplored continents, and at least 30,000 years of history to explore. New rulesets are written to sell core rulebooks. Changes to the settings are written to force us to also buy new setting material. The novels department will never need a rules change to generate sales.
Changes to the settings are NOT written to force us to buy new setting material. They are made to advance the timeline, and/or accommodate changes to the rules, and/or to sell novels.
The company makes the bulk of its money from the rules, not from the settings.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
How do you know how active the churches of Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira were prior to the TOT? They were never written about.
So why is it such a big issue? Ibrandul was never written about before his demise; ditto for Murdane or Valigan Thirdborn. I don't see anyone complaining about any of them.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
It's a loss of potential lore because now there's no room to write about the church of Myrkul (for example) after 1358... or between 1358 and 1490, or whatever it turns out to be. Well, there might be a small sect somewhere that survives but the church is no longer what it could have been if the TOT had gone differently. Those who liked Myrkul better than Kelemvor (it doesn't matter how many people we're talking about) are irrelevant to WotC. Those who liked Bane were irrelevant until Bane was brought back... which came off like backpedaling and ended up highlighting the weakness of the TOT. The stories that could have been told about 1358-1490, the Lords of Darkness entries and Current Clack entries and adventure plot hooks that could have been written about those churches, were shut down before they started, and that is a point against the TOT-as-written rather than in favor of it.
The stories that could have been told were replaced with others -- others that had more material to support them.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yes, Cyric did kill Mystra. That's not a side-effect of the ToT. That was the designers using an available tool. If not Cyric, they prolly would have used Shar
I didn't mean to call it a side effect of the TOT, beyond Cyric and his hatred of Mystra being introduced by the TOT. I have no doubt that without the TOT the Spellplague would have happened anyway, due to the aforementioned need for kabooms. I suspect the 4e changes might have been somewhat smaller, or the author of the Spellplague might have sought more feedback before going through with it, if our tacit acceptance of the TOT hadn't set the precedent that it did, but we'll probably never know.
I don't think any amount of feedback would have influenced the Spellplague. They were not listening to fans of the Realms when they did that.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Cyric was defined (in my mind, from reading the novels) as a nutzo. Hateful, but less and less dangerous over time due to being effectively paralyzed by the cacophony of his inner voices. His church was dangerous, but Cyric himself was increasingly looney. Maybe I read it wrong, but in my Realms nothing ever goes according to plan for him. He has millions of ideas about how and when and where to kill Mystra (and every other god) and frame others for it or just laugh at everyone because Ao gave him carte blanche to do whatever his portfolio dictates... which happens to include doing outrageous and destructive things just to stir up the other gods (intrigue).
Ao gave all deities carte blanche to act within their portfolio.
Otherwise, I agree. Cyric is not only crazy, he's pathetic and one-dimensional. That doesn't mean that his plots, whether crazy or cunning, can't be used for role-playing potential.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
But at the end of the day, Cyric is too wacko to actually see anything through to completion. Too many voices, and not enough mental bandwidth. Like I said, that's just my take. Maybe I'm alone. But that's why the "explanation" of the Spellplague doesn't hold water. It couldn't even hold rocks.
Okay, I'm utterly confused, now... How did we go from whether or not there was a purpose for the Time of Troubles to one for the Spellplague?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What? The plotline had nothing to do with her, and her removal was not a retcon. We knew she disappeared during the ToT, and we later found out that -- after the ToT was ended -- Cyric and Mask hunted her down and killed her.
She wasn't in the ToT story because she wasn't even peripherally involved in the main story. She certainly was not the core of it.
3e campaign setting. Cyric's portfolio is Murder, lies, intrigue, deception, and illusion. Without Leira he would be missing four of the five. If his portfolio were just murder, and assuming we gave him assassins as well as just murder, he would be equivalent to Bhaal's 1e strength... a demigod, hardly in a position to run roughshod over the rest of the pantheon. That would make a pretty laughable villain, so daddy/mommy had to give psychobaby more power.
Still not seeing where the complaint is... The Time of Troubles was created to usher in the changes of 2E. There was a lot that happened after that, before 3E was introduced. And it was in that time period that Cyric and Mask hunted down and slew Leira, and in that time period that we found out about this.
Leira's demise was only connected to the ToT in that it happened at the hands of Cyric. It is otherwise utterly unrelated.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
It would have been very possible to write the TOT without Cyric being so Cyric. He could have been part of the party, like Kelemvor. They didn't even know where Cyric was for most of the story. It would make more sense, given their backgrounds, for Cyric to be part of the group and Kelemvor to be the one we rarely saw. Cyric was the villain of the trilogy, and that was by design. Cyric was mapped out, to a much greater extent than Kelemvor or Adon, before the trilogy was written.
So it was planned that he would be a villain... Where is the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira. She's 80% of his portfolio. And since Cyric is the heart of the TOT, Leira is the real heart of the story.
Incorrect. Cyric became a deity without anything happening to Leira. And Cyric was more about strife, which he stole from Bane -- he showed this in Crucible. And it's a stretch to say that lies and deception are 80% of his portfolio -- he got most of his strength from Murder, Death (until he lost it), and Strife. Lies and deception were just the icing on the cake; they certainly were not the entire cake.
Since Cyric became a deity without Leira's portfolios, since he pursued his other portfolios a lot more vigorously, and since she wasn't slain until after the Time of Troubles was over and done with, Leira is not the heart of the story. She's not even the spleen of the story; at best, she's the appendix.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
It seems weird (for lack of a more precise word) for the central story in a long saga to never get printed. Did I miss a story somewhere about Leira's death, maybe buried in an anthology somewhere? It would still be sad for it to not have a novel of its own, but at least there could be something.
Her death was never more than a blurb... Which is appropriate, because she was never central to anything.
Honestly, the impression that I'm getting here is that this isn't as much about Leira, Cyric, or even the Time of Troubles -- I get the impression that this is more about objecting to change in general.
|
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 18 Sep 2014 : 20:05:43
My point on the TOT is just that when you're designing an event which will be canon and will have broad and far-reaching consequences for many players --ie, this affects every single campaign in the Realms-- it's smart to leave as many doors open as possible for the DM, and it's not-smart to close as many of them as possible. In the TOT, doors were shut which definitely did not need to be shut.
If the TOT had been written as a campaign option, nothing would have been lost. You could still get rid of Bhaal and Myrkul, and keep Bane, and as a bonus you wouldn't have to lose Leira and Ibrandul and I don't remember who else, and you wouldn't have to gain Cyric, and you wouldn't have to transition from Mystra to Midnight. If you want Cyric and you prefer Midnight over Mystra, that's fine, they could be available. Other replacements could be available too.
I'm saying the TOT could have been a product line of a dozen adventures and a sourcebook on designing deities and pantheons for Realms campaigns. That book does not already exist... we can look at Earth's mythology for cues, but that's a pretty weird view based on many cultural slants. TSR/WotC could have published a book on how to write/balance deities/pantheons, and some percentage of us would have bought it because there's at least one god in the pantheon that each of us would like to tweak or replace. Some of that might appear in the various sourcebooks on gods that they have published, but my impression was that they were basically just descriptions of the gods and some snippets about the pantheons. I'm suggesting more of a how-to or DIY book. It could have sold well among GMs of other game systems too. There would also be room for a book detailing the Dawn Cataclysm, and each deity's arrival/creation and history in the Realms. By leaving the door open for who returns to the outer planes after the TOT, they would have made more money and failed nobody.
I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms... additions to Realmslore which might attempt to make up for the losses came primarily from Ed's adventure trilogy. We got some insight into Midnight and Kelemvor in the novels, but that was never built upon in subsequent published lore, because apparently only Cyric was deemed important. Someone just wanted to add their psychobaby to the pantheon, pulled rank and/or threw as many tantrums as necessary to get their way, and left Ed to make the best of it.
So for the last 25 years, we've been stuck with the TOT. Sure, we can write it out of our own individual campaigns, if we have the time to come up with what the churches of the affected gods have been doing since 1358 (and before that too since there wasn't much written about them at all) but I'm guessing that for the overwhelming majority of us the TOT has resulted in a loss of potential Realmslore. This loss was totally unnecessary and avoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That doesn't have any bearing on liking the overall changes to the setting.
What overall changes did the TOT bring beyond the removal of some gods and addition of Cyric? Part of the TOT's failure imo was the lack of foreshadowing and follow-through. Sure, we had the removal of the churches of Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul --which weren't really there to begin with because they hadn't been written yet-- and the addition of Cyric's church. But beyond this, the only change in the setting was a bunch of NPCs with assassin levels dropping dead... which turned out to be stupid when assassins were added back in.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It wasn't about getting rid of deities at all. The point of the event was to have an in-game explanation for changing the rules. Two deities were a necessary casualty of this (no assassins means a god of assassins is superfluous, etc), and two more were sacrificed for the point of the story.
I didn't mean to say that removing deities was the point of the TOT. I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that.
There is no way to justify the TOT using rules changes. It just doesn't work. The assassin class could have been removed without killing off all the assassins in the world... they just lose some of the abilities they had before, and revert to rogues. Happens to paladins every day. We now have kits and nonweapon proficiencies? Fine, you're rewriting all the stat blocks anyway. If changes in the rules required killing NPCs, every single NPC in the world would have been killed with each ruleset, because every single stat block needed to be rewritten each time. Changes in the rules have never required changes in the setting, and they never will.
Also, removing the assassin class does not remove assassins from the game and it doesn't make a god of assassins useless. There's no blacksmith class, but obviously blacksmiths exist.
I won't argue with the other gods being "sacrificed for the point of the story" because we're not disagreeing there. We're just looking at it from different angles. I'm saying the story was written in order to bring Cyric into the pantheon, and the portfolio that was given to him demanded getting rid of Leira and Bhaal. Bane and Myrkul were unnecessary casualties, regardless of our individual judgments of those deities.
And I'm not condemning unnecessary casualties; I'm saying (overall anyway) that which gods bite the dust in any given DM's Realms as a result of this event coulda shoulda been left up to that DM.
This probably would have removed the novels from the picture, but if the point of the TOT was selling novels then it wasn't about explaining the rules changes. If the novels came about to explain the story, then that money would have been better spent improving the presentation of the story and creating more adventures and sourcebooks surrounding it... the novels department has hundreds of realms across Faerun, several unexplored continents, and at least 30,000 years of history to explore. New rulesets are written to sell core rulebooks. Changes to the settings are written to force us to also buy new setting material. The novels department will never need a rules change to generate sales.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And in place of those deities, we had a new deity, with the same potential to be explored -- if not more potential, since he was a lot more active than most of those he replaced.
Not only that, but it's hard to say potential had been removed when you also say that there was practically nothing written about them, in the first place. With little material there, it's not much more than a substitution. We went from someone with little material to someone with more material. I don't see how that is detracting...
How do you know how active the churches of Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira were prior to the TOT? They were never written about.
It's a loss of potential lore because now there's no room to write about the church of Myrkul (for example) after 1358... or between 1358 and 1490, or whatever it turns out to be. Well, there might be a small sect somewhere that survives but the church is no longer what it could have been if the TOT had gone differently. Those who liked Myrkul better than Kelemvor (it doesn't matter how many people we're talking about) are irrelevant to WotC. Those who liked Bane were irrelevant until Bane was brought back... which came off like backpedaling and ended up highlighting the weakness of the TOT. The stories that could have been told about 1358-1490, the Lords of Darkness entries and Current Clack entries and adventure plot hooks that could have been written about those churches, were shut down before they started, and that is a point against the TOT-as-written rather than in favor of it.
And in this particular case, it is not true that these losses were unavoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yes, Cyric did kill Mystra. That's not a side-effect of the ToT. That was the designers using an available tool. If not Cyric, they prolly would have used Shar
I didn't mean to call it a side effect of the TOT, beyond Cyric and his hatred of Mystra being introduced by the TOT. I have no doubt that without the TOT the Spellplague would have happened anyway, due to the aforementioned need for kabooms. I suspect the 4e changes might have been somewhat smaller, or the author of the Spellplague might have sought more feedback before going through with it, if our tacit acceptance of the TOT hadn't set the precedent that it did, but we'll probably never know.
Cyric was defined (in my mind, from reading the novels) as a nutzo. Hateful, but less and less dangerous over time due to being effectively paralyzed by the cacophony of his inner voices. His church was dangerous, but Cyric himself was increasingly looney. Maybe I read it wrong, but in my Realms nothing ever goes according to plan for him. He has millions of ideas about how and when and where to kill Mystra (and every other god) and frame others for it or just laugh at everyone because Ao gave him carte blanche to do whatever his portfolio dictates... which happens to include doing outrageous and destructive things just to stir up the other gods (intrigue).
But at the end of the day, Cyric is too wacko to actually see anything through to completion. Too many voices, and not enough mental bandwidth. Like I said, that's just my take. Maybe I'm alone. But that's why the "explanation" of the Spellplague doesn't hold water. It couldn't even hold rocks.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What? The plotline had nothing to do with her, and her removal was not a retcon. We knew she disappeared during the ToT, and we later found out that -- after the ToT was ended -- Cyric and Mask hunted her down and killed her.
She wasn't in the ToT story because she wasn't even peripherally involved in the main story. She certainly was not the core of it.
3e campaign setting. Cyric's portfolio is Murder, lies, intrigue, deception, and illusion. Without Leira he would be missing four of the five. If his portfolio were just murder, and assuming we gave him assassins as well as just murder, he would be equivalent to Bhaal's 1e strength... a demigod, hardly in a position to run roughshod over the rest of the pantheon. That would make a pretty laughable villain, so daddy/mommy had to give psychobaby more power.
It would have been very possible to write the TOT without Cyric being so Cyric. He could have been part of the party, like Kelemvor. They didn't even know where Cyric was for most of the story. It would make more sense, given their backgrounds, for Cyric to be part of the group and Kelemvor to be the one we rarely saw. Cyric was the villain of the trilogy, and that was by design. Cyric was mapped out, to a much greater extent than Kelemvor or Adon, before the trilogy was written.
Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira. She's 80% of his portfolio. And since Cyric is the heart of the TOT, Leira is the real heart of the story.
It seems weird (for lack of a more precise word) for the central story in a long saga to never get printed. Did I miss a story somewhere about Leira's death, maybe buried in an anthology somewhere? It would still be sad for it to not have a novel of its own, but at least there could be something. |
|
|
