| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 02 Jan 2015 : 17:31:46
So, looks like Wizards is blending Greyhawk with the Forgotten Realms.
http://www.fantasywelt.de/product_info.php/info/p28940_Dungeons---Dragons-5--Edition-Princes-of-the-Apocalypse--HC---EN.html
http://www.fantasywelt.de/product_info.php/info/p28941_Dungeons---Dragons-5--Edition-Elemental-Evil--HC---EN-.html
Please tell me I'm wrong about this.  |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 23 Feb 2015 : 02:45:07
C'mon, who needs a reason? It's the Sword Coast! Bad things happen there all the time. And I mean all the time.
-- George Krashos |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 23 Feb 2015 : 00:43:41
So the Neverwinter MMO has already released the first part of its Elemental Evil content pack.
Seems like it's a bunch of cultists who worship the evil archomentals who are stirring up trouble on the Sword Coast. I don't think a reason has been given yet. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 08 Feb 2015 : 10:06:01
quote:
Originally posted by hobbitfan
Old Man Harpell: There's an opbvious exception to that list of settings that haven't been messed with. And that's because it's one that's been through huge changes in game and novel lines, lost generations of fans, etc. and that's Dragonlance.
If the WOTc people were reallt paying attention they had a poignant example of what not to do in the sad tale of 5th age krynn.
You are correct, I confess that didn't even occur to me. Which is odd, considering I hold the Age of Mortals at almost the same level of favor as the time jump that occurred after the Spellplague.
I read 'Dragons of Summer Flame', and while I thought it a good story for story's sake (Weis and Hickman being commensurate tale weavers), I was left feeling dissatisfied. Like expecting a rack of ribs, corn on the cob, dinner rolls, cheesecake for dessert....and getting what you saw Stallone's character in Demolition Man being served at 'Taco Bell'. We have 'Dragons of Dwarven Depths' on the shelf (the missus ordered it in hardback the day it came out), but I've yet to crack it open...I'm worried about another Taco Bell moment.
Similarly, I bought Age of Mortals (while my DL interest is not the equal of FR, I still enjoyed it), and that same sense of dissatisfaction once again took hold. It was not the ungodly jarring shock that Realms 4th initially gave me...it was more like a slowly intensifying stomach disorder. In particular, I think what happened to Silvanesti was ridiculous. Sure, the Silvanesti are, on the average, a bunch of arrogant, self-important bozos, but they were by no means universally inept, which is what my impression of them was, or what they had been made out to be, after DoSF was finished.
I suppose it didn't hit me as badly because in Dragonlance, the War of the Lance was what produced the real heroes of Krynn: Tanis, Goldmoon, Raistlin, Tasslehoff, and so forth, that carried over into the struggle against the Dragon Overlords. Anything a group of players did always seemed to me to be just a side attraction to the main event. Not so in the Realms - even Big Names like Drizzt and Elminster are just two of many, and among those many, player characters can rise to be Big Names. And why? It's one of the major paradigms of the setting, one that, to my mind, DL doesn't have.
Thinking on it, Dragonlance strikes me as being almost unique in this manner - all the others have the potential to be a Big Name, unless people get really creative. I've said I hold a great deal of optimism for what's coming down the pike for the Realms - next to 'alternate realities of the Realms' (which we will not get), this is the absolute best decision, and one which will alienate the least number of people.
But I just don't see that happening for Dragonlance...while I was willing to play a 'sideshow adventurer' in someone else's DL campaign (hey, it's Saturday night with dice and Guinness), the magic of Krynn has gone out of the universe for me. There may yet be an occasion for my boots to tread the lands of Ansalon (not Taladas - barf), but it would take some sanity-bending explanations for that to ever happen, and I frankly don't see it ever happening. Which is a pity, because Ansalon was frankly one of the most magical places of my late youth and early adult years.
- OMH |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 08 Feb 2015 : 08:17:05
They're revisiting/referencing old adventures to try to cash in on the nostalgia and try to find a new take on these adventures. It's getting done in Forgotten Realms because it's the most open setting to having adventures inserted into it and it's the most popular setting in the last decade.
Tyranny of Dragons called up memories of Scales of War, I believe Red Hand of Doom, Dragonlance and I believe there were adventures surrounding the Year of Rogue Dragons? Princes of the Apocalypse references Temple of Elemental Evil, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and I believe Dragonspear Castle. It also gives WotC a pretence to publish Genasi for 5th edition (a popular race among FR fans).
Finally both adventures thus far have featured extraplanar threats. With how connected Toril is with other worlds and planes it's perfectly legitimate to have these adventures set in Faerun. There's a portal to Oerth in Undermountain (1st level I believe).
Although Tyranny of Dragons had it's problems, I believe it was an honest attempt at being firmly set in Faerun. Hopefully they get it right and make it feel Realmsian.
As for the anti-deity merging. I agree. I prefer a large pantheon rather than a small one. However it's easy enough to ignore or adapt depending on the era. If I was playing in 5e FR I would handle it by saying that when the Spellplague hit many churches were devastated and saw a crisis of faith. A handful of the churches survived and wanting to tend to those who had abandoned their churches stepped forward and claimed their deity was another name for the earlier one they had worshipped. Now with the return of the Weave and the church of Mystra, many people are seeking out lore and prayers to those deities who had been abandoned. Not all of them are necessarily seeing a resurgence, but many of them are. Pick and choose which deities you want to use in 5e.
Is that an after the fact explanation for fixing a mistake (in some views, including mine) made by WotC? Sure. But as a DM it's my job to adapt the Realms to the sensibilities of my table. I would do this regardless of era that I set the campaign in (even 1357, my preferred era to start a game in). It doesn't necessarily contradict anything that's been said before. It simply puts a new spin on it.
Discussing the anti-D&D gods, Oghma is my favourite deity and one I've never found in another setting. You'll take away Oghma from my cold dead hands.
As for this idea the gods actually battle each other or that Ao actively stops other gods from coming to Toril. That is in direct contradiction to the fact that Earth's gods (Tyr, Oghma, etc) are active in Toril. It also turns things into the gods are the heroes element that's been around since 2e rather than using Ed's philosophy of the priests and churches doing things. Finally it makes it difficult to have all these portals leading to other worlds. Do clerics lose their powers once they step through? Are they unable to travel through portals? Or are they able to do both and thus there's no good reason for their faith to take hold on other worlds unless you want to invoke "the gods said no" and rob players of their agency?
This isn't to say that you must like what they're putting out. There's nothing wrong with not liking it and there's nothing wrong with voicing it. If you do so in a constructive manner there's a chance (however small) that WotC might listen. I'm posting from the perspective of saying: This is what WotC is producing. If you don't like it you can adapt it to something you like, buy it and complain about how it's not good enough or simply not buy FR products for the foreseeable future. As much as you might dislike those options, it's reality and that's all we have for now. I'd prefer to adapt it to something more palatable myself and that's what I'm doing in this post. I also have to do that with 2e-era products so it's nothing new for me. |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 08 Feb 2015 : 06:27:42
Old Man Harpell: There's an opbvious exception to that list of settings that haven't been messed with. And that's because it's one that's been through huge changes in game and novel lines, lost generations of fans, etc. and that's Dragonlance.
If the WOTc people were reallt paying attention they had a poignant example of what not to do in the sad tale of 5th age krynn. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Feb 2015 : 05:55:58
You know, it still bugs me that the Spelljammer line ended before they could explore the ramifications of the Second Unhuman War... Or before we ever got anything solid about it. It was part of the plot for a couple of modules and background for some other stuff, but nothing comprehensive was ever written about it.
On a related note, the mechanism by which spelljamming helms operated always bugged me, and I came up with my own, far more workable explanation. But since it wasn't all that popular a setting and will likely never get anything more than passing references, going forward, I'll never be able to do much with it. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 08 Feb 2015 : 03:35:47
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If they give us stuff to love, we will sing it from the rooftops. Its really simple, when you think about it.
This is another argument in favor of having multiple settings on the menu... if they restarted Mystara or Planescape or Spelljammer or Masque of the Red Death, I might be all over that even if I were to reject their vision of the Realms going forward. It seems to me that in a situation where alienating X% of your customers is inevitable, you would make a point of diversifying. So I think they will, and I'm looking forward to it. But the Realms is still mine too, at least for now, and I'll fight to protect it with everything I have.
Regarding negativity, mine comes from a desire to ensure that the mistakes of the past don't get repeated. It grows when the mistakes grow. It dies down when lessons are learned and things improve. Also simple.
One advantage they'd have with other settings is that most of them (Mystara, Birthright, Greyhawk, and so forth) haven't experienced the massive upheaval that FR (both the setting and those who love it) went through. It'd be simplicity itself to pick up, say, Mystara, brush it off, update it chronologically by either a decade or the amount of real-world time since the sinking of Alphatia and the Immortal War (and the introduction of the Hollow World), and soldier forward.
With, say, Birthright, less is more. They have a ton of stuff they could utilize over at Birthright dot net (Mystara has a similar site, I'm sure), and good money says the authors there would be ecstatic to give them the stuff they created in exchange for simply getting their names in print. The less they messed with the social, political, and geographical continuity there,the better. That, plus the setting's creator had notes for a whole additional continent (Aduria) that they could put into such a setting.
But what pretty much each and every setting they have except the Realms possesses is that none of them have experienced the massive change that FR has, thus there are few (if any) fans of those settings that would need to be mollified were the setting to see the light of the publisher's day again. Sure, some grousing is to be expected in any instance ("freaking bozos still have to tell us about what happened to Lucien freaking D'Ambreville grumble grumble"), but none will require the massive damage control that WizBro was forced to undertake to keep the Realms fan base from hemorrhaging the way it was. Just some dusting off and some diligence to the setting paradigms, and they're all but guaranteed to have some measure of success.
Fifth Edition was their answer for FR, and for that reason, when (and that's when, not if) the FRCG finds its way to us, they'll have made their best efforts. Part of those efforts was employing Ed Greenwood in the reconstruction. I must also put myself in the category of those who are optimistic about what's coming down the pike, and that's no mean feat, considering what a curmudgeonly old bastard I tend to be.
- OMH |
| Lichy Popo |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 07:32:09
There can sometimes be many truths, especially when dealing with reality spanning multiverses. Tharizdun could be Ghaunadar and also not Ghaunadar. Though it seems to be set up that they are the same or versions of each other. Writers could always just be covering their rear ends until they have to make an actual decision.
I think when Tharizdun found Lolth he saw her as a another shard of perfect evil and of course tried to possess her. |
| Gustaveren |
Posted - 11 Jan 2015 : 10:19:47
Well, i know, that it is very difficult to assume, that you can sell the same campaign world to people there want high lore high complexity and also to people there want low lore low complexity. It would be like trying to sell the same car model to both millionaires and people on social security.
If you absolutely want to do the attempt would it probably be a good idea, to at least develop it to be good for those there want medium lore and medium complexity since that gives a chance of attracting some people from both camps. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 11 Jan 2015 : 04:08:43
I like the "even smart people can make bad decisions" reasoning, but it doesn't hold water for me anymore. There's just been way too many bad decisions for them to be accidents. You may have better information than I do --I haven't even read all the staff interviews that have been released, nor have I had any frank conversations with anyone in the know-- but I'm not prepared to accept either of the premises that the folks in charge of TSR and WotC have been intelligent or that the derealmsifying effects of 4e were a mistake.
However, I do agree that we have the ability to reject their stories. We're not in the driver's seat, but in some ways we do have the keys. I'm also stubbornly clinging to my optimism about the 5e Realms. There's a mountain of Edstuff coming our way, and I can't wait to see it.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 11 Jan 2015 : 03:26:48
They did what they did to FR in 4e because they wanted those mythical 'new customers', but they also wanted to keep their old ones. Their thinking was that the FR fans were the most dedicated, so they would stick around no matter what. That was VERY BAD figuring.
So instead of "having their cake and eating it to", they threw the cake away, and the piece they were eating didn't taste very good. Bad decisions - it happens. I used to be so vitriolic about it because I thought it was 'done on purpose' - some sort of nefarious plot to destroy the Realms by its haters. I didn't think intelligent people could make such horrible decisions. I was wrong - they did. I am not sure how they could have gone all the way to the end of the production cycle just before 4e's release and still be convinced it was all a good idea, but it was probably too late to back-peddle at that point.
So we got 4e, and we got the 'Edition Wars' (which most of us can smile at now), and then we got 5e... which we are unsure about. We didn't want 4e, but what did we expect? Them to go back to 3.5? That was never going to happen (although I don't think it would have been too bad an idea). So we got what most of us asked for, and now a lot of folks are grumbling over it. We haven't really seen what is going to happen to 5e, aside from some very light lore in the adventures.
All that being said, we still have 3e. We also still have 1e and 2e. We still have those. No-one has to 'move forward' if they don't want to. I think their 'full plan' hasn't been revealed yet, but I think we may still see some of that 'support for all eras' we were hoping for. Its just not going to come about in a way anyone expected. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 11 Jan 2015 : 03:01:35
Yea, I think I took things a step further than Wooly. They need to create a new campaign setting for each new edition of the rules. It would be far less work for them, because 4e had to destroy the earlier Realms in order to make way for the new Realms... a completely new setting would have no work to do in that area, plus it's completely unnecessary to write up a history of the new campaign world since the apocalypse of the new edition erased the past anyway. Designing a new campaign setting for 4e would have occupied one designer and one cartographer for two hours, tops. In exchange for those four man-hours they would have a nice map and an assortment of randomly-generated sovereignties to populate it. Send it to the printers, put it on the shelves, debut your new ruleset in a setting that still has the new car smell.
Ignore Back off the Realms for at least a year, get all the kinks worked out of the rules, get feedback on how they affect character design, etc. Then resume writing Realms products with no RSE. (Edit: I'll concede that it isn't necessarily good to completely halt production on the Realms, but my point is just that big bangs have never been necessary or helpful here, so it's counterproductive to debut the new rules in the Realms. Just shift most of the focus to the new setting for the first year or two, so that there's less risk of effing up the Realms.)
The new setting brings in new fans, and no Realms fans are sacrificed. Everyone wins. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jan 2015 : 01:01:18
quote:
Originally posted by Gustaveren
Well, it would be easier to accept the stuff i do not like, if they at least had made sure, that it was still a high lore high complexity world. Seems to me, that many of the old fans share the wish for high lore high complexity and many of the new fans share the wish for low lore low complexity. The solution; 2 different campaign worlds, were they should let the old fans keep their high lore high complexity FR since there is already so many 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e products, that is, it is low cost to produce new stuff for a high lore high complexity world if they let the old fans keep FR and they instead made a new campaign world for the new fans.
I suggested a similar thing, years ago, back when 4E was still going strong. My reasoning was that both camps could be made happy, because they'd both get exactly what they wanted... To this day, I remain amazed at the vehement resistance some of our scribes had to this idea. |
| Gustaveren |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 23:34:33
Well, it would be easier to accept the stuff i do not like, if they at least had made sure, that it was still a high lore high complexity world. Seems to me, that many of the old fans share the wish for high lore high complexity and many of the new fans share the wish for low lore low complexity. The solution; 2 different campaign worlds, were they should let the old fans keep their high lore high complexity FR since there is already so many 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e products, that is, it is low cost to produce new stuff for a high lore high complexity world if they let the old fans keep FR and they instead made a new campaign world for the new fans. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 23:33:16
I don't think you are 'jumping on me'. And even if you were, it wouldn't bother me. I've mellowed out.
For now.
While I agree with everything you and everyone else is saying (because we all have our own points of view, and they are all correct... in regards to each individual), I know human nature. I've walked away from things I didn't like anymore, just as all of us have at one time or another. I've seen people do it en masse when a company pisses off the fan base. Hell, how many 'Hulk' movies have they made, and I still haven't seen a good one yet. Green Lantern was gawd-awful, yet we want to see Batman vs Superman. Punisher movies? How bad were they? Yet they still keep making them, and we still keep giving them a chance.
I walked away from gaming back in the late 90's. Then 3e came out and I was like, "Say WHAT?!" As much as I swore it off, it sucked me right back in.
People are fickle. Most of us might be 'disgruntled' today, but who knows what tomorrow may bring. They show us something great, and we'll come running. Thats how it works. Thats how it always works. Hell, I thought the last three (1st three???) Star Wars movies blew chunks, but I can't wait to see what Disney does with the franchise.
All they have to do is knock our socks off, and all is forgiven. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 23:16:22
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If they give us stuff to love, we will sing it from the rooftops. Its really simple, when you think about it.
It is that simple, and I totally agree about the word of mouth thing, which makes it all the more...  ...that they haven't tripped over the revelation that the best thing they can do for their bottom line is to make customers happy... until, I suppose, the playtest for 5e.
But it's also not so simple because one man's toxic waste dump is another man's pizza party. The Spellplague, for instance, or the Shades... some people feel that the 4e Realms are an improvement over the 3e Realms, and not just a smidge better here and there but an across-the-board betterment. Like the Spellplague made the Realms more Realmsy than it was in the grey box. I feel the opposite... with a couple of exceptions (I like Selune being a greater power to match Shar) there's not a single piece of the 4e changes that made the Realms a better place; very nearly every single thing about it was a terrible idea. So that's a pretty huge spread of opinion, and the strength of these opinions can be ridiculous.
So WotC is driving us (the old guard) away and giving us (the avant garde) what we want at the same time. The fan base is so diverse that it's even less possible to make us all happy than it might be in other industries. Several of us here have made passionate and well-reasoned statements in favor of completely opposite visions of the Realms. So I get that they're "up a creek without a paddle" in some sense. You're more likely to see an infant benchpress a Boeing 747 than see me indicate any acceptance of Cyric murdering Mystra. And I know that some feel that way about the idea of retconning the Spellplague out of existence and returning to 1357. It may not be possible for WotC to retain all of us as eager customers... of their FR products, anyway. This is another argument in favor of having multiple settings on the menu... if they restarted Mystara or Planescape or Spelljammer or Masque of the Red Death, I might be all over that even if I were to reject their vision of the Realms going forward. It seems to me that in a situation where alienating X% of your customers is inevitable, you would make a point of diversifying. So I think they will, and I'm looking forward to it. But the Realms is still mine too, at least for now, and I'll fight to protect it with everything I have.
Regarding negativity, mine comes from a desire to ensure that the mistakes of the past don't get repeated. It grows when the mistakes grow. It dies down when lessons are learned and things improve. Also simple.
And I know you're not jumping on me, Markus, and I don't mean to attack your statements either. Just chiming in, or sounding off, or somethin.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 19:56:43
The way I look at it, its the companies job to provide US with excellent gaming tools.
Its our job to 'grow the hobby'. They can't do that. They might think they can, but they can't. There is no single bigger 'word of mouth' industry anywhere. If you don't meet people playing it, you will never play it.
If they give us stuff to love, we will sing it from the rooftops. Its really simple, when you think about it. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 18:52:36
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Why would anyone new want to join our hobby (and save it) with all sorts of negativity being thrown about?
The problem is, there isn't a huge untapped population of gamers out there so the people they should be worried about are the people who already have gaming experience.
There is nothing wrong with bringing in new gamers and the fact is you will always bring them in no matter what happens, but trying to direct most of your focus on that possible new gamer is wrong. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 18:36:14
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
mongst other things).
The parts I see parallel in that video is a consolidation of the separate gaming properties (what this very thread is about), and also the main point of that man's video - stop complaining about stuff we haven't seen yet. Pissing and moaning about your favorite hobby is like shooting yourself in the foot. Why would anyone new want to join our hobby (and save it) with all sorts of negativity being thrown about?
At this point I think that the complaints are more out of fear to not ever being able to see the stuff that we haven't seen yet (the 5e FR), which is only reinforced by WotC's silence on the matter (repeating the same promises over and over counts as silence in my book).
You make a point about negativity, but IMO it is only natural for many Realms fans to be discouraged as of now. After all the hype about the cool stuff that WotC said that they were going to do with FR, we are only getting a couple bits of cursory updates as a sidenote of generic modules or rules-focused books.
If something you like gets randomly turned into something you don't enjoy anymore, some negativity is basically inevitable.
Now, I'm not talking about this module because -as you say- we haven't seen it yet (and because I don't really care about modules, especially about these new adventures that seem to be written as reskins of a single story and template), but -as many others pointed out- seeing FR specific plots ignored for something that comes from another setting is not exactly encouraging (and goes against all the words about embracing the uniqueness of FR) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 18:13:46
There are parallels, and there are differences. I just explained to someone else that GW is 'its own thing', whereas WotC is now "someone else's thing". That means the guys at WotC have probably learned some hard lessons and are scrambling to keep whatever it is they still have (us, amongst other things).
The parts I see parallel in that video is a consolidation of the separate gaming properties (what this very thread is about), and also the main point of that man's video - stop complaining about stuff we haven't seen yet. Pissing and moaning about your favorite hobby is like shooting yourself in the foot. Why would anyone new want to join our hobby (and save it) with all sorts of negativity being thrown about?
I have one game currently, and was just invited to run a second one. I met some guys over at my son's house yesterday, and they want me to run a 5e D&D game for them (and they are ex-PF players!!!) As I was leaving I overheard one of them say to my son, "David, your dad is the coolest guy I ever met!"
Yeah... thats what I live for.  |
| Irennan |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 18:00:29
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So please watch the video. Even though its not about D&D and FR, its the same kind of thing, with a company facing the same kinds of problems. What they are doing doesn't sound all that different then what WotC is currently attempting.
Idk. I've looked around a bit and from the stuff I've read, to me it seems that with this ''End of Times'' GW is attempting to pull a ''4e FR'', rather than WotC's 5e ''return of the old feel''. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 17:53:16
There was a time when 'just pleasing your customers' WAS the way to 'grow your business'. {sigh}
The problem with multi-national corporations and a global economy is that they know they don't need to produce quality anymore... all they have to do is convince enough people to buy their products. With something like 8 billion people on Earth, its pretty easy to find enough folks to fool.
Unfortunately, thats also very short-sighted (because that's how corp's think - in terms of 'the next quarter'). You damage your reputation so badly there no way to come back from that.
On the other hand, we don't have all our eggs in one basket. I see three possible 'futures' for D&D/FR, and all of them are good. There are probably far more bad scenarios, but I try not to think about those. I think I've grown bored with negativity - its pointless and self-damaging. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 17:19:21
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
On one of my (many) forums/sites, someone posted a video talking about Warhammer's (GW) new direction, and it reminded me of a lot of what is going on with D&D/FR. While I suppose it helps knowing a little about that stuff (I had a WHFB Wood Elf army), you do not need it to understand the point of the video.
That Games Workshop is a COMPANY. Its not there to stroke existing customers and make them happy, its there to stay in business. To that end, it means consolidation in an expanding market place. Whilst having choices is good, the current state of the industry has divided up the gaming pie to a level where larger companies are struggling to redefine themselves.
So please watch the video. Even though its not about D&D and FR, its the same kind of thing, with a company facing the same kinds of problems. What they are doing doesn't sound all that different then what WotC is currently attempting.
The problem with certain companies like Hasbro is they can't accept when a certain product has it's limits. Paizo understands that Pathfinder will never be a mega fortune product so that's why it actually focuses on giving us quality products that people actually want to buy. Hasbro won't accept that Dungeons and Dragons isn't a mega profit product. They are entirely too focused on trying to bring in all these imaginary new fans they think exist. They also don't want to admit that when it comes to the Forgotten Realms, it's older fans are actually the ones in control because all you have to do is look at the last edition and you will see that because most fans turned their back on their version of the setting, the company paid for it.
I'm not going to tell you who I work for because of security reasons, but the best thing that happened to the company was the current CEO dropped the goal of the old CEO and that was to become the best **** there is and instead just focus on our customers and how to make their experience better. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 17:04:59
On one of my (many) forums/sites, someone posted a video talking about Warhammer's (GW) new direction, and it reminded me of a lot of what is going on with D&D/FR. While I suppose it helps knowing a little about that stuff (I had a WHFB Wood Elf army), you do not need it to understand the point of the video.
That Games Workshop is a COMPANY. Its not there to stroke existing customers and make them happy, its there to stay in business. To that end, it means consolidation in an expanding market place. Whilst having choices is good, the current state of the industry has divided up the gaming pie to a level where larger companies are struggling to redefine themselves.
So please watch the video. Even though its not about D&D and FR, its the same kind of thing, with a company facing the same kinds of problems. What they are doing doesn't sound all that different then what WotC is currently attempting. |
| Baltas |
Posted - 09 Jan 2015 : 10:32:51
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Well, 4e really went full-bore with the whole 'taint' concept - aren't demons just tainted elementals now? (although in all those tens of thousands of years they are their own 'thing' now... not sure how evolution works amongst outsiders, if at all). Thus, with the 4e lore taken into account, having 'elemental evils' seems to work just fine. As for them in FR, its just a new name for something thats been around forever. I think Moander, Ghaunadaur, and Tharizidun (and Shothragot) are all connected somehow - perhaps all aspects of the same thing. I wouldn't also connect them to Shar, accept to say that shar is a similar creature - some of sort of 'primordial being'.
Yeah I think something similar, although I myself connected Moander, Ghaunadaur, and Tharizidun(along with Juiblex) with the The Lost Gods of Moster Mythology. I had that on Oerth, the Dark God absorbed the Elder Elemental God, resulting in Tharizdun. In Faerun, the Elder Elemental God absorbed Juiblex/the Faceless Lord, and that merger resulted in Ghaunadaur. The Dark God in Toril became Moander.
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Entemoch was not Ogremoch's good counterpart, Sunnis was.
Actualy,I think both Entemoch and Sunnis are mentioned as the good archomentals of earth. So I think both are Ogremoch's good opposites. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 19:32:27
Okay, I had to look through sevral entries in Monster Mythology to track the events and connections. The Elder Elemental Eye and Dark God may be one and the same (although that tome does not say this) - they are both traced back to the same sources. The Dark God has been blamed for the Black Diamond, which corrupted the Queen of Air and Darkness - who we now know has been Auril all along!
Thus, we have a very round-about connection between all these things/beings. The Fey started on Abeir-Toril, and were one of the 'Creator Races'. According to GHotR, they fled just before the (1st) Sundering. This points to Ladinion and Black Diamond affair all being and happening on Abeir-Toril.
Hmmmm... what if that 1st Sundering is what created the Planer structure and Great Ring? Technically, that would make it an 'Unsundering' of sorts - the old universe was torn-apart to make way for the new. Now we have a new Sundering, which may just be everything snapping back to how it should have been. However, I think thats what the Spellplague did, and THIS Sundering is just like the last one - tearing that primal, elemental soup back apart and bringing structure to the multiverse.
So, to those of us living in this universe, the Sundering is more of a 'fix'. To those 'Elder Gods', it would truly be a 'Sundering' - their world torn apart to make way for the Great Ring.
Tentacles... I see tentacles everywhere! I think I must have picked-up some of that taint myself. I KNEW I shouldn't have read those Brian Lumley books I got for Christmas last year!  |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 19:32:18
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Entemoch was not Ogremoch's good counterpart, Sunnis was.
Right. I was remembering Entemoch from one of the Underdark books, and it sounded there like he was some kind of opposite to Ogremoch. I re-read the article after posting the reply and saw Sunnis. I forgot to come back and edit. My bad.
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
As for Tharizdun, it was him who tried to convince the evil archomentals that he was their creator but it was a lie.
I was just quoting the article. I think the whole blurb is unfortunately worded, because who is the Elder Elemental Eye granting interviews to? Who is in a position to say what it's trying to convince others of, and whether or not it's true? It bugs me when someone tries to be an omniscient-observer-trying-to-fake-being-fallible.
Anyway, here's hoping the new storyline actually fits whatever world it's being used in.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 19:15:21
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
And the Elemental Chaos-Maelstrom I think is the same as the ethereal proto-matter, Norse powers called it Ginnungagap and made their nine worlds out of it, Greek protogenoi (what primordials should be based on) had Chaos, Shar and Selune had that misty, shadowy realm.
Which is why I think 'The Great Ring' in an unnatural state for the universe. The 2e Guide to Hell even states it was created (although newer lore has re-written some of that). I still think there a kernel of truth hiding in there - that certain lawful powers (both good & evil) got together to 'bring law' unto a chaotic universe, and pissed-off a lot of Elder (lovecraftian) horrors in the process.
In fact, its been postulated the the Great Ring itself is just the universe's most powerful artifact - it some sort of 'magical engine'. It's true purpose is is anybody's guess.
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Good counterparts exist, at least for the archomentals --Entemoch is the good version of Ogremoch if I remember right-- but they are not talked about as much as the evil ones... which is to say they're barely ever mentioned at all. Some of them are named in an article in Dragon #347... which contains a relevant phrase: "The evil god known as the Elder Elemental Eye claims to have sired most of the Elemental Princes of Evil, making them strange siblings indeed. Scholars of ancient religions speculate that this god is actually the ancient evil, Tharizdun (Complete Divine, 123)."
The article also describes Akadi, Grumbar, Istishia, and Kossuth as "the greater elemental gods" and places them above the archomentals. They "only involve themselves when one side threatens to gain too much influence over its respective plane."
Entemoch was not Ogremoch's good counterpart, Sunnis was. Entemoch was Ogremoch's twin brother (their father was actually Grumbar).
As for Tharizdun, it was him who tried to convince the evil archomentals that he was their creator but it was a lie. Imix, the evil archomental of fire, seemed to believe him though.
I missed this the first time through.
There is a connection between the Elder Elemental Eye and FR, but I can't recall the details. Something to do with the Fey - I think maybe it created the Back Diamond (which I STILL think now resides in the Crown of Horns). Anyhow, if Tharizdun is just the GH name for that being, and Ghaunadar/Moander are others, then it all comes full-circle. Maybe it realized its FR aliases had become too well known and ts using its GH one now in Faerūn (I'd like to think the REAL Khelben Arunson brought it back with him somehow, but thats just me having fun with the idea).
Gods go by many names, even in RW mythology. To me, this all seems like a fairly easy fix. If they do it right, an FR-ized ToEE could be great. |
| Marc |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 17:35:47
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As for Tiamat, I run her more like her RW iteration, rather then the D&D one. Now, the thing about entropy is that it isn't really about destruction - its about creation through rot. Law = Stagnation and eventual true death. 'New life' can't be born without being built on top of what has gone before. There is a whole faction in PS dedicated to this idea.
Most Doomguard are in the Destroyer fraction tough.
I also prefer to use RW mythology to the D&D versions, the draconic version would something like the Spawn of Rovagug from Pathfinder.
And the Elemental Chaos-Maelstrom I think is the same as the ethereal proto-matter, Norse powers called it Ginnungagap and made their nine worlds out of it, Greek protogenoi (what primordials should be based on) had Chaos, Shar and Selune had that misty, shadowy realm.
There's an interesting connection between Tharizdun and the sharns, from Ecology of the Sharn article, tough that's 4e core cosmology, doubt that WotC will expand it. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 17:01:07
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Good counterparts exist, at least for the archomentals --Entemoch is the good version of Ogremoch if I remember right-- but they are not talked about as much as the evil ones... which is to say they're barely ever mentioned at all. Some of them are named in an article in Dragon #347... which contains a relevant phrase: "The evil god known as the Elder Elemental Eye claims to have sired most of the Elemental Princes of Evil, making them strange siblings indeed. Scholars of ancient religions speculate that this god is actually the ancient evil, Tharizdun (Complete Divine, 123)."
The article also describes Akadi, Grumbar, Istishia, and Kossuth as "the greater elemental gods" and places them above the archomentals. They "only involve themselves when one side threatens to gain too much influence over its respective plane."
Entemoch was not Ogremoch's good counterpart, Sunnis was. Entemoch was Ogremoch's twin brother (their father was actually Grumbar).
As for Tharizdun, it was him who tried to convince the evil archomentals that he was their creator but it was a lie. Imix, the evil archomental of fire, seemed to believe him though. |
|
|
