| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rodrigoalcanza |
Posted - 26 Nov 2015 : 23:45:41
Hello everyone!
I have a thought about Forgotten Realms and I would like to share. If you were starting to play D&D today you would fall in love with the Realms?
I personally believe that I did not. D&D 5th is great, but the Campaign Settings is too weak. FR is the canon setting, but I do not think it is so vibrant, beautiful and cool. It do not have a basic book, supplements and not even a logo mark specific to the Forgotten Realms (It only exists inside the D&D). The same with other Campaign Settings.
I'm really enjoying the new edition of the game, but not like anything of the Realms after 1400. I really hoped the transparency of the Wizards in creating the 5th Edition of the game also extended to the Campaign Settings. Perhaps a vote as was done with the rules of D&D in paytest, could also be done with the fate of the Realms. I believe many people would elect a return to the years of 1300 DR.
I started playing RPG on the 2th Edition and fell in love with the Forgotten Realms. I also loved everything I saw of the First Edition. These two editions had a special feeling. The presentation of the Realms was different, and always seemed closer to the original vision of Ed Greenwood. In the Third Edition, I began to dislike many things. The Fourth .... I still do not believe what happened.
Thus, I believe, for various reasons, which I starting to play D&D now, I would have no special feeling for Forgotten Realms. Sad!
Sorry for English!
Rodrigo. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Nilus Reynard |
Posted - 16 Dec 2015 : 20:46:59
I would have no problem with a reboot to the 1350s.
I don't use any Spellplague material in any of my current campaigns, it was a bad idea when it first happened & it hasn't changed since. |
| Khaelieth |
Posted - 06 Dec 2015 : 12:10:43
I'd group 1-3.5rd edition FR together, then 4th and 5th together.
The former group has detailed information about the current setting, whereas the latter has a much less detailed setting. While the older editions had contradictions due to so much information being built on existing information (the size of the High Forest, the constant remodelling of how the planes worked etc.), the edition rules changes affecting the setting (sorcerers and warlocks suddenly appearing), older style of world building (Earth to FR travel), it was also incredibly rich. This would often lead to inexperienced or perfectionist DMs being somewhat paralysed by the sheer amount of information available, and being scared of altering it. This was definitely my case, and still is to a certain degree (try figuring out all the different
Now the newer editions has much less "current" information. It is much more newbie-friendly in that there's very little (relatively) information available. You buy the book, and that's where everything is. There's no information turning up at some point saying you put Nordhaeril on the wrong side of the river, or that there's actually a Mielikkian order of warriors-knights called the Shadoweirs in the High Forest that your Mielikki-worshipping high priest was completely and utterly unaware of.
I prefer the old Realms, and I'm totally uninterested by the new editions, but that has more to do being a cheapskate Scot than anything else. I'm happy about the pre-Spellplague Realms, but that is my highly subjective view - I'm grew up with those Realms, and I'll play those.
From a business point of view, I think WotC made the right decision, or I can at least understand it. Some of the aforementioned idiosyncrasies are odd, and making everything more approachable for newer players is a good way for them to attract new players. It probably isn't good for current player retention (4th absolutely murdered the WotC boards as far as FRs were concerned), it might work out in the long run. Only time will tell.
But would I fall in love with the current Realms? I don't think so - but I'm older than I was back then. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 06 Dec 2015 : 04:05:31
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Yeah, I know, but it's the little details that bug me.
Like, "death" was actually Bhaal's old portfolio. So is Myrkul more like Bhaal, and Bhaal is now ? You know what I mean?
Or like - if Lathander and Amaunator are really the same, maybe just different avatars, then why the rather different write-ups with quite different goals and such? It just seems sloppy.
Yes, I know what you mean.
If we had to explain it, we could say that Bhaal has been reduced to the god of murder and assassins. Perhaps he serves Myrkul now, but the book says very little about the relationships among the gods, so we don't know anything beyond the fact that Bhaal is the god of murder, Myrkul the god of death and Kelemvor the judge of the dead.
About Lathander/Amaunator, we know that they are very different because they are ''Lathander's'' attempt at providing what mortals need in different periods of time. Now some mortals won't let go of Amaunator, and Lathander will answer to them, in order to not lose followers.
But yeah, the book leaves too much unexplained and just provides a summarized status quo (I mean, another example is Dove's presumed resurrection, which is completely unexplained). |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 06 Dec 2015 : 03:58:38
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
The book lists deities that currently answer to prayers and give spells, i.e. currently active, but it doesn't have info regarding the matter of some gods actually being ''aspects''. Considering the events in ''The Reaver'', I guess that some people pray to Lathander, others to Amaunator, but both receive answers from the same entity. The book says nothing about this, though.
Myrkul and Kelemvor have different spheres of influence: death and the dead, respectively. This can be presumably handwaved by saying that Ao reassigned the portfolios while rewriting the tablets.
Yeah, I know, but it's the little details that bug me.
Like, "death" was actually Bhaal's old portfolio. So is Myrkul more like Bhaal, and Bhaal is now ? You know what I mean?
Or like - if Lathander and Amaunator are really the same, maybe just different avatars, then why the rather different write-ups with quite different goals and such? It just seems sloppy.
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 06 Dec 2015 : 03:53:14
The book lists deities that currently answer to prayers and give spells, i.e. currently active, but it doesn't have info regarding the matter of some gods actually being ''aspects''. Considering the events in ''The Reaver'', I guess that some people pray to Lathander, others to Amaunator, but both receive answers from the same entity. The book says nothing about this, though.
Myrkul and Kelemvor have different spheres of influence: death and the dead, respectively. This can be presumably handwaved by saying that Ao reassigned the portfolios while rewriting the tablets (I don't consider it a satisfying asnwer, though). |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 06 Dec 2015 : 03:41:33
I was confused about Amaunataur and Lathander too. I think Myrkul and Kelemvor, while sharing some of the same domains, are different enough in their ideologies that I don't think there should be too many issues. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 06 Dec 2015 : 03:35:59
After reading the SCAG, somewhat briefly I'll admit, I'm left wondering who WotC was intending to interest as a market. It's not bad, exactly. But it is IMO very limited in use for either DMs or Players. It just doesn't have enough detail to really lure a DM with any experience in the Realms - and it leaves unanswered or extremely vague everything that happened over the past 100 years, including the Sundering, Spellplague, and time jump.
For Players, it just doesn't seem to have much either. A number of character options, with IMO not all that much appeal - nothing that jumps out and says, "PLAY ME!"
Completionist lore collectors might buy it, but there's a jumble of weird stuff that doesn't make sense and isn't explained. Amaunator and Lathander at the same time? Myrkul and Kelemvor at the same time? If I'm going to play as a cleric of one of those deities, how do I roleplay/deal with the "OMG TIGER STANDING IN THE CORNER!" questions that everyone really needs to know about those deities?
I don't get it.
I really quite like 5E D&D, my players do too. Several of us wish they'd come out with the "magic power points" variant rules that were hinted at during the playtest, but the main rules for spells are mostly fine.
But I don't quite get the strong focus on encounters-style adventure paths, or the narrow focus on the sword coast. The published Realms feel like they're constantly shrinking, especially compared to my homebrew Realms.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 23:26:30
There's very little in the current adventures of what drew me to the Realms. The SCAG seems to make a creditable attempt to preserve some of that, but I don't know whether it would have impelled me to dig deeper. As a setting, I think the current Realms resembles a prematurely aged plastic surgery victim.
From the start, the official timeline ignored most of the developments suggested in the Old Grey Box and took off in its own jumble of directions. I'd be curious to see a 1367 DR or 1377 DR Faerūn truer to what Ed had in mind, but what would invigorate the Realms more than any number of fast-forwarded years, shattered lands or brand managers' bright ideas would be a start on publishing the vast backlog of existing material set in the 1340s and 1350s, and no reboot would be needed for that.
No Realms logo because Wizards isn't fostering a Realms brand these days -- all eggs have been in the D&D basket from 4E on. |
| rodrigoalcanza |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 10:38:41
I understand what everyone is saying! But it's a feeling I have. I really do not know if I even would like a reboot, but I have the impression that many people would like something like that. But I can is wrong.
I liked many things in Third Edition, especially FRCS, but in this edition I had the first dislikes with the Realms. I believe 4E had good stories, but I truly believe that the best stories were discontinued due to changes in 4E. Many plots of Realms did not follow the way they were originally intended.
I am very pleased with the 5th Edition, and I would like to feel but same thing about the Realms. I am confident (in Ed Greenwood and Bob Salvatore) and I'll be careful. Really a lot of good RF is coming back. I hope that at some point my impressions change for the better. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 07:41:49
quote:
Originally posted by rodrigoalcanza
... and not even a logo mark specific to the Forgotten Realms (It only exists inside the D&D).
This is a good point.
I think I understand why Wizards of the Coast does things this way, but I wish they would not.
I would prefer it if the Realms logo was at least present on the covers of sourcebooks. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 21:18:47
5E Realms just needs more detailed coverage going forward. No need for reboot. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 20:43:05
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
Reseting the setting would just kill it for me.
I don't always like the changes that they make, but reseting the setting is no solution. Far too many great stories would be removed from the Realms.
I don't see why a reset would be needed. Just buy the older books and use those.
They mostly are not that hard to find in print, and I think just about the entire FR line can be ours ahead in PDF form now.
Or is conversion from 5E to other editions particularly difficult?
If we go that route then why not just use the old rules? Also, people don't always have the time.
I would use AD&D, probably 2E, to run FR if I ever get around to running FR again.
So put me in the old materials plus old rules camp.
And if I were to purchase an edition to add to my collection, I would more likely buy the original game or the Holmes Basic set before I check out Fifth/Next.
YMMV |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 19:24:58
While I disliked the time jump and the Spellplague in general, there were some good novels that came out in 4e. The stand alone Waterdeep novels, the Unbroken Chain books (I wish those would continue), Brimstone Angels, Swords of the Moonsea, and the Shadowbane books, among others. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 19:21:05
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
What great stories would be removed between now and the Spellplague? Surely a "lot" more were removed during the 100 year jump.
I was obviously talking about stories that were actually written and released.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Whi is it "no solution"? It removes detritus that neither fits in the setting nor is compatible with the rest of continuity any more than a "Friendship is ears!" pony-fic.
Which stories? The nonesnsical cluster-fluff which is LP?
And what about stories that were removed from the Realms for the sake of glowing cutie-marks and shards of a stillborn MMO?
First of all lets not pretend that the pre-4E era of the Realms didn't also have its fair shair of bad stories too.
And second, too many people here have the bad habit of pretending that no one likes anything from 4E. You think the storylines of 4E suck? Well, I'm sorry for you. But I enjoyed most of the 4E novels and wouldn't want to see them go. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 14:17:10
Can we not refight the Edition Wars, folks? I was one of the most vocal opponents of the 4E Realms, and I got tired of the arguing years ago.
For better or worse, WotC has moved forward with the Realms, building on what came before. It's kinda pointless to argue about the value of that move, since it's a done deal. |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 13:43:56
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
I think there are quite a few people who would welcome a Star Trek style reboot back to the 1350s of the Realms.
Star Trek is dead to me since they rebootet the whole universe  |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 13:19:27
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
Reseting the setting would just kill it for me.
I don't always like the changes that they make, but reseting the setting is no solution.
Whi is it "no solution"? It removes detritus that neither fits in the setting nor is compatible with the rest of continuity any more than a "Friendship is ears!" pony-fic.
quote:
Far too many great stories would be removed from the Realms.
Which stories? The nonesnsical cluster-fluff which is LP?
And what about stories that were removed from the Realms for the sake of glowing cutie-marks and shards of a stillborn MMO?
|
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 11:25:49
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
Reseting the setting would just kill it for me.
I don't always like the changes that they make, but reseting the setting is no solution. Far too many great stories would be removed from the Realms.
What great stories would be removed between now and the Spellplague? Surely a "lot" more were removed during the 100 year jump. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 11:23:56
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
Reseting the setting would just kill it for me.
I don't always like the changes that they make, but reseting the setting is no solution. Far too many great stories would be removed from the Realms.
I don't see why a reset would be needed. Just buy the older books and use those.
They mostly are not that hard to find in print, and I think just about the entire FR line can be ours ahead in PDF form now.
Or is conversion from 5E to other editions particularly difficult?
If we go that route then why not just use the old rules? Also, people don't always have the time. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 30 Nov 2015 : 05:38:43
I agree with CD above. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 30 Nov 2015 : 03:16:23
They should keep moving forward (much as I wish certain things didn't happen), but they should bring back the old feel of the Realms--how it was pre-4e. More indepth sourcebooks, instead of brief paragraphs, more novels, etc. We can have the "old Realms" in the "new Realms" if they treated the new material like they did the old. Oh I certainly wish some things were different, but I don't want them to erase it. That woule nullify a lot of things. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 27 Nov 2015 : 02:51:22
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
Reseting the setting would just kill it for me.
I don't always like the changes that they make, but reseting the setting is no solution. Far too many great stories would be removed from the Realms.
I don't see why a reset would be needed. Just buy the older books and use those.
They mostly are not that hard to find in print, and I think just about the entire FR line can be ours ahead in PDF form now.
Or is conversion from 5E to other editions particularly difficult?
|
| Delwa |
Posted - 27 Nov 2015 : 02:44:04
Honestly, the 5e books have rekindled my creativity regarding the current Realms. I find myself flipping through the SCAG for holes, what if's, and other plot hooks.
I had ideas before, and I was fully prepared to ignore any canon from here to eternity, but I'm enjoying the stuff that's coming out. Even the stuff I don't like gets me thinking on how I can tweak it to suit my tastes.
Also, looking back, before 5e released, I recall thinking about just building my own world and just keeping up with the Realms as a hobby. That idea is on the back burner now.
So, yeah. I'd say the current Realms would draw me in. Baldur's Gate was what brought me to this world originally, and the 3e FRCS. I loved it. I'd say this is at least on par with that. On par in different areas, one isn't as detailed as the other, but still the same in level of thrill.
Mabye if I had been keeping up with the Realms to the extent I am now, reading new release articles, dabbling in the newst products, etc, I'd say different. But for me, this is the first time I've ever been able to experience the thrill of waiting for a new Realms related release. When I first started playing tabletop, 4e had just come out, and I didn't like it, personally. So I was stuck searching for out of print books, "yesterday's news" material. It was good, and I soaked it up, but it didn't carry the same excitement that reading a new release has, and discussing it with fellow fans of Toril.
If I were new, I wouldn't "know better" regarding the Realms, and the SCAG would not only provide an interesting read, it would provide mechanical options for the edition I'm playing. Even now, it's one of the few Realms books I've read cover to cover in every second of my free time from the day I purchased it.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the subject. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 27 Nov 2015 : 01:14:37
Reseting the setting would just kill it for me.
I don't always like the changes that they make, but reseting the setting is no solution. Far too many great stories would be removed from the Realms. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 26 Nov 2015 : 23:49:49
I think there are quite a few people who would welcome a Star Trek style reboot back to the 1350s of the Realms. But for one reason or another, I doubt we'll ever see it happen. At least 5th edition seems to be all about undoing the mistakes of the 4th edition and putting things back as they were. Which is pretty much like when Coke decided to bring back Classic Coke and discontinue New Coke. But people still thought the old Coke was better than Classic Coke.
|
|
|
