| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Baptor |
Posted - 01 Feb 2015 : 05:49:15
Candlekeep community,
I can never tell with my 15 years of Forgotten Realms DM experience if I am an old hat or a newbie, considering how old the setting really is.
Anyways. I started running the Realms in 2e just before 3e hit, so most of my "glory days" were running in the 3e Realms. I read the "Return of the Archwizards" trilogy in college and was a dedicated Realmsian from then on. I had a one-night stand with Eberron, but it meant nothing to me and I've committed myself to the Realms ever since.
Like most, I was shocked and dismayed by the Spellplague. If I'd known then what I know now, I'd never have adopted it, but I still had this childlike trust of WotC and decided to go with it. We all endured the fact all the stories and characters we'd made were dead or useless and moved on.
OK actually we maybe played twice between 4e and 5e. We just couldn't stomach the new Realms and I didn't have the wherewithal to just reject it then.
When 5e playtesting started, we jumped aboard. We were particularly excited about this Sundering business and a return to the "realms you knew and loved" as Ed himself described it.
Time has passed with no setting and now we are hearing the devs can't even be bothered with working on it at the present time. We are a little ticked, to say the least.
We are currently running my own tweaked version of the Rise of Tiamat campaign (I imagine it differs vastly from the published version actually.)
Long ago in my Faerun one of my players actually became a lesser god. When the Spellplague hit, I wrote in that this demigod foresaw the tragedy and sealed himself in the demiplane of Time to avoid it and disappeared from the pantheon. I did this for two reasons. 1. To fit with the "less is more" of 4e, yuck. and 2. to create a plot device if I ever needed to undo this nonsense.
We are seriously considering undoing this nonsense.
The agonizing decision lies in this: if the 5e book is really good (and the 5e stuff I've seen so far IS really good IMO) I'd hate to miss out on it.
However, it may be years away, and some say with the WotC team continuing to downsize and avoid the question of a FRCS book it may be never. It also may suck. If that's the case, we want to roll back the timeline to 1375 DR (where we left off) and just forge ahead with never-the-mind to WotC and their machinations.
There is no place on the internet with more love for the Realms than this place. I entertain your opinions, what do you think? What would you do?
Putting it another way, who here is waiting for the 5e book and who here has told WotC to stick it and do their own Realms (be it Grey Box, 2e, 3e, or otherwise)? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Jun 2015 : 00:32:06
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
This was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts on this subject. I especially like what you said about the Realms being a particular flavor and tone. Mazeltov.
Thanks 
In gaming, I strongly believe each of us has to make the Realms (or any world setting) truly our own. I love seeing the various differences and alterations people have made to their own home Realms.
The canon Realms is fine for novels, but I've never seen anyone who actually runs a perfect canon Realms in their gaming. I suppose it's possible, but it's way, way too much work to keep up 100% with every novel, supplement, and tiny scattered note across a hundred-plus sources that WotC has formally noted as canon.
It's actually impossible to run a Canon game due to the very nature of your own player characters entering the realms. Since they are not canon the game cannot be Canon
Oh c'mon, that's just semantics. ''Canon game'' simply means that you are sticking as close as possible to ''canon''.
I'd say that's true for only so long... dependent almost entirely on just how much "impact" your characters have on canon-specific elements. Granted, PCs are supposed to have a minimalistic effect on most canon aspects for the most part, but...
Having your characters eventually kill of Manshoon or dethrone Lady Alustriel, for examples, would effectively make it harder [though not completely impossible] to define your campaign as being fully adherent to Realms canon. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 05 Jun 2015 : 22:19:21
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
This was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts on this subject. I especially like what you said about the Realms being a particular flavor and tone. Mazeltov.
Thanks
In gaming, I strongly believe each of us has to make the Realms (or any world setting) truly our own. I love seeing the various differences and alterations people have made to their own home Realms.
The canon Realms is fine for novels, but I've never seen anyone who actually runs a perfect canon Realms in their gaming. I suppose it's possible, but it's way, way too much work to keep up 100% with every novel, supplement, and tiny scattered note across a hundred-plus sources that WotC has formally noted as canon.
It's actually impossible to run a Canon game due to the very nature of your own player characters entering the realms. Since they are not canon the game cannot be Canon
Oh c'mon, that's just semantics. ''Canon game'' simply means that you are sticking as close as possible to ''canon''.
Not really. Each non-published adventure that has NPCs, organizations, monsters, and PCs will ultimately change the Realms in some way that deviates from Canon. And it usually only gets more apparent the higher your level is. Now I believe that is the full intent of the setting and game but it also undermines any reason to adhere to Canon in the first place. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 05 Jun 2015 : 19:48:17
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
This was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts on this subject. I especially like what you said about the Realms being a particular flavor and tone. Mazeltov.
Thanks
In gaming, I strongly believe each of us has to make the Realms (or any world setting) truly our own. I love seeing the various differences and alterations people have made to their own home Realms.
The canon Realms is fine for novels, but I've never seen anyone who actually runs a perfect canon Realms in their gaming. I suppose it's possible, but it's way, way too much work to keep up 100% with every novel, supplement, and tiny scattered note across a hundred-plus sources that WotC has formally noted as canon.
It's actually impossible to run a Canon game due to the very nature of your own player characters entering the realms. Since they are not canon the game cannot be Canon
Oh c'mon, that's just semantics. ''Canon game'' simply means that you are sticking as close as possible to ''canon''. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 05 Jun 2015 : 19:25:28
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
This was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts on this subject. I especially like what you said about the Realms being a particular flavor and tone. Mazeltov.
Thanks
In gaming, I strongly believe each of us has to make the Realms (or any world setting) truly our own. I love seeing the various differences and alterations people have made to their own home Realms.
The canon Realms is fine for novels, but I've never seen anyone who actually runs a perfect canon Realms in their gaming. I suppose it's possible, but it's way, way too much work to keep up 100% with every novel, supplement, and tiny scattered note across a hundred-plus sources that WotC has formally noted as canon.
It's actually impossible to run a Canon game due to the very nature of your own player characters entering the realms. Since they are not canon the game cannot be Canon |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 05 Jun 2015 : 17:06:24
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
This was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts on this subject. I especially like what you said about the Realms being a particular flavor and tone. Mazeltov.
Thanks
In gaming, I strongly believe each of us has to make the Realms (or any world setting) truly our own. I love seeing the various differences and alterations people have made to their own home Realms.
The canon Realms is fine for novels, but I've never seen anyone who actually runs a perfect canon Realms in their gaming. I suppose it's possible, but it's way, way too much work to keep up 100% with every novel, supplement, and tiny scattered note across a hundred-plus sources that WotC has formally noted as canon.
|
| Baptor |
Posted - 05 Jun 2015 : 16:47:55
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
In the novels, there is a canon Realms. But in gaming, there is no "right" or "true" single way to play the Realms.
Each and every Realms DM can adapt, modify, or completely re-write aspects of the Realms for their gaming use. My Realms never had a Time of Troubles, it has no "AO" or any overgod, and the gods have always been distant except for very rare omens, dream-sendings, "signs" and minor manifestations (e.g. a glowing temple altar, the appearance of a perfect rose, and the like). Having distant gods who would never manifest as avatars isn't canon, but it doesn't mean my Realms is any less the Realms than someone who likes having Selune show up as a sexpot bar wench or Mystra as a regular dinner guest.
There's also more than one type of faith. There's faith without proof, of course, but faith also means troth or trust. Given that the gods grant spells and send manifestations, faith in my Realms is centered on the belief that a worshiper is acting in accordance with their god's wishes - and occasionally, they're rewarded with a minor manifestation (as noted above) to verify they were right or wrong. Faith can also be the trust that your deity will be there to back you up in extremely dire circumstances (something Ed also does, though rarely), in various ways.
In my Realms, Toril is a regular planet similar to Earth, with no hint of a goofy Spelljammer type "crystal sphere" or phlogiston or any of that stuff at all. I use an extremely modified planar cosmology, and I've even changed quite a lot of the history to better suit my gaming tastes. It's not canon, but it's still the Realms - because the Realms is about a particular flavor and tone, a depth and richness of play, much of which I think has been seriously damaged by the 4E Realms, cosmology shifts, and metastory retcons, not to mention the time-jump. Too much goofy metastory spoils the soup, IMO.
This was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts on this subject. I especially like what you said about the Realms being a particular flavor and tone. Mazeltov. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 05 Jun 2015 : 15:42:27
In the novels, there is a canon Realms. But in gaming, there is no "right" or "true" single way to play the Realms.
Each and every Realms DM can adapt, modify, or completely re-write aspects of the Realms for their gaming use. My Realms never had a Time of Troubles, it has no "AO" or any overgod, and the gods have always been distant except for very rare omens, dream-sendings, "signs" and minor manifestations (e.g. a glowing temple altar, the appearance of a perfect rose, and the like). Having distant gods who would never manifest as avatars isn't canon, but it doesn't mean my Realms is any less the Realms than someone who likes having Selune show up as a sexpot bar wench or Mystra as a regular dinner guest.
There's also more than one type of faith. There's faith without proof, of course, but faith also means troth or trust. Given that the gods grant spells and send manifestations, faith in my Realms is centered on the belief that a worshiper is acting in accordance with their god's wishes - and occasionally, they're rewarded with a minor manifestation (as noted above) to verify they were right or wrong. Faith can also be the trust that your deity will be there to back you up in extremely dire circumstances (something Ed also does, though rarely), in various ways.
In my Realms, Toril is a regular planet similar to Earth, with no hint of a goofy Spelljammer type "crystal sphere" or phlogiston or any of that stuff at all. I use an extremely modified planar cosmology, and I've even changed quite a lot of the history to better suit my gaming tastes. It's not canon, but it's still the Realms - because the Realms is about a particular flavor and tone, a depth and richness of play, much of which I think has been seriously damaged by the 4E Realms, cosmology shifts, and metastory retcons, not to mention the time-jump. Too much goofy metastory spoils the soup, IMO.
|
| Caladan Brood |
Posted - 04 Jun 2015 : 06:41:21
I remember before I really understood how the seem to Realms work I played the gods of the setting as "silent", so the players didn't know if they existed or not, like in the real world - it required faith. Then I read about the Time of Troubles and I was like WHAAT? And then I began to wonder how the word "faith" can even exist in the setting, and so many more questions came out of this single thing, and I began to read more and understand the setting more. But hey, it worked without the gods being known to exist as well - spells were granted and all that. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 03 Jun 2015 : 21:06:19
Baptor, just save your self some heartache and go on ahead and role back to 1375DR and just game on from there.
You will feel alot better.
John
|
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 03 Jun 2015 : 18:36:27
Thanks for the kind words.
The only reason I did this was I felt I needed something written 'in universe' to explain why certain events and RSEs from happening and explain why player action has more importance than what the gods devise. One thing I have noticed is that there is more mystery to the gods now and, since even high level clerics aren't sure what their deities want, it creates some tension in the various churches.
One result of this was that the House of Nature has gained a fair amount of power as it was decreed that it would cover all the natural law of Toril. So gods like Umberlee, Talos, Auril and even Talona had to align with it even if they did not want to. The shift in power moved it from more of an agricultural house to one that covers things that many would not consider 'good'.
I have a cleric of Eldath in my group that is having to deal with the new dynamic and he is dealing with the changes in a way that fits his character. He has watched as several clerics has switched from their patrons to venerating the full on house, seen the Eldathian priesthood embrace more militant aspects and has to cope with the fact that many of his sect are leaving his beloved patron. He plays it well enough and will also learn that the order he is with is going to dissolve into becoming priests of the House of Nature and closing his order.
It has been fun watching him play this through and realize that things are not as cut and dried as he thought. That alone made the reset worthwhile. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 03 Jun 2015 : 10:49:59
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I'm always curious about what changes folk make to the Time of Troubles.
Care to elaborate?
In a nutshell I had the Tablets of Fate being stolen by the same gods but all the major deities were behind the theft. They wanted to be out from under AO's control and decided that this was the only way they could do what they wanted. The result was a world where magic went haywire, the gods did fight but were not forced into avatar form by AO. The Avatars came later when the fabric of reality was altered and the barriers between planes like the Far Realm and Plane of Shadow became thin or torn.
The result was a rather nasty time where you had avatars fighting each other and having to deal with creatures bent on destroying Faerun. Only AO stopped it by destroying and then immediately reforging the Tablets of Fate creating a new dynamic for the gods. He basically tells them they are spoiled children and will treat them as such from now on. He dictates the pantheon into roles of stewards and limits their interaction on Toril. As well he reorders many of the gods into houses depending on what they are to oversee. So you have things like the House of Nature, House of Magic, House of Knowledge and so on. AO also makes it to where he and he alone can promote, demote, resurrect or kill a deity.
The darker deities still have to abide by this and are more than a little upset that they have lost so much power and even good deities are chaffing at the new order. However they have little choice in the matter and are adapting while finding ways around the new rules.
Most of the same gods and goddesses died in the conflict. The promotion of Midnight, Cyric and Kelemvor does happen but Midnight had only a few moments as a Neutral Good diety before AO reawakened aspects of Mystra and Mystryl forcing her into a LN position. Cyric retains most of his post ToT powers as Bane was prevented from returning by AO. Kelemvor does take parts of death from Cyric (I play loose with the portfolio idea) leaving Cyric with undeath and darker aspects of the idea.
Basically, the idea was to do a few things 1) Prevent any idea of a spellplague from coming 2) Keep the dead from returning and letting Faerun adjust to the new paradigm and 3) move into a more Dark Fantasy genre than a heroic one. So far it has worked for us and even the couple of FR vets I have likes the changes.
This is what should have happened in canon.
Ao's choice of letting the gods do as they please and allowing countless cataclysms to happen just to teach them a lesson doesn't really make sense. Then, with the Sundering, he brings the various deities back and proceeds to limit their meddling and to cut their conflicts, setting their portfolios/power in stone.
Seriously, the latter part is the only rational choice that he could have made at the end of the ToT. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 03 Jun 2015 : 07:36:12
+1 |
| Baptor |
Posted - 03 Jun 2015 : 05:59:40
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I'm always curious about what changes folk make to the Time of Troubles.
Care to elaborate?
In a nutshell I had the Tablets of Fate being stolen by the same gods but all the major deities were behind the theft. They wanted to be out from under AO's control and decided that this was the only way they could do what they wanted. The result was a world where magic went haywire, the gods did fight but were not forced into avatar form by AO. The Avatars came later when the fabric of reality was altered and the barriers between planes like the Far Realm and Plane of Shadow became thin or torn.
The result was a rather nasty time where you had avatars fighting each other and having to deal with creatures bent on destroying Faerun. Only AO stopped it by destroying and then immediately reforging the Tablets of Fate creating a new dynamic for the gods. He basically tells them they are spoiled children and will treat them as such from now on. He dictates the pantheon into roles of stewards and limits their interaction on Toril. As well he reorders many of the gods into houses depending on what they are to oversee. So you have things like the House of Nature, House of Magic, House of Knowledge and so on. AO also makes it to where he and he alone can promote, demote, resurrect or kill a deity.
The darker deities still have to abide by this and are more than a little upset that they have lost so much power and even good deities are chaffing at the new order. However they have little choice in the matter and are adapting while finding ways around the new rules.
Most of the same gods and goddesses died in the conflict. The promotion of Midnight, Cyric and Kelemvor does happen but Midnight had only a few moments as a Neutral Good diety before AO reawakened aspects of Mystra and Mystryl forcing her into a LN position. Cyric retains most of his post ToT powers as Bane was prevented from returning by AO. Kelemvor does take parts of death from Cyric (I play loose with the portfolio idea) leaving Cyric with undeath and darker aspects of the idea.
Basically, the idea was to do a few things 1) Prevent any idea of a spellplague from coming 2) Keep the dead from returning and letting Faerun adjust to the new paradigm and 3) move into a more Dark Fantasy genre than a heroic one. So far it has worked for us and even the couple of FR vets I have likes the changes.
I support this retcon. :) |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 02 Jun 2015 : 16:37:31
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I'm always curious about what changes folk make to the Time of Troubles.
Care to elaborate?
In a nutshell I had the Tablets of Fate being stolen by the same gods but all the major deities were behind the theft. They wanted to be out from under AO's control and decided that this was the only way they could do what they wanted. The result was a world where magic went haywire, the gods did fight but were not forced into avatar form by AO. The Avatars came later when the fabric of reality was altered and the barriers between planes like the Far Realm and Plane of Shadow became thin or torn.
The result was a rather nasty time where you had avatars fighting each other and having to deal with creatures bent on destroying Faerun. Only AO stopped it by destroying and then immediately reforging the Tablets of Fate creating a new dynamic for the gods. He basically tells them they are spoiled children and will treat them as such from now on. He dictates the pantheon into roles of stewards and limits their interaction on Toril. As well he reorders many of the gods into houses depending on what they are to oversee. So you have things like the House of Nature, House of Magic, House of Knowledge and so on. AO also makes it to where he and he alone can promote, demote, resurrect or kill a deity.
The darker deities still have to abide by this and are more than a little upset that they have lost so much power and even good deities are chaffing at the new order. However they have little choice in the matter and are adapting while finding ways around the new rules.
Most of the same gods and goddesses died in the conflict. The promotion of Midnight, Cyric and Kelemvor does happen but Midnight had only a few moments as a Neutral Good diety before AO reawakened aspects of Mystra and Mystryl forcing her into a LN position. Cyric retains most of his post ToT powers as Bane was prevented from returning by AO. Kelemvor does take parts of death from Cyric (I play loose with the portfolio idea) leaving Cyric with undeath and darker aspects of the idea.
Basically, the idea was to do a few things 1) Prevent any idea of a spellplague from coming 2) Keep the dead from returning and letting Faerun adjust to the new paradigm and 3) move into a more Dark Fantasy genre than a heroic one. So far it has worked for us and even the couple of FR vets I have likes the changes. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 02 Jun 2015 : 12:32:50
Reboot, install something that isn't VVirii-dows™, reboot again.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 02 Jun 2015 : 02:23:17
I'm always curious about what changes folk make to the Time of Troubles.
Care to elaborate? |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 01 Jun 2015 : 20:01:44
I've rebooted more times than I dare to count. Usually it is after a campaign ends and there is time between them to explore new ideas or options. Since my 5e game started I reset to 1372 with some changes to the ToT and a new dynamic on gods. If a new book comes out I will likely get it but since I was not a fan of the Spellplague I can see myself cherry picking from the contents.
|
| Caladan Brood |
Posted - 19 May 2015 : 22:03:36
Oh btw, why not have your party time travel to, say, 1340 DR? |
| Caladan Brood |
Posted - 19 May 2015 : 21:55:21
Lol, "my" Realms are in a perpetual state of 1366 DR.
And when Thor smashes his hammer there is thunder and lightning. |
| qstor |
Posted - 19 May 2015 : 17:24:00
I'd bet that WOTC is doing setting books anymore just articles and adventures from 3PP
Mike |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 12:49:02
I find it strange that all the designers who made the Realms great back in 2E haven't been engaged to bring the Realms back with a bang. If there's ever a Cormyr sourcebook, Garen Thal should be writing it etc. They have great talent they can tap, it's just strange not seeing them do it.
As far as I can tell, the two guys (Perkins and Baker) who blew the whole place up in 4E are somehow still involved with the setting. One works at WotC and the other is doing the next adventure path. That I don't understand. And if I'm incorrect, I apologize, but that's what I saw.
WotC needs folks who are true to the original vision of the Realms and who have the chops to write it as such. It's what made the Realms great in the first place. Please note I'm not trying to pick a fight or start a flamewar, this is just my opinion.
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 12:37:38
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
The next FR campaign book won't be designed in house. If I had to put my money anywhere, it would be a 3PP that has an agreement in place with WotC--such as Kobold Press. They've done a lot for FR already in regards to 5e. I'm sure Ed will be the primary guy involved.
I would support this too.
Matt, that's an interesting idea there, and I can see that happening with regards to not just FR, but other campaign settings as well in the future.
I do have one worry however when it comes to 3PP handling of prior edition campaign settings, and I posted this over on Enworld:
The more long-term people that WotC loses, they're eventually going to run into a problem with loss of institutional knowledge regarding older setting material, making it significantly harder to create material for those (even if the text is being written by freelancers, because you still need editors well enough versed in those settings to be able to fact check versus published material). When I've referenced prior edition material I've always added comments and page numbers from sources used, but there's always a risk in publishing DL/RL/Planescape/etc material that is out of print for an edition or two and no longer having anyone on staff that wrote for those settings or is as intimately familiar with them to know for when they're editing freelancer material when one freelancer is obsessive and perfectionist about the content versus another who isn't.
FR I think would have less of an issue in this regard because any 3PP working on it would presumably have Greenwood on board. But others I genuinely worry that there could come a point where WotC could lack sufficient in-house knowledge of a given setting to properly oversee 3PP material.
Must not post something negative and about recently released adventures that highlights your concern perfectly.
I share your concerns though.
Down with WoTC |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 12:17:00
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
The next FR campaign book won't be designed in house. If I had to put my money anywhere, it would be a 3PP that has an agreement in place with WotC--such as Kobold Press. They've done a lot for FR already in regards to 5e. I'm sure Ed will be the primary guy involved.
I would support this too.
Matt, that's an interesting idea there, and I can see that happening with regards to not just FR, but other campaign settings as well in the future.
I do have one worry however when it comes to 3PP handling of prior edition campaign settings, and I posted this over on Enworld:
The more long-term people that WotC loses, they're eventually going to run into a problem with loss of institutional knowledge regarding older setting material, making it significantly harder to create material for those (even if the text is being written by freelancers, because you still need editors well enough versed in those settings to be able to fact check versus published material). When I've referenced prior edition material I've always added comments and page numbers from sources used, but there's always a risk in publishing DL/RL/Planescape/etc material that is out of print for an edition or two and no longer having anyone on staff that wrote for those settings or is as intimately familiar with them to know for when they're editing freelancer material when one freelancer is obsessive and perfectionist about the content versus another who isn't.
FR I think would have less of an issue in this regard because any 3PP working on it would presumably have Greenwood on board. But others I genuinely worry that there could come a point where WotC could lack sufficient in-house knowledge of a given setting to properly oversee 3PP material. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 06:58:36
It's entirely possible for WotC to be working on something in house, while a third party works on the Realms.
Note also there are plenty of Realms novels out there--meaning there is already a lot of material to draw from for running a current era campaign. |
| Baptor |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 06:28:36
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
P.S. There is also the thread below, indicating that instead of working on a FR sourcebook, WotC is focusing efforts on an entirely new campaign setting instead. Not a lot to go on, but if true, it would not be good news.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?409052-Is-Chris-Perkins-Working-On-A-New-D-amp-D-Setting
I didn't read the entire discussion, but what little I saw did not indicate a new campaign setting. A new project could be pretty much anything, including a relaunch of an older, long-defunct setting like Mystara.
I suppose my real point is that what they are saying indicates they are not working on a FR book now and are focusing their efforts on other things, whatever those things are.
Either WotC is way off from making a Realms book or they are intentionally misleading us so they can spring a surprise at GenCon. If that's the case I suppose that will be OK but its also not very good marketing IMO.
Gah for all my rage I'll guess I'll wait and see what they produce. If it's terrible (and it's not likely to be as long as they don't betray their original intentions) then I can always retcon my setting.
There are some people who've argued settings don't truly become ours until TSR/WotC considers them dead and stops tinkering with them. Maybe there's something to that. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 05:42:18
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Fiction and WotC's simplified version of Paizo's adventure paths now drive the FR product line. In such a dynamic environment how and when would they stop the bus to undertake the massive undertaking that is the 5E FRCS? This is especially so as they have insufficient in house designers to do it alone. In that environment, a re-boot is impossible in my view. Similarly, I struggle to see where an FRCS fits in WotC's product mindset. If they haven't started work on it now - and I have no knowledge of that one way or the other - then a GENCON 2015 release date is pie in the sky stuff.
-- George Krashos
Part of why I think we're going to hear something at GenCon is because we generally get a new FR book soon after a new edition, and because they've got to announce something -- they can't simply coast on the 5E core books.
They've mentioned bringing back the old feel, they've continued publishing novels in the setting, they've got more novels in the pipeline, and there's a new ruleset -- for me, that all points to a new campaign book. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 05:38:48
quote:
Originally posted by Baptor
P.S. There is also the thread below, indicating that instead of working on a FR sourcebook, WotC is focusing efforts on an entirely new campaign setting instead. Not a lot to go on, but if true, it would not be good news.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?409052-Is-Chris-Perkins-Working-On-A-New-D-amp-D-Setting
I didn't read the entire discussion, but what little I saw did not indicate a new campaign setting. A new project could be pretty much anything, including a relaunch of an older, long-defunct setting like Mystara. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 02 Feb 2015 : 00:43:32
all I will say about he opost is that the reboot/non reboot has been beaten the the grave, raised and beaten again. it is now a fully undead horse |
| Delwa |
Posted - 01 Feb 2015 : 23:18:26
Myself, I'm not exactly "sticking to Canon" as it were. My current Campaign is set in 1490 DR, and I'll jump forward and backwards in time as campaign ideas come to mind. I do like to incorporate new lore if I can, but what I've done thus far is thus:
Anything pre-Spellplague, with the exception of one eight real world years long game I ran in the late 1380's, happened, but what's written in the books and novels is just one point of view. What actually happened is up to me, and if what happened becomes relevant to my current game, I'll flesh it out then.
I've been moving forward since I ran Murder in Baldur's Gate. Other adventure modules and such get folded in as recent events or rumors as they are released. How the events of Hoard of the Dragon Queen play out are to be determined by my PC's in a future play through. If questions are asked at taverns, etc, I'll make something up. It's all just gossip anyway.
If a future Realms supplement catches my, or my player's attention, and it really buggers the events that have already taken place, we'll just play through it in an alternate dimension of Faerun where plots and events unfold in a way that makes incorporation of those events enjoyable. If they decide they like the new alternate dimension better, we'll keep playing in it until we decide to go dabble in the other version of the world again. If we decide to blend the two dimensions, Modify Memory is a wonderful spell, and advanced versions of it make lots of things possible.
So, in short, I really don't see how "canon conflicting with what I played at home" really has any impact beyond a personal preference. I'll either sample what I like and incorporate it, or I'll ignore it and keep having fun.
And having fun is what I've been doing with the 5E Realms. I've got tons of 2E material to pull from for history, inspiration, and ideas, and a nice, fresh, new blank slate to dabble in where I don't need to deal with players who can't separate player and character knowledge. (Not that I can't deal with that issue, I can and have, but it is nice to not have to worry about it for now.)
I'll definitely get a 5E Sourcebook if/when one is published. But it's not hurting me at all not having one, and it doesn't have to hurt anyone else's gameplay, unless they choose to allow it.
All that said, yes, I want a sourcebook. Or at least a series of articles from Ed detailing the current state of the Realms. Not for gameplay, but reference. If I want to incorporate current events in a given novel, I'd like a sourcebook to look up rather than skim back through several novels for tidbits. I want the convenience.
Also, for the sake of new Realms fans, I want to be able to point them to a physical tome in my FLGS. Ed Greenwood Presents does a great job as a Realms handbook, but it needs companion books for the various cultures so a DM can dive into Cormyr in detail, or Thay, or wherever. Right now, I'm pointing people to DriveThruRPG's pdf store with digital versions of the Volo's Guides and such, or Amazon if they really want a physical copy, but lots of people want physical tomes. It would even be nice to see a deluxe reprint of the Volo's Guides or some of the more popular sourcebooks and adventures, like they have already done with the older editions' core books.
But all of those things don't spell "Must have a FRCS." It just spells resources more readily available.
Like others have said, keep playing what you enjoy. Support what you like. Have fun.
|
| Baptor |
Posted - 01 Feb 2015 : 22:00:12
P.S. There is also the thread below, indicating that instead of working on a FR sourcebook, WotC is focusing efforts on an entirely new campaign setting instead. Not a lot to go on, but if true, it would not be good news.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?409052-Is-Chris-Perkins-Working-On-A-New-D-amp-D-Setting |
|
|
