| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dracons
Learned Scribe
USA
299 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 13:04:43
|
|
I've heard somewhere that the time of troubles was the reason for the edition shift from second edition to third. But the avatar series was written years before third edition. Can anyone confirm or explain this? If it's real of course.
|
I love PMs! Please send me a message. Even if its Hi. |
|
|
Ionik Knight
Learned Scribe
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 13:10:15
|
| ToT was the "Spellplague" for the shift between 1st and 2d edition. As far as I know they did without such cataclysms for the shift from 2nd to 3rd. |
Fools to right of them,
Jesters to left of them,
Clowns in front of them
Pun'd and parody'd. |
 |
|
|
Acolyte Thirteen
Seeker
93 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 13:11:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dracons
I've heard somewhere that the time of troubles was the reason for the edition shift from second edition to third. But the avatar series was written years before third edition. Can anyone confirm or explain this? If it's real of course.
1e-2e |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 13:57:46
|
As above: the Time of Troubles was the in-world justification for the changes between 1e and 2e. Which is ironic, since there were fewer changes in that change-over than there were in 2e to 3e or especially 3e to 4e.
There wasn't anything specific for the 2e to 3e switch, which confused a bunch of people at the time. Like I said, there were some significant changes (new classes, bards getting spells differently, free multiclassing for everyone, easier magic item creation, magic items handled differently, drow items not disintegrating under sunlight, etc.), but no explanation. The Return of the Archwizards trilogy was billed as "the change-over novel trilogy," but ended up not explaining any of the changes. Instead the designers just hand-waved it as "oh, it's always been like that, you just didn't know it." What was a whole lot more annoying than a TOT v. 2 would have been. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 16:22:42
|
Good morning all,
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Instead the designers just hand-waved it as "oh, it's always been like that, you just didn't know it." What was a whole lot more annoying than a TOT v. 2 would have been.
Note that was not the consensus opinion of the gamers sampled (i.e., asked) by WotC.
Generally speaking, fans of the setting did not like what the Time of Troubles did to the pantheon and the setting itself. The ToT was a true Realms Shaking Event, with consequences that stretched right into the minds of every gamer, effecting how they perceived the setting in a not positive way.
In other words, when the fans were asked, "We're switching to a new rules system for D&D. Should we have another ToT to explain how the rules changes come about in the setting?" the response was "NO!"
Hand-waving (more accurately the Magic Television approach, where the rules are thought of as a lens through which to view the setting) was the right method for the 2e-3e transition, because it's what the majority of the fans wanted and because it left the setting with hardly a scratch on it. |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 15 Oct 2010 16:24:08 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 16:36:03
|
| I'm not sure I agree with that, but I do admit that the designers seem to be in a no-win situation, or at least managed to turn it into one. If they create ToT, they get accused of blowing up the Realms to support a few mechanics changes. If they don't, they get accused of being high-handed and condescending. So, natually, for the 4e transition, they decided to do both at the same time, and turn both up to 11. Something wrong there... |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 16:52:19
|
The Return of the Archwizards (Shade) was the RSE that ushered-in 3rd edition, although it wasn't as all-encompassing (Read: rule-changing) as the ToT or Spellplague were.
Strangely, the rules (IMHO) were changed much more between 2e & 3e, yet the RSE was of a much-lower magnitude and the changes to the setting weren't at all covered by it (except, perhaps, the greater significance of the Shadoweave).
Thus proving that rules can be completely revamped without a lot of lore attached, and fans will "get over it". 4e Eberron is further proof of this - to eschew anything to the contrary is a complete fallacy.
Its major changes to the lore we can't abide.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Oct 2010 16:54:21 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 17:20:16
|
I really don’t know why the 4E designers for the Realms thought blowing everything up would be such a good idea to make the edition jump between 3E and 4E, given that a few of them were part of the same group that handled the 2E to 3E transition.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The Return of the Archwizards (Shade) was the RSE that ushered-in 3rd edition, although it wasn't as all-encompassing (Read: rule-changing) as the ToT or Spellplague were.
When I look at that series, I don’t really see it as “the” RSE for the edition change. To me it was more like the opening salvo in a string of series-based mini-RSEs that would happen all over the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Thus proving that rules can be completely revamped without a lot of lore attached, and fans will "get over it".
When you put the term in quotes, I’m guessing you mean something like, “they’ll get over it, eventually.”
For example, the reconceptualization of the outer planes surrounding the Realms in the Great Tree model as opposed to the Great Wheel was fodder for a half decade of complaints on the WotC and CK forums.
I’d need more than all my fingers and toes to count the number of times someone wrote on the two forums, “They should have provided an in-game explanation! You insult our intelligence otherwise! We don’t believe in your Magic Television and are too stubborn to listen to reason or accounts of what the fans that came before us wanted. We’re hurt by WotC’s callous attitude towards our emotional need for Canon preservation and we’re going to stay hurt. So there!”.
The most ardent of Realms fans are nothing if not stubbornly emotional beings. ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
4e Eberron is further proof of this - to eschew anything to the contrary is a complete fallacy.
4E Eberron is proof that fans of one setting can get spooked and cry for mercy when they see another setting get trashed by the people in charge of making edition transitions for all the settings in the D&D stable.
|
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 15 Oct 2010 17:22:59 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 17:36:56
|
I don't think TSR thought 2E mandated a Godswar -- it was rather a convenient opportunity for one. You only need to read this board to see that doing the 3E switch either with or without in-world blow-ups would have displeased many.
The people behind Realms-2008 didn't ask themselves 'How should we publish the Realms to do it the most justice and sustain high sales of Realms sourcebooks?' The question was more like 'Given the new two-core-brands focus on D&D and Magic, what version of the Realms would maximize sales of the two setting books and our freedom to do with it what we want in the future, without hurting novel income?' |
Edited by - Faraer on 15 Oct 2010 18:12:01 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Oct 2010 : 19:33:35
|
That's bizarre - I seem to have dropped my grognard hat for a moment and Misc, of all people, seems to have donned it. 
And yeah, I meant "begrudgingly get over it.... eventually...".
In 3e, the lack of in-game reasons for rules-changes were annoying, but the majority of us were able to come to terms with them in our own way. Most just finally ignored them, many created their own HB lore, and the rest (that were bothered by it) finally realized people were tired of them crying about it and moved on.
Since the quality of lore continued, and we saw more of the characters we learned to love, we were able to do this. The world moved forward, one lurching RSE at a time, but the story of FR went on.
You can have a complete rules-overhaul and people will complain. You can have a complete setting overhaul and people will REALLY complain (think OS Star Trek and ST:tNG).
But you can't have both - its a complete 'disconnect'. Moving the timeline a century forward was the nails in the coffin. Picture being Rip van Winkle going home after his hundred-year sleep. 'Shell Shocked' is putting it mildly.
Anyhow, water under the bridge and nothing to do for it now. We can just keep talking about the Realms and playing in any year we want, with any changes we want, and with any rules we want. As a game, we are in charge of our worlds, and we determine what happens.
So long as we are still having fun. 
EDIT: BTW, I completely agree with your assessment of 'lots of little RSEs' rather then one, big uber-event. I just remember that at the bookstores, alongside the big cardboard 'Redgar' in the RPG section, there were end-caps with equally impressive advertisements for the Return of the Archwizards trilogy. 3e came in with quite a bit of fanfare, and the shades became part of that. They heralded-in the 3e Realms (which came a few months later), which is why I associate them with the edition change (despite the lack of any real changes, aside from Tilverton, their appearance caused). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Oct 2010 19:41:17 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 04:41:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Good morning all,
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Instead the designers just hand-waved it as "oh, it's always been like that, you just didn't know it." What was a whole lot more annoying than a TOT v. 2 would have been.
Note that was not the consensus opinion of the gamers sampled (i.e., asked) by WotC.
Generally speaking, fans of the setting did not like what the Time of Troubles did to the pantheon and the setting itself. The ToT was a true Realms Shaking Event, with consequences that stretched right into the minds of every gamer, effecting how they perceived the setting in a not positive way.
In other words, when the fans were asked, "We're switching to a new rules system for D&D. Should we have another ToT to explain how the rules changes come about in the setting?" the response was "NO!"
Hand-waving (more accurately the Magic Television approach, where the rules are thought of as a lens through which to view the setting) was the right method for the 2e-3e transition, because it's what the majority of the fans wanted and because it left the setting with hardly a scratch on it.
I'm personally not so sure that fans were asked if they wanted a ToT to explain the 3E changes... It's a well-known fact that the way a question is framed can seriously affect the answer. And I've never seen any evidence that people were asked, anyway.
I think if the question was asked, it was prolly something along the lines of "Do you want another ToT?" without any further explanation -- which of course people would not want. On the other hand, I think if the question had been "do you want changes explained or ignored?" then an overwhelming majority would have opted for explanations.
In my more cynical moments, I'm forced to wonder if there was ever any thought given to an explanation, or if they didn't even consider offering one. I think it's very telling that the return of arcane magic to the dwarves could have been explained with a single sentence under the Thunder Blessing description, but was not even addressed. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 04:45:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I really don’t know why the 4E designers for the Realms thought blowing everything up would be such a good idea to make the edition jump between 3E and 4E, given that a few of them were part of the same group that handled the 2E to 3E transition.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The Return of the Archwizards (Shade) was the RSE that ushered-in 3rd edition, although it wasn't as all-encompassing (Read: rule-changing) as the ToT or Spellplague were.
When I look at that series, I don’t really see it as “the” RSE for the edition change. To me it was more like the opening salvo in a string of series-based mini-RSEs that would happen all over the Realms.
This is another thing that makes me wonder about WotC's claim that they didn't give us a 3.0 RSE because fans didn't want one. If we didn't want one to explain changes to the setting, then why did we then get a string of RSEs?
The Return of the Archwizards trilogy held many disappointments for me, but one of the biggest was that it would have been a good mechanism for explaining at least some of the changes wrought by 3E -- but they failed to use it as such. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 15:10:08
|
I assume (a) many roleplayers didn't want RSEs, in general or to accompany a rules shift (whether most, I don't know); (b) there was still a steady proportion of novel readers for whom RSEs were (had been cultivated as) a major sales draw.
As for the dwarves, no event or in-world change was needed at all: instead of making dwarven wizards commonplace they could have said there always had been an exceptional few, and it wouldn't have been a retcon, as pre-3E it was usually assumed, certainly in the Realms, that exceptions to the rules could and did occur. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 16:03:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I assume (a) many roleplayers didn't want RSEs, in general or to accompany a rules shift (whether most, I don't know); (b) there was still a steady proportion of novel readers for whom RSEs were (had been cultivated as) a major sales draw.
As for the dwarves, no event or in-world change was needed at all: instead of making dwarven wizards commonplace they could have said there always had been an exceptional few, and it wouldn't have been a retcon, as pre-3E it was usually assumed, certainly in the Realms, that exceptions to the rules could and did occur.
Well, my thing with mentioning the dwarves is that prior to 3E, a PC dwarf wizard was nearly impossible to achieve. Dwarves did not trust magic, and they were so non-magical that magic items didn't always work for them. And then in 3E, dwarven wizards are just another choice, and their former issues with magic are gone. Adding a line to the description of the Thunder Blessing -- saying something like "Moradin returned to his children the gift of magic" would have explained the discrepancy, without being a retcon. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 16:27:49
|
| Is that not made explicit? I must have taken it for granted that was the idea. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 16:38:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The Return of the Archwizards trilogy held many disappointments for me, but one of the biggest was that it would have been a good mechanism for explaining at least some of the changes wrought by 3E -- but they failed to use it as such.
Which is precisely how I feel about the Spellplague as well. It was an ingenious mechanism for change, that failed epically because of its poor usage. That's like building a bridge from America to Europe, and then failing to open it. Sure its spectacular, but what was the point?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In my more cynical moments, I'm forced to wonder if there was ever any thought given to an explanation, or if they didn't even consider offering one. I think it's very telling that the return of arcane magic to the dwarves could have been explained with a single sentence under the Thunder Blessing description, but was not even addressed.
Once again, this is how I feel about the Spellplague as well.
For example, someone at the WotC boards (when 4eFR was first released) was complaining about the size change of the halflings, and how there was no explanation for it. I responded....
"The cerulean wave set-off massive series of explosions in Halruaa, destroying that nation and sweeping tons of magically charged material into the surrounding area. The waters of the Great Sea were churned into a frenzy, causing massive tidal surges across the southern shores and spilling the tainted waters upon the land. The greatest hit of these was Luiren;, that nation became awash with glowing liquid and wild magic zones. When the waters receded, much of the formerly pleasant halfling nation had been turned into a swampy morass, and the folk themselves were 'tainted' by the chaotic forces unleashed. Over the next two generations the people increased in size 30cm, and although many families chose to move away to avoid the magical contamination, it was too late. Even those that took to the road in wagons by the hundreds were affected.
There, one paragraph explains their new size, preferred terrain, and tendency to wander. I don't think I am smarter then any designer - they just didn't bother to put any effort into it. They have the perfect tool and choose to ignore it.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Oct 2010 16:40:08 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 16:48:26
|
| Would you have liked them to use your halfling shift? And then another one when the next edition redrew them again? Certainly 3E lightfoot halflings -- a shameless play to the 'thin, hairless youths are sexy' complex -- never made it to my Realms -- I treated it as an art foible, which would have been trickier if it came with yet one more credibility-shrinking cataclysm. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 17:38:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Is that not made explicit? I must have taken it for granted that was the idea.
It is not explicit, or even implied. And that's why it bugs me. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 17:42:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Would you have liked them to use your halfling shift? And then another one when the next edition redrew them again? Certainly 3E lightfoot halflings -- a shameless play to the 'thin, hairless youths are sexy' complex -- never made it to my Realms -- I treated it as an art foible, which would have been trickier if it came with yet one more credibility-shrinking cataclysm.
I'd rather have an explanation that stretches credibility than an unexplained change. To me, the unexplained hand-wave destroys credibility a lot more thoroughly than any thin but plausible explanation. Changing things without explanation is what leads to feelings of a disconnect between what came before and what exists now. For all of the heartache is has caused many people*, at least the Time of Troubles offered an in-setting explanation for changes.
*I came aboard with the Time of Troubles, so it's never bothered me. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2010 : 18:25:45
|
I use EVERY iteration of the halflings, all at once. There are many 'clans' and each have their own individual appearance and traits. The 'old school' halflings I use for the stay-at-homes, and the newer 3e versions for PCs.
I have also use Munchkins, Oompa-Loompas, Warrows, Elfquest Elfs (Lythari/Halfling crossbreeds), etc, etc... mostly back when I ran GH. Since I started running FR I stopped with my halfling lore, but I had quite a bit of HB for my GH campaign.
I even used shojo as an Oriental (Kara-Turan) halfling variant, back when a bunch of us were working on KT on the WotC boards.
My assumption is that halflings have one particular racial trait in-common - the ability to adapt and evolve to suit their climate and situation, far faster then any other race (including humans, who do not physically change... at last not quickly without magic). That means not only will they take on cultural tendencies of others nearby, but they will even begin to look like them, or adapt to their terrain in a chameleon-like fashion.
Thus explaining the (sometimes vast) differences between the many, MANY halfling sub-types.
Homebrew, of course, but I made it work.
So to answer your question, Faraer, it doesn't really matter because of the way I spin them. If they have a 'super power', I would say it's Immunity to edition gaffs.
Halflings are whatever they need to be.
Writing lore that bridges editions isn't really all that hard (its a magical universe, after all), its convincing 'official types' that this sort of thing is necessary. Without it, we have dis-continuity and the immersion-factor goes out the window. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Oct 2010 16:06:05 |
|
|
|
jimbo32
Acolyte
7 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 06:15:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
When I look at that series, I don’t really see it as “the” RSE for the edition change. To me it was more like the opening salvo in a string of series-based mini-RSEs that would happen all over the Realms.
The thing that I find interesting about the 3e "mini-RSEs" is that (for the most part) they don't really seem to serve a purpose. It's like someone said "Ooh, here's something different, how can we squeeze it in?". The proverbial change-for-the-sake-of-change. I guess I'm cynical, but I tend to think that WotC folks sometimes get carried away with "making their mark" (in the style of a rampaging Tarrasque) on the Realms - or D&D in general - rather than publishing a quality setting or telling a good story. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 16:29:11
|
More on that note:
Like the destruction of Zhentil Keep, or one of the Twin Towers of the Eternal Eclipse - they are destroyed for a novel (or supplement) and then miraculously re-appear a week later.
On the other side of the coin, we have things like the watercourse canal and Tilverton, which are destroyed, rebuilt, and then just disappear without explanation.
Why bother to make the novels canon, when the stuff that happens in them -no matter how major - doesn't seem to affect the world in any appreciable way.
Even the Empires Trilogy, which I really liked (mostly for the plethora of lore) had zero impact. Aside from a small group of Orcs living - and being heroes - in the UE, nothing else was afected, despite the enormity of the conflict. It makes little sense.
Even the subjugation of Semphar and Ra-Khati were completely ignored afterwards - what the hell? Its like it never happened. 
Once sentence in the UE sourcebook could have accomplished the totality of that series: "A band of 1000 Orcs, dissatisfied with their treatment in Zhentil Keep, migrated into the region of Thesk and settled there peaceably, and have good relations with their human neighbors".
There - one sentence just impacted the greater Realms in exactly the same fashion as that trilogy did.
And like I said, I LIKED THAT ONE.
Why make the uber-antics of the munchkins be canon if nothing ever changes? It makes no sense. Un-canonize the novels, and just use the bits from them that you want to canonize in a sourcebook (the way they handle VG material, and the stuff from the Double Diamond novels). That way the designer/authors can pick what they want to change without having to saddle the Realms with all their dramatic baggage.
Because making major geographic changes in a novel and then ignoring it afterward is very poor continuity, IMHO.
EDIT: Exception that proves the rule; the lake in Anauroch was on the 3e maps, simply because the Archwizards series was designed to herald-in the 3e Realms, so the change was built into the 3e setting from the start. Had the series occurred later in 3e's life-cycle, I truly doubt the lake would have appearred on any map. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Oct 2010 16:33:55 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7973 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 19:43:47
|
I think the whole idea of the "mini-RSE" events is not to disrupt the setting overmuch. An opportunity to add a few more details or player options is created. But installing the game mechanics is only a secondary consideration. The real purpose is to tell interesting stories. Readers and players are engaged because the Realms are now a changing exciting world. The new Realms are ever dynamic and always active. The old Realms were just a plodding historical march across an intricately detailed but largely uneventful calendar. One problem now is that if you miss a trilogy you're decades behind and unable to follow the world as easily. Another problem is that Wizbro has maneuvered themselves into a pattern of constant escalation, each successive installment needs to be even bigger and better than ever seen before so that suckers people don't head for the exit. After a point (which I personally think was somewhere between 3.5e and 4e) things just get patently ridiculous. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 20:31:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
The new Realms are ever dynamic and always active.
So were the old Realms. That was one of the things that drew me to the Realms and away from Dragginglance. With the Time of Troubles, the Tuigan invasion, and a bunch of other stuff, things were happening in the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
The old Realms were just a plodding historical march across an intricately detailed but largely uneventful calendar.
Untrue and misleading. There were less major events, sure, but those major events weren't entirely absent. And a lot of the smaller things were still really good reads. Elaine is one of the most popular Realms authors. She wrote five books focusing on two characters, and two more trilogies each focusing on another pair of characters. Eleven books, no RSEs (large or small!), and yet she's still one of the most popular Realms authors.
Bigger is not always better. Hollywood proves that to us every week. Sometimes the most satisfying tales are the smaller ones. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 21:08:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Bigger is not always better. Hollywood proves that to us every week. Sometimes the most satisfying tales are the smaller ones.
QFT
'Glitz' is the crutch for those without the talent and/or desire to write moving human-interest pieces.
Notice most movies that win awards for their special effects don't win any for their acting or screenplay (with notable exceptions like Titanic). Sadly, movies with lots of explosions tend to be far bigger hits then 'Artsy' movies.
And I'm just as guilty of that as the next person - when given the choice between a 'Zombie Movie' or a 'Chick Flick', I will always choose the zombie movie. there's no accounting for taste - as a society we have become addicted to 'eye candy' (even if that candy exists in our imaginations, as it does in a fantasy novel).
Ergo, we can't blame writers - be they screenplay or novel - for giving us exactly what we (apparently) want. Sales determine what is produced, and obviously, big glitzy RSEs sell. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Oct 2010 21:10:36 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7973 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2010 : 21:21:38
|
Dragginglance was pretty awful for being stagnant, I'll admit. But they did try to sweep everything under the carpet with a KRE and start all over again. Just like hooking up with your old sweetheart years after an ugly breakup - you can rush to the good parts faster but you also get mired in the same old problems you had before.
Change in the Realms is constant. But the rate of change is not; more things are constantly happening at an always accelerated pace. Partly because so many talented authors now regularly participate in creating the Realms (this in itself partly because Wizbro is evidently more affluent than TSR in this regard), but also partly because of the abundance of endless Realmslore being contributed by the existing (and growing) fanbase around the world.
I think that each of us enters the Realms at a different point, so in a way we're forced to immediately accept as canon everything that's happened "before" we were introduced, all of those past RSEs really aren't much more than another part of the background setting. And then we're forced to accept and keep up with whatever changes occur. Realmsfans eagerly embrace every change, and for a while newer is always better. But most will eventually want to "slow down" the endless march of time a bit at some point to actually focus on (play out or explore) portions of the Realms which are of particular interest.
So you're right - my comments about the "old" Realms were untrue and misleading. Then again, a newly introduced D&D 4e player will see most of the existing body of "old" Realmslore as a bunch of dry history. The OP asks "what's the Time of Troubles really about" because, to him, it's all ancient history; some gods were killed and created and shuffled around. To me the ToT was far more significant because I was familiar with those gods beforehand and the transition itself was a very troublesome and apocalyptic event which impacted the setting for several decades. The Shadow Weave (along with a floating city full of Shadow Princes) just magically arrives out of nowhere in the middle of the night ... well to me that's kinda noticeable, to a 3e player Shade's just part of the landscape. The Spellplague is a complete disastrophe for me, but just another recent historical footnote in 3.5e, along with some other vaguely interesting footnotes about things like Cyric the Mad God, Daemonfey, Phaerimm, and Dragonrages, assuming they're recorded at all. Ao's dark secret is revealed and he lets a sudden pantheon of "primordial" powers flip fully one quarter of the world upside down one day, but new denizens of the 4e Realms will probably just assume that the errors they see on their old maps of Toril are based on incompetent scribes.
I entered the Realms a few months before ToT, early 1357. All that once-exciting stuff about elves slipping away to Evermeet or court intrigues and plots against the king of Cormyr were of no interest to me. What hooked me in was the events of the novels at the time, Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds, etc. But one little corner of the Realms gets tiresome after a while and you start looking at progressively more distant and exotic lands: Damara, Thay, Underdark, Chult, Zakhara, Kara-Tur, Maztica. Then you'd look towards distant times like ancient Netheril, and eventually expand the final frontier through nearby planets, crystal spheres, and planes. And then you'd just go back again and look more closely, digging deeper into the once-forbidden lore of things like Mythals and High Magic.
But today all the "lands" have already been mapped out. All the histories are known. Nearby planes have been documented. "Here Be Dragons" is no longer written on the map (except, of course, in those instances where There Be Dragons). So what hooks in today's "new" visitors to the Realms are novels about guys like Rivalen and Erevis (and tired old Drizz't), novels full of Genasi and Tieflings flashing their bright guppy-rainbow colours and the slickest new Prestige Feats money can buy. And all that's left is creating some excitement for what's going on in the world - that means wild parties and big events like wars, plagues, invading gods, and minor RSEs all butting their drunken heads together. Yesterday's Heroes are obsolete because today we create Superheroes. And we need Supervillains to oppose them. Nothing less will cut it anymore.
To new visitors this is what the Realms is all about. To me it's just a circus. Neither opinion is wrong. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 17 Oct 2010 22:12:07 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 01:45:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Dragginglance was pretty awful for being stagnant, I'll admit
That's a popular misconception. I've been with DRAGONLANCE from the very beginning, and aside from a brief period around the Chronicles/Legends trilogies, I've yet to see any really definitive point of stagnation within the setting.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 04:27:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is another thing that makes me wonder about WotC's claim that they didn't give us a 3.0 RSE because fans didn't want one.
This isn't a claim that can or should be cast in doubt. It's a fact that WotC chose not to use an RSE because the fans did not want one.
Link: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/realms-l.html
Looking back, it occurs to me we've had this conversation in one form or another, oh I dunno, a million times now.
The Realms-L archives (and the greater listserve archive it's a part of) are still the best resource for those who want a fact-based accounting of what WotC did and why, just like they were yesterday, just like they were five years ago, just like they were a decade ago.
I'm not sure why I think pointing this out again will change anything (read: the doubting Thomases so concerned about WotC's actions might actually read the archive and not just pretend it doesn't exist), but it's always nice to hope some new person won't bite into the party line that's popular here at CK and instead see the truth for themselves.
@Farear: "a shameless play to the 'thin, hairless youths are sexy' complex" is laying it on a bit thick.
I realize it's the sport here to cast WotC as the evil corporate entity, but the corporatized influence of Hasbro over WotC had not yet taken hold when 3E and the FRCS were being designed and written, i.e. halflings were recast as thin and nimble specifically because fat, pudgy, easily skewered on the end of a pike halflings were an artifact from LoTR and didn't make much game sense for D&D, and not because some Hasbro corporate hack thought D&D needed to be sexed up.
Dwarves using magic, nimble halflings, a unique cosmology for the Realms...these changes were made as part of WotC's focus to break away from the far-too-binding strictures of D&D and AD&D's archaic rule system. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 05:21:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is another thing that makes me wonder about WotC's claim that they didn't give us a 3.0 RSE because fans didn't want one.
This isn't a claim that can or should be cast in doubt. It's a fact that WotC chose not to use an RSE because the fans did not want one.
Link: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/realms-l.html
Looking back, it occurs to me we've had this conversation in one form or another, oh I dunno, a million times now.
The Realms-L archives (and the greater listserve archive it's a part of) are still the best resource for those who want a fact-based accounting of what WotC did and why, just like they were yesterday, just like they were five years ago, just like they were a decade ago.
I'm not sure why I think pointing this out again will change anything (read: the doubting Thomases so concerned about WotC's actions might actually read the archive and not just pretend it doesn't exist), but it's always nice to hope some new person won't bite into the party line that's popular here at CK and instead see the truth for themselves.
Okay, first of all, I do not recall having this conversation before.
Second of all, I'd be happy to read this quote specifying that -- simply point it out to me.
But I'm not going to accept that quote as fact. It was also stated by a WotC staffer that they weren't working on a fourth edition -- then they announced it six months later, and said they'd been working on it for two years.
And if they didn't do an RSE because the fans didn't want one, why did we then have several RSEs? Does it really make sense that the fans don't want an RSE to explain massive changes, but they do want many of them for no specific reason?
And back when I was on the WotC forums, I had a WotC staffer tell me that they weren't interested in asking us what we wanted -- they had their own methods for figuring out what we wanted.
So here's the facts: WotC inflicted many changes on the setting, and claims that we didn't want an RSE that could serve as an explanation. They then proceeded to give us several RSEs, eventually culminating in the Sellplague, the biggest RSE of them all. We've been lied to by WotC, told our opinions don't matter, and the one time they claim our opinions did matter, they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient.
So I'm hoping you'll forgive me for being skeptical of anything WotC says. The words and the deeds have not always gone hand-in-hand.
And lest anyone accuse me of bashing WotC... I have long railed against the often knee-jerk reactions and willingness to proclaim WotC as the source of all evil. I've even taken a lot of fire for telling people to wait until they had facts before making a decision.
That said, I'm no fan of WotC, and much of what they've done is questionable, at best. I'll not go out of my way to paint them as evil, but I think I have fair reason to not take anything they say at face value. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 18 Oct 2010 05:25:03 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 07:23:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, first of all, I do not recall having this conversation before.
You really don’t recall this string of conversation happening even once before?
I'm not being facetious when I say that that would explain a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But I'm not going to accept that quote as fact. It was also stated by a WotC staffer that they weren't working on a fourth edition -- then they announced it six months later, and said they'd been working on it for two years.
Do you really expect someone to let the cat out of the bag on something so big as an edition change? Keeping the lid on something of that magnitude is smart business; it's not indicative of WotC being evil with every other piece of new information about products that are coming down the pipe.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And if they didn't do an RSE because the fans didn't want one, why did we then have several RSEs? Does it really make sense that the fans don't want an RSE to explain massive changes, but they do want many of them for no specific reason?
The point, again, was that WotC did not write an RSE into the Realms to explain away the changes in the 3E Realms, because the fans didn't want another RSE on the scale of the ToT.
Do any of the subsequent mini-RSEs explain the changes to Cosmology, the maps, Dwarves as magic users or tall/thin Halflings?
No.
Double check your thinking on this one, Wooly. WotC's editorial arm's decision to inflict mini-RSEs all over the Realms after the FRCS was released has exactly zero to do with their decision to not use an RSE to introduce the 3E rules to the Realms. It has everything to do with WotC's decision to sell moar novelz.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And back when I was on the WotC forums, I had a WotC staffer tell me that they weren't interested in asking us what we wanted -- they had their own methods for figuring out what we wanted.
I'm sorry, but you're either not recalling the conversation correctly or you're taking a single statement—very likely one where you called on them to use the fans as a resource and they responded they have other methods for collecting fan input—and blowing it way out of proportion.
WotC has and continues to dialogue with the fans constantly. For your statement to be true, you'd have to pretty much ignore everything that goes on here at Candlekeep in the Chamber of Sages, as well as the years-long existence of the WotC forums, Dragon and Dungeon Magazines and Gen Con and WotC's numerous customer surveys.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So here's the facts: WotC inflicted many changes on the setting, and claims that we didn't want an RSE that could serve as an explanation.
Subtract "inflicted" and substitute "many" with "some", then otherwise during the transition from 2E to 3E, this is true.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They then proceeded to give us several RSEs, eventually culminating in the Sellplague, the biggest RSE of them all.
And during that eleven year timeframe WotC either fired or saw several of their key Realms design staff—people who fought aggressively to limit the boom to just Tilverton when the novels side wanted a much bigger blast when Shade fought Cormyr— quit entirely or reduce their roll to that of freelancers. WotC came under more strict corporate controls and backslid in terms of a general understanding of what was good for the Realms and the D&D game vs. what was good for the bottom line.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We've been lied to by WotC, told our opinions don't matter, and the one time they claim our opinions did matter, they ignored those opinions as soon as it was convenient.
This is puerile, over-emotional hogwash. Unadulterated, "it [allegedly] happened to me so it happened to all of us" hogwash.
Wooly, you have defended WotC in the past. I appreciate that. I also appreciate a healthy skepticism of WotC in its current form.
However, It makes no sense to demonize WotC by claiming that their more recent negative actions are proof that their prior actions were also negative.
...and once again I find myself no longer interested in participating in a scroll. It's like banging your head against a self-healing brick wall. Every time you think you make progress, it seals itself back up and you have to start all over again.
|
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 18 Oct 2010 07:34:27 |
|
|
|
Bakra
Senior Scribe
628 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2010 : 12:48:34
|
To quote the legendary philosopher, Charles Brown,
"Good Grief!"
|
I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dumb question about ToT and editions.
