| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 20:22:57
|
On another board I saw a discussion about the Realms. One poster was saying that 4th Ed is not only a wholly different gaming system, but also that The Realms aren't THE Realms anymore, because they changed/retconed too much.
All the retcons and changes they made to accommodate new rules are unfortunate and I don't like them, but overall I think those are still the Realms, just in future.
Discuss.
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 20:35:15
|
The basic answer is "if you want them to be". I say yes, but a noticeable percentage would say no. So, it all comes down to if you want to embrace it or not.
From an outside standpoint, the answer is yes because the Realms is whatever the current license holder slaps the name on. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
 |
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 20:47:38
|
| I rather like the changes, myself. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 21:13:00
|
quote:
Imp
On another board I saw a discussion about the Realms. One poster was saying that 4th Ed is not only a wholly different gaming system, but also that The Realms aren't THE Realms anymore, because they changed/retconed too much.
You'll find those sorts of discussions on Candlekeep as well if you look for them. A lot of condemnation, vehemence, and passionate arguments asserting which D&D edition is superior and which RSEs are "unacceptable". Yes, a lot of D&D players were particularly angered/disappointed by 4E and there's still some nasty fallout from the "nuking" of the Realms, and yes, unfortunately the flames fan up from time to time. Although we all have our edition preferences here, Candlekeep is primarily dedicated towards the accumulation of Realmslore in every form and is officially edition neutral. You'll find that expressions of edition preference are happily tolerated but the hammers will fall and scrolls get padlocked once things start getting ugly. I've been caught up in it myself, I've even seen some of the moderators get drawn in ... but in the end it's a game, if you and your friends can have fun playing if differently than me and my friends then have fun rocking the Realms, more power to you. 
Tyrant's answer is complete and accurate. Your Realms are based on whichever sources you accept as canon, whereas the official Realms canon is everything/anything the franchise holder (currently Wizbro) chooses to publish or endorse.
Realmslore is the work of countless authors and it's always evolving. As a collective work Realmslore is full of holes, inconsistencies, and self-contradicting facts. Most of the schisms are aligned along the boundaries between successive D&D game editions. But we're all here because, one way or another, we all love some part of the Realms. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 27 Aug 2011 21:24:21 |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 21:24:04
|
quote:
Tyrant's answer is complete and accurate.
And very neutral. ;) |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 21:33:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
From an outside standpoint, the answer is yes because the Realms is whatever the current license holder slaps the name on.
That's specifically a legal standpoint, and to a lesser extent a public-perception standpoint, but not an artistic/creative one.
I think 'no' and 'yes' answers are both justifiable, depending on what aspects of the Realms weigh heaviest with you. For me, no for reasons I've gone into in the past, and yes mainly because of authors' efforts to carry on the Realms' spirit in the 2008 framework.
Identity, you tricky thing. |
|
|
|
althen artren
Senior Scribe
USA
780 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 21:49:34
|
"Sniff, snnnnifffffffff, snf"
Hmmmm, here there be troll bait. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 23:58:02
|
Like any game setting or campaign world, the Realms are both communal and individual--there's a certain set of canonical lore that is put in place by the authors, designers, and executives who maintain the IP, but there are also thousands of different Realms at thousands of different gaming tables. Ultimately, you're the one who decides what your Realms is.
I think the "The Realms aren't the Realms anymore" argument has more to do with the anger on the part of the poster, rather than any basis in actual/mechanical fact. Clearly, the history lines up, the basics of the world are still there, and about 80% of it is the same as it always was. But yes, there have been significant changes (about 20% of the setting, I would estimate) and that has turned many people off the Realms.
And to put it in perspective, there were people at every edition changeover who cried foul and said the Realms were being ruined and weren't the Realms anymore. (Which is not to say they were wrong, only that they had that perspective.)
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 01:39:40
|
| I have no problem with 4th edition. But the changes they made to the Forgotten Realms make it no longer even resemble the realms in any way. The changes seem to be to more like 80% of the world, and 20% is the same, to me. The Time of Troubles was a significant event, but it didn't actually change the world that much. Between 2nd and 3rd edition I don't see how the realms really changed at all. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 02:21:00
|
The transition from late 2E to late 3.5E involved a large number of incremental "small" changes. The Time of Troubles was done ... yet the Avatar Crisis shifted into new arenas, Zhents got blasted, Cyric came and went, Tuigan Hordes and wars against them came and went, Dragonrage came and went, the Phaerimm invaded, the Shadovar invaded, "new" races like genasi and tieflings became subtly mainstream, ties with other settings slowly decayed until forgotten, Szass Tam preoccupied himself changing Thay, and of course many new source materials (and game rules) were written about the Shadow Weave, the Chosen League, and all the many gods being invented or killed or simply reshuffled through the ranks. Taken collectively, the transition between Time of Troubles and pre-4E setting wrought a great deal of change to the landscape of Realms.
Each of these major changes brought with it a wave of inflammed vitriol condemning Wizbro for "destroying the Realms". I suppose it's partly because the Realms used to be a much smaller place filled with much smaller problems, somewhat provincial and largely ignorant of the greater world beyond the border. At least it's finally grown to the point where there's no blank canvas left for wholesale invention, it's basically all filled up, so now it seems (to me) that the authors and game designers are generally more interested in narrowing their focus onto finer details and being selective about what stays and goes. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 02:52:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
Are 4th Ed Realms still THE Realms?
Yes. There are changes that I dislike. But overall, I like how the Realms turned out to be. There's a huge difference among the perspectives of a gamer, a reader, and a gamer-reader. I was never a gamer, so in a way I understand (and don't understand at the same time) others' vehemence towards the changes. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 05:35:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
I have no problem with 4th edition. But the changes they made to the Forgotten Realms make it no longer even resemble the realms in any way. The changes seem to be to more like 80% of the world, and 20% is the same, to me. The Time of Troubles was a significant event, but it didn't actually change the world that much. Between 2nd and 3rd edition I don't see how the realms really changed at all.
This would be what I would say, which is why I refuse to buy any 4e Realms material. And no, I don't want to hear the comments, etc, I've heard them all before. The Realms of 4e is not the Realms to me and it doesn't have to do with anger or me, it's just not the same setting. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 05:51:35
|
As an avid fan of 4E, 3E, and Pathfinder it's been a strange experience for myself. I understand the extent the designers went to in changing the Forgotten Realms was for the settings best interest. I'd say I like about 85-95% of their decisions yet not all of them were done to incorporate new game mechanics.
I feel the biggest over-haul was the decision to make Sun/Moon/Star elves actual eladrin and thus remove them from the other "more natural" forms of elves such as the Wood and Wild. This significant change in game design needed to be addressed in the actual setting in case authors wanted to describe a Sun or Moon elf's new powers (the minor-action teleportation called Fey Step). So far in the novels, I've rarely come across this even happening however.
Aside from this, little actually needed to change thematically for the setting for the 4E rules to work towards keeping the verisimilitude. Wizards still used spellbooks and preped spells. Clerics and Paladins called out for divine assistance in the form of prayers. Barbarians still Raged like no other an so on and so forth.
So then why all the big changes you might ask? Again, I think, it was done to appeal to a broader audience of D&D fans that were either not familiar with the setting, yet felt overwhelmed with how much content there was to become familiar with and to those that had a dislike for the setting from the beginning. One could deduce that this large change in the setting might not capture the fans mentioned above yet loose the existing fans you already have. I feel that they gambled on a good majority sticking to the setting regardless, I mean we've done so through so many RSE's before, why stop now?*
But case-in-point the Realms are yours to do with what you will. If you enjoy epic level NPCs that are at the DM's whim, a high-fantasy adventure feel, or just love the past lore and want to explore that in your game there is nothing stopping (espically an edition change) from doing just that. I've actually found a lot of older Realms supplements useful in my 4E campaigns because a lot of others at the table aren't Realmslore fanatics or have all that much knowledge of the setting to become upset if I use the same name from a 2E adventure for my 4E adventure (or even the map, plot, and adventure either).
*EDIT: I'm one of the fans that took the changes in stride and saw it for just another RSE that i've grown accustomed to. This is just my own personal experience and nothing more. |
Edited by - Diffan on 28 Aug 2011 05:55:18 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 06:24:41
|
True enough, my 2E-styled Realms setting has moved through seasonal experiments with 3E, 3.5E and 4E rules and - although my group's consensus floated us back to 2E rules each time - the Realms at my table has emerged much richer for the experience. So have the rules, actually; hybrid games can be tailored to accomodate and benefit everybody at the table. I don't prefer (nor particularly dislike) 4E, I consider it to basically just be a different game which has little impact on the one I play. Why dismiss all chances of winning the game before you even try playing?
As for the fiction ... I just accept whatever events the story unfolds, enjoy and evaluate the entertainment value of the read for exactly what it is. Again, it's not like the novels have any real impact on my game. Some are good, some aren't, some take place in a setting similar to the Realms I prefer. Rather than blindly reject everything for tasting sour I just savour the tasty sweetness of the parts I do like, and again, I think my Realms have been improved by the experience.
Irrevocably reformatting the FR setting does invent a new opportunity: Realms fiction can be written in such a way as to mislead readers who are accustomed to older lore, causing a differently flavoured story to emerge when traditional assumptions are made, possibly even reshaping perceptions about the characters or plots or outcomes in substantially dramatic ways. I'll have to admit that if any FR authors have already done anything of this sort in novels that I've read then their machinations were far too subtle for me to detect. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 28 Aug 2011 06:27:35 |
|
|
|
Wormys_Queue
Acolyte
Germany
7 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 09:50:36
|
I think the tone of the Realms has changed a bit with the 4E-induced changes but my main gripe is with the system changes and WotC's general setting policy not the setting changes itself. I actually like quite some stuff written for the "new" realms and would have no qualms at all to include this stuff in my campaign. So yes, generally I think the Realms are still the Realms.
The real bummer for me was the 100 year-time step because I loved the "old realms" especially for the slow, continuous progress of the timeline. I will never learn about those 100 years as much as I would like and that's a real shame.
On the other hand I followed the Rule #1 from the 3E Campaign Setting even before 3E started. It is "MY" world and if I don't like something I don't have to use it. So in "MY" Realms there will never be a sister planet to "Abeir-Toril", there (probably) never will be Dragonborn and Maztica will stay where it is. On the other hand there may come a Spellplague and I'll probably include a lot of the other changes coming with it. But basically my own version of the Realms already differed from the Original before 4E started so I'd have to be a hypocrite to judge the designers for the same thing I already have done (and will do), namely to change the Realms in a way I think makes them a better game experience |
|
|
|
BARDOBARBAROS
Senior Scribe
Greece
581 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 11:42:03
|
| I do not play 4th edition ...I do not like the way that the changes that took place ...I play older editions than 4th ... |
BARDOBARBAROS DOES NOT KILL.
HE DECAPITATES!!!
"The city changes, but the fools within it remain always the same" (Edwin Odesseiron- Baldur's gate 2) |
|
|
|
Thelonius
Senior Scribe
Spain
730 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 12:31:46
|
| Well, officially they are THE Realms, of course you are completely free to consider them part of YOUR ones. I play 3.5E, I prefer many of the deities and places I knew as I knew them. |
"If you are to truly understand, then you will need the contrast, not adherence to a single ideal." - Kreia
"I THINK I JUST HAD ANOTHER NEAR-RINCEWIND EXPERIENCE"- Discworld's Death frustrated after Rincewind scapes his grasp... again.
"I am death, come for thee" - Nimbul, from Baldur's Gate I just before being badly spanked
Sapientia sola libertas est |
|
|
|
Snow
Learned Scribe
USA
125 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 16:16:15
|
WotC's publishing slowdown that came about with 4E FR is what disappointed me the most. I understand that the FR sourcebook revenue stream / profit margins neccessitated change. But here he we have strategic-level changes to the FR with a fast-forward of 1 century and very, very little explaining what happened in those 100 years. It makes "lore continuity" fans like me feel very hollow and clueless.
I really miss the month-after-month of new, quality FR material that was published in 2E and 3.0/3.5. :-( |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 17:39:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
WotC's publishing slowdown that came about with 4E FR is what disappointed me the most. I understand that the FR sourcebook revenue stream / profit margins neccessitated change. But here he we have strategic-level changes to the FR with a fast-forward of 1 century and very, very little explaining what happened in those 100 years. It makes "lore continuity" fans like me feel very hollow and clueless.
I really miss the month-after-month of new, quality FR material that was published in 2E and 3.0/3.5. :-(
I agree with you to a point. I too love when they come out with new and interesting content but the problem with this is that it creates "bloat" IMO. The idea of the setting being somewhat vague for certain places, events, and characters give more freedom for creative ideas to people who play in the Realms as well as those who write for the Realms. Since published Realms articles and books are still considered canon, I feel that these significant changes will -for the most part- stay vague.
And while there hasn't been much in the way of printed Realms material, DDI still pumps out 1 to 3 Realms articles a month that are all heavily detailing the setting, current topics of interest, and plots of the lands (and there's very little in the way of 4E-mechanics that muck it up for those not interested with crunch) |
|
|
|
MisterX
Learned Scribe
Germany
118 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 20:47:51
|
While I strongly dislike the changes made to "THE" realms (which are actually the realms of 3.0/3.5e, I never ever played AD&D out of computer games), I accept the 4E Campaign Setting. I just don't want to play it.
To me, "THE" realms are simply not existing. Even the game designers will set adventures the Realms in different tones in their groups (if they have some, what I really hope ;) ).
quote:
originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Like any game setting or campaign world, the Realms are both communal and individual--there's a certain set of canonical lore that is put in place by the authors, designers, and executives who maintain the IP, but there are also thousands of different Realms at thousands of different gaming tables. Ultimately, you're the one who decides what your Realms is.
That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. |
I've lost track of recent realmslore, since my campaigns are still in the 1370ies. :-)
---
When talking about rules (and related stuff) I always refer to 3.5e unless explicitly noted. |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
657 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 22:41:05
|
| For me the 4th edition is a part of the Realms. In a way the Arcane Age is. |
. |
|
|
|
Snow
Learned Scribe
USA
125 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2011 : 22:48:51
|
quote:
I agree with you to a point. I too love when they come out with new and interesting content but the problem with this is that it creates "bloat" IMO. The idea of the setting being somewhat vague for certain places, events, and characters give more freedom for creative ideas to people who play in the Realms as well as those who write for the Realms. Since published Realms articles and books are still considered canon, I feel that these significant changes will -for the most part- stay vague.
And while there hasn't been much in the way of printed Realms material, DDI still pumps out 1 to 3 Realms articles a month that are all heavily detailing the setting, current topics of interest, and plots of the lands (and there's very little in the way of 4E-mechanics that muck it up for those not interested with crunch)
I don't think you'll find too many people here at Candlekeep in agreement that there was "bloat" going on in 2E/3.X published output. Even with the sizeable chunk of lore being published back then, we all still found tons & tons of creative adventuring ideas that synergized nicely with canon material. Yes, there was the occasional crap lore item - but all in all, the high majority of the published goodies contained neccessary lore for the quality chronological continuity of the Realms.
In addition, the detail and minutae of the presented information was absolutely breathtaking in comparison to the generalized 4E stuff given to us today. An I respectfully disagree with the "heavy detailing" of the DDI material. Don't get me wrong, Diffan ... I like and respect your Candlekeep contributions probably moreso than anybody. Ditto to all the wonderful WotC designer folk here at C-Keep (like Erik SdB, etc.)
Perhaps I'm railing on this because I just spent an hour re-reading all my accumulated DDI FR PDFs and ruefully comparing them to a boatload of FR 3.X sourcebooks. I'm trying though, folks. I really, really wanna find hidden gems in 4E FR that put the current work on par with the prior 2 decades of FR hooch.
XO,
Snow  |
Edited by - Snow on 28 Aug 2011 22:50:32 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 00:16:36
|
I see this scroll slowly turning into another ill-fated (and off-topic) 4E-hating RSE bash.
It also answers Imp's OP question well enough: the Realms are officially defined by whatever gets put out on the retail bookshelves, and individually (unofficially) defined by the cutoff points where people choose to start and stop buying their Realms books.
Traditional edition bashing comes from the "old" grognards who obstinately insist 4E wrecked the game and nuked the Realms setting. New waves of edition bashing come from the "young" players who were introduced to D&D and enjoy the Realms almost exlusively through 4E - they tend to see the old stuff as being old and stuffy, and to be honest I don't blame them at all for dismissing all the older Realmslore because the grognards so readily condemn instead of encourage interest in D&D and the Realms outside the segments they consider canon.
I'm writing myself out of this scroll, I divine too much chance of it ending ugly. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 29 Aug 2011 02:29:45 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 01:20:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
I don't think you'll find too many people here at Candlekeep in agreement that there was "bloat" going on in 2E/3.X published output. Even with the sizeable chunk of lore being published back then, we all still found tons & tons of creative adventuring ideas that synergized nicely with canon material. Yes, there was the occasional crap lore item - but all in all, the high majority of the published goodies contained neccessary lore for the quality chronological continuity of the Realms.
*Bolded for emphasis* Hehe, very true. My idea of bloat, however, encompassed the entire line of supplements by the end of 3E and not distinctly FR related. I actually bought most (close to all) of the 3E Realms supplements and still have a great time using them -even with 4E campaigns-. I guess for me it became more of a gaming product problem than a Realms problem. I still had my quirks about certain parts of the setting but I've let them alone and focused on the plethora of other places that tickled my fancy.
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
In addition, the detail and minutae of the presented information was absolutely breathtaking in comparison to the generalized 4E stuff given to us today. An I respectfully disagree with the "heavy detailing" of the DDI material. Don't get me wrong, Diffan ... I like and respect your Candlekeep contributions probably moreso than anybody. Ditto to all the wonderful WotC designer folk here at C-Keep (like Erik SdB, etc.)
Well thank you . And I can definitly understand someon's ire when we're used to loads and loads and loads of lore to pour through. I can, also, find some relief in the less detailed material because I don't feel beholden to keep up some idea that Canon is important like I used to. For me, it's now easier to place the player's in my group with my own lore and not step on people's toes which makes me feel good.
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
Perhaps I'm railing on this because I just spent an hour re-reading all my accumulated DDI FR PDFs and ruefully comparing them to a boatload of FR 3.X sourcebooks. I'm trying though, folks. I really, really wanna find hidden gems in 4E FR that put the current work on par with the prior 2 decades of FR hooch.
XO,
Snow
I wish you luck in your endeavors. I think a lot of Ed's articles have been really good as are the "Realms Back-drops" such as the Cormyr one. I guess the best thing is to take an idea from 4E (like the Emminance of Araut~did I spell that right??!) and convert them to a game you enjoy. And of course, I'll do what I can to help keep the Realms alive and enjoyable for everyone. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 02:04:53
|
*Rolls Wis./Will check*
It is still the Realms, yes a changed Realms however change comes to everything. On Earth a tornado can level part or most of a Village. The Village still exists and survivors rebuild it. There is no way the new village would be the same as the old one. The old theater that was not used last 20 years might be replaced with a mini-mall or turned into a park.
Yes there are changes, the biggest RSE to hit the Realms. Waterdeep is still there, Ed is part of the Realm.
As far as how much a percent change, I believe more then 20 percent. The map changed, the fair folk changed, the use of magic changed, and yes the actual history of the realms changed. For some the change might look more like 5 percent, it depends on aspects that they focused on before the change. A map change of a place not visited not an issue and so on. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 03:17:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I see this scroll slowly turning into another ill-fated (and off-topic) 4E-hating RSE bash.
It also answers Imp's OP question well enough: the Realms are officially defined by whatever gets put out on the retail bookshelves, and individually (unofficially) defined by the cutoff points where people choose to start and stop buying their Realms books.
Traditional edition bashing comes from the "old" grognards who obstinately insist 4E wrecked the game and nuked the Realms setting. New waves of edition bashing come from the "young" players who were introduced to D&D and enjoy the Realms almost exlusively through 4E - they tend to see the old stuff as being old and stuffy, and to be honest I don't blame them at all for dismissing all the older Realmslore because the grognards so readily condemn instead of encourage interest in D&D and the Realms outside the segments they consider canon.
I'm writing myself out of this scroll, I divine too much chance of it ending ugly.
*sighs* If you are referring to my post, it would have been better to reply to it as opposed to going up thread and changing what you posted before.
I never like edits after a reply is made unless the edit is clearly indicated as an addition to existing text or the fix of a typo and or grammar. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 03:32:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I see this scroll slowly turning into another ill-fated (and off-topic) 4E-hating RSE bash.
Hopefully we can all be respectful of each other's opinions, and not let this happen. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Snow
Learned Scribe
USA
125 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 05:21:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I see this scroll slowly turning into another ill-fated (and off-topic) 4E-hating RSE bash.
It also answers Imp's OP question well enough: the Realms are officially defined by whatever gets put out on the retail bookshelves, and individually (unofficially) defined by the cutoff points where people choose to start and stop buying their Realms books.
Traditional edition bashing comes from the "old" grognards who obstinately insist 4E wrecked the game and nuked the Realms setting. New waves of edition bashing come from the "young" players who were introduced to D&D and enjoy the Realms almost exlusively through 4E - they tend to see the old stuff as being old and stuffy, and to be honest I don't blame them at all for dismissing all the older Realmslore because the grognards so readily condemn instead of encourage interest in D&D and the Realms outside the segments they consider canon.
I'm writing myself out of this scroll, I divine too much chance of it ending ugly.
Oh please.  .... This is all constructive criticisms. There's certainly some very good things about 4E (both in D&D game mechanics and in FR). We all can talk about the merits and detriments of comparative editions without devolving into a gaggle of negativity freaks.
The constructive criticism in this thread doesn't show any indication of getting ugly.
***
To get back to Diffan ... yes, Ed Greenwood continues to churn out quality, immersion-friendly FR output. I somehow didn't expect that in 4E. But he's definitely done a great job at bridging the interests of the vets and the new-to-FR folk. The latter demographic of which was critical to WotC in their development of 4E. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 05:46:53
|
Sorry, Kentinal; the edit did indeed fix a typo and appended the last sentence. If it were intended to have anything to do with your (or anyone else's) previous post my response would have included a name or quoted passage to eliminate all ambiguity. In this instance, you (and Snow) are only victims of bad timing.
[Edit: I shall endeavour to indicate substantial edits in future posts, much like this. But I'll admit I try to smooth over embarassing typos and trivialities in a subtle Orwellian manner.] |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 29 Aug 2011 10:14:58 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2011 : 07:03:49
|
quote:
Traditional edition bashing comes from the "old" grognards who obstinately insist 4E wrecked the game and nuked the Realms setting. New waves of edition bashing come from the "young" players who were introduced to D&D and enjoy the Realms almost exlusively through 4E - they tend to see the old stuff as being old and stuffy, and to be honest I don't blame them at all for dismissing all the older Realmslore because the grognards so readily condemn instead of encourage interest in D&D and the Realms outside the segments they consider canon.
It has been my experience (anecdotal I know) that the people who bash the old Realms are generally not new players. The people who dislike the old Realms are not too different in age and experience from fans of the Old Realms. For whatever reason (bad game experience, bad DM, bad novels, hearsay, personal preference, Elminster kicked their dog and slept with their mother, sister and girlfriend) they feel the strong desire to voice their dislike. Internet threads regarding the Realms in a non-Realms specific forum and especially when asked to compare settings seem to draw their attention the most. I think that's just the nature of the internet, just as fans of the setting are quick to defend it. I don't notice people completely new to the Realms involved in this as much. Do they really have a horse in this race?
Back to topic.
The New Realms is the Realms as much as a continent is the same place after a major shift that includes geological, ecological, theological, and society changes all at once and a century with which to absorb those changes.
I was just in an interesting discussion on another site reading about the concept of "medieval fantasy". In the thousand years of the middle ages, so much changed in Europe from century to century and especially compared to our modern worldview, it's not really "Europe" as we know it.
Mind you this is century to century without:
- A reality altering, seemingly semi-conscious blue conflagration that danced around whole regions but swallowed others.
Several nations were literally 'nuked' out of existence (Halruaa, Luiren, Var, what else, Dambrath?).
Others were shifted away to another world (Mulhorand, Chessenta, Uther, Maztica).
Others were radically changed in geography and nature (Chondath, Sespech, Great Rift, Thay, Chult)
- The sudden arrival of entirely new nations of people and beings complete with different geography and entirely alien cultures, all previously unknown on the planet (at least for many thousands of years). (Returned Abeir, Tymanther, Akanul)
- The instantaneous destruction of gods and entire pantheons. The subsequent consolidation around major deities should also be a major theological shift.
- The partial draining of the Sea of Fallen Stars, into the Underdark (bit of a twofer really). Some cities are up to miles from their previous shoreline.
- An entirely new magic system. At least it's supposed to be entirely new and was one of the design reason given.
The surviving nations had to deal with all these changes and they had a hundred years to adapt. Forget numerous calamities, that we’re three decently long kingly reigns from Azoun IV should mean something by itself. We have problems with generations gaps in the real world, sometimes in as little as a decade.
Fewer of these events and/or a smaller time lapse might have allowed for the New Realms to remain recognizable to the Old Realms. All of them and a century means it really shouldn’t be. I find it jarring that the two eras aren’t more different for all the hubbub about the dire need for setting changes and the catastrophic story mechanisms used to bring it about. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Are 4th Ed Realms still THE Realms?
