| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 13:49:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Oh, I've never seen anyone supporting an alternate timeline as something that bad. Also, I don't really think I like the pro-Spellplague Realms due to any corporate say-so. I just like the approach better than in previous eras. See for me, I've happily played in the Forgotten Realms without putting any thought into areas that I ditest or NPCs that I don't like. Why? Because they don't interest me while a good portion of the setting does. So I ignore, downplay, evade, and dismiss those aspects. Have been doing so for years. So I think I am compromising when I say that I wish they put out more lore and ideas and flesh-out other aspects of the Realms (supporting ALL eras) and not just the one I like the most. It's been pro-4E for the last 3 years and were the to keep on that same mantra, I'd be very happy indeed. But I also realize that others won't, so I don't have a problem with supporint other times in the Realms too. Others, who want to destroy Canon (yes, it's happend...deal) won't give an inch except to shelve the Canon aspects they don't like as "alternate timelines" which they wistfully hope dies a slow, agonizing death in obscurity.
The problem is, WotC (or at least their superiors at Hasbro) decided that all the people on the message boards who weren't playing in the Realms and were vocal about why they didn't do so were the people who should be listened to. This violates basic business sense; it's easier to keep a customer than to regain a lost customer, and they should have expected to lose customers over the Spellplague. I didn't have the slightest problem with the Spellplague as it was presented in the Cormyr-Shadowdale-Anauroch supermodule trilogy, because it was something the PCs could stop. The fact that they published this trilogy, only to take matters out of the players' hands entirely and railroad the Spellplague through, is what irritates me, and it's the existence of these adventures (also canon) that I think justifies the existence of the alternate timelines (just 2: Spellplague as published, or no Spellplague/drastically reduced Spellplague; I've posted a couple of scenarios for the latter here in the early years of 4E). And for the record, yes, I think they should both be supported by future products; that will keep everybody happy except for those few militants on each side who aren't happy unless the other side isn't... and I think there are more of those in the pro-Spellplague camp than not, judging from the original reaction to the announcement of the changes in the 4E Realms on WotC's messageboards. And yes, I'm aware that one could reach the opposite conclusion looking at posts in CK from that same time period.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself, so I'll shut up, except to say that the reboot fans aren't the first to be accused of wanting something to die a slow, agonizing death in obscurity, and they may not be the last if some sort of parallel timeline scenario doesn't take shape. In any case, I consider myself to be a fan of the Realms, and I will retain that opinion until someone can prove to me that the Realms didn't exist before the Spellplague. (The paranoid part of me is sure that someone has attempted this feat of illogic somewhere; I find my surprises are much more pleasant when I listen to my paranoia.) 
I agree with this. What they should have done was taken the Realms and created an almost split in the road. One direction would be if the Spellplague had happened and the other way would be if the Spellplague had been prevented. |
Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
 |
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 16:08:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadowsoulI agree with this. What they should have done was taken the Realms and created an almost split in the road. One direction would be if the Spellplague had happened and the other way would be if the Spellplague had been prevented.
This is what I want for my 5e realms.
Then all the shattered realms can have their cake, without denying me mine.
Of course, this means I want to see Eladrin as Celestials, Tieflings as evil outsiders, I want the pre-spellplague map, and I want my 4-7 subraces of elves back.
If they fall short of that... Well, I'll read the book and decide whether I'm willing to support the 5e realms. And I might support that, and just refuse to call it forgotten realms. But if it's still not the realms anymore? no promises. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 16:54:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Eilserus
... not just for us, or old guard fogies like me who been reading this stuff since they were 15 in the mid 90's ...
<ahem>
The mid-90s - that's the young whippersnapper crowd. I was reading that stuff (and listening to Duran Duran) when I was 15 in the mid 80s, and I followed the Realms well before the FR0 Grey Box. Of course I was a punk compared to the even older fogies who'd been around D&D a decade before me, long before it was even called AD&D "1E".
...I was in college in the mid-90s. Kids today don't appreciate the older generation, or what we did for D&D. I even helped run a D&D club in middle school, and before that I played Chainmail rules! And before that... we played real wargames on big flat boards with little markers and lead figures... *sigh*
You kids better get off my lawn! **shakes garden hose threateningly**
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 19:58:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Eilserus
... not just for us, or old guard fogies like me who been reading this stuff since they were 15 in the mid 90's ...
<ahem>
The mid-90s - that's the young whippersnapper crowd. I was reading that stuff (and listening to Duran Duran) when I was 15 in the mid 80s, and I followed the Realms well before the FR0 Grey Box. Of course I was a punk compared to the even older fogies who'd been around D&D a decade before me, long before it was even called AD&D "1E".
...I was in college in the mid-90s. Kids today don't appreciate the older generation, or what we did for D&D. I even helped run a D&D club in middle school, and before that I played Chainmail rules! And before that... we played real wargames on big flat boards with little markers and lead figures... *sigh*
You kids better get off my lawn! **shakes garden hose threateningly**
Pffft...yer all young'uns. I have a good five (estimated) years on Ayrik (20 in the mid-80's), and I remember looking at pictures of EGG back then and thinking 'Man...this guy's old'. Little did I know that would be me someday (hence the first word in my moniker here), and that was already playing OD&D beforehand.
I tried to set up a D&D club both in junior high and high school, but this was the era of Pat Pulling, and was flatly turned down every time I tried.
-squints at the young lady shaking her garden hose- Kids these days... |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 20:33:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The mid-90s - that's the young whippersnapper crowd. I was reading that stuff (and listening to Duran Duran) when I was 15 in the mid 80s, and I followed the Realms well before the FR0 Grey Box. Of course I was a punk compared to the even older fogies who'd been around D&D a decade before me, long before it was even called AD&D "1E".
...I was in college in the mid-90s. Kids today don't appreciate the older generation, or what we did for D&D. I even helped run a D&D club in middle school, and before that I played Chainmail rules! And before that... we played real wargames on big flat boards with little markers and lead figures... *sigh*
You kids better get off my lawn! **shakes garden hose threateningly**
Pffft...yer all young'uns. I have a good five (estimated) years on Ayrik (20 in the mid-80's), and I remember looking at pictures of EGG back then and thinking 'Man...this guy's old'. Little did I know that would be me someday (hence the first word in my moniker here), and that was already playing OD&D beforehand.
I tried to set up a D&D club both in junior high and high school, but this was the era of Pat Pulling, and was flatly turned down every time I tried.
-squints at the young lady shaking her garden hose- Kids these days...
My mid-school D&D club was around during the Patricia / BADD nonsense. Fortunately, I had the good fortune of having two teachers who knew better.
I suspect we're probably the same age, but thanks for calling me "young"... always makes me smile.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 30 Jan 2012 20:33:53 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 20:38:25
|
| Good old board gaming from days past. I remember a RISK game that took over 24 hours and we played nonstop. I should pick up a copy of that sometime, haven't played it in years. I also remember Heroes Quest another fun little game. Though, I think we made more use of the game board and accessories for detailing dungeon maps for our 2E campaign. :) |
Edited by - Eilserus on 30 Jan 2012 20:39:27 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2012 : 20:45:25
|
So Therise, you played all those intense (and overly complicated) SPI and Avalon Hill 'counters' games?
Man, I did so love my counters... I had dozens of those games. The only thing I still had from that era of my gaming was Diplomacy (which is also gone now, sadly).
Me and my buddy must have played Siege of Constantinople at least 30 times. The game was skewed so that it was impossible for Constantinople had to lose - you couldn't win, but you could try to 'do better' each time (your victory was dependent on how many turns you lasted). Kids today wouldn't even play a game like that - they'd fight over who got stuck being 'the losers'. But guess what? Constantinople was the far more interesting side to play. Back then we didn't always play to win, we played to have fun.
It was a simpler time {sigh} |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Jan 2012 20:45:43 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2012 : 04:58:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So Therise, you played all those intense (and overly complicated) SPI and Avalon Hill 'counters' games?
Back in the day, I was completely addicted to the WWII ones. I couldn't tell you which companies, though, my memory isn't quite that good. Somewhere in the house, I still have little miniature Panzer tanks (with lots of lead and pot-metal, so they bent!) and a big box of a ton-load of those mini-games (with chits you had to scissor up) that they used to sell for $2.95 in small plastic cases. Remember that? FUN for a mere $2.95. I loved those, each with their own little theme. I even remember one (from an old Dragon magazine, I think, called "Snit's Revenge"), it was one of the cutest.
But also things like Galactic Conquest, I liked that a lot. All those eventually led into us doing Chainmail and then D&D. Seems like I have an original boxed basic game with the dice and all, locked away in some box.
quote:
Man, I did so love my counters... I had dozens of those games. The only thing I still had from that era of my gaming was Diplomacy (which is also gone now, sadly).
Well, sadly and ironically I think it was TSR that ended up killing the classic wargames. Didn't they buy SSI or one of the other major companies, and it all seemed to totally dry up after that?
quote:
Me and my buddy must have played Siege of Constantinople at least 30 times. The game was skewed so that it was impossible for Constantinople had to lose - you couldn't win, but you could try to 'do better' each time (your victory was dependent on how many turns you lasted). Kids today wouldn't even play a game like that - they'd fight over who got stuck being 'the losers'. But guess what? Constantinople was the far more interesting side to play. Back then we didn't always play to win, we played to have fun.
It was a simpler time {sigh}
Heh, yep... really good times. *sigh*
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 31 Jan 2012 04:59:17 |
|
|
|
JamesLowder
Forgotten Realms Author & Game Designer
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2012 : 08:52:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The active Candlekeep scribes whom I consider affiliated with WotC are Matt and Brian James, Steven Schend, James Lowder, and of course Ed (via proxy). Erik, Elaine, PSK, RLB, and many others are more loosely affiliated. I consider them all privy to "inside" proprietary NDA secrets, though of course my list is far from complete or accurate and WotC employees have recently been coming and going a bit faster than I can follow.
Haven't been to the Keep for a while, so I just saw this.
Just so it's clear: I'm not affiliated with WotC in any way, beyond whatever work I did for TSR and Wizards in the past. I haven't worked for the company for quite a few years.
In fact, most of the people you listed are not privy to inside information about the Realms or anything else having to do with 5E, beyond what they are working on individually for the company. If they don't have a current project, they're likely completely out of the loop on the Realms and everything else. Sure, we may hear rumors and, if we know people working on the current incarnation, we might hear other snippets, but the company as a whole does not share information with former and, in a lot of cases, current freelancers. In fact, freelancers frequently find out about reprints and other uses of our own books at the same time the public does.
The only people who can speak to what's going on in Renton, as far as official plans and the like, are the company reps. |
Edited by - JamesLowder on 18 Mar 2012 09:01:16 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2012 : 16:21:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by JamesLowder
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The active Candlekeep scribes whom I consider affiliated with WotC are Matt and Brian James, Steven Schend, James Lowder, and of course Ed (via proxy). Erik, Elaine, PSK, RLB, and many others are more loosely affiliated. I consider them all privy to "inside" proprietary NDA secrets, though of course my list is far from complete or accurate and WotC employees have recently been coming and going a bit faster than I can follow.
Haven't been to the Keep for a while, so I just saw this.
Just so it's clear: I'm not affiliated with WotC in any way, beyond whatever work I did for TSR and Wizards in the past. I haven't worked for the company for quite a few years.
In fact, most of the people you listed are not privy to inside information about the Realms or anything else having to do with 5E, beyond what they are working on individually for the company. If they don't have a current project, they're likely completely out of the loop on the Realms and everything else. Sure, we may hear rumors and, if we know people working on the current incarnation, we might hear other snippets, but the company as a whole does not share information with former and, in a lot of cases, current freelancers. In fact, freelancers frequently find out about reprints and other uses of our own books at the same time the public does.
The only people who can speak to what's going on in Renton, as far as official plans and the like, are the company reps.
What James said!
Speaking only for myself (never for anyone else), I am not "on the inside" and am not in any way official. I'm just a fan, and I occasionally have the honor/duty of contributing directly to canon Realmslore. The folks at WotC are the ones who can make the decisions, and they are whom you should query with your thoughts, ideas, and appeals.
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" |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2012 : 18:22:00
|
I myself feel like a reboot to one particular era is the same as trying to force everyone to play in 4e. What I'd like to see is era-neutral design that allows you to play wherever, whenever you want. What might be a future in one Realms isn't necessarily the future in yours--if anything, it just gives you a good sense of what events to avoid. Don't like the Spellplague? Let your pcs avert it, do it differently with different gods, or ignore it entirely. The designers should not be in the habit of dictating where you "have to play," but rather providing tools for multiple eras where you "could play," and then you get to choose.
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" |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2012 : 20:38:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I myself feel like a reboot to one particular era is the same as trying to force everyone to play in 4e. What I'd like to see is era-neutral design that allows you to play wherever, whenever you want. What might be a future in one Realms isn't necessarily the future in yours--if anything, it just gives you a good sense of what events to avoid. Don't like the Spellplague? Let your pcs avert it, do it differently with different gods, or ignore it entirely. The designers should not be in the habit of dictating where you "have to play," but rather providing tools for multiple eras where you "could play," and then you get to choose.
Cheers
But would material retconned into the Realms with 4e be included in 5e details on previous eras of the Realms? That's the kicker there I think. I'd love to see multiple eras supported, but it misses the point IMO if I see Primordials and other bits of 4e mythology creeping into the material. There's not easy way to handle this without disappointing something, which is unfortunate.
Personally I want to play 3e era FR within the framework of the Great Wheel cosmology, but unless I'm the luckiest sucker on the face of the planet, I'm not sure that's going to be in the cards. But it's my birthday tommorow, so maybe I'll be lucky and tommorow someone with WotC decides to go that direction in material we'll see once 5e rolls out. ;) |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2012 : 20:58:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
But would material retconned into the Realms with 4e be included in 5e details on previous eras of the Realms? That's the kicker there I think. I'd love to see multiple eras supported, but it misses the point IMO if I see Primordials and other bits of 4e mythology creeping into the material. There's not easy way to handle this without disappointing something, which is unfortunate.
While there are some minor points where a designer or writer clearly wasn't familiar enough with older lore and flat-out ignores or contradicts established canon, these have existed in all editions. And my view of them is the same for all. If it is utterly impossible to reconcile them so that both are true, it is, in my opinion, better to officially pick the one that is more consistent with the world as a whole and to provid an explanation of why a given statement is being overruled than it is to be bound by an ill-considered statement simply because it's newer.
On the other hand, Primordials cannot properly be called a ret-con, as the powers of the Realms have always been of many origins and natures and it has always been established that in eras past, there were among them many wars and upheavals.
The fact that Primordials hadn't been named, classified or statted in published Realmslore before does not mean that adding information about their wars with deities in the mythic past invalidates any prior canon, which is one of the primary characteristics something must fulfil before it can legitimately fall under the term 'ret-con'. If the prior continuity still applies, but you've simply added a new set of myths and legends on to them, what you have isn't a ret-con, it's just new lore.
I've said before that this lore can be liked or disliked on its own merits. Clearly, there are those who dislike it. Speaking, however, as someone who didn't feel that 4e D&D provided sufficient value for me as a customer, I do feel that disliking lore is not enough to arbitrarily ret-con it out of existence.
As a GM, I can and do just that. The existence or non-existence of Primordials, should they offend a gaming group, has essentially no impact on a game set in Eveningstar in 1357 DR. But I prefer to leave the picking-and-choosing of setting elements for the customer, whereas the official designers ought to be making sure that all prior lore is taken into account and the world is coherent and consistent.
Sometimes consistency might demand that certain lore is set aside. For example, if three sources about a given nation have them speaking three different languages, it will prove difficult to say that they are all right. To some extent, one might say that one language is the official one, another is the most common one among the urban population and the third is an older language, common with farmers, shepherds and old-fashioned rural nobility, but that kind of fix often dances perilously close to invalidating at least one of the prior canon statements and is not always practisable.
In those extreme cases, as noted earlier, I'd rather have the designers invalidate whichever source seems least plausible and least consistent with other information about the setting. If they can do so with an in-universe justification establishing the prior canon as mistaken scholarship, even better. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Nilus Reynard
Learned Scribe
Canada
137 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 03:21:11
|
| Yes, I think a reboot of the Realms would be good. |
Nilus Reynard
Doom Master of Beshaba, Hand of Despair.
P24 Hm CN
(2nd Edition AD&D) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 04:45:57
|
My "One Canon, One Story, One Realms" and "Create Realmslore: A Contest" threads have lots more information on reconciling the lore, but generally, I don't think 4e introduced any significant lore that affects previous Realmslore.
Yes, we didn't hear about primordials until 4e, but also they didn't appear until 4e. Until the Spellplague, they were all sealed away in another world (Abeir), which only touched Toril again in 1385. One can speculate that exceptions existed beforehand--I personally suspect that Moander might be more a primordial than a god--but IMO the Dawn War cosmology does not affect 3e lore in any significant way.
On the larger question of cosmology (Great Wheel, 3e cluster of planes, etc): The D&D cosmology and the Realms cosmology (and that of any mortal world setting) have never aligned properly, and I see no reason to make that the case in 5e. We have a new cosmology with every edition, and while they have definite similarities, they don't line up either. I see no reason to change the Realms to fit with any particular cosmology--the cosmology of the Realms should be based on the Realms, which it always has been (in 3e and 4e particularly), rather than on some kind of core D&D cosmology.
I largely feel that ALL cosmological views are true--from a certain point of view. Yes, there are certain planes that definitely exist, and there are different planar entities that dwell there, but the connections between all of them are only poorly understood by mortals on many different worlds. And so we mortals make up all kind of different analogies and metaphors to describe the cosmos, all of which are true--from a certain point of view. With this paradigm, you can go forward with any cosmology you see fit.
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" |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 05:22:41
|
| No. Not because I like or don't like what's been done with the setting since the Old Grey Box was published, but because I can't help but feel that a reboot would, however the reasons for it are phrased, be implicitly insulting to anyone who's worked on fleshing out the Realms since then. |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 09:46:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
On the larger question of cosmology (Great Wheel, 3e cluster of planes, etc): The D&D cosmology and the Realms cosmology (and that of any mortal world setting) have never aligned properly, and I see no reason to make that the case in 5e.
They lined up fine in 2E, which is where the bulk of our planar lore comes from... |
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!  |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 19:26:10
|
Split timeline is a win for everyone, you get support and have a future full of interesting possibilites. Although, I would not oppose a reboot. Reboots already happened in both Krynn and Darksun with varying degrees of success.
|
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 20:15:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Split timeline is a win for everyone, you get support and have a future full of interesting possibilites. Although, I would not oppose a reboot. Reboots already happened in both Krynn and Darksun with varying degrees of success.
What exactly did they do with Darksun? |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 20:55:36
|
Darksun had a series written by Troy Denning called the Prism Pentad. Most of the sorcerer kings and the dragon were killed in the series. Plus several other world changing events occurred. It is a great read with interesting characters, but it dramatically alters Darksun and resolves a lot of the conflict that drives interesting adventuring ideas.
So, 4e Darksun takes place after the first book, in which a single free city is established and the rest of the series was ruled non-canon. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
Edited by - Tarlyn on 19 Mar 2012 21:01:02 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 22:41:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Split timeline is a win for everyone, you get support and have a future full of interesting possibilites.
-Disagree with the bolded part because, as I've written in the past, many of the changes that people didn't like didn't happen in a vacuum. Assuming that a split-timeline was made, with one continuing the 4e era of 1,479 DR+, and the other continuing where the 3e era, in 1,375 DR, the events in that new 1,375 DR timeline are going to directly feed into the events of the 1,479 DR timeline. To give an example, if someone likes Halruaa, Halruaa is still "doomed" to disappear in the Spellplague. Products set in the "past" might not feature the destruction of the nation as it existed until before the Spellplague, but it still happens. Someone who likes a certain NPC that died in such-and-such a manner in some year, they're still going to die in such-and-such a manner in some year.
-That's not to say that I don't think it should be done; it should. I don't think it "solves" as much as people want to think such a split in support might. It's like a lore band-aid and medicine, in a way. You know, come such and such date in the setting's future, the band aid gets removed, the medicine that was put on the wound runs out, and the scar that you were trying to heal will be there, albeit maybe not as prevalent. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 22:41:55
|
RE the OP: a reboot to the OGB (or any other era in FR) is redundant. What's stopping you from just running your game then, and looking at all future events as "suggestions" rather than fated events? It's your game. Why aren't you taking ownership of it?
RE the discussion at hand: I've discussed the concept of a Split Timeline many places other than here, but I'll try and sum up.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Split timeline is a win for everyone, you get support and have a future full of interesting possibilites.
But split WHERE is the question? Do we accept everything that happened up to a certain point, and then create alternate timelines from there? Different segments of fans are going to want different bits and pieces of Realmslore going in there. If WotC puts in some of those things but not others, what's to stop the fans who don't like the things WotC kept or do like things WotC got rid of?
The answer is, of course, staring us right in the face: the DM makes that call.
I am much more comfortable relying upon the DM to pick and choose what to use, play up, gloss over, or ignore as regards Realmslore, rather than relying on WotC (or any designer whatever) to come up with EXACTLY what each individual DM needs. And to that end, I think it's far better to give the DM every tool in the box, so that the DM can pick an choose what's appropriate to his/her game. So we should not be in the business of cutting things out, whether you or I might like them personally.
On the surface a split timeline in the canon may *seem* like a good idea, but I think it's death for the long-term viability of the IP. It divides the fanbase, far worse than the 4e split did, and basically condemns all products into selling poorly (which if we want the IP to keep publishing, we need to avoid). Because basically, if you split the fanbase in half, any given book is only going to sell to half the fans. If you split it further, like 70/30 for instance, then the 70% book is going to do OK but not great, and the 30% is going to do awful. Splitting the timeline like that doesn't let "everybody win." Indeed, a lot of people are bound to be disappointed, and in the long run--after the IP fails because of falling sales--no one wins.
The canon is just a source of ideas for your own individual game. If you want to use an IP--any IP--you will of course be picking and choosing what you like and don't about it, and using the things you do like and not using the ones you don't.
Let me say this so it's clear: YOUR GAME IS NOT A CANON GAME. The second you create characters, your game isn't canon, because those characters don't exist in the actual canon sourcebooks. If they do someday get "canonized," and they're exactly the way you ran them, and/or the events of your game make it into a sourcebook, then and only then were you running (past-tense) a canon game.
Devotion to the canon is something a lot of Realms gamers are interested in--I get that. But you should never let this impinge upon the fun of your game. You should never incorporate an event you hate just to "be accurate," and you should always feel free to ignore something that doesn't work for you and/or your game.
Do I think certain things that happened in the 4e need to be addressed--absolutely.
But not in a subtractive way--not with a retcon--and not with a split timeline or reboot that throws out the old lore.
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" |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 23:02:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
On the larger question of cosmology (Great Wheel, 3e cluster of planes, etc): The D&D cosmology and the Realms cosmology (and that of any mortal world setting) have never aligned properly, and I see no reason to make that the case in 5e.
They certainly lined up perfectly well in 1e and 2e, which as others have said, is where the vast majority of planar lore developed. 3e FR material really just barely touched on the planes, which in my opinion retconned itself out of the Wheel and then never properly developed a replacement, or much attempt to reconcile the problems it caused with lore. 4e went even further down that road by being forced into the default PoL cosmology.
I like FR (liked?), and I loved its inclusion within the Planescape metasetting and shared cosmology it heavily developed within. So I'll admit, I did take some guilty pleasure in inserting a cleric of Lathander into a Planescape article in Dragon in late 3e. ;) |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 23:12:23
|
I will certainly concur that 1e/2e Planescape cosmology lined up *best* with FR cosmology. I think the concept going into 3e might have been to suggest that you can play a FR game entirely with the cosmology presented in the FR books, without having to look elsewhere to try and find a Planescape-esque product (which didn't exist in anything near that scope past 2e). IMO, 4e represents an attempt to pull the campaign settings back into a common cosmology, but even so it's not one that really contradicts the best cosmology (2e) in any serious way. Sure, the planes are described differently and we have learned more about the mythic origins of the multiverse, but generally I think the "certain point of view" argument holds up.
I rather think, though, that cosmology should be the *last* consideration as regards FR. We scribes (you, me, WotC, etc) have enough work to do on the setting itself. I'd prefer to leave cosmology alone and let DMs do what they want with it.
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" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 23:33:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Sure, the planes are described differently and we have learned more about the mythic origins of the multiverse, but generally I think the "certain point of view" argument holds up.
-For the most part, agreed. I still don't see the relevance of the planes being "arranged" as a wheel, a tree, mush, whatever. Maybe I've been missing some part of the descriptive rules to the planes, but I don't see how all of that is relevant, outside of things like planar descriptions, locales, and so on- and, if I am missing anything, be my guest to explain what I've been missing and why it's so important for Planes to be arranged in certain sequences. If everything exists "on top of each other", just at different frequencies, I don't see how arrangement is anything more than just description. Biggest problem is changes made in the 4e cosmology that changes things, but in general, I don't see too many changes that are "unfixable". That the Elemental Plane were all mixed together, for example, into one "Elemental Chaos" can be explained and/or modified where no lore, 1-2e, 3e, 4e, is really outright thrown away. As long as the deep lore that was created, primarily in Planescape, but also in 3e and 4e sources, is retained, that's all that matters. I don't see why most of it wouldn't be able to be mashed together- 2e Planescape descriptions, maybe, 4e layout, for example. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 19 Mar 2012 23:36:18 |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 23:33:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
IMO, 4e represents an attempt to pull the campaign settings back into a common cosmology, but even so it's not one that really contradicts the best cosmology (2e) in any serious way. Sure, the planes are described differently and we have learned more about the mythic origins of the multiverse, but generally I think the "certain point of view" argument holds up.
I'm a planes junkie, and I think we might have to agree to very much disagree here on that point. The 4e cosmology is a completely different multiverse, with many many points just not able to be reconciled by direct continuity with prior lore. It's very much divorced from the material that came before it, and some of the 4e era design comments about the 1e/2e/3e Great Wheel were not exactly kind.
I would describe it as a different game/setting that incorporates a few concepts and recycles some names, but it's a completely different cosmos (albeit one that could within the 1e/2e planar canon certainly be linked via various methods to the Wheel, even elegantly so. I would remain open to that option mind you, but how that would interact with how to handle FR's cosmos is a tricky thing to deal with, because ultimately either the 1e/2e/much of the 3e planar lore or the 4e planar lore is going to have to play second fiddle or go away in keeping some kind of continuity).
Perhaps it would be best to retain what (few) things were common between the three different iterations of the cosmology FR has been published within, and simply try to avoid talking about anything edition exclusive if at all possible (mostly all of the 4e PoL stuff). |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 19:07:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
But split WHERE is the question? Do we accept everything that happened up to a certain point, and then create alternate timelines from there? Different segments of fans are going to want different bits and pieces of Realmslore going in there. If WotC puts in some of those things but not others, what's to stop the fans who don't like the things WotC kept or do like things WotC got rid of?
The answer is, of course, staring us right in the face: the DM makes that call.
I have two points on this topic.
1)While I have preferences where a split should occur, anytime prior to spell plague works. The difference between 2e-3e FR is very minimal. 1e had a lot less development, but still was ripe with interesting possiblities. The major fanbase split only occurs with the 3e - 4e jump. There were people lost at each jump, but the massive gap in which people playing FR were basically speaking foreign languages only occurs with the 4e jump. There is no guarantee that "supporting all eras" of play attracts back all previous fans.
2) There is nothing preventing a DM from pulling from both timelines for ideas. The split timeline opens up possiblities that development could go in new directions rather than all roads lead to ToT /Year of Rogue dragons / spell plague / tyr & helm or any other RSE that does not make it into the new timeline. The developers could actually surpise the DMs in both timelines in a split timeline rather than just designing lead up events to already existing lore in one.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
On the surface a split timeline in the canon may *seem* like a good idea, but I think it's death for the long-term viability of the IP. It divides the fanbase, far worse than the 4e split did, and basically condemns all products into selling poorly (which if we want the IP to keep publishing, we need to avoid). Because basically, if you split the fanbase in half, any given book is only going to sell to half the fans. If you split it further, like 70/30 for instance, then the 70% book is going to do OK but not great, and the 30% is going to do awful. Splitting the timeline like that doesn't let "everybody win." Indeed, a lot of people are bound to be disappointed, and in the long run--after the IP fails because of falling sales--no one wins.
The canon is just a source of ideas for your own individual game. If you want to use an IP--any IP--you will of course be picking and choosing what you like and don't about it, and using the things you do like and not using the ones you don't.
Your solution to "fixing" this issue is all books contain timeline neutral material followed by a section dedicate to each of the four major timeline eras, you have outlined. This approach succeeds in selling the book to all audience, because despite only playing in era x the book supports all eras. I believe the original suggestion is a 70/30 split in each book. 70% being edition netrual and 30% being divided between four eras. Take a look at an equal split between eras for a 200 page book. Each of the four time eras get only 15 pages of material.
There is no reason why the same approach cannot work with a split timeline. 70% shared and 30% divided between the two timelines. This forces everyone to buy the product still and gives each era significantly more room to add material. Doubling the developers space per product by select to focus on two timelines rather than 4 eras. DMs can still look at both sections and pull the best of both worlds approach, or even run games that jump between the timelines.
Neither solution resolves the issue that 4e split the fanbase, both solutions cause anyone that wants to purchase a FR product to accept that a significant portion of the material will have to be customized. Neither solution is guaranteed to attract every realms fan back.
|
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 06:59:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Doubling the developers space per product by select to focus on two timelines rather than 4 eras. DMs can still look at both sections and pull the best of both worlds approach, or even run games that jump between the timelines.
Neither solution resolves the issue that 4e split the fanbase, both solutions cause anyone that wants to purchase a FR product to accept that a significant portion of the material will have to be customized. Neither solution is guaranteed to attract every realms fan back.
Since this argument is largely academic at this point, I have little worry about espousing similar views. But I will say that an alternate timeline would be an absolute necessity only if Wizbro simply continued down the path of the Shattered Realms and did nothing to fix the multitude of horrible mistakes they made.
ESdB's 'One Canon' scroll (amongst others) contains a whole bunch of really good suggestions that would make it a palatable place to adventure again. My biggest worry is that they won't listen to him (or anyone else who 'gets it'), and we'll still be stuck with the same 'Points of Light' ridiculousness that never should have defiled the Realms in the first place.
They have to fix the initial screw-up, without invalidating any of the good work (like Neverwinter, for example) that's been done since. And I am admittedly despairing of the fact that they likely won't be able to jump that hurdle. But at least they realize that there are those of us out there who liked the Realms 'the way they were', and thus we have Sire Ed's new tome on the way. This may be all the 'split timeline' we get, but if it is what I am hoping, it will be enough.  |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 15:25:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I'm a planes junkie, and I think we might have to agree to very much disagree here on that point. The 4e cosmology is a completely different multiverse, with many many points just not able to be reconciled by direct continuity with prior lore. It's very much divorced from the material that came before it, and some of the 4e era design comments about the 1e/2e/3e Great Wheel were not exactly kind.
I don't think one should lend much weight to this commentary on previous design. Of course when you're bringing out a new product, you try to champion it over the old. But I really don't see 4e as a "replacement" for the old--just as a different point of view, as I said.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the designers on the 4e Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea book (I wrote Arvandor, Hestevar, and the Hells, amongst others), and I pointedly drew on as much 2e Planescape material as possible. That was where I started playing D&D, so it's not a surprise it's near and dear. Of that, while Hestevar is obviously a new creation (though it could easily be part of Celestia in one's campaign), I don't think the 4e Hells or Arvandor are incompatible with previous iterations.
Maybe if you gave me some examples of "many many points just not able to be reconciled by direct continuity with prior lore"?
quote:
how that would interact with how to handle FR's cosmos is a tricky thing to deal with, because ultimately either the 1e/2e/much of the 3e planar lore or the 4e planar lore is going to have to play second fiddle or go away in keeping some kind of continuity).
I think the Realms continuity as presented in Realms sourcebooks should be looked at with a grain of salt. Yes, the sages in the Realms point to particular "domains" in which deities dwell, and that's how folk in the Realms understand the planes. From a Planescape perspective, however, those domains are but a small, small part of the actual sweep of the multiverse. They might exist as layers of a particular plane or as segments of a larger whole, etc. The FR-specific cosmology should always be looked at as a smaller add-on to be fit into the larger cosmology, or safely ignored at need. It's a simplified cosmology for those groups that want a taste of planar play, but aren't willing or interested in committing to the vast, sweeping Planescape cosmology.
quote:
Perhaps it would be best to retain what (few) things were common between the three different iterations of the cosmology FR has been published within, and simply try to avoid talking about anything edition exclusive if at all possible (mostly all of the 4e PoL stuff).
I think the 4e PoL cosmology isn't all that offensive, particularly in relation Realmspace. The gods there are nicely isolated from the primordials, and have been for geologic ages. It's only recently (the 4e century) that the old war between primordials and gods has been brewing once more, and it's easy enough to create an event to maintain or change the status quo.
Ultimately, it seems to me that WotC looks at Planescape and each of its campaign settings as being fundamentally different settings, though of course you as the DM can lace them together if you want. I can see arguments for this direction or the opposite (integrating everything), but largely I fall on the "separate but lace-able" team, leaving it up to DMs to decide on the cosmology they're going to use.
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" |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 16:04:02
|
Well met, Tarlyn--always a pleasure to spar with you. I will address your points one by one, fully acknowledging your wisdom and scholarship.
But since I don't want to clutter this thread any more than I have, I will bring this discussion over to the One Canon, One Story, One Realms thread, since this topic is extremely germaine to what we're talking about there. A split timeline is very much on the topic of a single continuity--a reboot doesn't necessarily contradict either line of inquiry.
Click here (it's toward the bottom of the page, time stamp 21 Mar 2012): http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16093&whichpage=27
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" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Reboot of the Realms for 5th edition.
