| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 22:02:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I don’t agree with this.
I think the majority of gamers associate the Realms with D&D, whether it be the rules in general or with their own campaigns, while also viewing the (Canon) Realms as something distinct.
He didn't say gamers, he said individuals. His point, unless I miss y guess, is that the Realms exists independently of D&D. It was created as a setting for fiction before D&D was thought of and it is a novel and computer game setting which is familiar to a lot of people who may never have seen a polyhedral die.
I'm not sure how many people have read Realms fiction or play Realms computer games without playing D&D, but I would not beg against them being more numerous than people who are Realmsfans and play D&D regularly. You don't have to be a gamer to be a Realms fan.
And even if someone is a gamer, he doesn't have to play D&D to play in the Realms. I haven't played D&D in years, myself. I think my last game was about a year about 3.0 came out. I'm still a Realms fan and I play roleplaying games set in the Realms on a regular basis.
From what I hear, a lot of people are playing in the Realms using Pathfinder, too. So the need for a Realms setting that is usable and appealing to people who aren't buying or using D&D rules seems clear. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 28 Mar 2012 22:03:29 |
 |
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 22:12:38
|
@ Azuth:
-But to many, the aforementioned death of Bhaal, Bane and Myrkul, along with the rest of the Time of Troubles, was indeed a game changer that caused them to stop following the setting. I know a person who had his overall campaign (apparently composed of four or five ongoing groups, plus a few decades- not really sure how old he is- of additional events that groups in his campaigns have been a part of) thrown into some degree of chaos because Tilverton was destroyed (in the Return of the Archwizards books and in the Twilight War books). He's managed, but he made his displeasure very known to me, multiple times when it was relevant and brought up in discussion. If the timeline was moved to an even 1,300 DR, the people who became upset about the Time of Troubles will still be upset because it still happens- our ultimate goal is to avoid retcons. The person who became upset about the destruction of Tilverton is still going to have his campaign(s) thrown out of whack to whatever degree because it still happens. The focus will be on things and events that long precede these (and other) semi-controversial to very controversial events, but they'll still be in play.
-The argument that if the timeline was moved back however far, this would fix all of the problems that people have, this is what I am suggesting, because of the above, and other posts made on this specific issue, won't. Would it make Jackie Kennedy feel better to be able to go back in time to 1960, where no major details about her husband's death can be changed? To a minor degree in that she'd be able to spend more time with John Kennedy, yes, but the same events that caused her an unknowable amount of grief (to me, someone who has never lost anyone close under tragic circumstances) would eventually replay themselves and she'd be back at square one, in terms of JFK being assassinated. There is no way to make it work, a middle ground where everyone is satiated and made happy. To varying degrees, people are going to be disappointed. That's not to say that we shouldn't discuss ways to try to please the most people, which is what we're doing here. Mindfulness of the...likelihood of certain things is warranted when doing so. This is why people have already thrown out ideas like complete retcons throwing out all 4e information, or proceeding as things have been since 4e Forgotten Realms launch, not making any design philosophy changes.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
He didn't say gamers, he said individuals. His point, unless I miss y guess, is that the Realms exists independently of D&D. It was created as a setting for fiction before D&D was thought of and it is a novel and computer game setting which is familiar to a lot of people who may never have seen a polyhedral die.
I'm not sure how many people have read Realms fiction or play Realms computer games without playing D&D, but I would not beg against them being more numerous than people who are Realmsfans and play D&D regularly. You don't have to be a gamer to be a Realms fan.
-This is correct. Drizzt Do'Urden, for example, his popularity transcends D&D, looking simply at product sales (millions and millions of copies sold over the years, various New York Times best-seller nominations, etc.). D&D, being a niche hobby has millions and millions across the world who play it, but these numbers are dwarfed by the millions and millions more whose only meaningful exposure to the world is through the books they read independently of anything else. The Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, or Baldur's Gates games, the same. In the middle, there is a great deal of overlap, but the two poles seem asymmetric based on sales figures and such. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 28 Mar 2012 22:27:06 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 22:31:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
He didn't say gamers, he said individuals.
Good catch.
My intent was to use "people" and not "gamers".
I'll make the correction now.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
It was created as a setting for fiction before D&D was thought of and it is a novel and computer game setting which is familiar to a lot of people who may never have seen a polyhedral die.
People often point to the fact that Ed initially created the Realms as a backdrop for his personal fiction writing, but they almost never follow up by mentioning that the Realms—before it was published by TSR—were modified to conform to the D&D rules, then continually modified with each new book TSR put out.
There are several examples of this. One need only look at early issues of The Dragon to see examples of how Ed incorporated the rules of the time into the Realms.
This trend of adjusting the Realms to the rules was of course locked in once the Realms were officially published by TSR.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
I'm not sure how many people have read Realms fiction or play Realms computer games without playing D&D, but I would not beg against them being more numerous than people who are Realmsfans and play D&D regularly. You don't have to be a gamer to be a Realms fan.
Many gamers have come to the Realms through games like Baldur’s Gate, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude the computer games introduced these people to pen and paper D&D too.
[Edit] Likewise, people forget that the novels drive gamers towards the D&D game and vice versa. Drizzt (as noted one post above) is a perfect example of this.
I agree that people can be fans of the Realms without having played the D&D game. I just don’t they’re in the majority. I also think there’s far more blurring of the lines than any simple creation of categories might suggest.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 28 Mar 2012 22:33:59 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 23:31:42
|
Question: who cares what media Realms fans used to get to the setting? If they're realms fans now, they're realms fans and we should be giving them a comfortable place to get what they want.
All I'm suggesting is that we give people of all different prefereces stuff they can use. Send a clear message.
If fans only care about the novels, that isn't relevant to 5e--unless we're talking about a retcon of some kind. The thrust of this thread is as regards sourcebooks.
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 - 29 Mar 2012 : 02:18:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Question: who cares what media Realms fans used to get to the setting? If they're realms fans now, they're realms fans and we should be giving them a comfortable place to get what they want.
All I'm suggesting is that we give people of all different prefereces stuff they can use. Send a clear message.
If fans only care about the novels, that isn't relevant to 5e--unless we're talking about a retcon of some kind. The thrust of this thread is as regards sourcebooks.
Cheers
-Because as repeated a few times, the solution to various game maladies, percieved or actual, was to "change canon to suit your needs". In relation to people not liking certain events taking place in the past that would lead to certain events taking place in the future, or vice-versa, it was recommended that someone not incorporate those events into their games, and that things would be relatively smoothed out. This is like telling the amputee missing his right hand that he'd have an easier time writing with his other hand, because he's not actually left handed (I'm bad at coming up with analogies).
-Given that people take in the setting through various mediums, of which game sourcebooks are one, it doesn't matter whether or not someone plays D&D or not (or any other roleplaying game) to find utility in said sourcebooks. I don't play D&D with the Forgotten Realms. Does this take away the utility sourcebooks have for me? Given that we all read the same sourcebooks to be "informed" of what's going on in the Forgotten Realms, they're as useful to me as they are to you, or anyone else, because they satisfy the basic reason we are all buying. I am buying to find out what's going on in the world. You're buying to get ideas to incorporate into your at-home D&D games. Some other person is buying because he has an obsessive love of cataloging the maps of fantasy worlds into a database he has. The game sourcebooks are just as useful to me just wanting to know what's going on in the world as they are for you getting ideas and inspiration for your D&D games as they are for the guy expanding upon his collection of fantasy world maps.
-If a person doesn't read the novels and "use" the product as fully intended- to have an official story taken place in the Forgotten Realms told to them- because they don't consider anything that is written in said novels official, they shouldn't be concerned with what is being written in those books, putting the shoe on the other foot? Only buying sourcebooks to learn more about the Forgotten Realms, I shouldn't be 'concerned' with the "nitty-gritty" of wondering what historical eras might be supported and elaborated on in the future, or how the Spellplague is going to further be dealt with, or what events are going to elaborated on and/or minimized, or other changes that will occur?
-While I don't mean to be antagonistic, there is definitley a certain degree of frustration creeping into my fingers, here. Not directed towards you, specifically, though. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 29 Mar 2012 02:21:47 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 04:31:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Question: who cares what media Realms fans used to get to the setting? If they're realms fans now, they're realms fans and we should be giving them a comfortable place to get what they want.
It has a rather significant impact on the decision-making process for what kind of thing is most valuable in sourcebooks, for example. Fans that don't play D&D, but do buy Realms sourcebooks gain little utility from statblocks, but more utility from in-setting descriptions of characters*.
I've heard that novel readers and CRPG players buy sourcebooks to get access to well-organised briefers of the world and current events. So evidently even non-gamers buy sourcebooks.
So I'd say that it matters a lot whether or not there is an overwhelming majority of D&D players buying the sourcebooks or whether people who play other games or aren't gamers at all may be more numerous or at least a significant minority among the customer base.
Just like the material that gets included ought to be broken down according to the best information WotC can get on the relative popularity of each era of play. Support all era, by all means, but since most NPCs will live their three-score and ten and not much more, the reality is that most material will be useful only for certain periods.
NPCs would need a lot of notes for each period of their lives and would be of little use before they were born, during times they lived somewhere else than the campaign is happening or after they were dead. Culture changes as well, and thought it happens slowly, it will usually be fast enough so that you'd need seperate sections for each century, at least. Political situations, economic information, adventure hooks or similar will apply only to a very narrow time window in the setting, at least if we don't want to be perfectly ridiculous.
So WotC should break down the stuff that is useful only to certain eras by popularity of play in that era. If 50% of players appear to be playing in a certain era, have 50% of the era-specific data be something useful for games set then.
*Something like 'Mirt is a fat wheezy man who was once a great warrior, but is too slow these days for his youthful heroics. Anyone who thinks that his mighty belly is pure blubber, however, is in for a surprise, as Mirt can move fast and strike hard should he feel the need, though he will pay for it in the morning. His most dangerous weapons, however, are his cunning and understanding of human nature, honed by decades of sharp dealing and coming up on top almost every time.' That's much more useful than a full page for stats for a game that one does not play. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 15:53:04
|
@LK: It's really not my intention to frustrate you. You know I have nothing but affection and respect for you personally, though of course I don't agree with everything you say (and don't expect you'll agree with everything I say). On this particular point, I'm just not sure I'm understanding. What's your solution here?
@Icelander: OK, I think I understand what you're saying. I don't have the specific numbers, but I *believe* WotC publishes under the expectation that the majority of sourcebook buyers use the lore in actual D&D games or as supplemental "guides" to novels. Whether this is accurate or not (and whether I'm even correct) is a question we don't really have the information to answer.
As I have advanced it, my solution is to hit all points: design a strong, lore-rich baseline that does indeed contain information about the evolution of the Realms from era to era, but is mostly geared toward playing a game in the Realms. That's where I see the demand at this point. That sort of material has been sorely lacking since 2008 (when we got three print products and that was it), with the notable exception of Neverwinter (which proved successful I think on a combination of its quality, campaign-site format, and a healthy dose of star power from the NWN games).
What I want to see moving forward is a 5e Campaign Setting, which is about running a game in the Realms, regardless of region (so that it has a high degree of utility wherever you set your game) followed by multiple region specific "campaign setting" sourcebooks (Waterdeep, Cormyr, the North, the Moonsea, etc).
In terms of gaming use, the overall guide is aimed at all people who play in the Realms, while you pick and choose where to set a campaign by choosing a regional sourcebook, or you can use multiple sourcebooks if your campaign moves around.
In terms of non-gaming use, the overall guide has the most utility for people looking at the Realms as a whole and wanting to know more about its history, culture, religion, magic, etc. The regional sourcebooks have the most appeal to those interested in a particular city/area, such as Waterdeep, Cormyr, etc.
Ideally, gamer and non-gamer FR fans alike would buy ALL of these sourcebooks, but hey, one can always dream. The key is to make them good, appealing, intriguing design. That's the best we can do.
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" |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 17:25:04
|
@Erik - I really think that WotC needs to get away from the mindset that Realms fans and D&D fans are always (or even the majority of the time) the same thing. It is more of a venn diagram where there is quite a bit of overlap (I don't know if anyone actually knows the numbers, even WotC), but they are not the same all the time. I know that even though I had no intention of switching to D&D 4e, I would have continued to buy 4e Realms supplements if I had thought that they were worth the money. Because I am first a Realms fan, then a RPG fan, and then a D&D fan. And since I did not enjoy the 4e Realms, they not only lost me as a D&D customer, but a Realms customer as well.
I don't know how much it would cost (or how well WotC could pull if off), but I think that it would do them and the Realms good if they found a way to reliably poll how Realms fans rate their allegiance to the brands, and develop and market the Realms according to those results. My guess is that they would find hardcore Realms fans in all editions of D&D, as well as other offshoots (Pathfinder, Rolemaster, et cetera) who will continue to buy Realmslore products as long as they see those products as worth their money.
Also, I echo what LK said about wanting a specific canon to adhere to. Yes, next time I run a Realms game (I don't know when that will be, but it will probably be the Shadowdale super adventure with the Pathfinder rules set), I know that I, as DM (as well as the players' actions), have ultimate say as to what happens in the Realms for that game (or games). But overall, I like to stick as closely to canon as possible. Most likely because I am pretty sure I have Asperger's and am a bit OCD. And when reading Realmslore, I want to devour as much of it as possible whenever possible as long as the writing is easy for me to read (some of the problems I have had w/ 2e Realms supplements) and I feel like what I am reading is both respectful of the Realms as a whole and me as a consumer. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 29 Mar 2012 17:33:44 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 18:35:09
|
Can we please quit comparing the ToT to the 100 year timejump/spellplague? There is a huge difference. The ToT is actually very easily ignored (we have done it for 20 years now), as it is pretty simple to keep the dead 3 gods around (just replace Cyric with one as needed in lore) and no other significant changes to the Realms happened (even the FR Adventures book essentially glosses over the destruction of Tantras). The Spellplague (or at least the elimination of Maztica/Halruaa/et al) and the 100 year time jump are simply impossible to ignore in the sense of new products for the Realms that could add to my pre-ToT campaigns (something that hadn't occurred prior to that point, even though we play a 1st/2nd ed hybrid).
My point is, while I appreciate Eric's devotion to the task of assimilating all Realms fans into a "new" Realms line of products, I still don't see how that is going to be practical. There is no way to write lore for most places that is applicable to both the 1370 timeline and the 1470 timeline (aside from history) without making the obscene leap to "nothing changed in 100 years". Also, let's not pretend that WoTC isn't going to target the more popular areas (ie Waterdeep, the Dales, and Cormyr) with new products, where there is simply no room to add anything to the 1350-1370 timeline (ie give me any reason to buy another Waterdeep product (FR1 is still perfect if you ask me)). Of course, I will let your books speak for themselves (and judge the content of each separately), but if 25%+ of the book is dedicated to the 1470s Realms, I can guarantee I am still out as a customer.
Let's just say that Games Workshop is very happy that WoTC created the Shattered Realms Campaign Setting. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 18:44:57
|
| I've seen Ed mention in an interview that what we know about the Realms is from the unreliable narrator of Elminster, who may lie to us, leave things out or slant things to accord with his viewpoints. He also said we should just wait and see what we thought we knew about the Realms and that we might view it a bit differently in the next few years. Maybe that's the view that 5E will take to repair...not sure if that's the right word, maybe clarify what happened or where we are at now in the Realms. This would make perfect sense considering how traumatized El probably was after Mystra's death. By all accounts our narrator at the time was insane, so maybe this will allow them to patch things up. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 19:12:25
|
Apex,
The ToT is not an invalid example. Sure, it was accepted as simple setting backstory from 3E onwards, a mildly interesting (even annoying) tale woven into the tapestry of Faerûn's history, another dated (5 book) FR trilogy that could be safely ignored. But many people were playing AD&D (1E) or reading the (1E) FR novels back then, and the cataclysmic transition to 2E had many parallels with the cataclysmic transition to 4E: fundamental elements of the setting were shaken apart, gods and heroes were slain, gods and heroes were born, an entirely new dimension was layered onto the existing mythology (Ao - and his masters), and the fallout "broke" the previously unshakable faith of many Realms fans with feelings of uncertainty, betrayal, and vehement denial. The magnitude of the event is not measured in lost lives or property damage within the setting, it's measured by the response of Realms fans who were forced to make the transition. Many grognards utterly rejected the "Shattered Realms" and/or D&D from 2E onwards, just as you suggest you've done since 4E.
An (in?)appropriate real-world analogy might be people dismissing World War I as inconsequential just because World War II was more destructive and occurred more recently. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 29 Mar 2012 19:23:12 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 19:30:42
|
Well said Ayrik.
Really, one can just as easily add/remove aspects they don't like about the Spellplague and keep on truckin' with the advanced timeline of the Realms if they so choose. If you liked Mystra, well keep here there. Aside from little "mechanical representations" (feats, spells, and Paragon Paths/Prestige Classes) what harm comes from saying she lived and the Spellplague didn't occur in your Homebrew?
Now, whether or not the crashing of worlds (Abeir and Toril) was a result of the Spellplague is questionable (I'm away from my books right now, so I can't check) but hardly required for the future of your setting. In my home campaigns, I've kept Elistraee alive and well as the entire events of the War of the Spider Queen series didn't occur in my Realms games nor did the Lady Pentient series. What did it chance? NOthing really that I noticed or that my players really cared about for one. For another, they got a few more Gods to choose from if they played Drow PCs. I didn't like the fact that Lantan was destoryed, so I played with the Canon a little and decided it would be much cooler if it was an underground city like Atlantis or the setting of the video game Bio-Shock. I liked Warforged but they weren't specifcally called out in Forgotten Realms supplements. So I made them work within the setting, having them be advanced Gondsmen.
@ Erik: I think your doing a terrific job of maintaining a strong continunity within the Realms, while weaving in parts that are less desireable. Kudos. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 19:34:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Apex,
The ToT is not an invalid example. Sure, it was accepted as simple setting backstory from 3E onwards, a mildly interesting (even annoying) tale woven into the tapestry of Faerûn's history. But many people were playing AD&D (1E) or reading the (1E) FR novels back then, and the cataclysmic transition to 2E had many parallels with the cataclysmic transition to 4E: fundamental elements of the setting were shaken apart, gods and heroes were slain, gods and heroes were born, an entirely new dimension was layered onto the existing mythology (Ao - and his masters), and the fallout "broke" the previously unshakable faith of many Realms fans with feelings of uncertainty, betrayal, and vehement denial. The magnitude of the event is not measured in lost lives or property damage within the setting, it's measured by the response of Realms fans who were forced to make the transition. Many people rejected the "Shattered Realms" and D&D from 2E onwards, just as you suggest you've done since 4E.
An (in?)appropriate real-world analogy might be people dismissing World War I as inconsequential just because World War II was more destructive and occurred more recently.
I completely disagree (and I played/read through the ToT as it happened way back when). A very small subset of fans may have been lost, but the reality is ignoring the ToT is/was so easy that the changes to the setting are almost imperceptible (outside the dead three). You cannot lump the change from 1st to 2nd edition in with the ToT. I do know many people who never moved on to 2nd (and thus the 2nd edition Realms), but still play in the Realms today and used virtually every 2nd edition supplement (while omitting Cyric/wild magic, which are really the only Realms specific changes from the ToT (as published at the time)). The 100 year time jump/physical destruction of the Realms from 4E simply does not compare to the very minor ToT (in terms of usefulness of future product to those who choose to ignore said "canon").
Also, don't give me this "unshakeable faith in the setting" garbage. There were only a handful of Realms products out prior to 2nd edition and the Forgotten Realms Adventure book being published (1990). On top of that, the at the time setting specific changes to the Realms were in fact incredibly minor (even if not everyone liked them). They killed a few gods (but those are easily added back in and their 2nd edition information was included in FRA) and added wild/dead magic areas to the Realms. Outside of that, what really changed? This revisionist history of people proclaiming the profound effects of the ToT are simply that and are usually tied to the additions of "canon" to the ToT that was added as years went by. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 19:40:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Well said Ayrik.
Really, one can just as easily add/remove aspects they don't like about the Spellplague and keep on truckin' with the advanced timeline of the Realms if they so choose. If you liked Mystra, well keep here there. Aside from little "mechanical representations" (feats, spells, and Paragon Paths/Prestige Classes) what harm comes from saying she lived and the Spellplague didn't occur in your Homebrew?
No you can't and that is the problem. The timejump/major map alterations is what killed the setting, not the actual modest results of the spellplague. Simply put, the lore of 1470'sDR is of no use to me or anyone else that chooses to play in the 1300's and hence we won't be purchasing new product. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 19:53:13
|
quote:
Apexquote:
Diffan
Really, one can just as easily add/remove aspects they don't like about the Spellplague and keep on truckin' with the advanced timeline of the Realms if they so choose. If you liked Mystra, well keep here there. Aside from little "mechanical representations" (feats, spells, and Paragon Paths/Prestige Classes) what harm comes from saying she lived and the Spellplague didn't occur in your Homebrew?
No you can't and that is the problem. The timejump/major map alterations is what killed the setting, not the actual modest results of the spellplague. Simply put, the lore of 1470'sDR is of no use to me or anyone else that chooses to play in the 1300's and hence we won't be purchasing new product.
Actually we can do exactly this, that's the entire purpose of this and many other scrolls, and apparently a major component of the design philosophy behind the next iteration of the Realms. Although it seems that you cannot, Apex. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 29 Mar 2012 19:56:04 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 19:59:01
|
@Hawkins: I wasn't saying WotC's attitude as regards its audience was the right one, only identifying what I think it is. And yes, it should definitely broaden--in particular because while 4e D&D did unarguably bring in new players, it also kicked out a whole lot of old guard players. And as amazing as DnD-Next might be, I don't think it's going to draw all those people back. I mean, Pathfinder is pretty shiny--never let it be said I think differently.
The trick, I think, to releasing a new line of rigorous, viable, and well-loved Realms books is to allow people to play the Realms with ANY game, whether it's 5e or Pathfinder or OD&D. But how?
I'll just say it for the record. If I had my way, FR would be 90% divorced from D&D. There should be just enough mechanical infrastructure that you COULD use it for your games, but the vast majority of it is lore, story, and adventure thread.
When WotC releases the 5e FR book, it should be extremely mechanics light. It should be playable with all versions of D&D (or whatever other RPG you prefer). And it should interface with old school products: you should be able to pick up and run those 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e sources with almost no hurdles of any kind.
@Apex: I see the ToT and the Spellplague RSEs as being the same thing, only on different scales. Part of this is because of how much of the setting there was (considerably more in the later case), how many fans there were (again, more in the later case), and how big the stage was (again, much bigger in the later case).
It's also worth noting that the business state of the company affects how things go--TSR, say what you like about their business practices, had more resources to throw at the ToT and could "handle" it far better. By contrast, WotC was trying to do something much larger with diminishing resources, and to some extent, they just couldn't do it well. This is not to excuse what happened--far from it--only to explain that they were dealing with a MUCH bigger monster, but one of the same MM entry, as it were.
Yes, when the warlord TSR went to slay the ToT, it was only a young dragon, easily defeated and sent packing. But about 20 years later when TSR's successor (the Wizard of the Coast) came to fight the creature called Spellplague, it was ToT grown into a great wyrm. Same sort of fight, WAY harder to kill in the second case.
And yes, I don't think that combat went particularly well for our intrepid Wizard of the Coast and his company of stalwart adventurers. The wyrm was defeated, sure, but not before a lot of the WotC's allies had either died or fled the fight, seeking out greener pastures. After all, one of his former allies (the Pathfinder) had previously split off from the Wizard's party to go form his own gig in a place called Golarion, and that welcomed quite a few of them. Others did come to join WotC's new party, but what really needs to happen now is that WotC needs to see everyone as Realms fans and accept them all with open arms.
See?
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 - 29 Mar 2012 : 20:03:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
The timejump/major map alterations is what killed the setting, not the actual modest results of the spellplague.
Grievously wounded, not killed, but I completely understand your hesitation to even LOOK at new stuff after that event. When the Spellplague and time jump happened, I was pissed off too. Then I *immediately* set to fixing it.
Obviously, whether you will consider products in the future is entirely up to you. But I for one am not going to let detractors or the "oh it's impossible!" attitude stand in the way of doing what I know can and should be done.
The Realms can be rebuilt. We have the technology. We can rebuild them. Stronger. Faster. Iconic-er. Better than ever.
And that's what we're going to do.
If you'd like to help, great, welcome, and I sincerely want you here. Every Realmsfan has something to say, and everyone should be heard.
If not, no hard feelings, and while I hope you reconsider (we could really use your voice), we'll just have to go this one alone for now.
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 29 Mar 2012 22:07:50 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 20:09:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
This revisionist history of people proclaiming the profound effects of the ToT are simply that and are usually tied to the additions of "canon" to the ToT that was added as years went by.
Revisionist history? Sorry, not so fast.
Further, let’s not pretend even the most modest changes don’t produce fan outrage. Had message boards like this one existed back then, you better believe the fan outcry would have been huge.
I experienced the Time of Troubles too: read the novels and was surprised and a little shocked by them; played in the railroading-the-PCs-adventures and never finished them (they weren’t all that fun and our DM had some ideas up his sleeve for Undermountain and the North that worked great).
From the point of view of the experience, yeah, the Time of Troubles was a big deal. Speaking for myself and the people I played with: yes, it was like the Spellplague, albeit a smaller one.
Aryk’s comparison is valid.
From a play perspective, we just ignored the Time of Troubles. It happened but it wasn’t directly relevant to the games were playing in the Realms at the time. That you can in fact do this with the Spellplague as well is, frankly, indisputable.
That someone might choose not to do this is of course a posibility, for any of a number of reasons people have posted already. But it’s their choice. Nothing is physically stopping them from playing except themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
Simply put, the lore of 1470'sDR is of no use to me or anyone else that chooses to play in the 1300's and hence we won't be purchasing new product.
That you’ve decided nothing is applicable (no doubt without reading it first) from the post-Spellplague Realms is fine, but let’s not presume this is objective truth applying to all games, simply because the material is from an era one hundred years in the future.
I use post-Spellplague material in my 1300s era Realms games. Just as historical Realmslore can be brought forward, modern (is that the right word?) Realmslore can be brought backwards; using it takes only as much work as it already takes to run a D&D game.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 29 Mar 2012 20:12:28 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 20:13:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Hawkins: I wasn't saying WotC's attitude as regards its audience was the right one, only identifying what I think it is. And yes, it should definitely broaden--in particular because while 4e D&D did unarguably bring in new players, it also kicked out a whole lot of old guard players. And as amazing as DnD-Next might be, I don't think it's going to draw all those people back. I mean, Pathfinder is pretty shiny--never let it be said I think differently.
The trick, I think, to releasing a new line of rigorous, viable, and well-loved Realms books is to allow people to play the Realms with ANY game, whether it's 5e or Pathfinder or OD&D. But how?
I'll just say it for the record. If I had my way, FR would be 90% divorced from D&D. There should be just enough mechanical infrastructure that you COULD use it for your games, but the vast majority of it is lore, story, and adventure thread.
When WotC releases the 5e FR book, it should be extremely mechanics light. It should be playable with all versions of D&D (or whatever other RPG you prefer). And it should interface with old school products: you should be able to pick up and run those 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e sources with almost no hurdles of any kind.
@Apex: I see the ToT and the Spellplague RSEs as being the same thing, only on different scales. Part of this is because of how much of the setting there was (considerably more in the later case), how many fans there were (again, more in the later case), and how big the stage was (again, much bigger in the later case).
It's also worth noting that the business state of the company affects how things go--TSR, say what you like about their business practices, had more resources to throw at the ToT and could "handle" it far better. By contrast, WotC was trying to do something much larger with diminishing resources, and to some extent, they just couldn't do it well. This is not to excuse what happened--far from it--only to explain that they were dealing with a MUCH bigger monster, but one of the same MM entry, as it were.
Yes, when the warlord TSR went to slay the ToT, it was only a young dragon, easily defeated and sent packing. But about 20 years later when TSR's successor (the Wizard of the Coast) came to fight the creature called Spellplague, it was ToT grown into a great wyrm. Same sort of fight, WAY harder to kill in the second case.
And yes, I don't think that combat went particularly well for our intrepid Wizard of the Coast and his company of stalwart adventurers. The wyrm was defeated, sure, but not before a lot of the WotC's allies had either died or fled the fight, seeking out greener pastures. After all, one of his former allies (the Pathfinder) had previously split off from the Wizard's party to go form his own gig in a place called Golarion, and that welcomed quite a few of them. Others did come to join WotC's new party, but what really needs to happen now is that WotC needs to see everyone as Realms fans and accept them all with open arms.
See?
Cheers
First, I am still standing by that much of the so called anti-ToT stuff is simply revisionist history. The original effects of the ToT were in fact very minor setting wide, didn't alter geography or eliminate entire regions, and were almost imperceptible in many later releases. And again, it isn't the spell-plague itself (outside of the whole Halruaa and Abeir explosions) that is the problem anyways, it is the 100 year jump that essentially cuts those who favor pre-spell plague Realms off from future useful lore. The spell-plague alone followed by material published for 13xx FR would have still been useful to most, but that isn't what we got.
I would be happy to help contribute (although my lobbying and preference is for a reboot to either OGB or 1330/1340DR), but first I think people need to start addressing the real issues from a future sales perspective, as that is ultimately what will matter (and a product about an already detailed region that rehashes history/politics/etc where say 25% of the content is 1470s, is probably not going to appeal that well to either crowd of fans). |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 21:24:35
|
To respond to claims by Diffan, Ayrik and Jeremy, and possbly others, that Realmslore published for the 1470s DR setting is usable for people playing in eras before the Spellplague, I don't quite agree.
While it's possible to maintain that you could easily take what you like from the future lore and apply it to the past, that doesn't make it useful Realmslore. It wasn't written for the setting in the 1300s and no thought went into making it consistent with what was going on then. The critical design work of incorporating it into the setting as a whole was not done, for the simple and inarguable reason that it was not meant to fit the setting of the 1300s Realms, it was meant to fit another setting, that of the Realms a century later and after a world-changing apocalypse. The DM who takes inspiration from it and decides to use it in his game will have to do all the design work himself.
Post-Spellplague setting information for the 1470s is useful for a game set in the Realms a century earlier only in the same way that any piece of fiction or non-fiction is useful to a DM. It might become the inspiration for something he puts in his setting. An NPC, scenario or adventure hook for a game set in the Realms of the 1300s might come into existence through inspiration from Game of Thrones or Gibbon's Rise and Fall or the 4e Forgotten Realms setting. That doesn't make any of them sources of setting information for such a game, because the DM still has to do the work of fitting it into the setting himself.
I'm not prepared to pay a publishing company for something just because it might become the source for ideas. Anything I read or watch might become the source for ideas useful in a game and unless I've done terribly at choosing my poison, a novel, TV-series or movie are going to be better written and more entertaining than game supplements tend to be, if only because the pay for making them is rather better and talent goes where the money is. The only reason I have for paying people to make setting supplements is if they do the work of intergrating all the ideas into a unified, consistent whole that stands rational examination.
And if I'm using stuff written for another era, I know that work wasn't done, because it wouldn't make any sense to subject stuff written for the 1470s to analysis regarding whether it fit with stuff written for the 1300s, since the conditions wouldn't be the same. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 21:29:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
While it's possible to maintain that you could easily take what you like from the future lore and apply it to the past, that doesn't make it useful Realmslore. It wasn't written for the setting in the 1300s and no thought went into making it consistent with what was going on then.
Your argument died right there.
The discussion, such as it is, of whether 4E Realmslore is or isn't applicable to a 3E or earlier era game ought to go on another scroll. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 29 Mar 2012 21:30:16 |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 21:53:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
First, I am still standing by that much of the so called anti-ToT stuff is simply revisionist history. The original effects of the ToT were in fact very minor setting wide, didn't alter geography or eliminate entire regions, and were almost imperceptible in many later releases. And again, it isn't the spell-plague itself (outside of the whole Halruaa and Abeir explosions) that is the problem anyways, it is the 100 year jump that essentially cuts those who favor pre-spell plague Realms off from future useful lore. The spell-plague alone followed by material published for 13xx FR would have still been useful to most, but that isn't what we got.
I would be happy to help contribute (although my lobbying and preference is for a reboot to either OGB or 1330/1340DR), but first I think people need to start addressing the real issues from a future sales perspective, as that is ultimately what will matter (and a product about an already detailed region that rehashes history/politics/etc where say 25% of the content is 1470s, is probably not going to appeal that well to either crowd of fans).
I must disagree here. The Time of Troubles was a huge game-changer. Were mountains moved? No. But the mechanics (not rolling dice, but how the Realms worked) were explained in much more detail.
Wild Magic was introduced. This alone was a huge change to the setting. For a while, there was a class called a Wild Mage. I played one, and loved it. But that isn't all.
Dead Magic Zones were also introduced. These areas created a whole different type of paradigm as to how the game was played. Magic being the foundation of half of the game, it was not insignificant.
Perhaps most important was the establishment of two indesputable facts: the gods were very active in the Realms, and they could be "killed." The first was important because, if one played canon, ignoring deities was akin to pretending one didn't need air to breathe. In the first edition, the deities were mentioned. In the Second Edition, ushered in by the ToT, the deities were not something one ignored. One needed a "patron deity" or one's soul spent the eternal afterlife in Mykul/Cyric's Wall.
The second one made a huge difference because suddenly the presence of a given deity wasn't a given. As the Third Edition would later prove, a dead deity isn't necessarily gone forever: ask Bane. Sections of the game that weren't even footnotes in the first edition of "Advanced" D&D were front-and-center in the second edition.
I was really angry that they killed my character's god. I hated Cyric. I happened to think that Bhaal and Bane made good gods. I didn't care at all about Myrkul, to be honest. As a player playing a priest, the acceptance of a patron deity was a non-issue to me. I've never known anyone to play a character in the afterlife (presumably some people have, somewhere) but I didn't like the idea that my character was somehow indebted to Cyric in any way. I had been playing this character for four years, and someone writes a book and my god is dead? Yes, there was a lot of anger. A couple of PC Drow characters didn't want to worship Lolth, but it was unclear if a human deity would accept them. Also, toss out assassins. That was part of ToT. Did I mention one of the Drow was an assassin? In the books, all assassins just die. ALL of them. He was not pleased.
For you to say that in your game, the ToT wasn't important or didn't impact the game, that I can accept. But a blanket statement that this is somehow revisionist history, that is patently false.
Finally, without ToT, you wouldn't have Cyric as a god, you wouldn't have Midnight as Mystra, and you wouldn't have their seething hatred of one another. Bane had no reason to hate Mystra, he just wanted power. So, no Cyric, no Cyric killing Midnight/Mystra, no Spell Plague. I would say that, indeed, the ToT had great impact on the Realms... the SpellPlague, I think, were directly caused by the ToT.
With respect to the time-jump: this has been stated as the crux issue ad infinitum. Erik's whole proposition has been that a setting detailing all eras of time makes the Realms more inclusive: I agree. People write books set in the past all of the time. Since this is Fantasy, there is no "present" year. If WoTC supports the entire setting, and produces lore and books set in all eras, then I fail to see the problem.
I read "Cormyr: A Novel" and interestingly, it has whole chapters that take place in "the past." More recently, I read a bit of history in "Blackstaff Tower" on Khelben's origins. Definitely not "present, post-spellplague Realms" time period. I also payed the original Neverwinter Nights on the PC. Part of the game took place in the very-distant past. It appeared to be completely supported by canon, and was allowed as the reason it was never cold in Neverwinter. The notion that areas of the "past" cannot be written about has already been disproven. The true question is whether or not Wizards will continue to do so. That is what Erik appears to be advocating (I shall not speak for him) and definitely what I advocate. What "we got" in the past does not have to be a predictor of what we "will get" in the future. Why are we not focusing on that instead of arguing about the real past: something that cannot be changed?
Curiously,
Azuth |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 21:58:59
|
I imagine that if this ambitious experiment with "multi-era" Realms books is judged successful, we'll see products branching into more specialized eras being released. Not interested in any post-1370DR Realmslore? Then don't buy it and - over time - Wizbro will (as always) naturally focus on developing the facets of Realmslore which are most profitable.
We all have opinions about Realmslore, and if it turns that our own preferences are not the "popular" ones which govern future Realmslore development then we can at least benefit from some new material suited for our own era of choice. A little is better than nothing at all, any victory is better than any defeat. Everybody already does this by selectively purchasing certain items of Realmslore while disregarding others* - I personally can't stand the oversaturation of elves in the Realms and thus avoid purchasing anything written about them - the only difference in the canon we bring to our tables is that now we can choose to ignore segments of time instead of segments of land.
* Well, I suppose there are always those who blindly purchase everything Wizbro publishes. But they're already demonstrating an indiscriminate lack of willingness to exercise personal preference. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 29 Mar 2012 22:11:18 |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 21:59:20
|
[quote]Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
While it's possible to maintain that you could easily take what you like from the future lore and apply it to the past, that doesn't make it useful Realmslore. It wasn't written for the setting in the 1300s and no thought went into making it consistent with what was going on then.
Your argument died right there.
The discussion, such as it is, of whether 4E Realmslore is or isn't applicable to a 3E or earlier era game ought to go on another scroll.
[/quote]
I disagree only slightly. It does belong on this scroll only in that it demonstrates the point of the scroll. Adapting lore is something that is incumbent upon the Dungeon Master primarily, and secondarily on the publishing company. Thought goes into creating any lore. To callously argue that "no thought went into making it consistent" is an uninformed guess, at best, unless stated by the lore-creator. I do not like many of the 4E changes, but I definitely think that thought went into their construction.
Azuth |
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 22:01:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I imagine that if this ambitious experiment with "multi-era" Realms books is judged successful, we'll see products branching into more specialized eras come out. Not interested in any post-1370DR Realmslore? Then don't buy it and - over time - Wizbro will (as always) naturally focus on developing the facets of Realmslore which are most popular and profitable.
Like!
|
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
Edited by - Azuth on 29 Mar 2012 22:38:22 |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 22:03:07
|
I have to support the argument that ToT was significantly easier to ignore than the 4e changes. It does not take a lot of effort on the part of the DM to reverse the death of three gods and change the alignment of one. Also, the big three dead baddies did continue to receive support. The merge between 2ed and 3ed was even easier to ignore. It was add Shade or don't. The amount of work involved in not having the abeir-toril business occur, adding back in/ unmerging gods and figuring out what countries go where is significantly more time consuming.
On a side note, Pathfinder continues to attract new players, with arguably more success than D&D at this point. So, characterizing it as a haven for disillusioned old guard members is a poor comparison. There is a large and growing audience of young and old players alike to try to win over from Pathfinder. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 22:19:43
|
| The Spellplague could be trivialized just as easily. You could, for example, look at your map and decide you don't see a crater, you instead see Halruaa just as it was before - perhaps a better Halruaa with strange and powerful forms of magic provided by a living goddess of magic and adapted into 4E gameplay from earlier rulesets. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 22:20:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I have to support the argument that ToT was significantly easier to ignore than the 4e changes. It does not take a lot of effort on the part of the DM to reverse the death of three gods and change the alignment of one. Also, the big three dead baddies did continue to receive support. The merge between 2ed and 3ed was even easier to ignore. It was add Shade or don't. The amount of work involved in not having the abeir-toril business occur, adding back in/ unmerging gods and figuring out what countries go where is significantly more time consuming.
On a side note, Pathfinder continues to attract new players, with arguably more success than D&D at this point. So, characterizing it as a haven for disillusioned old guard members is a poor comparison. There is a large and growing audience of young and old players alike to try to win over from Pathfinder.
Reads Pirates of the inner sea splat.
looks at quote.
Indeed- done in Blackstaff Voice |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 22:24:24
|
@Azuth
You are clearly mixing changes to 2nd edition AD&D with the Forgotten Realms. The assassin was eliminated as a class with the advent of 2nd edition and the destruction of all Realms assassins was the (poor) in setting explanation for such. If you continued to play 1st edition, that likely didn't happen (or if you kept assassins in 2nd). As for wild mages, again you are confusing an optional class in the Tome of magic with the Realms and wild magic and dead magic areas are some of the easiest ignored bits of lore out there as they are invisible and are not even drawn on the maps.
As for the gods, once again, ignoring the death of gods was extremely easy (again if your group so desired) and had essentially no impact on the game material published later being compatible with your campaign.
The big problem we have here is that the extreme geographical changes and the time jump make using lore from the 1470s virtually impossible for those who prefer the traditional Forgotten Realms over the Shattered version. I hope that they are able to craft supplements that apply to all eras and i applaud Erik for giving it a go, I am just somewhat skeptical of the success of such an endeavor from a business perspective. |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 22:37:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I imagine that if this ambitious experiment with "multi-era" Realms books is judged successful, we'll see products branching into more specialized eras come out. Not interested in any post-1370DR Realmslore? Then don't buy it and - over time - Wizbro will (as always) naturally focus on developing the facets of Realmslore which are most popular and profitable.
Like!
|
Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells
The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
