Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 65

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 15 Mar 2012 :  19:33:42  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

The Border Kingdoms is a great suggestion, and one that fits really well--the name "Border Kingdoms" evokes all kinds of visions of being on the frontier, staving off the threat of the wild, etc.
That and the name would look good (read: stand prominently and be eye catching, all on its own) on the cover of a sourcebook, whether the Realms logo was on it or not.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Bakra
Senior Scribe

626 Posts

Posted - 15 Mar 2012 :  19:33:59  Show Profile Send Bakra a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Cool thoughts guys, thanks!

It's hard to find the right "size" of a region to explore. Hawkins's suggestion, for instance, is definitely iconic Realmsian but probably too expansive: the Moonsea can probably be its own sourcebook (and that's already been done anyway), and Cormyr/Sembia should DEFINITELY have its own sourcebook (and the Lineage! ahem!). I also think the Dalelands (including Cormanthyr) would be a great sourcebook.

Whatever we pick, it's got to be cool and immersive enough PCs will want to spend some time there, but also small enough that they'll feel happy to leave and go off to bigger adventures elsewhere. You should also feel free to head out of there immediately too, if you want--it's only offered as a great, addictive (think "gateway drug") adventure site to start your Realms campaign. Like Loudwater was intended to be but didn't necessarily pull off.

Personally, I think Loudwater is great--it was largely just a tragic casualty of the anti-4e backlash. I started my players there and recently had them return (10 levels later) to save the town from marauding giants under the command of Nosnra, the Hill Giant Chief, at his Stedding. If you see what I mean.

The Border Kingdoms is a great suggestion, and one that fits really well--the name "Border Kingdoms" evokes all kinds of visions of being on the frontier, staving off the threat of the wild, etc.

This also made me think of the similarly named but separate Bloodstone Lands. that would be returning the Realms to its roots, as the Bloodstone Lands is old school like crazy.

Cheers



The key point is returning to roots. The reason I like Arabel is that it's had decent coverage in many, many books, it has a rich history, it's in a familiar setting (Cormyr, at least the last time I checked) and it sets up a great story without needing to set anything up at all. It's a nice, "miniature Waterdeep" that allows PCs quick access to the heartlands. Yet, it's not as overpowering and epic (or intimidating) as Waterdeep, so a new group of adventurers can easily find many things to do within its walls. It's shady enough for thieves to play well, but open enough for warriors to find "honest" work, mages to have a library, and priests to have decent temples.

That's really the key to me: all character classes can feel "at home" in the first setting....

I think that familiarity here is a good idea. It has nothing to do with "rebooting" anything, but it drops one level of apprehension. Just my two copper's worth.

Azuth





All valid points. The only thing is the cost of a charter which could be fixed with a simple background theme or three.

I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3226 Posts

Posted - 15 Mar 2012 :  21:51:15  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

. . . what REGION would you focus on as a starting campaign site?

Let me explain: My concept for the Campaign guide is to provide all the information you need to start up and run a Realms game, with a TINY travelogue section (mostly leaving that to larger sourcebooks like NEVERWINTER or MENZOBERRANZAN so you can pick and choose a region of play). The book does, however, include an adventure site, similar conceptually to Loudwater from the 4e FRCG, albeit larger and better developed. This would be the default area for starting your campaigns, and would provide suitable challenges for characters of levels 1-5 or so. But where would this be?

-Baldur's Gate. It's a semi-iconic site, so anyone who has played the video games but isn't really that well versed in the Forgotten Realms will know it, and at least be familiar with the city itself, some of the people living in it, and some of the stuff in the local area. It's information-lite enough for older lore to be included and more fleshed out, while not being complete reprints of older books (like Waterdeep, for example). It's cosmopolitan enough to be able to support plot hooks and stories that involve the rest of Faerūn, while small enough to be able to ignore those aspects of the city.

(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
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4586 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  00:30:30  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage  Send Erik Scott de Bie an AOL message Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message
Hmm, yes, yes indeed . . .

Here's my thinking: the 5e FR guide should include a section on The Border Kingdoms or the Bloodstone Lands, and then the first three setting-type sourcebooks should be Cormyr (classic, iconic, heroic, with Arabel included--indeed, Arabel is a suggested starting point, rather than Suzail), Baldur's Gate (especially good for fans of the game), and the Sword Coast (including Luskan, Longsaddle, the Spine of the World, etc., especially good for people who started playing in Neverwinter).

Ehh?

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Signature of Shameless Self-Promotion +6: Order my sixth novel, Shadow of the Winter King (Amazon, e-signing, Dragonmoon Press)

Also check out my Realms work, most recently Shadowbane: Eye of Justice, out now on e-readers everywhere! (Kindle, Nook)
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31701 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  00:31:15  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

So here's a question:

If one were given the opportunity to design the 5e FR Setting book . . .

(And no, I haven't, at least as yet. AFAIK, they aren't even discussing the book yet. So this isn't me subtly asking for feedback, I'm honestly asking your opinion.)

. . . what REGION would you focus on as a starting campaign site?

Let me explain: My concept for the Campaign guide is to provide all the information you need to start up and run a Realms game, with a TINY travelogue section (mostly leaving that to larger sourcebooks like NEVERWINTER or MENZOBERRANZAN so you can pick and choose a region of play). The book does, however, include an adventure site, similar conceptually to Loudwater from the 4e FRCG, albeit larger and better developed. This would be the default area for starting your campaigns, and would provide suitable challenges for characters of levels 1-5 or so. But where would this be?

My first instinct was the Dalelands, but I'm thinking the scope there is just too big for a small "adventure site" portion of the 5e FR setting book. Waterdeep and Cormyr suffer similar problems--they'd do much better as sourcebooks on their own.

How about the Moonsea? Some classic Phlan, Zhentil Keep, etc., action?

The Sword Coast?

The Heartlands around Baldur's Gate, etc.?

Thoughts?

Cheers


My first choice would be the Border Kingoms. Perhaps more so than any other part of the established Realms, the Border Kingdoms are designed to be easily customised for particular and/or individual home Realms campaigns -- complete with swiftly shifting borders and ever-changing rulers. So there's plenty of room for changes and/or the addition of new details for your game. A perfect adventure/campaign starting point.

My second choice would be the Dragon Coast... simply because of the history of those shores as revealed by Ed in The Temptation of Elminster.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4586 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  00:56:25  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage  Send Erik Scott de Bie an AOL message Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

My second choice would be the Dragon Coast... simply because of the history of those shores as revealed by Ed in The Temptation of Elminster.
Oh, I fully intend there to be a sourcebook all about the Dragon Coast. One I'd LOVE to write, for obvious reasons.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Signature of Shameless Self-Promotion +6: Order my sixth novel, Shadow of the Winter King (Amazon, e-signing, Dragonmoon Press)

Also check out my Realms work, most recently Shadowbane: Eye of Justice, out now on e-readers everywhere! (Kindle, Nook)
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31701 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  01:09:31  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Oh, I fully intend there to be a sourcebook all about the Dragon Coast. One I'd LOVE to write, for obvious reasons.
I'd so want to be in on the design team for the writing of that sourcebook.

The Dragon Coast has long been one of my favourite regions of the Realms, and I'd be keen for some of my own ideas for the various towns and cities populating the area, to become canon.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage

Edited by - The Sage on 16 Mar 2012 01:10:35
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3226 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  02:52:06  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Hmm, yes, yes indeed . . .

Here's my thinking: the 5e FR guide should include a section on The Border Kingdoms or the Bloodstone Lands, and then the first three setting-type sourcebooks should be Cormyr (classic, iconic, heroic, with Arabel included--indeed, Arabel is a suggested starting point, rather than Suzail), Baldur's Gate (especially good for fans of the game), and the Sword Coast (including Luskan, Longsaddle, the Spine of the World, etc., especially good for people who started playing in Neverwinter).

Ehh?

Cheers


-I would agree for the most part, except for giving Baldur's Gate it's own sourcebook. While it's large and detailed enough for, say, it's own chapter in a sourcebook, I don't think it can carry an entire sourcebook all by itself, in the 150-200 page format that we're used to seeing sourcebooks for the past 10 +/- years. If publishing went back to how things were done during 2e days/early 3e days, where they released smaller, softcover books, then Baldur's Gate would be a decent location. Given they already phased that out, and are increasingly moving towards a digital-emphasized production model, I doubt that's in the cards.

(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
Go to Top of Page

Azuth
Senior Scribe

USA
404 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  04:40:25  Show Profile  Visit Azuth's Homepage Send Azuth a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

The Border Kingdoms is a great suggestion, and one that fits really well--the name "Border Kingdoms" evokes all kinds of visions of being on the frontier, staving off the threat of the wild, etc.
That and the name would look good (read: stand prominently and be eye catching, all on its own) on the cover of a sourcebook, whether the Realms logo was on it or not.



The Realms logo needs to be on a sourcebook, I think. If the goal is to draw old vets back and new people in, there's nothing like a solid branding campaign to do so.I happen to love the current Realms logo, so make sure they don't get creative in the creative arts department, Erik!

Azuth


Azuth, the First Magister
Lord of All Spells

The greatest expression of creativity is through Art.
Offense can never be given, only taken.
Go to Top of Page

Nilus Reynard
Learned Scribe

Canada
107 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  06:15:11  Show Profile Send Nilus Reynard a Private Message
One thing I would like to see is information regarding religious orders & their related crusaders (if they have any). To see how they are coping with the changes & if they are thriving or going into decline.

Nilus Reynard
Doom Master of Beshaba, Hand of Despair.
P21 Hm CN
(2nd Edition AD&D)
Go to Top of Page

Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe

USA
473 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  10:13:30  Show Profile  Visit Old Man Harpell's Homepage Send Old Man Harpell a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

. . . what REGION would you focus on as a starting campaign site?

Let me explain: My concept for the Campaign guide is to provide all the information you need to start up and run a Realms game, with a TINY travelogue section (mostly leaving that to larger sourcebooks like NEVERWINTER or MENZOBERRANZAN so you can pick and choose a region of play). The book does, however, include an adventure site, similar conceptually to Loudwater from the 4e FRCG, albeit larger and better developed. This would be the default area for starting your campaigns, and would provide suitable challenges for characters of levels 1-5 or so. But where would this be?

-Baldur's Gate. It's a semi-iconic site, so anyone who has played the video games but isn't really that well versed in the Forgotten Realms will know it, and at least be familiar with the city itself, some of the people living in it, and some of the stuff in the local area. It's information-lite enough for older lore to be included and more fleshed out, while not being complete reprints of older books (like Waterdeep, for example). It's cosmopolitan enough to be able to support plot hooks and stories that involve the rest of Faerūn, while small enough to be able to ignore those aspects of the city.



I'll agree with this idea. This has 'name' status, and there's a bunch of ready-made adventure and 'base camp' areas that anyone who knows anything about the BG games could instantly pick up and recognize. This could be a hook that nets the new consumer fish (so to speak)

In the original game, for example, one of the most logical places to 'base' the character was in Beregost (in Borland's home, for those who knew of it). So why not emphasize that again? And there are lots of places in the surrounding environs to go. High Hedge, Cloakwood, Ulcaster, Firewine...maybe the Nashkel Carnival is still a tradition? All these places would do well with a 5th Edition spin on them.
Go to Top of Page

Rils
Learned Scribe

USA
102 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  15:53:20  Show Profile Send Rils a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Personally, I think Loudwater is great--it was largely just a tragic casualty of the anti-4e backlash. I started my players there and recently had them return (10 levels later) to save the town from marauding giants under the command of Nosnra, the Hill Giant Chief, at his Stedding. If you see what I mean.



I actually thought Loudwater was a great starting point as well. Small enough that you could get immersed in it without knowing the whole socio-politico-economic history of a large city like Waterdeep/Suzail/Baldur's Gate/Arabel, but large enough to accomodate a growing group of adventurers. It presented a variety of adventure types depending on your group's interests - the High Forest (fey) to the north, Greypeak Mtns (orcs/giants/etc) to the east, and the Southwood (goblins), High Moor and Serpent Hills (snake folk and dungeons) to the south. As well as convenient access to Waterdeep/Sword Coast on the West, Luruar to the north and the growing threat of Netheril to the East.

My problem with starting in large cities is the amount of background info you need to make sense of it. Starting new players in Waterdeep is dumping them in way over their heads (yes, pun intended lol). I like small towns that I can craft as needed for my campaign, without too much baggage. Then I can move into more developed areas as my campaign gets traction.

One area that hasn't seen much love lately is The Vast/Vesperin. It's always been described as an area ripe for adventure, and has mostly been left as a sandbox. It could fill a similar role as Loudwater - Start in a smaller city, say, King's Reach, and you've got access to large mountains and forests for monsters, the sea for trade/travel, an influx of Zhents and Banites from Mulmaster to the north and an influx of Sembian ex-pats from the west for intrigue, large cities (Tantras, Raven's Bluff, Calaunt), and convenient access to the Dales and beyond just across the sea. It's a small enough area that you can cover it pretty thoroughly in a short amount of space/time, the PCs can make their mark, and then you can conveniently move into the greater world as needed.

Just another idea for the pot.

Dugmaren Brightmantle is my homey.
Go to Top of Page

Lirdolin
Learned Scribe

Germany
194 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  20:05:08  Show Profile  Visit Lirdolin's Homepage Send Lirdolin a Private Message
Ever since 'Eye of the Beholder' and the old Waterdeep sourcebook Waterdeep has been the 'iconic' starting point of most of my groups. Many starting with a tavern ;).
Waterdeep is cosmopolitan (and has quite a lot of gates in Undermountain), for player characters to arrive from everywhere.
As a starting base a quarter or district would be described in detail (taking not more space than Loudwater). Waterdeep has lot's of dungeons (with connections to the underdark), mountains, an ocean and (elven) forests in it's vicinity. It borders on the frontier of the north and connects to the great kingdoms to the south and the east. The city is rich of history, noble houses and (guild) politics.
Baldur's Gate may share many of Waterdeeps characteristics, but to me Waterdeep is a city that has grown in an 'organic way' over years, if not decades and BG will never feel like that to me (earning much of it's fame to a rather recent computer game and having received a jumpstart in 4e of being now larger than Waterdeep).
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3226 Posts

Posted - 17 Mar 2012 :  00:45:03  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lirdolin

Ever since 'Eye of the Beholder' and the old Waterdeep sourcebook Waterdeep has been the 'iconic' starting point of most of my groups. Many starting with a tavern ;).
Waterdeep is cosmopolitan (and has quite a lot of gates in Undermountain), for player characters to arrive from everywhere.
As a starting base a quarter or district would be described in detail (taking not more space than Loudwater). Waterdeep has lot's of dungeons (with connections to the underdark), mountains, an ocean and (elven) forests in it's vicinity. It borders on the frontier of the north and connects to the great kingdoms to the south and the east. The city is rich of history, noble houses and (guild) politics.
Baldur's Gate may share many of Waterdeeps characteristics, but to me Waterdeep is a city that has grown in an 'organic way' over years, if not decades and BG will never feel like that to me (earning much of it's fame to a rather recent computer game and having received a jumpstart in 4e of being now larger than Waterdeep).


-Agree completely about Waterdeep being the city. It is. True, 4e has changed things, with the effects of Spellplague, and the detail-lite way that the 104-year jump in the timeline was filled in, but, Waterdeep should get more than a "sample city" chapter in a theoretical campaign setting overview sourcebook. Both cities probably could be detailed sufficiently in the 25-50 pages that might be dedicated to a chapter about establishing the setting of a game in a sample city. Waterdeep, 25-50 pages wouldn't be enough. Baldur's Gate, in theory, it probably could carry more than 25-50 pages, but way fewer people would be clamoring for more about it. Waterdeep would be better suited having a generic look at in a campaign setting overview sourcebook, and then a more detailed look in a Waterdeep-specific sourcebook.

(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
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4586 Posts

Posted - 18 Mar 2012 :  16:22:40  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage  Send Erik Scott de Bie an AOL message Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message
I posted this elsewhere but thought it belonged here too. For clarity:
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.

Signature of Shameless Self-Promotion +6: Order my sixth novel, Shadow of the Winter King (Amazon, e-signing, Dragonmoon Press)

Also check out my Realms work, most recently Shadowbane: Eye of Justice, out now on e-readers everywhere! (Kindle, Nook)
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4586 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  16:01:58  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage  Send Erik Scott de Bie an AOL message Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message
This comes out of a discussion in the "Reboot the Realms" thread. I am posting it here so as not to take over and clutter up that thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

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.
Well, there's no guarantee that doing anything will attract back any fans whatsoever, let alone "all fans." In logical parlance, your argument begs the question, that is, assumes as a premise what you're trying to prove: that a "split timeline" will attract back all the lost fans, or even that it will attract back MORE fans than my concept.

I honestly don't think breaking the setting as you suggest is going to attract people back. What I *do* think is that releasing work that can be used in various eras/contexts (like the Cormyr Royale article, for instance, and even to an extent Neverwinter, which can be adapted) has shown much better results in terms of attracting some of the old guard.

I certainly think it's important to bring back as many fans as possible, but I think we get there by designing good, intriguing, immersive, comfortable work, not breaking a toy that works perfectly well for some of the fanbase and saying "See? We did it! Come play with us again!" I don't think I'm being naive when I suggest that fans aren't really that vindictive. They aren't just stubbornly not playing the Realms because something exist they don't like--they're not playing it because they're not getting what THEY want (which is not the 4e). My solution is: Give them what they want, which is pre-4e lore and support.

The 4e needs to be addressed, clearly, but throwing it out is just as bad as what WotC did going into it.

quote:
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.
So if there's nothing stopping DMs from pulling from both timelines in your scheme, why couldn't they do that in mine? There is nothing (I repeat) NOTHING to dictate that your campaign can or should end up in the 4e FR. As I've said time and time again, the second you start playing a Realms game, you've already diverged from the "canon Realms." All that is just background to be molded into your particular game. Why oh why would your game be forced into an event you don't like?

We already have divergent timelines: thousands of them, at thousands of different tables. It would be a disservice to those gamers if WotC broke its own timeline and canon, leading to division and confusion and (I contend) the eventual death of the setting.

On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).

quote:
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.
I think that's more than enough for historical notes that specifically state "This is how the Realms in this era varies from what you've just read." This way, if you're playing a game in one of the four eras presented, you have 78% of the book that you can take basically as-is. The remaining 22% you either draw from if the ideas presented are cool or safely ignore.

If you look at the 3e FRCS (one of the most successful Realms products ever published), that book is only about 50% (at best) usable in a typical campaign, simply because the scope is so vast. It's chock full of setting description, NPCs, etc., on such widely ranging topics and areas that you're probably not going to get to in the course of your game (unless you really jump around like crazy). You can't even spend 1 level in each area, because there are more than 20 areas. More than 40, even.

This is not to diminish my affection for the book (it's one of my favorites), but only to make a point about what I'm advocating: I want to produce a line of books that are extremely usable, regardless of area or era of play.

quote:
There is no reason why the same approach cannot work with a split timeline.
Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?

quote:
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.
Limiting it to two eras is definitely a possibility, though I wanted to be more open to games.

I really don't think you need that much space to put in era-specific information. Sure, the Realms changes, but not radically enough between the various editions to warrant wholly different sourcebooks. What WotC should be looking at now is expanding OUTWARD, not ONWARD: exploring those areas that have not been analyzed in detail, and there are LOTS.

And again, DMs can do what they want. I just think that the presentation should be whole, consistent, and coherent. We need explanations for why things happened, not just edition dumping like we had with 4e. If we split the timeline before 4e, then we're not solving any problem. The timeline is ALREADY split, if only because we just don't know what happened in that century of silence. I'm advocating a solution--you seem to be advocating status quo.

quote:
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.
Well, by your math, 77.5% of the material can be used as is, meaning only 22.5% of it will have to be customized (or ignored). Contrast that to products we have today (or in the past), where if you don't want to play them as-is, you're looking at customizing 60-80%, it's a pretty big difference.

There is a difficulty inherent in using non-setting appropriate material in your game. This came up all the time when I apply 2e lore to 3e or 4e-based games. What I'm suggesting is that the material in 5e FR should be released such that it can be used in *ALL* Realms games, not specific to any particular edition. It needs to be lore heavy, mechanics light, and largely era-neutral.

quote:
Neither solution is guaranteed to attract every realms fan back.
Agreed. Neither your solution nor mine is "guaranteed" to attract even a single Realms fan back. Personally, I think mine stands a good chance to do so, which I think is supported by the evidence (Cormyr Royale, for instance). What draws gamers is good design, and that's what we need to do.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Signature of Shameless Self-Promotion +6: Order my sixth novel, Shadow of the Winter King (Amazon, e-signing, Dragonmoon Press)

Also check out my Realms work, most recently Shadowbane: Eye of Justice, out now on e-readers everywhere! (Kindle, Nook)
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3226 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  17:00:26  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie


On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).

-I think that's looking at the issue way too simplistically. For most who voiced displeasure about the direction various things went, the end result was cited as often as the way it was arrived at. Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. disappearing was something that was was generally not very well received, in addition to the fact that nothing was revealed about the specifics of those disappearances. More could be written about Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. from 1,375 DR until the Spellplague, or whenever things drastically changed, explaining X, Y, and Z details that are completely organic with prior information and aren't necessarily directly tied to any of the changes that came to be in the 4e transition. At the end of the day, Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. are still changed from the incarnations that they once appeared as that got people to like them, X, Y and Z details included. New information in a depth and scale we've never seen before that is universally hailed as being the best ever detailing Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. could be written, but the ill received end result that comprises 50% of the gnashing of teeth is still in effect, so to speak.

-And, really, that's not something that can be fixed.

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?

-That people can do anything they want when they play their own private games shouldn't be cited to keep the status quo of the setting's design philosophy. It wasn't in the past, when people could have ignored Elminster and other NPCs that they didn't like, trimmed the pantheon down to a level they would more suited to their own preferences, and various other things that people cited as things they didn't like. I don't mean that in a "They did it to us 1-3e people, so they should do it to those 4e people" 'vindictive' way.

(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 21 Mar 2012 17:02:43
Go to Top of Page

Jakk
Great Reader

Canada
2165 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  17:16:00  Show Profile Send Jakk a Private Message
Erik, you've done it again... another massive, well-thought-out essay on FR setting design philosophy. I really hope you're getting WotC's attention with these.

As usual, I have some comments.

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Well, there's no guarantee that doing anything will attract back any fans whatsoever, let alone "all fans." In logical parlance, your argument begs the question, that is, assumes as a premise what you're trying to prove: that a "split timeline" will attract back all the lost fans, or even that it will attract back MORE fans than my concept.

I honestly don't think breaking the setting as you suggest is going to attract people back. What I *do* think is that releasing work that can be used in various eras/contexts (like the Cormyr Royale article, for instance, and even to an extent Neverwinter, which can be adapted) has shown much better results in terms of attracting some of the old guard.

I certainly think it's important to bring back as many fans as possible, but I think we get there by designing good, intriguing, immersive, comfortable work, not breaking a toy that works perfectly well for some of the fanbase and saying "See? We did it! Come play with us again!" I don't think I'm being naive when I suggest that fans aren't really that vindictive. They aren't just stubbornly not playing the Realms because something exist they don't like--they're not playing it because they're not getting what THEY want (which is not the 4e). My solution is: Give them what they want, which is pre-4e lore and support.

The 4e needs to be addressed, clearly, but throwing it out is just as bad as what WotC did going into it.

We already have divergent timelines: thousands of them, at thousands of different tables. It would be a disservice to those gamers if WotC broke its own timeline and canon, leading to division and confusion and (I contend) the eventual death of the setting.


I don't see a timeline split as a break. I see the kind of timeline gap we had with the Spellplague as a break, which could easily have led to what you suggest. I just think that railroading the Spellplague through after allowing the PCs to apparently prevent it at the close of 3e, then shouting "The PCs are the heroes!" from the rooftops for 4e is the height of hypocrisy. The PCs already proved themselves to be the heroes by preventing what the designers then shoved down the Realms' throat offstage; this action simply made the people responsible for the change look like sore-loser DMs. That inference (regardless of how incorrect it might be) about the maturity level of the designers (because the customers see the designers as being responsible, whether or not that's the case) is what turned me (and so many others) off to the 4e Realms. Setting death has just recently been averted. In this sense, I am optimistic for the Realms.

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).


Agreed. On all counts. I think that's all I have to say here.

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

If you look at the 3e FRCS (one of the most successful Realms products ever published), that book is only about 50% (at best) usable in a typical campaign, simply because the scope is so vast. It's chock full of setting description, NPCs, etc., on such widely ranging topics and areas that you're probably not going to get to in the course of your game (unless you really jump around like crazy). You can't even spend 1 level in each area, because there are more than 20 areas. More than 40, even.

This is not to diminish my affection for the book (it's one of my favorites), but only to make a point about what I'm advocating: I want to produce a line of books that are extremely usable, regardless of area or era of play.


The 3e FRCS is also one of my favourite FR products; it's in my top five all-time, and there are a lot of products to choose from in the past 25 years. The OGB, LEoF (3e), Waterdeep and the North (1e), and Serpent Kingdoms (3e) round out my top five, with The Savage Frontier (1e), Faiths and Avatars (2e), Powers and Pantheons (2e), FR Adventures (2e), and Secrets of the Magister (1e) rounding out the top ten in no particular order.

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?

I really don't think you need that much space to put in era-specific information. Sure, the Realms changes, but not radically enough between the various editions to warrant wholly different sourcebooks. What WotC should be looking at now is expanding OUTWARD, not ONWARD: exploring those areas that have not been analyzed in detail, and there are LOTS.

And again, DMs can do what they want. I just think that the presentation should be whole, consistent, and coherent. We need explanations for why things happened, not just edition dumping like we had with 4e. If we split the timeline before 4e, then we're not solving any problem. The timeline is ALREADY split, if only because we just don't know what happened in that century of silence. I'm advocating a solution--you seem to be advocating status quo.


The timeline is broken, not split; there's a difference. We're advocating a split between the broken Spellplague timeline and an unbroken non-RSE'd timeline. And yes, we could do that ourselves, but for each DM to avert the Spellplague in his or her own way would be counterproductive to your goal of consistency, not to mention creating a large amount of work for the DMs... but I will concede that it could be liberating for some DMs who have the time to invest in the workload required. Without being employed by WotC as part of the Spellplague Avoided Timeline team, I don't have that kind of time. Of course, this ultimately has the consequence that DMs will either resign themselves to the Spellplague, or jump ship for Golarion (those who haven't done so already). I see an alternate non-Spellplagued future Realms as the only way for FR to reclaim market share from Golarion. But I think I've said that before. Onward...

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

There is a difficulty inherent in using non-setting appropriate material in your game. This came up all the time when I apply 2e lore to 3e or 4e-based games. What I'm suggesting is that the material in 5e FR should be released such that it can be used in *ALL* Realms games, not specific to any particular edition. It needs to be lore heavy, mechanics light, and largely era-neutral.


Agreed. Hopefully WotC also agrees...

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Agreed. Neither your solution nor mine is "guaranteed" to attract even a single Realms fan back. Personally, I think mine stands a good chance to do so, which I think is supported by the evidence (Cormyr Royale, for instance). What draws gamers is good design, and that's what we need to do.


I am in 100% agreement here as well. There are no guarantees, but if the Cormyr articles did as well as has been suggested, perhaps WotC has realized that FR lore sells better than vaguely FR-flavoured crunch. Maybe we'll even see the Cormyr Lineage get published... Okay, now I'm getting silly. I'll shut up now.

Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.

If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic.

Edited by - Jakk on 21 Mar 2012 17:18:59
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4586 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  17:26:24  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage  Send Erik Scott de Bie an AOL message Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

At the end of the day, Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. are still changed from the incarnations that they once appeared as that got people to like them, X, Y and Z details included. New information in a depth and scale we've never seen before that is universally hailed as being the best ever detailing Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc. could be written, but the ill received end result that comprises 50% of the gnashing of teeth is still in effect, so to speak.
-And, really, that's not something that can be fixed.
Well, I do think that the Halruaa/Evermeet/Maztica/etc situations CAN be resolved in a way that is intriguing and interesting and GOOD design, both pre- and post-Spellplague. But no, we can't really *fix* the mistakes of the past, either by bandaging them over (further developing from here) or ignoring them (with a split timeline) or pretending they didn't happen (with a reboot). I think the only viable solution is to put out good design--good material--and good work, which tries to bring things together in a way that makes sense and is interesting. If gnashing-teeth fans follow the design back to the Realms, great. If they don't, then in all likelihood, they weren't going to come back whatever we did.

All we can do is push on to create good and compelling stuff. If people want to play it, great. If not, it can't really be helped.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Agreed. I don't think this argument is really relevant to the debate between whether we should split a timeline or not. I just think that DMs are going to split the timeline themselves, so why do they need WotC to do it for them?
-That people can do anything they want when they play their own private games shouldn't be cited to keep the status quo of the setting's design philosophy. It wasn't in the past, when people could have ignored Elminster and other NPCs that they didn't like, trimmed the pantheon down to a level they would more suited to their own preferences, and various other things that people cited as things they didn't like. I don't mean that in a "They did it to us 1-3e people, so they should do it to those 4e people" 'vindictive' way.
See, and I think trying to design otherwise (i.e. remove the things people were citing as problems) was a mistake--one we should not repeat with 5e FR. But I do think the tone can be set of it being (at last) YOUR REALMS. If the philosophy of "do what works for you" is made clear on page 1, then it undercuts all the voices decrying the strictures of canon and moves us into a better, more creative place.

I really think the feverish emphasis on "being true to canon" is rapidly pushing the Realms into an untenable position. While I firmly believe that the setting needs to have one consistent canon, which WotC is honor-bound (not to mention business-bound) to maintain with as much accuracy as possible, that does not mean fans of the setting can or even should use every inch of the canon for their games.

Let canon be a source of ideas and inspiration and a mutual basis for communication; don't make it a straight-jacket.

Cheers


Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Signature of Shameless Self-Promotion +6: Order my sixth novel, Shadow of the Winter King (Amazon, e-signing, Dragonmoon Press)

Also check out my Realms work, most recently Shadowbane: Eye of Justice, out now on e-readers everywhere! (Kindle, Nook)
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3226 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  18:09:09  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

See, and I think trying to design otherwise (i.e. remove the things people were citing as problems) was a mistake--one we should not repeat with 5e FR. But I do think the tone can be set of it being (at last) YOUR REALMS. If the philosophy of "do what works for you" is made clear on page 1, then it undercuts all the voices decrying the strictures of canon and moves us into a better, more creative place.

I really think the feverish emphasis on "being true to canon" is rapidly pushing the Realms into an untenable position. While I firmly believe that the setting needs to have one consistent canon, which WotC is honor-bound (not to mention business-bound) to maintain with as much accuracy as possible, that does not mean fans of the setting can or even should use every inch of the canon for their games.

-I can agree with this. That doesn't mean that WotC should go into the design process with this in mind. They should be going in keeping canon in mind, and how to naturally progress the stories of the world. If people want to use them, fine. If not, fine. As we are both advocating, the official designers design, and everyone else can figure out modifications that they want to use.

-I don't agree about the world being in an untenable position, though, or is/was headed because of a dearth of information, though. Especially with the caveat that people can pick and choose what they want when they are playing D&D games.

(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
Go to Top of Page

Tarlyn
Learned Scribe

USA
304 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  19:25:54  Show Profile Send Tarlyn a Private Message
quote:
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.



This "There is no reason why the same approach cannot work with a split timeline." is a response to that portion of your argument. The only reason that splitting the timeline results in divided sales is dividing the material in multiple books. Which would be the same result if one split the eras into different books.

quote:
So if there's nothing stopping DMs from pulling from both timelines in your scheme, why couldn't they do that in mine?


I agree complete, I was merely pointing out that the same argument of everyone can pull inspiration from all eras is true for timelines as well.

quote:
Agreed. Neither your solution nor mine is "guaranteed" to attract even a single Realms fan back. Personally, I think mine stands a good chance to do so, which I think is supported by the evidence (Cormyr Royale, for instance). What draws gamers is good design, and that's what we need to do.


The entire point of my argument was that both solutions are equal viable using the same bag of tricks you are wielding. Placing everything in one source book and forcing the various factions to take the "good" with the "bad" is in no way limited to a support all eras approach. Also, in no case is the actual problem getting resolved. A good analogy: It is just selling "Power Rangers and Transformers" in a combo pack, and then giving one toy to each kid and sending them to different rooms to play. The kids still aren't playing together. Or in the eras case 4 toys, 4 kids, 4 rooms.

quote:
On the subject of designers creating events that lead into the 4e change: Yes, probably there would indeed be design that connects the two eras. That is one of the things that's missing (and the entire point of my Create Realmslore thread). But somehow we're looking at these events as a really big deal, as though everything before has to be building toward them, and everything after has to be a direct effect. This is really not the case. There is so much design (indeed, surprising design) that could be done in the pre-4e world that has absolutely nothing to do with the Spellplague. The Spellplague is a catastrophic event, surely, but it's not the axis around which the setting should be crafted (unless of course that's what you want at your particular table).


I am not saying that you cannot further flesh out the 1e-3e realms, I am saying that by keeping with one timeline, the material will have a hard limit that is not there in the two timeline approach. The only group that has infinite possiblities for published lore is the 4e group under the multiple eras approach. Again obliviously DMs can make up whatever they want, but if spell plague / the merger of Abeir and Toril was the deal breaker major events stop happening after 1385. Also, there are many countries that stop getting support after 1385 Evermeet, Lantan, Nimbral, Halruaa, Unther, the Great Dale, Mulhorand to name a few. Furthermore, there are several location that no longer share much in common with there previous incarnations such as Thay and the Moonsea.

Again my point is not that one approach is better than another. It is that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages and neither approach Dooms the IP to poor sales and failure. Also, I have not restated the advantages you have already stated in this scroll, because I am reading it and already know them. To any scribe that is beginning this scroll at the end, I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, it is a great scroll.

As a side note, material such as the Cormyr Royale is not a tool to attract new players, or get back the "old guard". It is contained in the section of the wizard's website that can only be viewed through paying a monthly fee. That material is used to keep the current fans happy :). If WotC wants to use that material to attract new players, or returning players, it would need to be in the section that those people can view. World of Warcraft's patches don't attract new players, they give the current players a reason to keep paying. Their free trials and commericals do the marketing along with many other things.

Tarlyn Embersun

Edited by - Tarlyn on 21 Mar 2012 19:36:02
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15711 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  19:49:38  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message
I've already stated my preference, in my 'Wishlist' thread. Each regional book should be presented as a stand-alone setting guide, with its own 'start area'. Different regions could (theoretically) be geared toward certain levels that way. As for the first one released? The Border Kingdoms area is as good an area as any. I would actually prefer they do the lesser-known regions first (areas not covered or barely covered before) - then they can leave the better-know regions for higher levels of play (tougher 'start areas').

The Dales, for instance, I think should be a levels 5-9 kind of region - not for green novices, but someplace the PCs can spend a lot of time adventuring during the 'sweet spot' of character-building. Every regional splat should have a detailed 'base of operations', and Batteldale (as someone suggested) could work well for this one.

Present the splats like CG expansions - open up new areas with new levels of play, and treat each as an entire separate entity. A setting the size of The Forgotten Realms should NOT have a single 'start area' - thats ridiculous, IMHO.

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

That and the name would look good (read: stand prominently and be eye catching, all on its own) on the cover of a sourcebook, whether the Realms logo was on it or not.


Uhhhh-ohhhhhhhh...

{accent, mine}

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 22 Mar 2012 17:41:32
Go to Top of Page

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2130 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  19:56:10  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message
Reading through the arguments here, what would the scribes who desire a split timeline think about an appendix (or small [$19.95] separate book) that describes what Toril would be like had the Spellplague never happened (or at least, none of the deity culling/landmass shifting)? This way the 5e core setting book (or two, like they did with 4e) can focus on the Realms as a whole, but then allow for a sanctioned, pseudo-canon what-if scenario that essentially "reboots" the Realms to pre-4e.

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)
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  21:04:06  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

As a side note, material such as the Cormyr Royale is not a tool to attract new players, or get back the "old guard".
Wizards of the Coast stated position (with the release of the 4E Realms) was that the 100 year gap wouldn't be explored.

Cormyr Royale is evidence of a change in that official position, as about one half of the article is set in the time just after Alusair became Regent in Cormyr.

In other words, it’s lore from an era of the Realms that WotC had, up until now, given every sign that it had walked away from.

quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

It is contained in the section of the wizard's website that can only be viewed through paying a monthly fee. That material is used to keep the current fans happy :).
Just because content is behind a paywall doesn’t mean it’s targeted only at regular paying customers.

There is such a thing as word of mouth.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3226 Posts

Posted - 22 Mar 2012 :  02:07:15  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins

Reading through the arguments here, what would the scribes who desire a split timeline think about an appendix (or small [$19.95] separate book) that describes what Toril would be like had the Spellplague never happened (or at least, none of the deity culling/landmass shifting)? This way the 5e core setting book (or two, like they did with 4e) can focus on the Realms as a whole, but then allow for a sanctioned, pseudo-canon what-if scenario that essentially "reboots" the Realms to pre-4e.


-No good can come from creating "official" alternate universes. It also takes away very limited resources (time, money, designers, political/business will) from discussing the 'real' Forgotten Realms.

(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 22 Mar 2012 02:08:13
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 65 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2019 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000