| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 19:28:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
2) Stagnate and die: If we get stuck in the attitude that everything we design has already been done in the Realms, then there's nothing to do. The setting is at an end.
This is a good point.
To their credit the 4E Realms designers at least understood it was a bad idea to keep reprinting the same stuff. Without some level of change (change that went—I think we can all agree—a little too far), what good reason is there for a new or veteran gamer to purchase Realms products, especially when older versions of those products can be found online or on the cheap somewhere else?
The more you print products covering the era of the Realms, the same places and the same people, the more the Realms will fall prey to the valid criticism that it’s all just the same stuff, repackaged.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
3) Turn what has gone before into strengths and move forward. Open up the setting to all different eras of play, and expand outward from all of them.
This is really the best avenue for keeping the Realms viable.
Future Realms products should capture multiple snapshots (if that’s the word we’re using) of a given place **and** incorporate the new rules set on the practical scale (immediately useable NPCs, magic items, spells and possibly encounter ideas) as opposed to the global scale (i.e. changing the world to fit new rules).
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
 |
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 19:33:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Grumbling a bit over nr 2 here Erik. Unless you agree that there is a 4th alternative it seems like you would suggest that Greyhawk, Mystara, Dragonlance various Chaosium settings etc have stagnated and died? Was Glorantha stagnant and dead after Avalon Hill, is every world based on a literary work dead and stagnant after the book is published? A setting might stop being published and still have a form of life. Nr2 makes it sound like that's impossible. Many people will of course prefer new material and a developing setting, but its been shown time and time that a setting survives as long as it has fans.
From a business point of view, however, Erik is right. It doesn't matter to a publisher that people are still enjoying his old work. If they aren't buying new books from him, he's liable to go out of business.
Oh I agree with that, but the way it was stated it made it sound as if the Realms would crumble the second WotC went a year with out publishing. I know that not what Erik meant, but with a rhetoric that claims stagnation and death it goes a bit beyond WotC business decisions. As for how the Realms can be a major part of the rpg publishing in the future I agree with the above. |
No Canon, more stories, more Realms. |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 19:37:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
This is a good point.
To their credit the 4E Realms designers at least understood it was a bad idea to keep reprinting the same stuff. Without some level of change (change that went—I think we can all agree—a little too far), what good reason is there for a new or veteran gamer to purchase Realms products, especially when older versions of those products can be found online or on the cheap somewhere else?
The fact that only a tiny part of the setting has been explored in any but the most superficial way and that many areas never received a canonical update since the 1e edition or the beginning of the 2e?
There was a lot of Realms still open for creativity and expansion. A hell of a lot. How about an Impiltur sourcebook by George Krashos? An update of the Bloodstone lands in line with the Sellsword novels? A new Kara-Tur boxed set or equivalent? A book on the state of the Heartlands between the Sword Coast and the Inner Sea, after all the things that happened since the end of 2e, with as much detail as the old Volo's Guides?
Even such perennially popular areas such as Cormyr never received a sourcebook with the situation there after the upheavals of the period between 1369-1372 DR. After such a long time under the rule of Azoun IV, the Steel Regency Cormyr must have been different in a lot of ways while still retaining plenty of links with the past so that a well done sourcebook could have appealed to a whole lot of grognards. Especially if it had contained new stuff like the Lineage as a web enhancement and historical mysteries and connections woven into the current events and adventure hooks.
I did not get the impression that the Realms were stagnant before 4e came out. Obviously, I was not privy to all the information possessed by the WotC. But to me, at least, it looks like they happened to have a solution and went looking for a problem. |
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 - 30 Mar 2012 : 20:01:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
The fact that only a tiny part of the setting has been explored in any but the most superficial way and that many areas never received a canonical update since the 1e edition or the beginning of the 2e?
If we're talking on a practical level, in terms of what's of use and interest to gamers and novel readers, far more than a "tiny part" has been covered.
Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see more on Impiltur, but remember it was covered in Lost Empires in 3E. Once you've gone there, you've gone there. On average your customers will say (and rightly so) “I’ve already got a book on this. Why do I need another one?”
If you’re writing under the same edition of the rules as the last book on a place was released in, the only reason to go back is if people express interest. It's my understanding (and anyone truly in the know, please correct me if I'm wrong) that Impiltur, for example, isn't nearly the prime set-your-campaign-in real estate that Waterdeep, the Dales or Cormyr is.
The fact (and the point) is there are thousands of pages of Realms products. That develops the impression that the Realms are all dense, unreachable and a headache to game with.
You can’t expect your average gamer (and even, I think, your average Realms fan) to know or even care to what level the Realms has already been covered.
But you can expect them to form impressions. Somehow, some way, you have to show you're getting away from the idea that the Realms is all negatives.
That’s why I want to see 5E Realms products focus squarely on someplace new. I want them to use the energy of 5E’s release to say that these other places (The Bandit Kingdoms, Impiltur and so on) in the Realms matter, a lot.
Tie the rules in on a practical level to these locations and I think that’s one way to enliven the Realms without it all feeling like more of the same.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 20:14:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
The fact that only a tiny part of the setting has been explored in any but the most superficial way and that many areas never received a canonical update since the 1e edition or the beginning of the 2e?
If we're talking on a practical level, in terms of what's of use and interest to gamers and novel readers, far more than a "tiny part" has been covered.
Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see more on Impiltur, but remember it was covered in Lost Empires in 3E. Once you've gone there, you've gone there. On average your customers will say (and rightly so) “I’ve already got a book on this. Why do I need another one?”
If you’re writing under the same edition of the rules as the last book on a place was released in, the only reason to go back is if people express interest. It's my understanding (and anyone truly in the know, please correct me if I'm wrong) that Impiltur, for example, isn't nearly the prime set-your-campaign-in real estate that Waterdeep, the Dales or Cormyr is.
But of those prime bits of real estate, only one got updated. Waterdeep was covered in detail three times, but for those same three editions, the Dales and Cormyr only got covered once each -- and that's despite the mentioned changes to the Forest Kingdom after the death of Azoun IV and the Devil Dragon.
People wanted those updates, and yet WotC still went and gave us something else entirely. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 20:44:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But of those prime bits of real estate, only one got updated. Waterdeep was covered in detail three times, but for those same three editions, the Dales and Cormyr only got covered once each -- and that's despite the mentioned changes to the Forest Kingdom after the death of Azoun IV and the Devil Dragon.
We've had this conversation before, haven’t we? 
I don’t pretend to know everything going on in the designer’s minds during 3rd Edition with regard to their choices for which books to print.
I will say I liked that they did a sort of “once around the Realms” by producing detailed products during the middle years of 3rd Edition that covered large regions of the Realms.
Had 4th Edition’s release been delayed, I’m pretty sure we would have gotten a Cormyr sourcebook. We did get a ¼ Cormyr sourcebook of sorts, in the appendix to Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave.
That WotC didn’t produce a proper Cormyr sourcebook does not, I think, invalidate the point I made earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People wanted those updates, and yet WotC still went and gave us something else entirely.
Some people did, sure. But let’s not conflate this with WotC ignoring the fans and just doing whatever they wanted to do. (At least that’s how I’m reading your statement). |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 30 Mar 2012 20:46:26 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 21:16:11
|
FWIW, my campaigns originally avoided Waterdeep, Cormyr and the Dales - the omnipresent lore about these places was always the popular heart of the Realms yet they always felt like they were written "for another DM's campaign" instead of mine; getting the sheer volume of little details "right" was sometimes staggering and (truth be told) rather dull to my players and me anyways - we really had no interest at all in things like Shadowdale's gossip or Cormyr's latest royal scandal, just a bunch of uninteresting tales and smalltalk about total strangers. So I focussed on "peripheral" and largely fallow areas like the Moonsea and the North, or places like Sembia which TSR had promised were "left solely for the use of the DM for development without fear of some later product invalidating that portion of his campaign".
Products eventually came out detailing areas like the Moonsea and the North, and even Sembia, of course, and I always bought them because they were of immediate interest and application to my campaigns. My unfettered homegrown "Realmslore" for these areas was launched off whatever skeletal information I had found printed in FR0 and various scattered references, and it had always evolved quite differently from the official canon version - but it was never completely incompatible, never utterly impossible to mesh together, and the combination formed a unique gestalt setting with a connection to myself and my players that that no published Realmslore (even Grandmaster Ed's Realmslore) can ever duplicate. Perhaps my gaming group doesn't know or care at all about the farmsteads surrounding Shadowdale, but they are intimately concerned about the many people they know in Phlan.
The Realms is about creating the setting, not consuming the setting. That simply means each person invents or selects the elements which work and discards those which don't - or at least that's what it used to be about - WotC obviously depends on consumption to sell their products ... it seems to me that the greatest complainers are those consumers who refuse to create, they want a grand cookie-cutter image of the Realms made from innumerable little jigsaw pieces, but they've forgotten that those pieces are shaped and placed by anyone and everyone for best "fit" within the overall picture. In bluntest terms, if you don't like the product then don't buy it, if the only way to do the job right is to do it yourself then do it yourself, if you hate WotC's version then make one that's better. "One Canon, One Story, One Realms" is impossible by definition, but it's counterproductive to continually oppose it. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 30 Mar 2012 21:41:15 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 22:46:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But of those prime bits of real estate, only one got updated. Waterdeep was covered in detail three times, but for those same three editions, the Dales and Cormyr only got covered once each -- and that's despite the mentioned changes to the Forest Kingdom after the death of Azoun IV and the Devil Dragon.
We've had this conversation before, haven’t we?
I don’t pretend to know everything going on in the designer’s minds during 3rd Edition with regard to their choices for which books to print.
I will say I liked that they did a sort of “once around the Realms” by producing detailed products during the middle years of 3rd Edition that covered large regions of the Realms.
Had 4th Edition’s release been delayed, I’m pretty sure we would have gotten a Cormyr sourcebook. We did get a ¼ Cormyr sourcebook of sorts, in the appendix to Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave.
That WotC didn’t produce a proper Cormyr sourcebook does not, I think, invalidate the point I made earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People wanted those updates, and yet WotC still went and gave us something else entirely.
Some people did, sure. But let’s not conflate this with WotC ignoring the fans and just doing whatever they wanted to do. (At least that’s how I’m reading your statement).
That wasn't the intent of my post... Without trying to sound like I'm griping, I'm pointing out that there was a considerable amount of potential Realmslore left to share and explore, and many areas that had received little or no coverage. And WotC did not go in that direction. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 22:50:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The Realms is about creating the setting, not consuming the setting. That simply means each person invents or selects the elements which work and discards those which don't - or at least that's what it used to be about - WotC obviously depends on consumption to sell their products ... it seems to me that the greatest complainers are those consumers who refuse to create, they want a grand cookie-cutter image of the Realms made from innumerable little jigsaw pieces, but they've forgotten that those pieces are shaped and placed by anyone and everyone for best "fit" within the overall picture. In bluntest terms, if you don't like the product then don't buy it, if the only way to do the job right is to do it yourself then do it yourself, if you hate WotC's version then make one that's better. "One Canon, One Story, One Realms" is impossible by definition, but it's counterproductive to continually oppose it.
I certainly hope I'm misreading this, because it seems almost like you're saying that stating that you don't like something is the same as being lazy.
Creating art involves a medium in which to create the art. It's certainly not unreasonable for someone to be unhappy when they feel the nature of their selected medium has changed. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Azuth
Senior Scribe
USA
404 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 23:24:05
|
I'm going to try to keep this brief; wish me luck.
@Icelander: I agree with 99% of what you're saying. But you listed a ton of lore in one of your postings, and it was thoroughly enjoyable to read. However, the time span involved was (as I calculate it) over fifty years. I won't pretend to be an average anything, but I don't usually manage to get through a year of game time in a real-time year. Eight hours of gaming per week may advance the storyline by seven days on average per month. Unless the players fight, sleep, fight, sleep, et cetera, I can't imagine the same gaming group of PCs running through that many years of game time.
@Wooly: There is a flip side to your argument. While you wanted new content covered (if I read that correctly) I wanted updated information on the areas that I knew, also. I wanted more on Shadowdale, and Waterdeep, and Cormyr. I didn't much care, to be honest, what happened in Chult. Baldur's Gate never meant much to me, although it was popularized by a video game far beyond (again, to me) its station deserved. Calimshan, conversely, didn't get the love I wanted in 4E. So the point being I would have been unhappy if WoTC just kept publishing different areas in each subsequent edition. I would rather a compromise than an extreme one way or the other.
@Jeremy: I agree with your postings.
@Erik: The problems authors face (as well you know) is that writing for the whole audience is impossible. People who love a book, be it the FRCG or a fiction novel, don't generally flood boards with their praise. I was a very satisfied customer of 3E Realms, although I never told WoTC so. I did, however, express my outrage of what they had done with 4E Realms. I've noticed one theme here at CK and everywhere else is that no matter how hard one tries, the animosity toward 4E must be expressed. Take heart: you have great support both here and otherwise, and your ideas are not unheard.
Cheers,
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
7968 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 23:35:04
|
quote:
Wooly Rupert
... it seems almost like you're saying that stating that you don't like something is the same as being lazy.
Not precisely. I am saying that efforts expended on complaining about problems would better be spent seeking ways to correct them. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 30 Mar 2012 23:35:29 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 00:03:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
@Wooly: There is a flip side to your argument. While you wanted new content covered (if I read that correctly) I wanted updated information on the areas that I knew, also. I wanted more on Shadowdale, and Waterdeep, and Cormyr. I didn't much care, to be honest, what happened in Chult. Baldur's Gate never meant much to me, although it was popularized by a video game far beyond (again, to me) its station deserved. Calimshan, conversely, didn't get the love I wanted in 4E. So the point being I would have been unhappy if WoTC just kept publishing different areas in each subsequent edition. I would rather a compromise than an extreme one way or the other.
Both, actually. I love new content, but I also love updated content -- so long as it's truly updated, and not just the same thing with a new coat of paint. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 00:04:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Wooly Rupert
... it seems almost like you're saying that stating that you don't like something is the same as being lazy.
Not precisely. I am saying that efforts expended on complaining about problems would better be spent seeking ways to correct them.
Ah, glad to know I was misreading that, then.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 02:32:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The Realms has reached a point where there are three choices:
1) Evolve into something different: This was attempted with the 4e FR, but that appears to have failed.
I wouldn't say it's failed. At least not entirely. At most, I would say that it has stalled. The lack of further sourcebooks elaborating on initial changes made in the FRCG have left too much unexplained, or not properly detailed.
I know the DDI articles go someway toward rectifying this, in very small parts, but when compared to the amount of web-content and published lore we were receiving as support for prior editions, the development of the 4e Realms, has fallen far behind.
Which is why I see it more as having stalled, than failed. With further and expansive support, and a great deal of concentration on what is happening with regard to what has come before, the 4e Realms probably would have brought a great many more older fans... at least partially back into the fold.
quote:
2) Stagnate and die: If we get stuck in the attitude that everything we design has already been done in the Realms, then there's nothing to do. The setting is at an end.
Which is, pretty much, sadly, where DRAGONLANCE is at the moment. 
quote:
3) Turn what has gone before into strengths and move forward. Open up the setting to all different eras of play, and expand outward from all of them.
This has a great deal of potential. But, at the same time, there is the risk of trying to accomplish too much too quickly.
The future development of the Realms works best when designers concentrate on small areas/periods first, and then expand outwards.
The only way I could see option #3 working, is to have separate groups of designers set specifically for working on their individual eras/regions and allow for interplay between each group where and when it is necessary. |
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 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 03:39:37
|
I agree with Sage, but am leery about 'separate teams' going in different directions. I think if this was implemented, a HUGE amount of communication between groups must be constant. We could wind-up with some very BIG inconsistencies, otherwise.
Also, although I don't want to keep harping on the "I just don't see it" tangent, I think a trickle of products for several different eras is not going to generate the 'renewal' (rebirth?) they are hoping for, IMHO. Even if they decide to literally 'support all eras of play', I think coming out with a dozen products for two distinct periods is far better (business-wise) then coming out with two dozen products set all over the place time-wise (which means no one era will have nearly enough information, and all they would have accomplished is creating dozens of mini-4eFR settings).
Or are you trying to say the info to run a game in every era will all be in one source? If I am running a 1375 game, I don't want to pay for material I won't use. Doesn't this plan mean precisely that - every sourcebook produced will only be partially useful to any one particular group? I don't think SW (which has been used as an example of an 'open timeline') sources are produced this way - each focuses on a particular era, if I am not mistaken.
BTW, watched Fringe tonight, and realized that show just underwent an ST-style reBOOT - the timeline was altered (a single person was obliterated as if he never existed), and now the world is basically the same, but with lots of minor differences (and a few big ones). So now we know a(n in-story) reboot worked for both a popular old-school franchise, and a relatively new (and popular) TV show.
If there is any one fantasy setting that is setup for precisely this type of scenario, its the Forgotten Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Ayrik's point earlier reminds me of some ideas I had for a Cormyr sourcebook: one that discusses Cormyr from a historical point of view, showing all the smaller kingdoms and castles of petty, independent lords Cormyr had to fight and absorb, along with maps showing Cormyr's slow expansion, the reduction and clearing of the forest and so on.
VERY intriguing.
I had always assumed this was the case, and my own lore for Collinswood (a canon settlement I created) revolves around just such a 'petty king' (who in 1375 DR just so happens to be the same person who signed the agreement with an Obarskyr a millenia ago!) |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 31 Mar 2012 04:10:57 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 04:12:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Ayrik's point earlier reminds me of some ideas I had for a Cormyr sourcebook: one that discusses Cormyr from a historical point of view, showing all the smaller kingdoms and castles of petty, independent lords Cormyr had to fight and absorb, along with maps showing Cormyr's slow expansion, the reduction and clearing of the forest and so on.
VERY intriguing.
I had always assumed this was the case, and my own lore for Collinswood (a canon settlement I created) revolves around just such a 'petty king' (who in 1375 DR just so happens to be the same person who signed the agreement with an Obarskyr a millenia ago!)
GOOD now get to work on the candlekeep compendium: Cormyr both of you and get it on Sage's desk in two months or so......( I say or so becuase to say anything else would get the we have jobs comment) |
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 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 06:48:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That wasn't the intent of my post... Without trying to sound like I'm griping, I'm pointing out that there was a considerable amount of potential Realmslore left to share and explore, and many areas that had received little or no coverage. And WotC did not go in that direction.
That's my bad then.
When Icelander wrote similar above, I was reminded of comments made in the past by you and Markus that touched on the point of areas still left unexplored in the pre-Spellplague Realms.
The points about history that Icelander brings up do seem like they could be a path forward for the Realms, in that if the designers were to focus on, say, Cormyr, with an eye towards showing it during three or four periods in time, you could have multiple maps and many more "right at your doorstep" enemies to use, all in the same location.
I'll go so far as to say that the smaller Cormyr is (in its past) the easier it is to use.
I think it would be cool, for example, to see the Haunted Halls (which I admit I don't know much about) from the PoV of an active, thriving wizard's base, then have the same book recast it as a ruin to explore.
I'm rambling. Apologies.  |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 16:23:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I agree with Sage, but am leery about 'separate teams' going in different directions. I think if this was implemented, a HUGE amount of communication between groups must be constant. We could wind-up with some very BIG inconsistencies, otherwise.
-We've already seen what happens when the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Also, although I don't want to keep harping on the "I just don't see it" tangent, I think a trickle of products for several different eras is not going to generate the 'renewal' (rebirth?) they are hoping for, IMHO. Even if they decide to literally 'support all eras of play', I think coming out with a dozen products for two distinct periods is far better (business-wise) then coming out with two dozen products set all over the place time-wise (which means no one era will have nearly enough information, and all they would have accomplished is creating dozens of mini-4eFR settings).
Or are you trying to say the info to run a game in every era will all be in one source? If I am running a 1375 game, I don't want to pay for material I won't use. Doesn't this plan mean precisely that - every sourcebook produced will only be partially useful to any one particular group? I don't think SW (which has been used as an example of an 'open timeline') sources are produced this way - each focuses on a particular era, if I am not mistaken.
-A good point, about a trickle of books/articles. Given that the trickle of information would be all encompassing in a still vague and undefined 'sourcebook that hit on all eras' (and does this mean I'd get info so I could run a Crown Wars campaign?) though, I would actually think the opposite, that more total information would be being put out, which would link up with already written information, ultimately producing more than if a single or two specific eras were selected. Information would be less concentrated, and it would seemingly multiply exponentially. Compare reading an encyclopedia with reading a book about a single entry in an encyclopedia that goes into a lot of depth. Though the book is more detailed, you'll come away reading the encyclopedia as if you've learned more, because there's quantity over quality (in this case, depth and detail). |
(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 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2012 : 18:44:04
|
First, if they were serious about this support all era/editions, we should see purchasable PDF's of all the old gaming material back online.
Second, I still say that the best way to support all era's is to give up (so to speak) on the comprehensive book approach and go for more the separately purchasable (ie downloadable) specific lore article of say 16-32 pages. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 15:52:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
First, if they were serious about this support all era/editions, we should see purchasable PDF's of all the old gaming material back online.
-Well, "they", we know, aren't, as of right now. This is all Erik saying stuff that should be. Obviously, this hasn't been WotC's business model so far.
-That aside, online PDFs is a whole separate issue. |
(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 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 18:33:30
|
Reboots are nothing new, Markus. TV shows change actors every season, they blithely ignore monumentally significant changes in setting and character so that every episode or movie gets reset right back to continuing from the same arbitrary start point; in a sense, each episode is a disguised mini-reboot. The only thing new about Hollywood reboot is the popularity and transparency of the term itself, reboot ex machina (deus ex reboot?) is an easily understood storytelling sophistication which can be done poorly or done well.
But the mere fact that the technique has been done well in one story does not guarantee it could be done well in another - successful application requires cooperative collaboration between story, authors, and audience. And much of the Realms audience is no longer cooperative after being exposed to a number of poorly-done reboots in the past.
All I'm trying to say is that shouting "reboot! reboot!" is as meaningless as shouting "retcon! retcon!" because, taken alone, it presents no new facts, no relevant context, and no suggestions about how to progress towards the next generation of Realmslore. A reboot requires a very arbitrary creative decision to be made ... why is pressing the reset button in 1357DR more valid than pressing it in 1485DR? |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 01 Apr 2012 18:39:59 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 18:46:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
First, if they were serious about this support all era/editions, we should see purchasable PDF's of all the old gaming material back online.
-Well, "they", we know, aren't, as of right now. This is all Erik saying stuff that should be. Obviously, this hasn't been WotC's business model so far.
-That aside, online PDFs is a whole separate issue.
They are not so far seperate as to be irrelevant. For one thing, a company that refuses to sell its products to interested customers, despite having access to an affordable and practical way to do so, is one that has a giant mark against it in my book when it comes to trusting their judgment on any artistic or business decision.* For another, a flat refusal to make older products available does not indicate any great enthusiasm for catering to the tastes of fans who like other eras than the currently supported one.
All companies are interested in making money. Some of them manage to do so while managing to come across as friendly places where people interested in the same things as the consumers are work. Others make unfortunate decisions that justly or unjustly give an impression of scorn for loyal customers. To some degree, companies that base their marketing on a constant stream of new 11-13 year old customers have less need to ensure customer loyalty or long term satisfaction. This is just good sense.
In my opinion, however, it is disastrous in a public relations sense to make this too obvious to their customers, as people generally do not respond well to a feeling that their custom is not valued. If it is done in such a way that older customers come to feel that the mesasge is that their tastes are inferior, ignorant or stupid and the company does not want them as customers at all, it may cause a backlash that affects the ability of the company to gain new customers.
*While the damage it does to WotC bottom line might not be objectively large, I am convinced that few decisions in modern business better exemplify poor understanding of market trends and Ludditic rejection of reality. Alone, this decision will not cause them to go under, but if it is representative, WotC is never going to adapt to a changing publishing world. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 04:38:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
why is pressing the reset button in 1357DR more valid than pressing it in 1485DR?
Because 1357 or so would allow them to 'start anew', and move the setting forward from that point, and unless something in the new material overrides the old material, everything from the first continuity could still be assumed to exist. That means we can get brand new material, fixes for old glitches, and still use old sources whenever new material doesn't conflict with it.
In other words, as we move forward, most things would be the same, but bad stuff (poorly received lore or badly scripted novels and modules) could be left-out*, or 'patches' can be applied to all those 'rough spots' (for instance, this time around, the Tree of Life should only get planted ONCE!)
Moving forward into the 4e era just further invalidates all the old lore, and decreases the amount of useful material available. What would be the point in rebooting the setting again, only to make it less useful? A 1357 reset is an additive way to proceed; moving the setting forward out beyond the reach of old lore is a subtractive application to an already ailing IP.
When we think of 'reinvigorating' something, doesn't the notion of 'youth' spring to mind? You don't reinvigorate something by adding another decade or ten to something... you just make it older. If getting older (not better) was a good thing, plastic surgeons would be out of a job.
But they aren't out of a job - they make lots of money making things look 'shiny & new' again. I want every FR source I ever purchased be 100% useful to my games again... and they can do that. The question is, do they want to?
All they have left of the 'old guard' is Ed, and I don't think thats enough. Our Steven Schends, Erik Boyds, Tom Costas, and Jeff Grubbs are all gone, and most of the guys there just don't have the chops. The only way the setting won't fail (again) is to reset it, IMHO. At least we will have the quality old material to fall back on, when the new stuff leaves us disappointed.
* Let DMs to decide what they want to include or not from that grab-bag of assorted, mediocre material. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Apr 2012 04:42:16 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 06:18:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Because 1357 or so would allow them to 'start anew', and move the setting forward from that point, and unless something in the new material overrides the old material, everything from the first continuity could still be assumed to exist. That means we can get brand new material, fixes for old glitches, and still use old sources whenever new material doesn't conflict with it.
-As I've mentioned, this has been happening already, but in 4e novels. From the point of view that something like this needs to happen, that more detail and explanation and whatever else need to be injected into events to have them make more sense, and for more continuity to be present between the setting as a whole (past, present, and future), the spotlight need not be moved back to any pre-Spellplague date. And, again, shifting the focus of the timeline back however far and shedding new light on certain things still doesn't fix the problems inherent with wildly disliked events happening. New information from here to the moon can be injected about the culling of the Drow pantheon, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that this was a deal-breaker that many people saw very negatively and caused them to actively have less interest in the setting. |
(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 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 14:37:51
|
Maybe I'm just a dreamer.
Or maybe I've gone from 'grognard' to curmudgeon. 
As I get older, the more I find, "They've paved paradise, and put up a parking lot." I guess its time for me to go outside and chase some kids off my lawn {sigh}.
I should visit a library today, before they knock the last one of those down. Its pretty sad that even if I did want to read any of the new FR novels, I have no idea where to buy a book anymore; everywhere I shopped closed down in the past three years. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 14:42:27
|
buy it online
barnse and noble has an online site......
amazon sells just about anything.....
|
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 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 15:05:38
|
Apologies that I've been off-line for a while--Emerald City ComicCon and all that. And lacking sufficient time, allow me to post a few notes without doing that whole quote/unquote thing. Apologies if any of it is unclear:
@Stagnate and die: I don't believe the other settings mentioned (Mystara, Dragonlance, etc.) are "dead," necessarily, but they are certainly way less popular and have way less support, because their scope is relatively limited compared to the FR. Who knows? They might be revived one day. But this thread is about the Realms, and that's what I think we should be discussing.
@More design to do in pre-SP era: Absolutely there is more to design in 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e. There is a huge amount of elbow room to expand "sideways" and still maintain a continuity. That is, I think, how to build the canonical ties between the eras. 5e should NOT be a mere expansion of the 4e storyline.
@4e being a "deal-breaker": I would like 5e FR to mitigate this, as in produce more stuff to appeal to those fans who quit the setting with the unveiling of 4e. Support for pre-4e should be just as (if not more) important than support for the 4e era, and I think lacing things together and resolving a certain number of major issues will go some ways to correcting the missteps 4e made. Resolving the Spellplague, the Mystra situation, some of the lost gods, etc., etc., will help 4e FR seem to anti-4e FR folks more like FR. That said, of course people will like what they like, and there should be plentiful design to support their games.
@Old product PDFs: The nostalgia factor is huge. I have earlier said that WotC needs to consider releasing the old material as downloadable PDFs and (also) print-on-demand for those who want physical copies. Heck, if something is particularly popular (say the 3e FRCS), WotC should consider a limited reprint run. They've already demonstrated they are doing this (with the 1e reprints)--if those are successful, you can bet your bottom-line that WotC will look into doing more. Based on what I've seen and heard, there is every reason to be optimistic about this.
@Reboot to 1357: This is outside the scope of this thread, and I've repeatedly asked that we not talk about it. There should be lore to support setting a campaign there, but WotC should not be in the business of forcing anyone to play in any particular era or setting in order to use their product.
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" |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 15:17:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Maybe I'm just a dreamer.
Or maybe I've gone from 'grognard' to curmudgeon.
As I get older, the more I find, "They've paved paradise, and put up a parking lot." I guess its time for me to go outside and chase some kids off my lawn {sigh}.
I should visit a library today, before they knock the last one of those down. Its pretty sad that even if I did want to read any of the new FR novels, I have no idea where to buy a book anymore; everywhere I shopped closed down in the past three years.
I find that the best way to stay young is to adapt and evolve with the zeitgeist of the times.
This is important not only for vampires of the Anne Rice genre, but also trash-talkers and grognards of the old school who want to remain cool but dressed in the finest new style.
And with pavement, you don't have to do all that pesky time-consuming gardening and plant-watering. There are so many new things to complain about (see: grognardia, function of) that I need the time.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 17:54:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@4e being a "deal-breaker": I would like 5e FR to mitigate this, as in produce more stuff to appeal to those fans who quit the setting with the unveiling of 4e. Support for pre-4e should be just as (if not more) important than support for the 4e era, and I think lacing things together and resolving a certain number of major issues will go some ways to correcting the missteps 4e made. Resolving the Spellplague, the Mystra situation, some of the lost gods, etc., etc., will help 4e FR seem to anti-4e FR folks more like FR. That said, of course people will like what they like, and there should be plentiful design to support their games.
@Old product PDFs: The nostalgia factor is huge. I have earlier said that WotC needs to consider releasing the old material as downloadable PDFs and (also) print-on-demand for those who want physical copies. Heck, if something is particularly popular (say the 3e FRCS), WotC should consider a limited reprint run. They've already demonstrated they are doing this (with the 1e reprints)--if those are successful, you can bet your bottom-line that WotC will look into doing more. Based on what I've seen and heard, there is every reason to be optimistic about this.
Second issue first: If they don't release the old stuff on PDF, they are missing out on a huge opportunity to make a profit for virtually no expenditure. This would also go a long, long way in their pledge to 'support all eras' - what better way to support an era than the material that established that era to begin with?
On the first issue: The lost gods (and mortal personalities), the pointless destruction, and the results of Wizbro listening to a vocal fringe are all problems that will need to be fixed, in a big way, if the 5th Edition Realms are to have anything resembling a chance of not being stillborn/DOA.
They have to say "X cannot be changed", and then have to justify why 'X cannot be changed'. I would imagine that the issue of Unther (and Mulhorand) is an 'X' - they simply are not going to give up their dragonborn/genasi shoehorn. Similarly, Returned Abeir is an 'X', in my opinion...there is simply no way to undo it without another RSE that is likely to tick off as many people as it satisfies.
Are there any other places that qualify as an 'X'? I have no idea, but in my mind, nothing else seems irreparable. Not even the goofy idea of a completely nuked Halruaa, which wasn't destroyed because of a shoehorn or what have you. It was destroyed...well, just because.
And to me, 4th Edition will likely never seem like the Realms I know and love - but if Wizbro can admit it stepped in the big steaming pile of brown, make the fixes required, and then listen - really listen - to the people who have for years, if not decades, used their imaginations to walk in the Realms alongside the Chosen, the Seven Sisters, and (most importantly) the heroes of their own creation, then maybe, just maybe, 5th Edition can bring that awesome enchanted land back. And with nary a reboot or retcon in sight. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 16:01:16
|
At the same time, one has to consider the new fans who *like* the 4e FR and don't want it to change radically. They need a comfy spot in the setting too, and while I think preserving the continuity is important for them, some thematic continuity is also important.
This is not me saying there isn't a lot to be addressed--obviously there is! But we shouldn't lose sight of the full picture by hastening to overturn as much of the 4e shift as possible. There are key things to be done, mostly thematic and some brute fact.
Thoughts?
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
