| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
dmgorgon
Acolyte
28 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 15:06:15
|
After looking over my FR campaign material the other night for a new 5e campaign location, I started to realize that there is one very important "must have" for the 5e FR.
The campaign setting must fill in the gaps left open from the previous set of changes.
Let's assume they advance the world another 10 years. Well.. if the designers stick with the spellplaque changes, I think the designers have a responsibility to fill in all the gaps the previous set of changes created; in addition to any new changes they make. In other words, they need to go through the 4e campaign material with a fine tooth comb and clean things up. If they only detail the new stuff and shove the 4e changes under the rug, the 5e campaign material won't be able to hold it's own weight.
If at any point, I have to work to fill in the gaps, I'll have no choice but to give up on it and go back to using all my old FR material. Sure, campaign design is a labour of love, but campaign setting continuity is not my responsibility. If I have to work hard to fill in all the gaps that previous iterations of the setting created then I'm no longer having fun.
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 15:29:42
|
{prepared to take much heat}
Ignore the past. (ouch! Was that rotten tomato?)
Let me explain - treat 5e as if it were a new setting - no matter what they decide to do to it. Do not force people to look through old products (as 4e did) - products that have little relevance to the new setting. Release a comprehensive 5e campaign guide - one with many illustrations, background on cultures, races, and nations, etc. a separate section on terrainfeatures - like mountains and deserts, so we don't have to try and find out something about a mountain range by looking through 5 (or more!) different entries of surrounding territories (try getting a complete picture of the gelenas, for instance). We need to have a step-by-step, alphabetized, all-encompassing 'Realmsography' - 1e had that!
Treat the setting as if it was brand-new (which it sort of is), and not like some sort of update. Its going to be the only way to draw in all those new fans it so desperately needs right now. The only thing 4e did right was eliminate the (perceived) investment required by fans. then they proceeded to drop the ball 9by requiring folks to actually look for info in old sources).
You know how movie franchises sometimes go back to the beginning and start with #1 again? Like that. Don't call it '5th edition Forgotten Realms'. Simple call it The Forgotten Realms, and pretend its 1987 all over again. And I am NOT asking for a reboot (which I would love), I am just saying treat the new (1479+DR Realms) like they were something no-one has ever seen before. It needs that sort of presentation in order to get new fans, and new ans are the only way it will be a success (because even if we got every old fan back, would that be enough to make Hasbro happy?) |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
 |
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 16:00:24
|
Well, I have no intention of ever buying any novel taking place beyond 1400DR as well. The Realms 'story' ended for me after the Spellplague hit.
But thats not to say I don't have an interest in the new Realms from a GM point-of-view. I can always use more (quality) material.
And if its good - and I mean REALLY GOOD - I may eventually come around and read some of the newer novels. As of right now, though, I have no plans to do so.
Understand, dazzlerdal, that I am taking a step back from my own desires (and just about everyone else's here) and looking at this purely from an objective, business perspective. In order for FR to be what it once was, it must start anew, without any 'baggage'. And by baggage, I mean preconceptions, good and bad. Folks have to take 5eFR at face value, and not judge it against anything else - that will color their response to it.
So it has to appear entirely new, even if its not. We need those new fans, because without them, FR will go the way of the dinosaurs. Which is better, a new FR, or NO FR? A lot of us may feel no FR is better... but thats being a bit selfish, no? If a new generation can enjoy the Realms - and perhaps take a peak back at the previous offerings eventually - would that not be a plus? If its a whopping success, we may even see a movie or three (or an animated series... dare I dream?)
And then we all get to say, "I liked the Forgotten Realms before it was cool".  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Dec 2013 16:01:50 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Zealot
Seeker
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 17:03:39
|
| Dazzlerdal amen....preach it. |
Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 17:24:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmgorgon
After looking over my FR campaign material the other night for a new 5e campaign location, I started to realize that there is one very important "must have" for the 5e FR.
The campaign setting must fill in the gaps left open from the previous set of changes...
Eh, I don't really want this. Filling in the 100-year period could actually be worse than what we have right now.
I mean, suppose they start filling in a lot of detail on the times immediately following the Spellplague and it turns out to be really bad new lore? It's actually more likely to be bad than good, when it comes down to it, because it'd involve explaining why there are pools of spellplaguey goop everywhere that -randomly- corrupt some things and not others. It'd involve explaining the planar shake-up in detail that probably no one wants. People were mad about jumbling together the negative energy plane with the plane of shadow and other bits of nastiness to create the new Shadowfel. Imagine detailing more of that, or explaining it, when people didn't want it in the first place.
Filler detail is the -last- thing I'd want in 5E, not only because it'd be more bad stuff I didn't want anyway, but it'd also be 100 years old and not actually part of the present era... so how useful would it be, other than more historical stuff that I'd also hate? Nope, no thanks.
The thing about gaps is that they can be ignored or filled in by you as the DM. If WotC fills it in, it becomes canon. "Hey guys, all those 4E changes you hated? Guess what? We're fleshing them out and it's all way worse than you could've possibly imagined! Plus, it's not all that relevant for the new era, since it's all in the past century. You're welcome!"
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 19 Dec 2013 17:30:55 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 18:16:58
|
I would prefer a series of 'wailing Years' novels to fill-in the backstory, not stuff in the sourcebooks. Those I would read.
Thats not saying the sourcebooks shouldn't contain history, but it should be the short, essay-style campaign guides usually have (just like we had in the 3eCS).
For example, we have some very hazy story(ies) abut what happened when Mystra fell. We had some encapsulated history, and we had what wound-up being 'visions' by certain others... visions which may have not been entirely accurate, and been placed by other beings with their own agenda. In the game sources, we don't need much more then that (perhaps a little more). What I really want is a novel written about what truly happened - one written by Ed or Elaine... or maybe even Paul. I want them to take all that ugly, write something profound, and all of us have one of those, "Ah-ha!" moments, when it all comes together and makes sense.
You just can't do that in a couple of dry paragraphs in sourcebook. You lose all the intricate details that puts it in perspective.
Personally, I think the best compromise would be for the game line to continue forward (past 4e), and the novel line to take a huge step backward, and give the rest of us what we want. There is nothing wrong with the gamers playing in the future of whats happening in novels - computer games do that all the time. I can read about one 'world' (era), and play in another, and the two can have very little to do with each other. Thats fine with me.
If they continue forward with both, then I will continue to be interested in FR for my gaming, but not so much for reading. If the novels must be canon, then at least put them somewhere (somewhen?) where they won't cause any harm to people's campaigns. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Dec 2013 18:39:07 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 18:25:33
|
When I use the word "you" I don't mean you, dmgorgon specifically. I use it in general terms.
quote:
Originally posted by dmgorgon
If at any point, I have to work to fill in the gaps, I'll have no choice but to give up on it and go back to using all my old FR material. Sure, campaign design is a labour of love, but campaign setting continuity is not my responsibility. If I have to work hard to fill in all the gaps that previous iterations of the setting created then I'm no longer having fun.
My first thought on this is that maintaining continuity is only necessary for a DM to the extent that it's expected by his or her players.
If your players don't care a whit that some fact or set of facts regarding the minutia of Realms setting continuity between editions doesn't link up perfectly, then why as a DM would you waste mental bandwidth worrying over it?
The players come first. Run your damn game for Pete's sake!
On the other hand, I realize there are DMs that like a setting that makes sense, where everything fits together and you can stand back, look at it, and not feel you're about to engage with a tall, freestanding clock with its key lock door open and all the internal parts a jumbled-together mess.
In my experience there's a pitfall here. When you see a continuity problem it's easy to get sucked into the minutia of the details and forget all about your campaign.
You might say this is all the more reason for WotC to go back over it and fix things up, but consider the practical side of that argument: 110 years is a lot of history to go over with a fine-toothed comb.
Not only that, but consider just how much page count will be used up by a Campaign Seting to tell us those 110 years of lore fixes.
Certainly such information will be useful and gobbled up by a lore enthusiast. Also, casual gamers do, to some degree, like to read about the ongoing stories and historical details in the Realms. But a Campaign Setting book's first job is to be of immediate, practical use to a Dungeon Master. All that history may not be much use to the casual gamer or the new gamer who wants nothing more than to get to the help-me-run-my-campaign parts of the book so they can start playing D&D right away.
I'm with you in spirit, dmgorgon, but from a practical standpoint I think that kind of "fix things up" work is better left to the scribes of Candlekeep, who can suggest informed, thoughtful fixes and changes that designers and writers reading these scrolls can pick up and perhaps insert into later sourcebooks, or tell in a much more detailed, nuanced way in novels (e.g. Alusair's life after she stepped down from the Regency [pretty please WotC! :wink wink: :nudge nudge:]). |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 19 Dec 2013 19:05:43 |
|
|
|
dmgorgon
Acolyte
28 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 19:02:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Eh, I don't really want this. Filling in the 100-year period could actually be worse than what we have right now.
I mean, suppose they start filling in a lot of detail on the times immediately following the Spellplague and it turns out to be really bad new lore? It's actually more likely to be bad than good, when it comes down to it, because it'd involve explaining why there are pools of spellplaguey goop everywhere that -randomly- corrupt some things and not others. It'd involve explaining the planar shake-up in detail that probably no one wants. People were mad about jumbling together the negative energy plane with the plane of shadow and other bits of nastiness to create the new Shadowfel. Imagine detailing more of that, or explaining it, when people didn't want it in the first place.
Filler detail is the -last- thing I'd want in 5E, not only because it'd be more bad stuff I didn't want anyway, but it'd also be 100 years old and not actually part of the present era... so how useful would it be, other than more historical stuff that I'd also hate? Nope, no thanks.
The thing about gaps is that they can be ignored or filled in by you as the DM. If WotC fills it in, it becomes canon. "Hey guys, all those 4E changes you hated? Guess what? We're fleshing them out and it's all way worse than you could've possibly imagined! Plus, it's not all that relevant for the new era, since it's all in the past century. You're welcome!"
You make a good point, but I think there are some situations that need to be back filled.
Let's take Myth Drannor, how should the 5e realms deal with that area? Should the 4e changes be retained and continue to invalidate my 2e campaign box set?
The designers have said they are not going to reboot the realms. That means they plan to build upon what 4e changed. Sure, something can change back to the way it was previously (e.g. The elves can fail in their efforts and Myth Drannor can become an above ground dungeon again), but those gaps and details need to be fleshed out.
In other words, if they are not going to reboot the realms, they owe us an explanation for each area the 4e campaign setting changed.
As for that big chaos scar, lol... what they heck are they going to do with that?
|
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 19:43:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
On the other hand, I realize there are DMs that like a setting that makes sense, where everything fits together and you can stand back, look at it, and not feel you're about to engage with a tall, freestanding clock with its key lock door open and all the internal parts a jumbled-together mess...
 ROFLOL we are way, way, WAY past that. A Realms where everything fit together and had no inconsistencies or loopy mumjo-jumbo "fixes" is about 14 freeway exits back, like two states ago, on this road trip.
I mean, c'mon. It's been nuked, re-framed, and they had to *poof* a whole other "twin" planet into the lore. And even then, Neverwinter wasn't nuked enough by the spellplague, so they exploded a volcano on it, like a grenade cherry on top of an armageddon sundae.
Markus is right, we have to take the 5E Realms as an essentially new thing, because it is. Otherwise, you're just going to deal with constant headaches trying to figure out what's historically wonky or outright broken.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 19:57:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmgorgon
...Let's take Myth Drannor, how should the 5e realms deal with that area? Should the 4e changes be retained and continue to invalidate my 2e campaign box set?
Believe me, I totally get where you're coming from. It's -good- to have background material for campaigns because they have all sorts of hooks (like in 1E and 2E especially). But for Myth Drannor, I'm not sure that's the best example considering that most of its changes came in mid-to-late 3E.
I -would- like to see the still-unpublished Cormyrean lineage of kings, things like that. But most of what I'd like to see as older fill-ins would be related to things that happened in late 1E and 2E.
With 4E filler, I just don't trust that any of it would be good or enhance what's available to us in 5E Realms.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 20:53:31
|
What I would actually like to see is a team of people who take up the Realms from the beginning of 3rd edition and go from there.
I don't want a patched up future Realms. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
dmgorgon
Acolyte
28 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 21:17:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Markus is right, we have to take the 5E Realms as an essentially new thing, because it is. Otherwise, you're just going to deal with constant headaches trying to figure out what's historically wonky or outright broken.
How can we take the realms as a new thing if the designers are not going in that direction? From what I understand, they are not going to "fix" anything.
As for people who make their day job fixing what's historically wonky with the realms, that won't change. :) |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 21:36:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmgorgon
How can we take the realms as a new thing if the designers are not going in that direction? From what I understand, they are not going to "fix" anything.
Many people considered the 4E Realms to be an "alternate reality" world, given the radically different tone and feel of it - despite the name similarities and such.
Since WotC is -keeping- the 4E Realms, yet they've also said they're going to revert to the original tone and feel of the 1E-3E Realms, what we're going to get with the post-Sundering 5E Realms is something that is neither the original nor exactly the 4E Realms.
Trying to bridge the two with explanations and extra lore for a period that will be 100 years in the past just simply won't work.
quote:
As for people who make their day job fixing what's historically wonky with the realms, that won't change. :)
Almost everyone who had the job of changing the Realms into its 4E version have been fired, laid off, or they've quit.
The new team is driven by Ed and the novels team, so... hopefully it all works out. I have a positive attitude about it. But at the same time, there's no way that I can pretend that they'll manage to perfectly bridge the old and the new with any amount of new lore. Instead, what we're likely to get is just an altered and much-toned-down version of 4E Realms with a lot of new material starting from 1485+ (the post-Sundering).
|
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! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 22:53:23
|
Personally, something I don't want to see is the return of some old culture/empire (other than Durthans... even red wizards I don't want to see a return of... I want to see a transformation on the base idea). If you want to try and make some money on some old culture, then produce a story or accessory based in that time. Its kind of short sighted for folks to think that everything in the game needs to be "now". Some of the more favorite things from 3.5 that people talk about was Lost Empires of Faerun and The Grand History of the Realms. What we all noted with these things was that they barely whet our appetites.... we wanted MORE.
Old things I'd like to see visited:
A resource on Narfell/Raumathar
A resource on the rise of Imaskar, which incorporates a lot of the "alternate" class concepts in 3.5
a resource on Jhaamdath
a resource on the Orcgate Wars, maybe in the form of module
a resource on the Talfir culture
a resource on the Rus culture
a resource on fey links to the realms that aren't all about elves |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 23:24:02
|
| Well what I feel won't help the Realms is another supplement about Waterdeep or Neverwinter or the Underdark. I feel some backstory from 1375 to 1480 would be nice but not really necessary. They need to move on and start producing lore for a BIG campaign setting book. Also, I don't think producing multiple splat books worked very well. Sure fans liked them but I don't think they sold well overall. I doubt we're going to see a return of the multitude of splats we grew accustomed to with AD&D 2e and 3e. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 05:01:59
|
The style the FRCG presented the 4E Realms probably has a lot to do with my negative impression of it. The FRCG focused so much on differentiating itself from the prior version (recall now a hundred years passed) like it mattered so much in establishing its own identity.
As a fan of the old Realms I get the references, but knowing Tymanther stands over the ruins of Unther did little to tell me about Tymanther, or Unther for that matter. They're just names slapped on generic fantasy kingdoms with a Dragonborn veneer as far as the FRCG is concerned. It didn't have enough word count left to develop the existing current 4E Realms beyond a very terse description. Really it was one book writing about two settings and did a poor job at depicting either.
If we're getting a book on the 5E Realms, it should be of the density of the 3E FRCS rather than the 4E FRCG. I'm not talking about pure page or word count either. |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 20 Dec 2013 05:08:33 |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 06:44:58
|
| Lore and deep rooted history is what set the Realms apart from other campaign settings. By the 4th edition team not continuing that, they essentially removed the head and just gave us the rest. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 07:18:06
|
| I fully agree that the FRCG needed to be better than it was. It critical flaws, IMO, we're the detailed adventure of Loudwater which I thought was completely unnecessary and it's layout, namely the spacing and font. Both had huge gaps which could've been filled with more lore. It was sort of a let down to go from a product like the FRCS or Faith and Avatars to the FRCG. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 14:14:22
|
We have an internet now - they have to learn how to best leverage that resource. The Loudwater adventure would have been better served as a FREE download on their site, rather then taking up space in a CG that was already short on lore. There is no need to take-up page count with stuff some people won't use.
Personally, for FR sources, I think all the crunchy bits should be available on the web as well (rather then in the books - when you run a session, thats the stuff you need to print-out anyway).
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
<snip> Old things I'd like to see visited:
A resource on Narfell/Raumathar
A resource on the rise of Imaskar, which incorporates a lot of the "alternate" class concepts in 3.5
a resource on Jhaamdath
a resource on the Orcgate Wars, maybe in the form of module
a resource on the Talfir culture
a resource on the Rus culture
a resource on fey links to the realms that aren't all about elves
You just gave me an idea of one way they could make everyone happy, and tie a mega-adventure path to the Sundering! 
True 'support for all eras' should mean not only can we (DMs) run games in any era we want... shouldn't players also have that option? What if we had a plot where Ao/someone assigns the PCs the task of 'setting things right', and gave the PCs a McGuffin that allowed them time-travel (within limits). It would be more like Quantum Leap then true time travel - everytime they 'repaired' a part of history, they leap to the next event. It could even be some sort of 'scavenger Hunt' wherein they must collect all the parts to something (perhaps that mysterious Shadow of Ao mentioned on pg.210 of the 4e FRCG). Suppose some powerful being (Shar, most likely) scattered the parts of this thing all over time?
Thus, not only would the players literally get to 'play in all eras', but it would be a GREAT way to fill-in a lot of that history we've been craving, and still have it be a game product. As it is now, I don't see them putting a lot of historic lore into products because its not so useful to the game, and takes up page counts better served with a more detailed adventure. If they can manage to tie the two together - the history AND the adventure - they kill two birds with one stone.
They can then give us details about all those major events Sleyvas mentioned in the above quote. Its a no-brainer, of course, to tie it all into the Sundering (so the PCs become a part of making those changes happen). Picture the AP: The Sundering: The Shadow of Ao. Has a nice ring to it, eh? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Dec 2013 14:17:17 |
|
|
|
Arcanus
Senior Scribe
485 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 15:37:56
|
| Getting bored with all of these 'what if' threads about 5e. Can we not just keep to one 5e scroll? |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 17:07:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
...What if we had a plot where Ao/someone assigns the PCs the task of 'setting things right', and gave the PCs a McGuffin that allowed them time-travel (within limits). It would be more like Quantum Leap then true time travel - everytime they 'repaired' a part of history, they leap to the next event. It could even be some sort of 'scavenger Hunt' wherein they must collect all the parts to something (perhaps that mysterious Shadow of Ao mentioned on pg.210 of the 4e FRCG). Suppose some powerful being (Shar, most likely) scattered the parts of this thing all over time?
No offense, Markus, but no. I hated Quantum Leap. Absolutely hated it. It was so... Love Boat and Fantasy Island mixed with dumb comedy. The main character was passive, weak and depressingly un-sexy. I couldn't stand it when they brought him into Star Trek Enterprise to play the captain. UGH.
Anyway, didn't he have a computerized hologram advisor or something? You know that if they did this, it'd be the jokey-sassy version of Elminster in that role, and some set of total doofus weinerbags as the party. Gods I hated Quantum Leap with a passion.
Don't get me wrong, in the past I even advocated having a time-travel adventure with a party of former Mystra worshipers; they would've had a seriously gritty and dangerous jaunt through time, working (and dying) while they un-wove the events leading up to 4E Realms. But a Quantum Leap motif is like a totally anti-gritty way of doing time travel, chock full of feel-good emotions, rainbows and ponies everywhere, and just plain awfulness. **shudder**
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 20 Dec 2013 17:24:02 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 19:05:51
|
Personally I would like a reboot to the Gray Box, but since that isn't happening:
What I would like to see is a reset of the Realms to whatever they decide 5th edition is. By this I mean virtually ignoring most of the 4th ed lore and creating a FR guide that is a combination of the Gray Box (the alphabetical listings, clack, class/race descriptions) and the Forgotten Realms Adventures book (details on some of the major groups of the day, city details, god details). I would ideally like to see all these laid out in the way that the Gray Box did, which was operating under the assumption that the person buying/reading this had never heard of the Realms before. Something like that could actually entice me to buy. |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 20:31:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Many people considered the 4E Realms to be an "alternate reality" world, given the radically different tone and feel of it - despite the name similarities and such.
Going that route (or undoing it via time travel or other in-game mechanic to write it out of having happened) would probably have been the one way to regain my interest in the setting moving forward, but since they've stuck to their guns, at this point I'm probably out. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2013 : 22:22:26
|
Sorry to hear that, Shemmy. The planes just aren't the same without you. 
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Don't get me wrong, in the past I even advocated having a time-travel adventure with a party of former Mystra worshipers; they would've had a seriously gritty and dangerous jaunt through time, working (and dying) while they un-wove the events leading up to 4E Realms. But a Quantum Leap motif is like a totally anti-gritty way of doing time travel, chock full of feel-good emotions, rainbows and ponies everywhere, and just plain awfulness.
Okay, for the record, I only watched maybe six episodes of Quantum Leap. Obviously not a big fan of the show. Also, I love Star Trek, and viewed even less episodes of Enerprise. Obviously not a big Scott Bakula fan either.
What I meant was, we could get a string of adventure modules (AP-style), and each would focus on a different time period. The actual items being recovered (or 'history getting fixed') is irrelevant. It was just a deus-ex-machina to keep the characters 'racing through time'. My point was that we could get this sort of 'support for all eras' treatment, with lore about past eras we are interested in, and do the whole thing Paizo-style (since that seems to be the way to siphon-off some off their fanbase... many of whom were part of the FR fanbase).
Gamers can get a fun romp through FR's historic moments, FR fans get more lore about the past, and all of this gets connected to The Sundering in a great, "Lets help save the world!" scenario.
It was just a thought. I didn't mean to actually DO FR-meets-Quantum Leap. (Although Elminster as Al would be pretty funny.)
Grammatical Corrections |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Dec 2013 21:43:07 |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2013 : 05:50:25
|
| Lore and deep rooted history is what set the Realms apart from other campaign settings. By the 4th edition team not continuing that, they essentially removed the head and just gave us the rest. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2013 : 17:39:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Okay, for the record, I only watched maybe six episodes of Quantum Leap. Obvioulsy not a big fan of the show. Also, I love Star Trek, and viewed even less episodes of Enerprise. Obviously not a big Scott Bakula fan either.
IMO, Bakula just isn't a "leading man" type. Totally wrong choice for a captain. Janeway had bigger set of sterling, if you know what I mean. Captains need swagger, appeal, not softness.
quote:
What I meant was, we could get a string of adventure modules (AP-style), an each would focus on a different time period. The actual items being recovered (or 'history getting fixed') is irrelevant. It was just a deus-ex-machina to keep the characters 'racing through time'. My point was that we could get this sort of 'support for all eras' treatment, with lore about past eras we are interested in, and do the whole thing Paizo-style (since that seems to be the way to siphon-off some off their fanbase... many of whom were part of the FR fanbase).
I wouldn't mind that. Adventure paths are fun, and we've never had a time-travel AP. This might be the perfect time to do one!
quote:
I didn't mean to actually DO FR-meets-Quantum Leap. (Although Elminster as Al would be pretty funny.)
In some novels, Elminster is kinda that way already. And I remember in the Baldur's gate computer games, Elminster would just randomly appear at times and chit-chat in a rather comic "LOOK IT'S ME, HAHA!" kind of way.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Derulbaskul
Senior Scribe
Singapore
408 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2013 : 16:20:04
|
The map must not suck.
Even though I actively like the 4E Realms (and every other version) the simple fact is that the map is next to useless. Features not smudges. If the final product looks like the inside of a baby's diaper/nappy again, then scrap it and hand it over to Mike Schley to do properly.
Otherwise I agree with Markustay. Tabula rasa. There is too much accumulated hate for the 4E Realms so, as much as possible, ignore them. |
Cheers
D
NB: Please remember: A cannon is a big gun. Canon is what we discuss here. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
What will make or break the 5e FR?
