| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lorfar
Acolyte
USA
4 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Apr 2014 : 01:09:17
|
What changes happened between the two versions? I am kind of interested now that I hear about the switch from 4.0 and dnd next. What about other switches? Like the original realms, and switch to ad&d or 3.0 to 4.0. I was casually reading the realms during 3.0-3.5 era and remember hearing about obould many arrows. So I am guessing that was the change from 3.5 to 4? 
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2014 : 03:36:12
|
| -Rules wise, or within the context of in-world continuity? In terms of in-world continuity, it was fairly seamless, with no huge status-quo changes. Off-hand, the biggest things I can think of were the changes to the map (the size of the continent got trimmed down) and the introduction of the Shadow Weave, but both things were simply treated like they were always that 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 09 Apr 2014 03:37:55 |
 |
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2014 : 11:21:04
|
As Lord Karsus pointed out there wasn't some big story event that heralded the beginning of 3E.
There were basically two major story events that happened around the release of 3E, and that was the return of Shade and the return of Bane. The return of Bane was left largely mysterious and was never detailed, but the Return of the Archwizard's novels details the return of Shade. That also introduces the Shadow Weave, which is portrayed as Lord Karsus put it - always having been there.
However, throughout the course of 3E there were several retcons or at least conflicting explanations for the Shadow Weave.
Other than that, a lot of the changes came through retcons. The changes to the map was a retcon, and at the time the biggest debates and arguments were over the retcon to the cosmology. The Realms abandoned the Great Wheel Cosmology for the Great Tree Cosmology. This really messed things up in terms of Planescape, and the fact that there is a lot of Realms lore tying the Realms to other worlds.
The shift from the Great Wheel caused some serious continuity issues, at least when talking about multi-spheric deities and the planes.
By and large the major changes the Realms endured as a result of the edition switch were retcons. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2384 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2014 : 12:21:39
|
| Also, there's the matter of disintegrating drow equipment. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2384 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 08:15:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
You mean the Drowcraft magic item property.
I mean going back and forth on it (we all know the story about how this got into "Starlight & Shadows", right?).
And even going "back" changed the underlaying principles: originally the whole point was a trade-off in that radiation quasimagic weapon/armor is much cheaper to make than actual enchantment, but doesn't do anything beyond having "+X" high enough that a stable enchantment doing the same would be prohibitively expensive. Which was the obvious reason for cities waning and waxing with faerzess and e.g. Sshamath needing 3 different boosts to survive a switch to standard enchantments.
Also, the prerequisites of contingency and disintegrate suggests that it's an intentional function, which is downright laughable.
quote:
I am using that now on really old drow magic items the party finds in my campaign while exploring ruins in the Underdark.
I think the explanation in whatever sourcebook detailed the drowcraft property was that it was popular years ago before the drow took to making regular forays to the surface
Before? The Dark Court Slaughter, Twisted Tower - rings any bells?
It looks like more of the opposite: in "recent" times raids dwindled to the point that they may not be the primary way to regulate population anymore, and many drow get their official Blooding in other ways.
quote:
then it fell out of favour and is becoming less and less common (for obvious reasons).
Not obvious, really. Drow (other than refugees and merchants) began to visit surface only in brief raids and don't expect to stay there after sunrise.
With the old approach, there's at least a reason for higher-ranked drow to get permanently enchanted equipment: they need "+X" less, thus an advantage of items doing something non-trivial outweights it - and they can afford those, of course. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 09:51:26
|
| I have never really understood the change... of the cosmology. I have personally never really had much to do ingame with the cosmology aspect. I would like to understand how everysthing is connectied. Where Sigils is compared to the crystal sphere of Realmsspace and such... but it seems to be dificult to actually get concrete fact on... |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2384 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 14:44:22
|
Which cosmology?
But yes, unless you play Planescape (as such or as side-adventures), cosmology should become relevant very rarely. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Cbad285
Learned Scribe
160 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 15:03:17
|
As far as rules go...
I have little xp with anything beyond 2nd edition. However from what I gathered the prof rule was replaced with a buy point system. For instance, a fighter could purchase x amount of slots in move silently provided he could afford to cross class skills. That being said, feats came into the picture. These are abilities gained through a branch system. ie, you have to have one feat before you can obtain another. These ranged from things like being quick on initiative to being able to wield two two handed weapons at one time.
All in all, my opinion remains the same. Ed Greenwood has said on various occasions that his own home campaign runs on 2nd edition rules and D&D next is largely taking those rules and giving them a new spin. I've read through most of the beta release material and its a spitting image of my old phb's.
Suffice to say i think 2.5 is still the reigning champ as far as editions go.
but thats just my opinion |
"Beware the Dream Fever!" |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 16:56:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Which cosmology?
But yes, unless you play Planescape (as such or as side-adventures), cosmology should become relevant very rarely.
I was thinking between the great wheel and the great tree. I fisrt started playing D&D when 3rd edition made its entry on the scene so I have been quite confused about what and how things worked. I have not really done my homework on the matter, but how the cosmology have always been a cunfusing area for me. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 17:39:58
|
There was one major story event - the return of the Shades.
Other then that, though, the transition was fairly seamless. In fact, until the very end, even the Shades had very little impact on the Realms.
I think moving the setting forward in decade-long chunks was perfect... they should have stuck with that. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 18:26:06
|
I was confused/annoyed by the change in cosmology too. Partly because TSR and then WotC made way too big of a deal out of the gods anyway... it was never appropriate to give them game stats in the first place.
But I think I've come to some kind of understanding of the difference between the Wheel and the Tree.
The Wheel is based on alignment... most LE outsiders are going to come from the Nine Hells (Baator), with a few in the planes on either side.
The Tree is based on alliances and philosophy. Deities can occupy the same "branch" even if they don't have the same alignments, and deities with the same alignment may be on different branches if their social networks or personalities aren't compatible. Radically different alignments, like Urdlen in the gnome pantheon, might still live somewhere else (due to their philosophies being closer to demons or whatever else).
The Wheel, which came first, kinda set us up for confusion by giving the planes certain names. We associate the Norse pantheon with Ysgard, but the Norse gods don't/shouldn't all have exactly the same alignments and putting the pantheon together in spite of that difference is more of a Tree idea. Ysgard (and Hades, and probably others) should have been given a name which didn't evoke any particular culture. Which is probably where the secondary names came from (Gray Waste rather than Hades, for instance).
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents, and off-topic at that.
The mutating of the map was, imo, a bigger in-game change than most others give it credit for. It changed travel times, erased some places from existence, and as Aldrick said it was a giant retcon. Which makes their selective refusals to retcon even more irritating than they would otherwise be.
The Return of Shade also had profound impacts on the so-called Heartlands... it just wasn't played that way in all campaigns. Fortunately, it was sorta easy to ignore most of the time. That makes it a little bit easier on those of us who thought it was a stupid idea to bring it back.
|
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 11 Apr 2014 18:29:49 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 06:17:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorfar
What about other switches? Like the original realms, and switch to ad&d or 3.0 to 4.0.
Teh biggest change between AD&D and Third Edition D&D was actually a set of revisions to the D&D game and a set of changes to the D&D rules that had an effect on how the Realms was viewed, and thus on how it would be published in the new (at the time) Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (FRCS) hardback.
Some of these rules changes included:
- The removal of demihuman level limits.
- Removing any rules that applied only to NPCs and not to PCs.
- Removing the concept that all campaign worlds--published or homebrew--existed in one Prime Material Plane.
- Nixing the concept of Drow magic items decaying in sunlight.
- No more infravision (it was replaced by darkvision).
- Dwarves no longer having an aversion to or difficulty with magic items.
- Removing longevity magic (think: potions of longevity) from the game.
- The inclusion of a set of rules applicable to PCs and NPCs alike for spell and magic item creation and valuation.
This list is not exhaustive, but I think it hits the noteworthy differences between AD&D and 3E.
Here's the trick: the alterations to the Realms were meant to viewed through the lens of the D&D rules. That is, if you played OD&D or AD&D and not 3E, you could flip the channel (so to speak) on your magic television and you'd see--and be able to run a Realms campaign--where the baseline assumptions of whatever system of D&D rules system you were using to play the game have always been in place.
This didn't sit well with some people, who preferred the Realms be contiguous in all its parts and saw any revision not as a change unique to an edition of the D&D game, but as a retcon.
Further, 3E didn't go out of its way to address the backlog of Realmslore questions that naturally cropped up as a result of the revisions.
Personally, I liked a bunch of the changes (AD&D's demihuman level limits were a really dumb idea, in my not so humble opinion, and so were spell and class options that are only available to NPCs [Elven High Mage, for example]).
Others were annoying: Narbondel became a lot less cool, for example.
Note: the revisions to the Realms map were made so that the continent of Faerūn could be presented on one poster sized map. The new map did not retcon out of existence any place or location found on previous maps. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 12 Apr 2014 06:21:14 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2384 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 07:51:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Some of these rules changes included:
- The removal of demihuman level limits.
[...]
- Dwarves no longer having an aversion to or difficulty with magic items.
...leading also to appearance of halfling and dwarven archmages.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 08:27:48
|
quote:
Further, 3E didn't go out of its way to address the backlog of Realmslore questions that naturally cropped up as a result of the revisions.
Yeah, that was the main problem. As for the transition itself, it was almost seamless (map and drowcraft notwithstanding) |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 08:41:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zireael
quote:
Further, 3E didn't go out of its way to address the backlog of Realmslore questions that naturally cropped up as a result of the revisions.
Yeah, that was the main problem. As for the transition itself, it was almost seamless (map and drowcraft notwithstanding)
I should clarify that when I say 3E didn't address lore questions, I mean at the start of its release.
There was some work done to smooth things over after the fact, of course, both in game products and online (such as on these forums--always a worthy activity, that). |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 08:41:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Note: the revisions to the Realms map were made so that the continent of Faerūn could be presented on one poster sized map. The new map did not retcon out of existence any place or location found on previous maps.
The rationalization doesn't make it a good decision. If the goal was to put the Realms on one piece of paper because it's easier to work with one sheet as opposed to two, they could have done that without performing a nip/tuck. Like everyone, or nearly everyone, else here I'm not in a position to say definitively what their real motive was, but it's clear that it wasn't our convenience or ease of play. I'm left thinking someone just wanted to reduce the open space in the Realms, and saving money at the same time sounded cool. That's a lame idea cake, with greed frosting.
Regarding erasing things: Westwood, between Waterdeep and Kryptgarden Forest. You can find it on page 62 of the Atlas, and on the 1e/2e poster maps, but you won't find it on the 3e 4-poster map because it isn't there. More pointedly, it can't be there because the area has been so warped. Kryptgarden has been moved south to occupy the space that Westwood was in before. The mountains that were north of Kryptgarden also no longer exist. The town of Westbridge... there's theoretically room for it to still sit between Red Larch and Triboar, but the distance between those two towns has been reduced by so much that it seems weird to have another in the middle... and look at that, it disappeared. 
I like your list of changes, Jeremy, and I'm in full agreement that the demihuman level limits were stupid and infravision was cool, but (in spite of Westwood not getting any/much print during 1e/2e) 3e also set a precedent for willful/negligent destruction of lore. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2384 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 09:29:10
|
| Did anyone actually use demihuman level limitations? Or the Slow advancement and Prime requisite bonus options were actually as "optional" as Death's door? FR had mentions of this - in elven campaigns (Cormanthyr), for one. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 14:29:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Some of these rules changes included:
- The removal of demihuman level limits.
[...]
- Dwarves no longer having an aversion to or difficulty with magic items.
...leading also to appearance of halfling and dwarven archmages.
And that was one of the things that most bugged me about the transition -- not that we suddenly had the previously forbidden dwarven wizards, but the fact that in this case, they gave themselves a perfect way to explain it, and opted not to.
The 3E FRCS has a bit on the Thunder Blessing, and how it increased the dwarven birthrate. Just a single sentence here, about Moradin gifting his people with magic, would have explained how dwarves went from having issues with magic items to being able to wield it themselves. Just a single sentence -- but they opted not to do that.
There was a thread here where someone wanted to do some variant Spellplague, and I came up with a way to have some of its lesser effects, but connected to the return of Shade, instead... When I first read about the return of Shade, I assumed WotC was going to use that as the mechanism to explain in-setting changes. I remain highly disappointed that they did not.
But for this alternate Spellplague, I ran with that idea. My idea was that when seeking divinity, Karsus needed more arcane energy than a mortal could handle -- so he used carefully-crafted sets of standing stones as a kind of arcane capacitor that he could draw on. Centuries later, when the Shades were ready to come back, they too needed more power than they could get -- so they decided to use those same sets of standing stones. But some of them had become misaligned, and they had been storing way more energy than they were designed to. So when the Shades tapped them, they released orders of magnitude more power than they expected or could control. The excess energy washed across the Realms, and it altered how some people accessed magic (sorcerers and other arcane variants) and enabled previously magic-less peoples (namely, dwarves) to use magic.
It could also cause the other magical effects of the Spellplague. That was what inspired the idea, but as I was writing it all down, I realized how ideal it was for explaining some of the changes of the 2E/3E transition. It wouldn't explain map or planar changes, or things like that Silvaeren NPC who went from good to evil, but it would be a start.
There was once a list of all of the things that changed in that transition... I wish I'd saved it! I've not been able to find it, but it was quite extensive. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 20:50:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Some of these rules changes included:
- The removal of demihuman level limits.
[...]
- Dwarves no longer having an aversion to or difficulty with magic items.
...leading also to appearance of halfling and dwarven archmages.
And that was one of the things that most bugged me about the transition -- not that we suddenly had the previously forbidden dwarven wizards, but the fact that in this case, they gave themselves a perfect way to explain it, and opted not to.
The 3E FRCS has a bit on the Thunder Blessing, and how it increased the dwarven birthrate. Just a single sentence here, about Moradin gifting his people with magic, would have explained how dwarves went from having issues with magic items to being able to wield it themselves. Just a single sentence -- but they opted not to do that.
There was a thread here where someone wanted to do some variant Spellplague, and I came up with a way to have some of its lesser effects, but connected to the return of Shade, instead... When I first read about the return of Shade, I assumed WotC was going to use that as the mechanism to explain in-setting changes. I remain highly disappointed that they did not.
But for this alternate Spellplague, I ran with that idea. My idea was that when seeking divinity, Karsus needed more arcane energy than a mortal could handle -- so he used carefully-crafted sets of standing stones as a kind of arcane capacitor that he could draw on. Centuries later, when the Shades were ready to come back, they too needed more power than they could get -- so they decided to use those same sets of standing stones. But some of them had become misaligned, and they had been storing way more energy than they were designed to. So when the Shades tapped them, they released orders of magnitude more power than they expected or could control. The excess energy washed across the Realms, and it altered how some people accessed magic (sorcerers and other arcane variants) and enabled previously magic-less peoples (namely, dwarves) to use magic.
It could also cause the other magical effects of the Spellplague. That was what inspired the idea, but as I was writing it all down, I realized how ideal it was for explaining some of the changes of the 2E/3E transition. It wouldn't explain map or planar changes, or things like that Silvaeren NPC who went from good to evil, but it would be a start.
There was once a list of all of the things that changed in that transition... I wish I'd saved it! I've not been able to find it, but it was quite extensive.
This sounds very cool! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 23:01:17
|
The Prime Material plane was defined as containing āallā the Primes. But it was also defined as containing only one (āTheā Prime, as opposed to all those Alternate Prime Material places). And it was said that the events of every group of characters, at each gaming table, in each novel and story, took place in a Prime which was a uniquely possible expression of a single universe within a nearly infinite multiverse, allowing each DM to claim his Realms (or other setting) was truly authentic yet not necessarily enslaved to canon.
All these definitions in AD&D 1E, btw. Depending on which sourcebooks you used.
And again in AD&D 2E. Even in Planescape, a setting based on the planes themselves. Depending on which sourcebooks you used.
And again in D&D 3.0, again in D&D 3.5. Depending on which sourcebooks you used.
Similar self-inconsistencies existed within each edition in their treatment of psionics. Initially absent or optional, later introduced or expanded or mainstreamed by newer ācoreā rulebooks or various psionic-themed splatbooks. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2014 : 23:11:00
|
But a more succinct answer to the OP:
The difference is that old AD&D was *better* than new D&D, of course!
Less focus on builds and item customization and streamlined genera and stat blocks out the masterwork keen vorpal yin-yang. More focus on just playing the game, using whatever race, class(es), spells, and items you got - ugly warts and complexities and all - to do whatever must be done on your adventures.
And no demasculated orcs. No drow pretending to be good aligned (with one notable exception). No half-immortal godlings mucking around the landscape (aside from DM pets). Ah, those were the days! |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 01:09:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
No half-immortal godlings mucking around the landscape
Iuz is from old AD&D. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 01:26:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Did anyone actually use demihuman level limitations? Or the Slow advancement and Prime requisite bonus options were actually as "optional" as Death's door? FR had mentions of this - in elven campaigns (Cormanthyr), for one.
We never really bothered with level limits back in the day. Highest level campaign I played in back in the day had a pair of elven twins that were 15th level wizards (they were the highest out of the group).
The majority of demihuman NPC's fell within level limit ranges anyways if I recall. We did use the death's door option. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 05:56:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
And no demasculated orcs. No drow pretending to be good aligned (with one notable exception).
Actually, Qilue and the drow of the Promenade were from 2E. Liriel Baenre (my favorite drow, other than my sorta one-armed assassin NPC) is also from 2E.
There may have been one more good drow, but we never found out her alignment, and I for one am still waiting to learn more about her. |
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 - 13 Apr 2014 : 07:05:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
The rationalization doesn't make it a good decision. If the goal was to put the Realms on one piece of paper because it's easier to work with one sheet as opposed to two, they could have done that without performing a nip/tuck.
They just might have.
Personally, I think if they'd zoomed out until it all fit on one map then that map would have been crap, even if Rob Lazzeretti drew it up.
Not a delicate way to say it, obviously, but there's such a thing as too much detail on a continent sized map.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Like everyone, or nearly everyone, else here I'm not in a position to say definitively what their real motive was, but it's clear that it wasn't our convenience or ease of play.
All you need to do is dig out your old copies of Dragon magazine (issue #283, May 2001) and read the Countdown to the Forgotten Realms article on page 26.
According to the article, the map was revised to:
Better reflect the curvature of Toril (I'll leave it up to Markus to determine if they succeeded there).
Fit the entirety of the continent on one poster map.
To do this, they omitted large tracts of empty space (we know this space was put their by Ed so DMs could drop whole nations in if they wanted) and removed some parts of the Realms the map folded in on itself to fit the curve that Rich Baker was looking for.
Ironically, the captions to the photos in that article refer to the chopping up of the map as "the Sundering of Faerūn."
If you use the same noteworthy dedication and attention to detail that you apply to your lore collecting (something I rely on, mind, to double-check my own lore collecting work) to the collecting of details and facts about the history behind the design of the Realms, I think you'll see that it's not always about nefarious, money grubbing corporate goons out to steal our money and give us a sub-standard product.
You will probably still disagree with the decisions made, but you'll also be hard pressed to prove that people were being evil.
Also, I could have swore there was an online feature on the WotC website about the map changes, but I couldn't find anything via the Internet Wayback Machine.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Regarding erasing things: Westwood, between Waterdeep and Kryptgarden Forest. You can find it on page 62 of the Atlas, and on the 1e/2e poster maps, but you won't find it on the 3e 4-poster map because it isn't there.
I see what you mean.
The 3E map (and the later 4-poster set from Dragon magazine) doesn't include one of my favorite places, which is the Goblin Marches.
But it's still there, just like Westwood is still there, because the FRCS map and the 4-poster 3E map (served up one piece per issue via Dragon #287-290) isn't a complete map of every Realms location.
Near as I can tell the 4-poster map is the FRCS map zoomed in and cut into four parts (which was a disappointment for me, because WotC missed a chance to give new players more details, give older players like me a fresh new map with all the parts of the Realms I was familiar with because my old maps were falling apart and inadvertently reinforced the idea that certain parts of the Realms had been erased).
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
(snip) 3e also set a precedent for willful/negligent destruction of lore.
I just don't know what else to say.
The 3E map did not magically erase content found in 1E/2E maps or the Atlas.
WotC staffers did not stop using older sourcebooks when designing 3E Realms products.
I don't understand how people can--to this day--complain that WotC took their toys away, then turn around in another scroll and say uber-powered NPCs of the Realms aren't a problem because you can just hand wave them away because you're the DM and that's that.
If that's possible, then it's just as possible to hand wave places like Westwood back in. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 13 Apr 2014 07:22:31 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2384 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 08:34:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
And no demasculated orcs. No drow pretending to be good aligned (with one notable exception).
Actually, Qilue and the drow of the Promenade were from 2E. Liriel Baenre (my favorite drow, other than my sorta one-armed assassin NPC) is also from 2E.
Eearly Liriel was Chaotic Neutral, no? Jarlaxle acted obviously CN too, no matter what was in written up stats.
quote:
There may have been one more good drow, but we never found out her alignment, and I for one am still waiting to learn more about her.
Susprina Arkhenneld? Not necessarily. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 14:08:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
(snip) 3e also set a precedent for willful/negligent destruction of lore.
I just don't know what else to say.
The 3E map did not magically erase content found in 1E/2E maps or the Atlas.
WotC staffers did not stop using older sourcebooks when designing 3E Realms products.
I have to agree with Xaeyr, to a certain extent, here. One of the things I recall most with the transition to 3E was a Silvaeren spellcaster that abruptly went from good to evil. When asked about, Rich Baker's response was "Well, I thought we needed more evil NPCs here. So I changed her alignment."
That kind of thing does not show a respect for prior continuity -- it shows the opposite.
And the "things were always this way, it's just that no one knew about it!" approach to the retcons also shows a lack of respect for prior continuity. Even without that excuse, changing things without explanation does not show a respect for prior continuity. It is a deliberate break from continuity. |
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 - 13 Apr 2014 : 14:10:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There may have been one more good drow, but we never found out her alignment, and I for one am still waiting to learn more about her.
Susprina Arkhenneld? Not necessarily.
Susprina Arkhenneld, indeed. I've been wanting to know more about her since (the proper!) FOR2 The Drow of the Underdark first came out! |
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! |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 15:27:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There may have been one more good drow, but we never found out her alignment, and I for one am still waiting to learn more about her.
Susprina Arkhenneld? Not necessarily.
Susprina Arkhenneld, indeed. I've been wanting to know more about her since (the proper!) FOR2 The Drow of the Underdark first came out!
This would be cool, I'd love to know her backstory and current doings. Her sorcerer/wizard class combo (if I recall correctly) makes me think of a drow version of the Simbul. ;) |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 03:20:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Personally, I think if they'd zoomed out until it all fit on one map then that map would have been crap
I won't exactly disagree here, but my priorities might be different. I would have rather seen the map scaled to fit on the single poster rather than warped.
With this post I was actually thinking more in terms of making the map bigger, and keeping the scale the same. So instead of an 8x10.5 pack folding out to a 21x31.5 poster, they could have made it a 7x7.5 pack that folds out to 30x42.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
All you need to do is dig out your old copies of Dragon magazine (issue #283, May 2001) and read the Countdown to the Forgotten Realms article on page 26.
My turn to be indelicate. Ya know what's even more of a no-brainer than omitting Evermeet? If you want to give us Faerun on a globe, make a freakin globe! I can accept that Rich Baker might have been thinking about a globe, but I suspect no cartographer was given a proper say in this project.
All 2-d paper maps which appear in subsequent editions should mimic Ed's original map. I wasn't there, but it seems to me that the 3e map team picked a place (Shadowdale or Cormyr would be my guess, since things get progressively weirder as you get further away from there) and made that the center of the map. Stuck a literal or figurative pushpin in it. They then imagined how the map might curve as you get further away from that pin, wrapping it around a globe and gradually pulling the faraway points together. I dub the 3e map "Exhibit A" in my case that that's not the right way to do it.
Instead, I would start with the math: figure/decide the radii at the equator and the poles, etc. Then take a handful of key points (maybe Waterdeep, Candlekeep, Calimport, Selgaunt, Eltabbar, Beluir, and Halarahh) and place those on the globe with the proper angles between them -- even if the distances aren't quite identical to the 2d map, at least the directions must be the same. Once those points are plotted, take a handful of points around each one and plot those. And so on.
The result: Standing three feet back from the globe, sure the map might look a little different. But standing on the surface, anywhere in Faerun, your surroundings look the same as they do on the 2-d map. There are no situations like the Kryptgarden Forest occupying the same space as the Westwood. There are no ridiculous changes in distance like the sudden gap between the Giant's Belt and the Dustwall (west side of Raurin). Faerun still looks like Faerun.
There's also the point that Ed undoubtedly considered at some point before it was published how the Realms would look on a globe. Whatever changes he thought appropriate, he already made.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
we know this space was put their by Ed so DMs could drop whole nations in if they wanted
And what's good for Ed is good for me. My opinion that removing that space was a mistake is just as valid as the 3e map team's apparent belief that putting it in was a mistake. We're each entitled to our own opinion, right?
Except someone decided to play god. The 3e map team made an executive decision and effectively enforced one DM's campaign decisions on every FR player and DM. And just to pre-emptively squish the "yea but" that someone will inevitably throw in (not putting words in your mouth, Jeremy  ) no it's not just another way of looking at the Realms. We could call it an alternative view if the 2e map was updated for 3e, and if both the 2e and 3e maps were printed for 4e. They were not, and therefore it's not an alternate view. It's the view, barring a DM's decision to reject the map entirely. That decision renders the 3e map team's effort a total waste for X% of FR gamers.
It also creates another cause of friction at the table: now not only do we have to filter potential players by which ruleset they're willing to play in but now the map is potentially an issue too. Not a big deal for a lot of us, maybe, but why create yet another totally unnecessary axis on which players (particularly newer players who are still stuck in the "we have to do it according to canon" mode) are divided? Opinions can vary regarding where to place the fail, but there was indisputably a fail in there somewhere. I reclaim my right to my own opinion and place the fail at conception... with the notable exceptions of the updated color palette and nicer rendering of forests, moors, and water bodies, the entire 3e map project was a fiasco.
And just to be clear: the point of drawing attention to this fail is to suggest that it be corrected and not repeated. I'd like to see both the 2e and 3e maps updated for 5e. The worst outcome would be a new version of the map for 5e, without reprinting the old maps. And on the subject of maps, all of the poster maps from old products and going forward should be available from WotC's website, so that we can all order replacements for damaged maps.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If you use the same noteworthy dedication and attention to detail that you apply to your lore collecting (something I rely on, mind, to double-check my own lore collecting work) to the collecting of details and facts about the history behind the design of the Realms, I think you'll see that it's not always about nefarious, money grubbing corporate goons out to steal our money and give us a sub-standard product.
Thank you. I appreciate your efforts and skills too, and I mean no disrespect to you or to the authors of the products/editions that I heap abuse on. I do mean disrespect to the smaller-minded ideas behind the decisions that are made, but...
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
you'll also be hard pressed to prove that people were being evil.
...this is also true, and I ought to be better about letting it temper my rants.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
But it's still there, just like Westwood is still there, because the... map... isn't a complete map of every Realms location.
I agree with the larger point, but Westwood has either been moved-and-reduced or completely erased because the 3e Kryptgarden Forest occupies the same bend in the Sword Mountains where the Westwood stood in 1e/2e. Westwood simply isn't there anymore. It might be somewhere else.
Someone is doubtless thinking "dude, just change that part of the map back to the 2e version for your game." And I do use the 1e/2e maps in place of the 3e one, but if we can agree that (a) a map that eliminates things by moving other things around to take over their physical space is inaccurate, and (b) a map which must be edited is less valuable than a map which doesn't need to be edited, then what exactly is the value of the 3e map?
What I see is a nicely colored surrealist impression of the Realms, which demonstrates how cool a map of the Realms could have looked if they'd actually made a map of the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Near as I can tell the 4-poster map is the FRCS map zoomed in and cut into four parts (which was a disappointment for me, because WotC missed a chance to give new players more details, give older players like me a fresh new map with all the parts of the Realms I was familiar with because my old maps were falling apart and inadvertently reinforced the idea that certain parts of the Realms had been erased).
Agreed on all points, and well said. The 4-poster map should have added the labels (including the Goblin Marches) which were omitted from the single map for space/labelclutter reasons. But my impression at the time --which could easily be mistaken-- was that the folks at Dragon Magazine acquired permission to enlarge and reprint the map (but probably not to change it in any other way) upon learning that WotC was not planning to issue a larger version of the single-poster map. Good Guy Dragon Magazine imo, and it hopefully tweaked someone's nose regarding the misguided decision to shrink the original map down to 1 poster. Smaller maps with less detail is not, and has never been, what gamers want... and it boggles my mind that anyone at WotC (who supposedly gather feedback on various topics) could think it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
The 3E map did not magically erase content found in 1E/2E maps or the Atlas.
I don't understand how people can--to this day--complain that WotC took their toys away, then turn around in another scroll and say uber-powered NPCs of the Realms aren't a problem because you can just hand wave them away because you're the DM and that's that.
If that's possible, then it's just as possible to hand wave places like Westwood back in.
Except those "empty" spaces that you just acknowledged in the previous quote that were erased. Places which, assuming some of us used them as you say Ed intended that they be used, are not empty spaces for us. It's difficult to hand-wave those spaces back in, without defaulting back to the 2e maps. Which lowers the value of the 3e map to zilch for more of us.
Also, there is a huge difference between omitting an NPC and editing the map. Markus is more qualified than I am to comment on that, but I've spent enough time with gimp (and Drawbase, years ago) to say it's easier and faster to outline a new campaign setting than to edit a map.
Which might be latching onto just a small part of your point, but I maintain that fiddling with the maps is more involved than puttering with the text.
To a point, anyway. Undoing the TOT is a bigger job than just neglecting to mention an NPC in the adventure.
Anyway... all just my opinions, often strongly felt/stated but not with any delusions of controlling anyone else. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Differences between ad&d and 3.0 forgotten realms.
