| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 06:48:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That kind of thing does not show a respect for prior continuity -- it shows the opposite.
And that's my cue to exit the scroll.   |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 14 Apr 2014 06:49:37 |
 |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 08:37:09
|
Bah, if anyone should leave, it's the hottest head in the room and that will probably always be me. The last thing anyone needs is for the guy who calms me down to go quiet.  |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2014 : 09:00:51
|
| Jumping on the Susprina Arkhenneld bandwagon, I'd love to know more about her, too! |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2014 : 14:43:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
I have to also agree here especially with the map issue. I give you as exhibit A, my wife who bless her heart has just started playing D&D and I just introduced her to FR. In her infinite innocence, she looks at one map, then looks at the other, and then immediately asks me "why they aren't the same" and the "cities aren't the same distance apart" and "where is such and such?".
Thus I think the argument and/or perceived need for a "condensed" map is total crap. Can there by too much detail on a map? Yes.
Can you make a poster sized map that still "shows everything" that is supposed to be there even if it's a dot that says "Westbridge"? Yes.
Hell the cities and roads don't even appear close to the same, in fact I was reading Elfshadow last night and I think a few RIVERS also went "poof".
Compare a map of Silverymoon between what's in the Silver Marches sourcebook and what came in the FRCS...they aren't even close and they are the SAME EDITION (well nearly).
If a person who has never seen the FR before is put off like this, you can imagine how the 1st edition hard cores felt.
WHATEVER the justification was, does not a good decision make. |
Edited by - Cards77 on 15 Apr 2014 14:51:39 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2014 : 19:52:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
my wife who bless her heart has just started playing D&D and I just introduced her to FR.
Wooo! Welcome to the Realms, CardsWife!
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
In her infinite innocence, she looks at one map, then looks at the other, and then immediately asks me "why they aren't the same" and the "cities aren't the same distance apart" and "where is such and such?".
Hah. This is a great example of problems created at the table. The difference in distances can be contentious; travel times can vary between campaigns based on which map is being used, and players hate that. There are plenty of others.
Following the Dessarin out of Waterdeep, you should be going north. But in 3e you go east instead.
Going to the big island of Mintarn from the mouth of the Chionthar is almost 400 miles "as the crow flies" in 2e... 325 miles west and 225 miles north. In 3e, that island is just 285 miles straight west from the rivermouth.
Even though the distance from Waterdeep to Baldur's Gate was reduced by about 112 miles (almost 24%) the length of the Moonshaes was only reduced by 22 miles (3%), leaving the Moonshaes relatively unscathed while reducing the rest of the coastline. (Although some mountains on Moray and Snowdown were drawn as moors.)
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
If a person who has never seen the FR before is put off like this, you can imagine how the 1st edition hard cores felt.
I'm getting more comfortable with my conciliatory statement above, or maybe in another thread. Each edition of the Realms is acceptable... it's the turning of one version into the next that is not acceptable. If the 1e and 2e maps didn't exist, then the 3e map would have been fine because it would have been our first view of the world. But we do have the 1e and 2e maps, and they came first. By deciding not to reprint the 2e map along with the new 3e map, WotC created a conflict where DMs have to choose one map and declare the other one wrong and useless. In addition to cheapening the work of the artists and proofreaders, this creates problems for players.
Some no doubt prefer the 3e map over the earlier ones. If the only basis for that choice is the prettier colors/graphics, then it's not much of a fight because it's easy to make the 1e/2e maps prettier. And of course if you play the 4e Realms you're kinda stuck with the 4e map (or making your own) because major geographic features would be missing otherwise.
All of these problems point to the wisdom of at least preserving the original maps, even if they choose to create new "alternate views" along the way. All of this was also foreseeable.
But this is probably becoming a too-large tangent to the original question, which asks about other differences and other version changes. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Differences between ad&d and 3.0 forgotten realms.
