| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Jul 2017 : 05:02:46
|
1. How far ahead should we move the timeline?
Three to five years at much.
2. How will we deal with the events of the Sundering, considering very little is published?
I'm with Irennan, try to explain them in a logical way, since the published products don't explain anything: they just happen.
3. How will we deal with future WotC published canon which may overwrite or rewrite something that we publish as a community?
Well, since WotC only publish stuff for the Sword Coast, I doubt this will affect all the project. I guess we should ignore that canon unless is decided that WotC canon is interesting enough to override the CKcanon.
4. If people are writing in previous edition eras, what happens to their work if it is overwritten in the future by WotC's canon?
Same as answer 3.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Starting from 1491 (current year) will do.
Or maybe a few years after (1493-95). It allows DMs and players to develop their current adventures normally, and the CKcanon to not override current material, yet to be connected to it as a recent backstory.
Better yet, we can start in 1500. New canon, new century. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 15 Jul 2017 05:09:38 |
 |
|
|
Adhriva
Learned Scribe
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2017 : 05:59:25
|
1. How far ahead should we move the timeline?
My preference is for 1495DR and 1555DR, as has already been suggested. I'm fine with either. Truth be told, I want to add the work and art of my Eclipse Empire project to this if it comes to pass and both those dates work remarkable well (1495DR was the exact end of the first half and 1555DR was the end of the whole story). Even without that bias, both dates would be good for the general wiki concept at hand although I would lean toward the first for relevancy. The realms change quickly, or they change very slowly...there really isn't much in between when it comes to canon so I would lean towards keeping the time jump short.
2. How will we deal with the events of the Sundering, considering very little is published?
I know I can handle the events in the Herald (last book of that series) by adding elements and context instead of changing them. As such, I'm confidant the community can make the other events work solidly as well by adding to the framework.
3. How will we deal with future WotC published canon which may overwrite or rewrite something that we publish as a community?
If it's better then what we have, then let them. We can vote on which we'd prefer - but given the state of things I don't expect any change to be substantial or widespread. It's also important to remember we're here because they haven't been doing that for some time now. If they do continue it, most of us will have formed a niche community or moved on by then so I kinda expect it to be a mute point.
4. If people are writing in previous edition eras, what happens to their work if it is overwritten in the future by WotC's canon?
Same as the question above. I don't think it's any different and should be handled the same way. |
Professional illustrator and comic book artist.
Portfolio |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2017 : 17:47:26
|
I'm with Adhriva. I needed to think, and what to see what others suggested before saying anything.
Honestly, if WotC does get their act together and starts focusing on the Realms again, great! But even if what we create does get overwritten by WotC, we can still create it (that's why it's unofficial canon). If they do something we like, we can always find ways to incorporate it.
|
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Jeff Strix
Acolyte
Germany
21 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2017 : 21:10:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I'm with Adhriva. I needed to think, and what to see what others suggested before saying anything.
Honestly, if WotC does get their act together and starts focusing on the Realms again, great! But even if what we create does get overwritten by WotC, we can still create it (that's why it's unofficial canon). If they do something we like, we can always find ways to incorporate it.
This is also a good idea, if they will do a really good content (I doubt it, but yeah, maybe) - why not. As I remember, before 5 Edition release (or after...doesn't matter) WotC said - create your own realms, your own history and the things we discuss here and now are exactly what WotC meant  |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2017 : 21:28:11
|
| and start off the little know prophesy of aluando( spelled right??) that foretold of the candle timeline... |
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 |
|
|
|
BadCatMan
Senior Scribe
Australia
401 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2017 : 13:04:04
|
People seem to be getting hung up on either/or questions, but to quote the Old El Paso ad, "Why don't we have both?" :D A wiki can easily accommodate multiple different projects, through different namespaces, users' own sandboxes, or categories. People could work on Ol' Gray Box–style pre–Time of Troubles articles; or in the Lost Century; in the current era of whenever 5th edition is set; or jump ahead into the 1500s DR and put their own stamp on things; or some weird parallel universe total reworking, and never really have to come into contact or worry about what others are doing. They don't even have to agree.
And if WotC eventually overwrites something published on CKW, then, well, it's a wiki. It can be rewritten. Anyone can come around and revise or update an article to accommodate the new lore, whether it's changing a name or date or modifying events more extensively, removing things outright, or even deleting the page or renaming it back to a sandbox space. Previous text on a page is saved in its Revision History, and deleted page can be restored, so nothing is fully lost. It would be bad form to alter a user's personal project, but a public page could be open to revision. Users could discuss whether to make changes and what kind on an article's Talk page, while wider matters can be covered in the Forum. So, retcons? What retcons? :) This could be the first canon that's wholly fluid and evolving, with no continuity errors or contradictions.
To demonstrate how I suppose the CKW could work, I've mocked up an article for it. So, the process. Here's the canonical article on the Forgotten Realms Wiki:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Bladewright
Here's the homebrewed background for a short-lived PC of mine I posted on Candlekeep last year:
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21136
And here's the very first article on the Candlekeep Wiki: :D
http://candlekeep.wikia.com/wiki/User:BadCatMan/Hooked_on_Psionics/Order_of_the_Bladewright
(Templates were a bit too tedious to hack up at this stage.)
So, I took the layout and text of the canonical article, cut-up my homebrewed stuff, and interspersed it together with appropriate revisions and linking text. In the end, I removed my own PC Sambrylla Smith, and left an unnamed and non-gendered young member of the Order of the Bladewright in her place. That way, any player can choose to add their own PC in that slot, or a GM could spin an NPC out of it. It's an open plothook and character suggestion that makes this fanon useful for gaming and storytelling.
Each line is referenced to either an existing canon work or to myself, so a reader can check which is which. With good referencing, multiple fan writers can add their own lore. Say George Krashos has something about Impiltur that touches on the Order of the Bladewright. New lore on the Order's origins? Add it! Different events in the coronation? Remove it and change it.
I've put this in the User namespace, so at this stage it's just a personal project. I wouldn't expect anyone to fiddle with it. But say the fan community especially likes it. They could set some criteria: agrees with canon and accepted fanon, fits the spirit of the Realms, and provides plothooks. People can vote on it in the Forum or on the Talk page, make suggestions or request revisions, and decided whether to accept it or not. The process could be similar to how the FRW votes on its Featured Articles. If the page is rejected, it waits for improvement or languishes in obscurity. If accepted, it could be renamed to the Main namespace (with no "User:BadCatMan\") and becomes a part of the Candlekanon. If for some reason it's no longer valid (say Wizards declares the Order of the Bladewright were illithids all along), it can be retracted.
For those who still love their sourcebooks, the best approved articles might be collated into a Candlekeep Compendium each year.
In any case, using a wiki would preserve a lot of the write-ups that get lost in the Candlekeep Forum archives, making fanon lore findable and easily linkable. It would also bring in the homebrew work of other fans, who'd otherwise have to use a separate website or keep it at home, so they can easily share write-ups with their players. |
BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki |
Edited by - BadCatMan on 11 Aug 2017 13:15:37 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2017 : 14:38:57
|
So, the wiki already exists? Count me aboard...
Though I guess, is time to agree in what is the CKW canon. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2017 : 15:26:33
|
1. How far ahead should we move the timeline?
Five or ten years at most -- enough for breathing room, but not so much that existing canon is no longer useful as a starting point. And I don't think WotC is going to catch up to that any time soon -- even when we were getting oodles of stuff, the timeline crawled forward.
2. How will we deal with the events of the Sundering, considering very little is published?
Just go with what we know. As I've said more than once, something doesn't violate canon if canon doesn't address it. So if we have a blank spot, and put something in that blank spot, it's not a violation of known canon, because known canon doesn't say it's wrong.
3. How will we deal with future WotC published canon which may overwrite or rewrite something that we publish as a community?
With WotC only giving us dribs and drabs at the moment, I don't see this being an issue.
4. If people are writing in previous edition eras, what happens to their work if it is overwritten in the future by WotC's canon?
For the Realms, WotC (and TSR before them) has generally avoided anything that wasn't set in the here-and-now. Even if WotC was currently giving us lore like they did in 2E or even 3E, I don't see this as being a concern.
|
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!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 16 Jul 2017 15:33:16 |
|
|
|
fw190a8
Acolyte
United Kingdom
32 Posts |
|
|
Lhynard
Acolyte
USA
33 Posts |
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
|
|
Adhriva
Learned Scribe
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 05:26:01
|
| Aldrick, has a consensus or decision been reached regarding where the concept of a fanon wiki is going? |
Professional illustrator and comic book artist.
Portfolio |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 06:48:31
|
| I also like to know if there is any consensus about the fanon. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 06:55:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Ten years later, and literally nothing has changed. Kinda funny, kinda depressing.
AYUP.
I hear you, brother.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 14:29:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adhriva
Aldrick, has a consensus or decision been reached regarding where the concept of a fanon wiki is going?
I created a new thread taking into account all the feedback.
I wanted to give everyone the opportunity to respond here without a lot of cross-talk discussion. It does not appear that anyone else will be adding anything new. So, the discussion in this thread is now over. Future discussions should be moved to the new thread, to discuss the new consensus proposal. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4426 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 15:08:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Ten years later, and literally nothing has changed. Kinda funny, kinda depressing.
AYUP.
I hear you, brother.
It's what people want. "Change" without actual change. Actual change occurred and people didn't like it. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 17:07:14
|
| Just because a specific change was disliked doesn't mean all change is disliked. The Realms have been changing since the OGB came out. It's just that some changes have been bigger than others. |
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! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4426 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 17:39:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Just because a specific change was disliked doesn't mean all change is disliked. The Realms have been changing since the OGB came out. It's just that some changes have been bigger than others.
Well that's sort of a the crux isn't it? The bigger the disturbance, the more or less people will dislike it. I wasn't big into the Realms when the Time of Trouble came about so I don't know what the popular consensus was regarding that thing but I can't imagine it was accepted with loving, open arms.
And honestly, that's somewhat realistic. Not all change is happily accepted and sometimes it down right sucks (from a setting narrative, not from the 3rd-person player perspective). And that's pretty much been the Realms Wheelhouse for a couple of decades now. How much the change affects the Realms and it's acceptance are correlate well with one another.
Take say....the reclamation of Myth Drannor that occurred during the end of the 1300's DR (1375-ish I believe). It's sorta big in that it changes the landscape (politically and demographically) of an area BUT it's not SOOO big that it affects the happenings in Thay or the Sword Coast or Calimshan or the Dragon Coast. It's BIG but it's acceptable because it can still be used in some of it's original, dungeon-esque form because not all the city was saved or purged.
Then take say.....the Spellplague. It's HUGE in terms that it literally reshapes the landscape (politically, demographically, and geologically) of ALL the Realms. It's widely hated. Now there are other reasons why it's hated such as it's move to an unpopular version of D&D (despite those who love it), the 100 year jump with literally nothing between to help the transition, the killing off of major NPCs, the removal of certain lands and implanted with new ones, and the list continues.
Take the Time of Troubles. It's HUGE in terms that it changes how ALL magic works on the ENTIRE planet. Not only that but it also effects many political aspects and changes other parts of the setting too. I can't fathom people being excited that their Magic-User of X-amount of years basically doesn't do anything anymore. Or that their cleric can't cast any spells without being in the near vicinity of their deity. Playing classes like those in the years of the Time of Troubles must've stunk. The hatred for the ToT isn't nearly as big as it is for the Spellplague but I believe it still was there.
How many times have we seen people hoping for no more Realms-Shaking Events? Why? Because it changes the WHOLE setting. But the thing is, if there's change but on such a minimal scale then I have to really ask, why bother? I mean unless you're keeping up with the Canon of the Realms in every game you run in the setting or are heavily invested in what's going on in the area and MUST have progression, why not just have some fun stories about that area that doesn't change it much? Some of the best Realms stories don't change a thing about the area it's in. Look at novels like Erik Scott de Bie's Downshadow, Shadowbane, and Eye of Justice — they all take place in cities like Waterdeep and Westgate but no major changes occur there (except for a great story).
Honestly I think the Realms needs a break in pretty much moving forward on any major plot point. With the novels being discontinued, I don't think that's going to be a huge problem. The adventures are pretty big but the PCs job is simply to keep the status-quo after all is said and done. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 18:34:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It's what people want. "Change" without actual change. Actual change occurred and people didn't like it.
Yes and no.
Little changes were fine. I didn't like the Moonstars. In fact, the feeling I get just by typing that name goes well beyond dislike. However, I didn't have a hissy fit over it, and proclaim, "I am leaving FR forever!" There were lots of things I didn't agree with, from minor stupidity like lichlings (in truth, I am more annoyed about where that adventure was located, than the lichlings themselves), to stuff that should NOT be considered 'canon' (Swords of the Iron Legion - UGH!!!), to outright, "WHY?! What is the point of any of this?!" (return of the Shades - we already had the Malaugrym, which not only come from the same place with the same sort of agenda, but are also FAR more interesting).
And yet, I was still here, all throughout 3e. In fact, I became a MUCH bigger fan during that period, and started making my maps (despite the fact the the inconsistent layout of the 3e maps still makes my head hurt). There was really nothing that made me even consider anything this project is trying accomplish, despite my feelings toward specific points of lore.
And then 4e happened, and it divided the fandom. All this time we've been thinking there was just 'two camps', when really, the fandom wasn't Sundered, it was Shattered (see what I did there?  ). Instead of just accepting people who were playing in 'past editions' (although at that time we were all still using the same canon... for the most part), people began taking offense to it, in a bizarre way, as if someone playing in a different period or with different rules than you was some sort of attack on your own intelligence/taste.
And then, of course, there was the 'time jump', and no matter what anyone says to the contrary, that alone was FR's death-knell. We could have weathered nearly anything else (after all, we survived the Tot, and most of us disliked that), but that was just way too solid a dividing line. All 5e did was make more room on one side of that 'great divide'.
So, let me finally make my point: Before 4e we were still all in the same 'book', if not on precisely the same page. It's like asking Harry Potter fans which was their favorite novel - they're not going to go to war over that. They have the established canon of the setting to all fall back on. It is their 'common ground'. We lost that somewhere. Probably when we lost faith in the people creating said canon. Once the majority of decided to simply ignore 'official stuff', it opened Pandora's box. Whereas before we could do something like the CK-compendiums because we were all still fans of FR, despite our differences, now we have all gone on our own directions, mentally. While we may still agree on certain things within a subset of 'alternate timelines' ("let's all agree the Spellplague never happened"), we will NEVER, EVER agree on 'where' the canon went after after we start ignoring official canon.
And thats been our problem with this newest take on a compendium-like project. You either say, "everything that has happened HAS happened", and build on that (and yes, we can still build within the 'past' of that timeline, and even spin things in different ways than what the official canon would have done... had they ever decided to detail anything after 3e). Putting 'new spins' on established lore is fine - it's basically what they did with 4e (call it a retcon, call it backwards-engineering, etc., it's all the same thing). But what it is NOT is ignoring official canon and over-writing it.
And no matter what this project decides to do, I will (probably) still participate, simply by making the lore chunks I write modular, so they fit within my own homebrewed version, the official canon, and also whatever canon we decide to go with here.
But as a last ditch effort to make people understand where I am coming from, my whole thing with FR and participating here at the 'keep (and on the WotC boards back in the day) is creating things people will actually use. That's been tantamount for me. And right now, FR is having a 'resurgence', primarily because now FR IS D&D. people are buying products that contain FR lore (note I didn't say "FR products", because I don't think that's quite true anymore) BECAUSE they are playing D&D.
5e D&D.
With the 5e books... and canon.
If you ignore the official canon - no matter what you may personally think of it - than you are slapping all of those new fans - the people actually playing the goddamn game - right in the face. We joked about 4e being 'New Coke'. Well, what we are trying to do is worse - we are trying to force Cola drinkers to drink Black Cherry Soda. Not Dr. Pepper... some no-name, generic brand they sell at Walmart. We are basically telling all those kids down at the LGS' that "they are doing it wrong', and they should listen to us, rather than the company who is making the game they are having so much fun with. Have you seen those groups play? I have. Do yourself a favor and check it out. They're not' doing it wrong' - they're having fun.
And we can be part of that.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Jul 2017 19:02:53 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:09:15
|
| Sometimes I feel I'm the one who likes nearly all FR editions (I have only issues with 5e trying to revert stuff back to the 1300s, because what made me like the Realms was that it was a living world that always went forward, advanced and got interesting... and somehow, I got over it in the recent months...). |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:11:30
|
| I'm still an oddball in not being bothered nearly as much by the timejump as I was by the Spellplague. If there was no Spellplague, but one hundred years of change that was detailed and could trace logically from the previous era, I'd've not been nearly as bugged. I would have mourned favorite characters, but I would have been eager to learn about all of the changes. |
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! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:15:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
But what the new fans are doing is wrong and they should listen to us. Nu-Realms is bad in every aspect. Drink original realms, it tastes sooooo good.
And my heart agrees with you... mostly.
But the heart is a very bad thing to listen to, I've learned over the years. It makes you make some pretty poor choices that your brain will keep kicking you for as you grow older and wallow in it.
Its summer and I live on a (touristy) island with lots of beaches. The people with 'heart' are rushing into the water and getting demolished by the waves. Over and over again. I'm one those guys. Big fat guy laying on the beach with tons of sand in his trunks... if I still have my trunks. I do it over and over.
But I can't help looking over at the surfers. Sure, I am having fun, but so are they, and they're not getting the crap beat out of them (mostly) repeatedly. They're "riding the wave", instead of fighting them. Both are fun, but one is somewhat less painful.
I have never been the type of guy to 'ride the wave', because I never worried about looking cool. I was doing what I, personally enjoy... and thats okay too. And if thats why you are doing this, more power to you. Just understand the difference.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:38:30
|
My biggest beef with 4e was what it did to the pantheon. I didn't like the time jump, either, but I would have felt better with it if authors had been allowed to finish their stories before the jump was made.
I like 5e, I just wish there was more detail. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 20:39:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
After 5 versions of a ruleset you think they would have figured out how to make the rules perfect by now. Instead its a mish mash of two previous versions keeping many of the flaws of both originals.
Also after 5 editions you would think they would realise you do not need to blow up a setting and reinvent it each time they make a new ruleset - the two are not connected.
WoTC proving yet again that big business is pretty stupid.
Actually, most of the commentary I've seen on the 5E rules has been favorable, with people speaking of it as being a good mix of prior rulesets.
And as for blowing up the setting... While I'm not a fan of major RSEs, I will say I think there's a right way and a wrong way to handle them. The Time of Troubles is not universally popular in these halls, but I think this was an RSE that was handled correctly. They were looking for a way to explain changes to the setting (even though the changes were pretty minor), and they came up with one that worked.
My major complaint with the changes of the Sundering is that we simply didn't get any information on them. There were references in some novels, and then a source book that said "Hey, we reset everything. Carry on." I would have like to have seen more attention focused on what was going on, rather than a handful of passing references.
And then there's the changes of 3E, when they changed a lot of things, and explained absolutely none of it. Even when they had provided themselves a way to explain something, they instead opted for "it's always been this way, but no one knew about it!" To me, this showed an enormous lack of respect for the continuity that had previously been a major component of the setting.
I may not have liked the Spellplague, but at least it was an explanation.
So, in a long, roundabout way, what I'm saying is that you don't need to go Hollywood and have MOAR BOOM! to explain changes to the setting caused by ruleset changes -- but you do need some sort of explanation. |
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! |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 21:48:24
|
See? We can't even agree on what aspect of 4e 'killed' the setting for us. If we can't come to a consensus on what was wrong with it, then we couldn't possibly come to a consensus on how to fix it.
And NO, you don't actually need any (or much) setting-changing events to explain edition changes. WotC said that it was so when they created 4e; that they 'needed' to blow it all up. Then they got around to doing Eberron... and proved all of that was just a lie. The changes from 2e to 3e were just as dramatic (rules-wise, not lore-wise), and yet, they actually made far more changes then they needed when 3eFR was released (and the changes they did make really didn't address the changes in the rules, so it was just a load of crap anyway).
But thats neither here nor there, for the purposes of this - and the other two - discussion threads. Its only being rehashed because I feel we need to look at what ticked us off in the first place, and I would hope some of you are coming to realize the thing that took me so long to realize - we are all focused on different changes. Add to that, we like some of the changes, and we don't agree on any of that, either.
And the 5e rules are GOOD. They are streamlined, and let you play a fast, FUN game of D&D. No THACO's. No checking errata to see how your players 15 PrCs and 5 stacked templates interact with each other, so you can take 3hrs to do a 5-min. combat. Quick, simple, and to-the-point. It lets you get back to what matters most - RPGing. Thats the D&D I remember.
And its the edition that is... S-L-O-W-L-Y... kicking Pathfinder's arse. 4e drove them away, and 5e is bringing them home. Now all we have to do is take all those fresh, eager, young minds and teach them what FR (and D&D) can really be. The foundation is there... USE IT. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Jul 2017 21:49:13 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2017 : 00:25:57
|
While I didn't like the 4e changes. I'm encouraged by the how of how they're bringing things back. What makes me afraid is the "resetting", where it seems that they're not taking in some of the changes of 4e in what they're writing. Not that I liked those changes, but I'm trying to accept them as fact and work around them (a long standing realms tradition). Just to give an example of what I mean, let's take entropy as an example. In 3e it was a giant silent sphere of annihilation worshipped by the mad Karanoks. In 4e, the giant sphere disappeared and it became the crown jewel of Chessenta, and the Karanoks were the heroes of the country. However, we then found out that that crown jewel wasn't actually Entropy, and Entropy had taken up space in southern Chessenta and was swallowing up land... which was neat. But, the SCAG says that Entropy is a giant sphere of annihilation worshipped by the mad Karanoks. I would almost say that "the information is presented in the form of a dissertation from someone far off, so the information could be incorrect or dated", but that would be how things were written back in 1e or 2e, and this is being written as though these are indeed facts.
Not that I'm upset that Entropy is confined again, but what happened to all the land he destroyed (which I have my own ideas there that I've presented). Take into account the actions that occurred in 4e.
Similarly 4e killed Tchazzar off as a part of a massive storyline, but he's back yet again (this being his third return from death in a little over a hundred years). It would be better if he still had worshippers and there was some small cult for us to use related to him. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2017 : 00:40:32
|
Since we are rehashing this, I just want to throw my two coppers in...
What I disliked about the RSE's was not that they changed the Realms. I do not mind the Realms changing. What I disliked about the RSE's can really be boiled down to two things:
1. Many of them were done arbitrarily, change for the sake of change, or change to explain something else. 'It's the Year of Rogue Dragons... I guess we need to have some rogue dragons now!'  Alternatively, it was done to explain changes to the rules that were unnecessary. 'There is no assassin class in our new edition, therefore we have to kill all of the assassins in the Realms.'
2. The consequences of major changes is -NEVER- explored, and drastic events are often consequence free. 'Oh, look, Zhentil Keep just got destroyed--again--I wonder how long it will take for it to rebuild this time?' It basically turned the Realms into a cartoon / comic book setting.
Want to collapse the empire? Okay, fine. Find a reasonable way to do that which makes sense, but then deal with the consequences of doing so. Deal with the grim reality of attempting to reform a formerly authoritarian state and the criminal trials of former members and allies of the regime (as well as your own allies engaging in revenge killings). While doing that the new power should fight off rebels rising up against them that represent various groups, many of which can now freely and openly act now that the former government is overthrown--ethnic separatists, former regime loyalists, political radicals, and religious fundamentalists. Watch the nation collapse into a civil war... or avoid it either through brutal oppression like the former regime or by attempting to broker a compromise between the many different factions--most of which not only hate the new power but also hate each other.
Alternatively, overthrow the empire, claim victory and leave the power vacuum wide open! In which case said the previously mentioned radical factions rise up to try and fill the vacuum, resulting in the aforementioned civil war, a bloody reign of terror from regional warlords, a constant flow of refugees from the empire into neighboring lands, a breakdown in the regional power structure, leading all surrounding lands and the former empire into an inevitable descent into a long dark age of barbarism and ignorance.
Isn't creating a power vacuum fun?
So, in the end, I am not opposed to changes to the setting. I am just opposed to changes that are arbitrary and poorly thought out and have no serious consequences attached to them. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How should the FR Community handle the canon?
