| Author |
 Topic  |
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 03:33:29
|
Proper warning right at the top: this is going to be a thread about the changes between editions. It will talk about the Spellplague. I sincerely don't want this thread to devolve into attacks on the merit of any edition or content, nor rehash fights this forum has had dozens of times already.
Why do you think the Second Sundering is the direction Wizards of the Coast went with, rather than simply rolling back the clock on unpopular changes?
So much of 5e's design is in response to hoping to win over those 4e lost, and the direction of the setting likewise fits this MO: we're going to wave a magic wand and put everything back to how you liked it. So if that's already the approach, why do it through further plot continuity, rather than simply a return to the old? "There was a great magical cataclysm and then another weird cosmic event undid pretty much all of it" is messy writing, and greatly cheapens the feel of the modern setting. It still leaves the fans of the old Realms with over a century of gap between what they care for and where we are now, and understandably leaves the rare few 4e fans like myself out in the cold.
It also leads to some incredibly weird lore - for example, the situation in Thay, where after a horrific civil war that ended in the land blighted and all threats to Szass Tam exiled or killed, then a hundred years of horrific necromantic rule, only to now be... basically reset to the old Thay, with Tam just one of many equal zulkirs again - where the return to form is implausible given the time and the events in between. There are other examples that especially bug me (how are the Bedine going to survive in the Anauroch desert after four generations of life in Netherese cities?), but the point remains: what was done feels less satisfying than just saying "hey, we're rolling back the clock, the Spellplague was a doomed timeline and here's what the real 1395 DR looks like" or sticking to their guns.
So I'm curious: would a rollback have been better received than the Second Sundering? Why do you think they took the approach they did, which feels like a compromise that works for neither possible fanbase?
|
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 04:07:00
|
I guess it was because of the novel line. They wanted to "respect the work of all authors who had worked in the Realms", or so they said. That means ALL authors. Not just those who contributed to the Realms during the TSR days and in 3.x, but also those that contributed in 4e as well. But, then they killed the novel line, so I dunno.
I don't know exactly why, but I guess this means 4e got more people than those the grodnards like to admit. Because, yes, it was easier (and more satisfying to grodnards) just to roll back all stuff to the starting point and "began anew". They did that with Dark Sun and it worked. At least, financially.
With the 5e Realms they wanted to get all people happy: the grodnards, the 4e fans, the new fans and themselves. The most bland of the approach they could have taken, but I don't blame them. They wanted money and to end the edition wars. They were successful.
Personally, I don't think the roll back would have been better than the current approach, unless it include elements I like from the 4e Realms... but I'm one of those rare few who dislike the "Gygaxian fantasy genre" (real world history simulation but with Tolkien), that is basically the main trope of the post-TSR Forgotten Realms. So, YMMV. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 19 Mar 2020 04:08:47 |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 04:10:42
|
WotC was trying to hedge their bets. They wanted to get the pre-4E crowd back, but they didn't want to lose the 4E fans. So they rolled back the changes but left them canon.
I can't say it was the best solution, but there really wasn't a good way out of that mess.
My personal thinking is that they should have done some adventure involving time travel, with the possible result of preventing the Spellplague... And then they handle these two timelines as two settings: the Shattered Realms, where the Spellplague still happened, and the Forgotten Realms, where it was averted. Of course, this would involve publishing and supporting two settings, so that was never likely.
Though I think that would have worked, I think the best thing they could have done was just roll back and start over with a new timeline -- kinda like what the Star Trek movies did. Republish the OGB, and then start moving forward from there -- keeping some events, tweaking others, scrapping some altogether... That approach would have even let them republish novels, at least until the new timeline diverged too much. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 04:25:16
|
Every edition (including 4E) attracted some players and retains some diehards.
Earlier-edition players tend to look at newer-edition stuff as an unwanted wrecking ball. And WotC has been notoriously heavyhanded/graceless at certain edition interfaces.
Newer-edition players tend to look at older-edition stuff as stuffy and archaic. And High Gygaxian can be tediously plodding for those accustomed to modern gaming contrivances/conveniences.
WotC is in the business of writing new game stuff. WotC is in the business of selling new game stuff.
What's the point of a partial or complete rollback to emulate an old edition - people will ask - when they could simply pull out the old edition books instead of buying or selling new stuff? |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 19 Mar 2020 04:40:18 |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 04:36:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
WotC was trying to hedge their bets. They wanted to get the pre-4E crowd back, but they didn't want to lose the 4E fans. So they rolled back the changes but left them canon.
I can't say it was the best solution, but there really wasn't a good way out of that mess.
My personal thinking is that they should have done some adventure involving time travel, with the possible result of preventing the Spellplague... And then they handle these two timelines as two settings: the Shattered Realms, where the Spellplague still happened, and the Forgotten Realms, where it was averted. Of course, this would involve publishing and supporting two settings, so that was never likely.
Though I think that would have worked, I think the best thing they could have done was just roll back and start over with a new timeline -- kinda like what the Star Trek movies did. Republish the OGB, and then start moving forward from there -- keeping some events, tweaking others, scrapping some altogether... That approach would have even let them republish novels, at least until the new timeline diverged too much.
I've mentioned this before, but Star Wars SAGA Edition treated distinct parts of the Star Wars timeline as basically being settings unto themselves, and I think that approach might be novel here.
It's also interesting to see that the Realms is the only setting WotC has kept advancing: Eberron was intended to be static from the outset, and their take on Dark Sun (and to a lesser extent, Ravenloft) was a reset. The Realms' having a continuous plot is now an aberration, rather than the norm. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
768 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 07:09:21
|
quote]Originally posted by keftiu
Why do you think the Second Sundering is the direction Wizards of the Coast went with, rather than simply rolling back the clock on unpopular changes?
[/quote]
You're overthinking things. Hasbro wants to make money off of DnD and placating a handful of hardcore fans was never going to do that. From the perspective of making DnD profitable WoTC succeeded greatly. The game is more popular than it's ever been. So from their perspective the Spellplague and the Sundering were successes.
It's been 13 years. It's time to let it go. |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 07:21:57
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
quote]Originally posted by keftiu
Why do you think the Second Sundering is the direction Wizards of the Coast went with, rather than simply rolling back the clock on unpopular changes?
You're overthinking things. Hasbro wants to make money off of DnD and placating a handful of hardcore fans was never going to do that. From the perspective of making DnD profitable WoTC succeeded greatly. The game is more popular than it's ever been. So from their perspective the Spellplague and the Sundering were successes.
It's been 13 years. It's time to let it go.
I'm a huge Spellplague fan, you're off the mark here: I'd sooner have not seen a Second Sundering at all. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
Edited by - keftiu on 19 Mar 2020 10:27:26 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 09:43:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
It's also interesting to see that the Realms is the only setting WotC has kept advancing: Eberron was intended to be static from the outset, and their take on Dark Sun (and to a lesser extent, Ravenloft) was a reset. The Realms' having a continuous plot is now an aberration, rather than the norm.
I would say it's the other way around. We once had a lot of D&D settings -- Greyhawk, the Realms, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Birthright... And for all of those (with the possible exception of Birthright; I never touched that one), the continuous plot was the norm. Eberron being static was an aberration, a deviation from a long-established norm.
The Realms is the only setting that's remained in print this whole time. I would say that makes it the norm, and all others are deviating from its model. |
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! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11692 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 12:45:30
|
Why the second sundering? Below is my GUT feeling, with a little explanation...
Was I mad after 4e? Yes. Why? Because they took away things that had finally gotten some interesting plots getting built up (i.e. the old empires, destroying Vaasa/Damara/Impiltur, the changing of Calimshan to Genasi land, the utter oppression of Sembia, the destruction of Thay to simply another undead realm, the utter removal of Halruaa, Lantan, Nimbral, Luiren, and other portions of the southeastern realms, the replacement of the Crintri of Dambrath with just some generic barbarian culture, the removal of half the shaar and devastation of the great rift, getting rid of numerous gods, etc...). But what started to happen? I started to read the 4e stuff, and while I missed my old stuff, I found some of the 4e stuff noteworthy OR I discovered a way to MAKE the 4e stuff noteworthy (for instance, the sudden "genetic" picking of tieflings to follow a certain pattern becomes of interest to racist groups like Mulans, certain elf groups, including twisted elf groups like the daemonfey, the Crintri of Dambrath, etc...). Despite utterly hating the Thayan trilogy's results, I liked the story, and I liked how they moved the Brotherhood of the Griffin on. I learned that the warlock knights of Vaasa were almost like a great extension of the concept of the Vaasan's who served the Netherese in earlier books with the black glass swords, but it didn't need to replace the earlier things. I liked the concepts present in Tymanther, but it didn't need to replace Unther. I liked the visual nature of a genasi culture and city of earthmotes like Akanul, but it didn't need to be a whole territory. I liked the idea of a risen Imaskar, but I didn't want it to replace Mulhorand. Essentially, a lot of the concepts could have been "shoehorned" in without destroying what existed prior, and people would have liked them, but the reason that replacement happened was so that a new generation of writers could come in without having to absorb this glut of intelligence that often conflicted about the existing game world (because FR had continuity issues before 4e, just not as bad). Also, a lot of the NON-FR concepts that they were developing made a lot more sense to me (the building of Feywild lore, the limiting of the size of planes, etc...). The one thing of 4e that never really took hold on me a lot was Laerakond/Returned Abeir, but I recognized that probably a bunch of 4e people probably loved it like I loved my stuff that had been taken away.
So, they announced that they may be fixing the maps to bring things back, and all of a sudden a LOT of folks started theorizing openly on what they could bring back and how, and what they didn't want to see go away. In particular, myself and several other people started actually discussing what they might keep from 4e and what they could bring back, but bring it back in a way that would improve it. For instance, people absolutely HATED Maztica, and I get why... it was SUCH a blatant copy that it was just not fun. So, I started theorizing how to bring it back but make it different. I'll say Seethyr did an amazing job with trying to update Maztica to 5e, and the one thing that I don't like was that he tried to stick to the canon story that Abeir had no gods and no magic (which was true PRIOR to the Spellplague, but we don't know what happened after that). I had been building up a concept of expatriate Thayans building a new society on the edges of the Underchasm, but then I heard that it was coming back, and the ideas of returning Maztica and Anchorome, just gelled with the idea of "what if some Thayans had during the decade plus prior to the civil war had developed an enclave in the "true world" prior to the spellplague instead... and what if that enclave/colony had swelled in population because there was essentially a land rush for new land in Anchorome... and what if it revolved around Fort Flame initially"... and thus my initial idea of a scattered "Mulan led" empire somewhat resembling the British empire returning with the Sundering was formed. For those that aren't familiar with the general concept of my United Tharchs of Toril, it consists of small collections of city states in 2 separate parts of Katashaka, 1 in Lopango, 1 in western Anchorome in the ruined city of Esh Alakar from City of Gold, 1 in the "returned Shaar" cliffside city of Peleverai along the landrise, and smaller enclaves near Fort Flame and the islands off the east coast of Anchorome, off the coast of Osse, and on the floating Netherese enclave of Doubloon (that can turn invisible) which has been renamed Luneira. As time has allowed for me to ruminate on such, the sizes of these Tharchs has shrunk, and my interest in "northmen"/metahel cultures also being spread in small groupings throughout the returning portions has also grown. Meanwhile, Seethyr has done a lot of work on those regions as well, fully developing Lopango, better developing Anchorome, etc... and I'm trying to actually shoehorn my concepts around his.
So, ultimately the above I feel boils down to, the fanbase which initially hated 4e, some of us may have grown to like portions of it, but hated how it was implemented to remove existing lore. Making things inclusive to embrace both the new and the old makes for something more interesting, and could make for a much better delivery.
BTW, IF you are interested in any of my concepts I've proposed, I enjoy talking about theories and how they might improve things. A lot of my initial ideas have been shaped via talking to fellow sages here. Initially I wanted to have the Shaar return with a vast quantity of land being ruled as a "Tharch of Peleveran" for instance, but then it shrank to being the area directly near the city of Peleverai. Some concepts I had were that portions of Chessenta had been sent over to Abeir (such as Soorenar, with its Tower Terrible which had been Velsharoon's abode while mortal, and therefore I had considered it a prime place for one of his major churches and possibly a hidden phylactery). I was working up a whole thing where Soorenar returns having challenged Shyr, etc... but I've since decided... make it smaller.... have the Tower Terrible transferred via magic to Peleverai as a part of Velsharoon being "regenerated" there (part of my behind the scenes plot involves the "dead" gods of magic involved in Abeir to bring the weave there and support a weakened Mystra... who may have been Mystra I and may have been transferred there rather than destroyed by Helm during the ToT
as might have been SEVERAL "lesser avatars" that "died" during the ToT and weren't restored by Ao
the theory here being that the gods of Magic worked with some other beings like Mask to stop Shar taking over all magic in the decades leading to and through the ToT because they had glimpses of the future via Savras and the conspiring minds of Mask and Leira working together and the conspiring mind of Velsharoon playing triple spy for 3 deities). I would also move the Chessentan populations of Cimbar/Soorena/Akanax that found themselves in Abeir over to Peleverai. I would like to see new populations IN returned portions of a returned Akanax, Cimbar, and Soorenar though. For instance, having dragonborn "kin" who can trace their lineages back 5 generations to the population of Tymanther being in Cimbar and absolutely hating dragons... right next to the city which has Tchazzar returned in it... that can be interesting. One of my favorite concepts is that the gods of magic rewarded these people by raising up their dead as undead in the tens of thousands, imbuing them with a non-rotting nature, an illusion of their former selves in life, a psionic crystal that contains their former intellect, and an innate danger sense that extends several hundred feet (these being the gifts of Velsharoon, Leira, Auppenser, and Savras) and that these undead have lived the past century protecting their loved ones and working the fields tirelessly, teaching the youth, etc... who all transferred to Peleverai. So, there's now something akin to an undead embracing culture there, but its NOT like what we see in Thay. I've also populated Peleverai with Crintri princesses of Dambrath who suddenly found themselves in Abeir along with their barbarian servitors, Shaaryans, drow from nearby underdark cultures that were taken over by these people forced into Peleveran, surface elves of the Shaar, centaurs, wemics, gnolls, tabaxi from Katashaka, recent immigrants from High Imaskar, etc... such that its this vast melting pot, and now that they've returned... they have their eyes set on all the surrounding territories and no ONE overriding goal. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 12:54:47
|
I suppose that would also have the advantage of putting Mystra in their pocket. Having favours owed to them by the goddess of all magic must be something they're banking on.
Savras's quiet smugness and Velshroon's perpetual grin must drive Azuth up the wall. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 15:27:27
|
Pretty much what Wooly said. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. As a result, however, they mostly gained new fans (and a LARGE number of them).
As for continuity, there was nothing to lose there. The narrative was already really convoluted towards the end of 3.5e, with lore and continuity being ignored and warped as WotC pleased. 4e just put the final nail in that coffin. In the end, the metaplot of FR can't really be taken seriously--sadly. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 19 Mar 2020 15:28:21 |
|
|
|
Copper Elven Vampire
Master of Realmslore
1078 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 16:15:10
|
| The Mechanics of 3.5ED were difficult in the sense of learning the plethora of skills, feats, skill-feats, and general number crunching supreme. But I liked that. 4ED was tasteless, 5ED is broken. Not saying 3.5 wasn't broken, but it was less broken than the later editions. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 16:58:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Copper Elven Vampire
The Mechanics of 3.5ED were difficult in the sense of learning the plethora of skills, feats, skill-feats, and general number crunching supreme. But I liked that. 4ED was tasteless, 5ED is broken. Not saying 3.5 wasn't broken, but it was less broken than the later editions.
We're talking about versions of the setting, not the rules. |
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
4429 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 19:09:03
|
As another of the few fan of the Spellplague and 4e in general, I can't say that I'm completely dissatisfied with the Second Sundering. I mean, I'm not about to let all of its effects change my personal Realms - I still have Abeir and Tymanther, and Akanūl in my Realms and didn't bring back Maztica or Unther or their Gods. I still adhere to the God/Exarch/Chosen distinction too.
Despite my feelings of slight abandonedment for my preferred Realms, I can't fault WotC for doing what they did nor it's overall positive effect on the Realms and the game. Since the Changes to the Realms, I've taken Canon with a grain of salt and decided to treat it like a buffet. I do play 5e and have done a few Realms games so It's not a total loss for me.
Do I feel it was the best move? Yeah, in the end it's a compromise. A half-happy way to keep moving forward without severely offending either groups of fans |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2020 : 19:11:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Copper Elven Vampire
The Mechanics of 3.5ED were difficult in the sense of learning the plethora of skills, feats, skill-feats, and general number crunching supreme. But I liked that. 4ED was tasteless, 5ED is broken. Not saying 3.5 wasn't broken, but it was less broken than the later editions.
Not to derail this thread further, but I'd love to go into a discussion about the ways in which multiple editions go about power, it's perceived "brokenness", and the misconceptions that are contained there-in. Maybe make another scroll about the topic? |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2020 : 18:29:10
|
Learned Scribe keftiu,
I think the answer is pride. WotC doesn't like to admit mistakes. Rolling back the clock would being admitting fault, I think that's why the would rarely, if ever, consider such an option.
Additionally, the Second Sundering is a major event as was the first. A major destruction of something allows a build up of it in whatever vision you have in mind. Dresden comes to mind in that regard when you look at it being utterly destroyed and rebuilt.
It gives WotC every ability to ignore former lore to a great extent and do what they like.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 14:33:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Learned Scribe keftiu,
I think the answer is pride. WotC doesn't like to admit mistakes. Rolling back the clock would being admitting fault, I think that's why the would rarely, if ever, consider such an option.
I think that's a bit heavy-handed. I feel they've admitted their "mistake" (although, I certainly wouldn't call it that being a fan of 90% of the post-Spellplague Realms and novels) by rolling things back to pre-Spellplague elements in the first place. Bringing back Mystra, her Chosen, the "Companions of the Hall", all the "dead" Gods like Tyr and Helm and pretty much everyone else, bringing back areas that haven't seen any published material in two decades, etc.
The reason was because, despite certain view-points here, the 4E Realms DID generate fans, many of them brand new to D&D and they didn't want to alienate them completely. Further, they had quite a few products FOR the 4E Realms made by some amazing authors and to roll back everything would - I feel - be a slap in the face and a discredit to their contribution to this great setting. For example, the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is an awesome trove of potential, plots, lore, and history of that city and the surrounding environments. To rollback the time would simply mean this book is useless.
Now, some might say that the jump in time for 100 years basically ignores the pre-Spellplague books too but I certainly don't see it. Those events and things and people SILL happened. Heck, I used the 3.0 FRCS ALL the time in my 4E Realms games. Same goes with the Races of Faerūn, Power of Faerūn, Champions of Valor, Champions of Ruin, and Faiths and Pantheons supplements. These are always a great help in fleshing out any Realms game, assuming it takes place post 1372 DR (possibly before?).
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Additionally, the Second Sundering is a major event as was the first. A major destruction of something allows a build up of it in whatever vision you have in mind. Dresden comes to mind in that regard when you look at it being utterly destroyed and rebuilt.
It gives WotC every ability to ignore former lore to a great extent and do what they like.
Sure, but do they though? Take the Murder in Baldur's Gate adventure (published with the ability to use 3 separate editions, I might add) for example. This adventure is set post-Sundering. IF what you say is true then they could do whatever they could since it not only is over a century later than the novel/games were released in Realmslore BUT three editions removed. So they could've done practically anything they wanted with it. Instead, we get a plot device dealing with none other than Abdel Adrian, the chief character in the Baldur's Gate novels and Bhaalspawn brother to Sarevok Anchev. We get Bhaal back. We get Bhaalspawn enemies to face, and what appears to be the final chapter of the saga (before the events of Baldur's Gate 3 video game). I think it's a great homage to prior lore, even if the novels were......lets just say not my favorite to be polite.
|
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 15:32:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The reason was because, despite certain view-points here, the 4E Realms DID generate fans, many of them brand new to D&D and they didn't want to alienate them completely. Further, they had quite a few products FOR the 4E Realms made by some amazing authors and to roll back everything would - I feel - be a slap in the face and a discredit to their contribution to this great setting.
This, really.
They could not do the same "mistake" they are blamed for (as many people says 4e "invalidates" the older books*), even if it was to "fix" said "mistake". This would have been way too much hypocritical, and would have not only alienated the fans they got in 4e, but any fan that just was tired of WotC.
*Something that I feel is stupid to blame only 4e for. Any new edition invalidates older books, ruleswise. And lorewise, 4e didn't invalidated anything. Just killed a bunch of NPCs. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 15:56:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
*Something that I feel is stupid to blame only 4e for. Any new edition invalidates older books, ruleswise. And lorewise, 4e didn't invalidated anything. Just killed a bunch of NPCs.
This is false. It rearranged the planes, slapped a bunch of retcons, removed entire faiths&cultures, rearranged the political situation of whole areas, destroyed others, etc...
It doesn't matter what you (or I, or anyone) think of the changes, the statement that 4e just killed a bunch of NPCs is just false.
Now, 2e and 3e also did some of that, true, but 1)the magnitude of the 4e changes is far larger, 2)the point still stands. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 22 Mar 2020 15:59:55 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 16:18:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
This is false. It rearranged the planes, slapped a bunch of retcons, removed entire faiths&cultures, rearranged the political situation of whole areas, destroyed others, etc...
It doesn't matter what you (or I, or anyone) think of the changes, the statement that 4e just killed a bunch of NPCs is just false.
Now, 2e and 3e also did some of that, true, but 1)the magnitude of the 4e changes is far larger, 2)the point still stands.
It may be true that there is a new cosmology, and some cultures got replaced by others, but any stuff from older editions wasn't invalidated. Those events still happened and are part of the Forgotten Realms, albeit if only as part of a historical background. But are still valid, still true and useable, and that was my point.
Something way too different to say "ey, anything you read in a 4e source? It didn't happen. It was just a bad dream of Elminster after using drugs, or something". That's what many here want, and that IS invalidate something, instead of just making it historical background.
Also, deities are NPCs, too, even if they are in a special category. So, killing deities is basically just killing NPCs. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 16:27:25
|
If someone says that a change ivalidates their books, they probably mean that the kind of setting in their book is no longer supported and that they can no longer use the info in them to run a "present day" campaign. You can ofc say "but, it doesn't mean you can't do that in your own game". Well, sure, but by that logic even an outright retcon can't invalidate anything, because WotC isn't coming to you to take back their books.
4e was different in this regard, because, for example, with the 2e-3e transition, generally speaking, most info you had about a given region, were still true in 3e.
4e also destroyed entire iconic cities like Neverwinter, and it took years before WotC cared to release a sourcebook about that region.
Deities come with whole factions, faiths, aspect of cultures and--in certain cases, like the drow--whole cultures. They're not just NPCs. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 22 Mar 2020 16:30:31 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 17:14:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
4e was different in this regard, because, for example, with the 2e-3e transition, generally speaking, most info you had about a given region, were still true in 3e.
Eh, I think there was far more change than you think. Take the 2e material on Myth Drannor, by 1375 DR. a lot of that doesn't work or is changed. Or how about Cormyr? 1372 DR, Alusair is running the show and the king is dead. Or how the Anauroch is crawling with a once-believed dead civilization of Shades. These are pretty big changes that, in essence, makes older material not up to date.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
4e also destroyed entire iconic cities like Neverwinter, and it took years before WotC cared to release a sourcebook about that region.
There's a whole 4e book detailing the city of Neverwinter and how it's still a thriving metropolis, plus surrounding areas. At one point it was wrecked, but it got better.
|
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 17:20:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
4e was different in this regard, because, for example, with the 2e-3e transition, generally speaking, most info you had about a given region, were still true in 3e.
Eh, I think there was far more change than you think. Take the 2e material on Myth Drannor, by 1375 DR. a lot of that doesn't work or is changed. Or how about Cormyr? 1372 DR, Alusair is running the show and the king is dead. Or how the Anauroch is crawling with a once-believed dead civilization of Shades. These are pretty big changes that, in essence, makes older material not up to date.
The situation of Myth Drannor was effectively a preparation for 4e, like most of the end-3e changes/novels. At the start of 3e (3e FRCS), the situation was pretty much the same as 2e (ruins). As for Cormyr, yes, the regent has changed, but you can still use most of the info you have. As for the Anauroch, that I know, Shade didn't immediately create a thriving civilization there (in fact, in WotSQ, the characters go to the Anauroch at some point,m and it's still desert). Even if they did, though, that's still very small in comparison to the amount of changes brought by 4e.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
4e also destroyed entire iconic cities like Neverwinter, and it took years before WotC cared to release a sourcebook about that region.
There's a whole 4e book detailing the city of Neverwinter and how it's still a thriving metropolis, plus surrounding areas. At one point it was wrecked, but it got better.
Oh, I know. In fact, I put it in the comment. However, in the beginning, when the 4e changes happened, and when (that I know; I wasn't there) people started to complain that the older sources were invalidated, the city was considered wrecked. 4e started getting better when people who cared about the FR started adding lore, tying the new lore with the old, and so on.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 22 Mar 2020 17:25:43 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 20:57:30
|
Great Reader Diffan,
quote:
I think that's a bit heavy-handed. I feel they've admitted their "mistake" (although, I certainly wouldn't call it that being a fan of 90% of the post-Spellplague Realms and novels) by rolling things back to pre-Spellplague elements in the first place.
I can certainly appreciate your perspective, as well as the fact that you are a significant fan of 4e from your statement. I think there is a large difference though between giving the toy back you stole after outrage, and giving the toy back while actually fessing up to ones wrong as well as apologizing in a vocal, public manner. They didn't do that, and I feel they should have. That's just me though. :)
quote:
The reason was because, despite certain view-points here, the 4E Realms DID generate fans, many of them brand new to D&D and they didn't want to alienate them completely. Further, they had quite a few products FOR the 4E Realms made by some amazing authors and to roll back everything would - I feel - be a slap in the face and a discredit to their contribution to this great setting.
As to generating fans, that's great. They clearly felt the ROI was there to make that decision. I cannot say what the opposite impact was overall in losing fans though. I can say, that while I love this site, I am not going to purchase post-Spellplague material from WotC again. So, perhaps I am the sole fan to make that decision, mayhaps I am the 15,000th customer to do so: who knows, except maybe WotC themselves. So, they must have decided that the loss of money from fen like me, was worth the gain from the others. If so, I get it: business. :)
As to the amazing authors who wrote all of that great material you reference, I don't begrudge them at all. They need to put food on the table, a roof over their head, etc. I've never taken, nor would I, umbrage with them. It is only WotC who I have taken umbrage with. As to slapping said designers/authors in the face, I disagree. Those designers/authors were paid to do a job, and they did. Shifting the blame from WotC for asking the designers and authors to write what they did is WotC's fault, not the designers/authors. They just did a job. I would imagine that said designers/authors did a fantastic job with what they were given to do that job.
quote:
For example, the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is an awesome trove of potential, plots, lore, and history of that city and the surrounding environments. To rollback the time would simply mean this book is useless.
Not having read or looked at that campaign setting accessory, I cannot comment on it intelligently. I take your word that it has an "...awesome trove of potential, plots, lore, and history of that city and the surrounding environments." Though, that awesome trove is a 4e/5e trove. It's the trove that people like myself (perhaps a minority, I do not know) felt was put in place as per the Dragon article put out by WotC, to allow a new, non-steeped group of players to enjoy the Realms. For me, they burned it down to allow for less of a barrier to enter for the new customers. That's a legit business move for that market segment, but one that loses at least this one person from my market segment. Again, I may be the only person in the world that has refused to purchase Realms products since 2007 until now, or maybe there are lot of us: I have no idea.
As to making that book useless: I would imagine you would be correct. WotC made a choice about who they were aiming their products towards. While there is likely an overlap to some degree between the two editions for purchasing, I have no idea what that overlap is. I imagine only WotC knows. I don't purchase it for me though, as it is useless to me. So, they have made it useless in some ways, which is to people who share my outlook and vote with their dollars.
quote:
Now, some might say that the jump in time for 100 years basically ignores the pre-Spellplague books too but I certainly don't see it. Those events and things and people SILL happened. Heck, I used the 3.0 FRCS ALL the time in my 4E Realms games. Same goes with the Races of Faerūn, Power of Faerūn, Champions of Valor, Champions of Ruin, and Faiths and Pantheons supplements. These are always a great help in fleshing out any Realms game, assuming it takes place post 1372 DR (possibly before?).
I feel that misses the point though. Sure, it still happened, but contextually to gaming in the current year of 5e for example, it is just history and not relevant to the game. For example, my current campaign which is wrapping up I think, started in 1369DR and is currently 1372DR. What's in the GhotR, and other accessories, is relevant to the game at that moment. Playing a game 100 years later distances that relevance and context.
An example would be playing a modern warfare game set in 2020 Afghanistan and conjuring up WWII as being contextually relevant in the moment. Sure, the history is there, but has no significant, if any at all, bearing on what is unfolding in Afghanistan, 85 years later.
quote:
Sure, but do they though? Take the Murder in Baldur's Gate adventure (published with the ability to use 3 separate editions, I might add) for example. This adventure is set post-Sundering. IF what you say is true then they could do whatever they could since it not only is over a century later than the novel/games were released in Realmslore BUT three editions removed. So they could've done practically anything they wanted with it. Instead, we get a plot device dealing with none other than Abdel Adrian, the chief character in the Baldur's Gate novels and Bhaalspawn brother to Sarevok Anchev. We get Bhaal back. We get Bhaalspawn enemies to face, and what appears to be the final chapter of the saga (before the events of Baldur's Gate 3 video game). I think it's a great homage to prior lore, even if the novels were......lets just say not my favorite to be polite.
My outlook (and I admit, I could be wrong, I have no way to tell for sure) here is that they are paying homage as a way to try to pull in those of us from pre-Spellplague to their products. Perhaps it has worked for some.
An homage to lore is not a replacement, at least for me anyhow, for continuation and consistency of lore. They just tried to go back, sweep some stuff under the rug, throw us some treats and call it good. Obviously they felt that was good enough, and perhaps for most it was good enough. It wasn't for me.
At the end of the day, everyone knows this was, as per their article in Dragon magazine, meant to bring in new fans who could join in on the Realms with a lessened barrier to enter. That pissed off a whole bunch of the current Realms fans. I refuse to provide an off ramp (at least for me) to WotC for blowing up what was a fantastic Realms so they could get a bunch of at the time, 11 year old MMO players to get in on the game. I will say though, that was their decision as a company. All I can do is to vote with my dollars and refuse to purchase anything from them as I have done for the past 13 years.
As always Great Reader Diffan, I appreciate your response! :)
Thank you and best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 21:09:44
|
Great Reader Irennan,
First off: I agree with everything you have said in this entire post. However, I will give detail and not be intellectually lazy, as I try to avoid. :)
quote:
The situation of Myth Drannor was effectively a preparation for 4e, like most of the end-3e changes/novels. At the start of 3e (3e FRCS), the situation was pretty much the same as 2e (ruins). As for Cormyr, yes, the regent has changed, but you can still use most of the info you have. As for the Anauroch, that I know, Shade didn't immediately create a thriving civilization there (in fact, in WotSQ, the characters go to the Anauroch at some point,m and it's still desert). Even if they did, though, that's still very small in comparison to the amount of changes brought by 4e.
I agree with this completely! You hit the nail on the head here with a classic move from Wizards of the Crap.
When WotC was moving from 2nd to 3rd edition, anyone remember the following: Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, Spells & Magic, etc.? That was all one big playtest for WotC. You can kind of see the 3rd edition stuff in there.
You are completely correct Great Reader Irennan, when you say that they were prepping for the move from 3rd to 4th. Their marketing department had likely conducted market studied for the market segment that they knew would be their up and coming market base in the future, i.e. 11 year olds. By steeping them in the culture of the game for several years before they became market viable purchasers, they would have them engrossed in the game, culturally. They dismissed all of the current market purchasers in doing so though. That was their mistake. Just look at the endless scrolls of acrimony here at the 'Keep to refresh on the hatred (justifiably so) that WotC got for their trash decision.
quote:
4e also destroyed entire iconic cities like Neverwinter, and it took years before WotC cared to release a sourcebook about that region.
Exactly. They did it as an intellectually bereft placation of the righteously pissed Realms lovers. They completely missed the point though at WotC: we didn't want their book on something that was destroyed without the lore to back it up for the 100 years in between. We knew what this was about: a marketing decision in moving that product line forward and to place it front of their newer market segment. Perhaps it has worked with many 3e and prior Realms lovers, but I know I haven't purchased anything in 13 years and unless monumental things are done, I never will again.
Great posts Great Reader Irennan. As always, thank you for your insight!
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 21:12:20
|
Great Reader Diffan,
quote:
Eh, I think there was far more change than you think. Take the 2e material on Myth Drannor, by 1375 DR. a lot of that doesn't work or is changed. Or how about Cormyr? 1372 DR, Alusair is running the show and the king is dead. Or how the Anauroch is crawling with a once-believed dead civilization of Shades. These are pretty big changes that, in essence, makes older material not up to date.
While I agree that there was change, a few points about that:
1) Two wrongs don't make a right.
2) The changes were not monumental and didn't prevent a continuation of the current year campaign. Destroying everything, moving it forward 100 years, and saying "Start here", is as monumental as it can get. I just don't feel there is a correlation there.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 21:25:24
|
| A semantic argument about the merits of various editions is exactly what I asked us to try and avoid here, folks. If we cant steer clear, Id sooner see the scroll die than go through all of this for a thousandth time. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 21:29:56
|
| Apologies for the derailment. I usually avoid these discussions too, but the statement that the changes brought by 4e amounted to a few NPCs missing made me comment, regardless of the opinion on those changes. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2020 : 21:30:33
|
Learned Scribe keftiu,
I can appreciate that.
They wanted a younger market segment (at that time, roughly 11 years old) that would be very interested in their product line by the time they matured and were in the work force. They likely expected to be able to roll out several years of materials to capture the interest of that segment, and have them as a generational customer.
They utilized the Second Sundering as a way to allow for easy market entry of that younger, more impatient generation, to make sense of the material and not have to read 30 years of stuff prior, that they would never do.
That is why I think they did the Second Sundering, along with the Spellplague (both, as a marketing effort, seem to be inseparable).
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 01:19:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
They utilized the Second Sundering as a way to allow for easy market entry of that younger, more impatient generation, to make sense of the material and not have to read 30 years of stuff prior, that they would never do.
So just so I'm clear, you're making a sweeping generalization about a swath of people of a specific age group - a generalization that comes off to be a bit offensive (as if young people don't/like to become immersed in lore) - to justify WotC simply not taking the Realms in a direction you like? |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 02:17:47
|
Great Reader Diffan,
No, I am not making a sweeping generalization. I made a more complete statement that was truncated and cherry picked. Instead, what I did was make an educated evaluation of what might have occurred, based on the fact that I actually carry Bachelor and Master's degrees in business with my foci being both in Marketing and Economics. When I say,
quote:
They utilized the Second Sundering as a way to allow for easy market entry of that younger, more impatient generation, to make sense of the material and not have to read 30 years of stuff prior, that they would never do.
, it means it makes more sense when you do not truncate by cherry picking to make a point.
Since your comment about my insight into this, whether intended or not was a generalization, I'll explain what this means in more depth. A market segment is a aggregation of characteristics about a group of people that a company believes meets the profile of who would be interested in their products/services. Those characteristics can be comprised of demographic, psychographic, behavioral, and other segmentations that define the nature and relationship between the product/service and the consumer.
When you look at my full quote,
quote:
They wanted a younger market segment (at that time, roughly 11 years old) that would be very interested in their product line by the time they matured and were in the work force. They likely expected to be able to roll out several years of materials to capture the interest of that segment, and have them as a generational customer.
They utilized the Second Sundering as a way to allow for easy market entry of that younger, more impatient generation, to make sense of the material and not have to read 30 years of stuff prior, that they would never do.
That is why I think they did the Second Sundering, along with the Spellplague (both, as a marketing effort, seem to be inseparable).
, there is a great deal more to it than the cherry picked selection outlined in your refutation.
My evaluation was that they were likely playing a longer game. By focusing associative gaming experiences while younger (11 years old'ish assuming), presupposed on their experiences at that time, and developing upon those gaming experiences to take advantage of their future fiscally mature customer base they would have a guaranteed and stable income stream predicated on some of the most powerful elements in consumer behavior theory: culture and lifestyle. This is why I assume the colloquial reference to 4e, by some, was that it was the MMO version of D&D. By likely purchasing data from market research groups (such as EEDAR for video games) and analyzing that data psychographically for example, they were likely able to determine how and why that group would purchase their products, and be retained as loyal customers. They can build their profits and losses at stages in the product lifecycle of an individual product where they pay on the front and gain on the back, especially if it is a generational plus customer, since the lifetime of that cohorts product involvement is long. So, looking at it that way is in no way anything other than how I described it in a brief manner initially. Whether it made sense or not to you at the time, does not invalidate what was an educated evaluation. Is it possible that my educated evaluation could be wrong? Of course, I do not have in front of me the information, data, and sources that led to what those marketers were thinking as they sat around the table formulating plans to develop their market and product strategy. It doesn't seem far fetched however that it could have gone down the way I described it, based on what my knowledge set and work experience tell me.
Here is a URL to a market research group in the gaming (video) industry as an example of how us gaming consumers are examined: https://www.eedar.com/about.
Regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why wasn't 5e just a rollback?
