| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Oct 2014 : 15:59:26
|
Idk, their playtest process seems to have worked quite well. I could see a sort of long term plan for their rules (i.e., let the player's feedback decide, while trying to go for inclusiveness and simplicity of play).
When it comes to their stories and worlds, things seem to get messy and ''all over the place'', tho... |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 11 Oct 2014 15:59:46 |
 |
|
|
Derulbaskul
Senior Scribe
Singapore
408 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2014 : 20:38:19
|
I think that goes back to "let someone else decide..." although you said "players" rather than "someone else"....
|
Cheers
D
NB: Please remember: A cannon is a big gun. Canon is what we discuss here. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2014 : 20:52:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Derulbaskul
I think that goes back to "let someone else decide..." although you said "players" rather than "someone else"....
Oh, in that case, I'd be completely fine if they let Ed decide what the 5e FR will look like :P |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2014 : 00:54:28
|
WOTC being so quiet about their plans is giving the impression, correct or not, that they don't have their plan for the Realms figured out yet.
|
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2014 : 19:58:02
|
| The Realms are going to move forward with the notion of the unreliable narrator. I'm not sure we're going to see a campaign settings book in the traditional sense. I could (and hope to be) wrong. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2014 : 21:05:31
|
Why would a FRCS exclude the ''unreliable narrator'' approach, or vice-versa?
Also, we have not seen anything being told ''unreliably'' yet, as far as I know.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 17 Oct 2014 21:06:48 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2014 : 23:58:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I haven't checked my FR10 for a long time, but thought that Mulhorand had a line of pharaohs (really wish Scott Bennie had come up with some FR names for the Earth bits he was transplanting ...). I can't recall anything about each god having a 'royal line' although they each had a mortal godling (manifestation?) attached to them.
The unedited draft of "Sea of Fallen Stars" had a partial Mulhorand lineage stretching back to the 1100s DR as I recall.
-- George Krashos
Forgive the thread necromancy.... but figure some explanation on my part might explain my interest.
This all started by me stating that I really liked the royal lineages and how it might be nice to have one for Mulhorand AND its other lineages. It should also be noted how sexist Mulhorand is compared to the more open-minded red wizards that are their neighbors. Below from "Old Empires"
"The pharaoh is always male and always an incarnation of Horus-Re [except for a brief time after the loss of Thay, when an incarnation of Thoth took the throne (all of the other incarnations of Horus-Re were dead)].
The priesthoods are hereditary; their members are almost always the descendants of incarnations of various deities, which are known as the divine houses. The houses are usually referred to by
their Thayvian names, as listed below:
House of Horus-Re: House of Helcaliant
House of Thoth: House of Tholaunt
House of Osiris: House of Osriant
House of Anhur: House of Ramathant
Descendants of female incarnations are not given a House name, nor are descendants of Set incarnations.
Mulhorand is a thoroughly patriarchal society. The first two sons of a House are said to be nobles; the eldest is entitled to at least 2/3 of the father#146;s land and slaves, while the younger son can have no more than 1/3. Other sons, and all daughters, must fend for themselves." |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2014 : 02:46:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Why would a FRCS exclude the ''unreliable narrator'' approach, or vice-versa?
Also, we have not seen anything being told ''unreliably'' yet, as far as I know.
Okay, I find this funny as hell.
I just got done reading through the last few posts here, and it seems that no-one knows what the hell is going on in FR these days (not even the people who are working on it), and you say "we haven't seen anything being told 'unreliably' yet..."
Ummmm... how about releasing a new game system, spreading the books out too far apart, and then having absolutely no 'game plan' on how to move forward with the setting (or just as bad, have one, but don't tell the fans ANYTHING... shades of the 4e launch fiasco, methinks).
As far as I can tell, I haven't heard anything RELIABLE yet. They've gone beyond 'unreliable narrator'... they've entered into the domain of 'unreliable designer'.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2014 : 02:55:23
|
I meant that the few info that we have got and that I have read (the ''as far as I know'' part) up to now seemed pretty certain facts to me, rather than told from a sage's perspective.
Sorry for any misunderstading, I thought that what I was trying to say was clear enough. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 28 Oct 2014 02:55:56 |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2014 : 15:27:09
|
There's been a few blips from Ed on the D&D site, but that's about it (exclusively fluff and flavour, good stuff to be sure). Nothing really that addresses the State of the Realms though.
I think that's what's really desired amongst the FR fanbase right now (I beg forgiveness for speaking for others...it seems an honest enough sentiment without stomping on toes).
I know that's truly what I want. It's early in 5e's life, they're taking their time, ensuring quality over quantity. I wholly respect that (even if I find it maddening to wait). Firing off adventures in a setting we don't even know the general state of affairs for....well, that's just silly.
I'd like the FR setting guide. Even a Paizo-styled Gazeteer or Primer at this point. I don't mean rush one out the door to slake our ravenous desires....but something, even an announcement that it's "in the works"....to give us our stage and allowing us to support the new edition. I've said elsewhere here that while using previously published materials is a perfectly good way to do it, it doesn't really provide much support for D&D in terms of profit (already owned or second hand purchases don't really net WotC much, if any, money-making support).
I want 5e to succeed. I want 5e Realms to succeed. I don't want to see the Realms become what Greyhawk became. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2014 : 15:47:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
There's been a few blips from Ed on the D&D site, but that's about it (exclusively fluff and flavour, good stuff to be sure). Nothing really that addresses the State of the Realms though.
The aftermath of the Herald, what little lore they gave on post Sundering Phlan, the results about the deities who returned in the latest Sundering novels and even the fluff about monsters in the MM (from what I've seen), all seem to leave very little to uncertainty IMO.
I haven't seen the 'unreliable narrator' yet, the style seems to be the usual one to me.
quote:
I want 5e Realms to succeed. I don't want to see the Realms become what Greyhawk became.
Yes, this is what I fear at the moment, to see the Realms reduced to some vague background for some very streamlined and homogenized adventures and their organized play project. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 28 Oct 2014 15:47:36 |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2014 : 16:59:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
The aftermath of the Herald, what little lore they gave on post Sundering Phlan, the results about the deities who returned in the latest Sundering novels and even the fluff about monsters in the MM (from what I've seen), all seem to leave very little to uncertainty IMO.
It exists, but it's scattered (near as I can tell), and haphazard.
I'd prefer it be collected (because it can be). Something akin to the Primers/Gazeteers Paizo puts out. Or, even better, akin to the 2e book Forgotten Realms Adventures.
A sourcebook is what I'm after. It doesn't even need crunch. Even a web supplement to Grand History of the Realms covering the changes that occurred in the span of a few years (the 4e -> 5e transition).
Hell, lol, it could be that I just have a case of impatience-itis. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2014 : 17:12:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
The aftermath of the Herald, what little lore they gave on post Sundering Phlan, the results about the deities who returned in the latest Sundering novels and even the fluff about monsters in the MM (from what I've seen), all seem to leave very little to uncertainty IMO.
It exists, but it's scattered (near as I can tell), and haphazard.
I'd prefer it be collected (because it can be). Something akin to the Primers/Gazeteers Paizo puts out. Or, even better, akin to the 2e book Forgotten Realms Adventures.
A sourcebook is what I'm after. It doesn't even need crunch. Even a web supplement to Grand History of the Realms covering the changes that occurred in the span of a few years (the 4e -> 5e transition).
Hell, lol, it could be that I just have a case of impatience-itis.
I too want a FRCS.
I think that there's a misunderstanding here, I was adressing the point of people saying that uncertainty in lore is WotC's new approach, while the style of their recent fluff seems to be the usual one to me.
I thought that you too were talking about this in the first part of your post, but now that I read it again, it seems that you were talking about the almost complete lack of info on the 5e FR. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 28 Oct 2014 17:13:46 |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2014 : 17:44:24
|
Indeed, it's the overall lack of info on 5e FR that I'm speaking to. :)
I suspect my own impatience is getting the better of me. I really like 5e. It has me excited about D&D again. I truly want an FRCS (or at least know for sure one is coming "soon"), though I must remember to hold fast and wait until at least the DMG is out and the Core is in place before I start yapping about a setting book.
Therein lies my current conundrum. After the Core, I have no idea what WotC has planned. I don't mean specific dates and flowcharts of business plans, but seemingly no direction. They haven't talked about it much (and fair enough, focusing on the Core books right now makes nothing but sense).
I suppose I would just like a general sense of where they go after the Core books (beyond just "more adventure storylines", as they hold no value for me), where they plan to put their efforts towards.
My understanding is that the design team is as small as its ever been, which leads me to speculate that we won't be seeing a very wide net in terms of products. I suspect it will focus in batches (so period of time X we get splat-style books, period of time Y we get campaign setting material, etc).
Just....something. Something to give me confidence they do have something in mind. Perhaps that's asking too much of them for now.
I dunno. It's just a bad feeling overall...and no matter how much I try, I can't, on my own, get rid of it yet. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
Edited by - ZeshinX on 28 Oct 2014 17:55:29 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 04:01:24
|
Thanks Jeremy!
quote:
The "Living Rules System" -- "This will start early next year. The process will begin with playtest surveys much like the ones we did for the core game, to allow us to see if the game has issues and if so where."
I'm not sure exactly what this refers to, but I'm glad to see the core rules aren't the only thing that will be player-tested.
quote:
"Biggest issues we see from players - combats run too long and characters are too complex. 5e slimmed down baseline complexity and streamlined combat to overcome those two issues."
I'm familiar with complaints about combat taking too long, but I haven't heard the other one. I am experiencing some disappointment/anxiety regarding this theme of simplifying everything, but hopefully the options will come back as they do further testing, for those of us who want them. If nothing else, House Rules will save the day. 
Overall, I think he accomplished his probable goal in doing the AMA: keep D&D in the news, deliver some Gatorade to the fans waiting in line, and keep things positive. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 04:32:41
|
Found this over at EnWorld: quote:
Of course, despite being owned by Hasbro and having M:tG in the same building, WotC's D&D team is much smaller than Paizo - Paizo has about 50 employees (about 20 directly on the RPG), while WotC's D&D team has about 15 (7 directly on the RPG) - about a third the manpower. "The team as a whole has about fifteen people. About half that are actually working on the RPG right now. The other half are working on other D&D stuff like Neverwinter, iOS games, licensing, or board games."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2032-Two-D-D-Stories-A-Year#.VGQztIfqk7A#ixzz3Iv5phYr0
Also this:
quote:
The FR timeline was advanced to allow reasonable time for certain elements to return, such as the Zhentarim and Harpers.
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2037-The-OGL-Shall-Return!-And-Other-Short-Stories!#.VGQ05Ifqk7A
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 13 Nov 2014 04:36:56 |
|
|
|
Rymac
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1150 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 06:19:26
|
| I doubt it, though the two may possibly be related. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 06:45:11
|
Not my Dessarin Valley!
Seriously, there are square miles upon square miles of the Heartlands you can put any adventure into ... and "Elemental Evil"? Really? Are there any original titles in D&D product lines anymore? I can't wait till they put Hommlet in Cormyr.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 09:31:56
|
So, it sounds like we won't get a FRCS (or a ''status of the Realms'' update) for a very, very long time.
Also, from what I've heard, their ToD adventures don't even come near to being regional sourcebooks, so -considering that it seems that they are the default template for the successive ones- where is this initial regional treatment that they have been hinting at?
Basically we are left with promises and little to no lore on the new Realms. Meh, whatever they please, at this point I'm starting to not care anymore, I just hope that they will at least publish some general articles about various aspects of the new Realms (like they did for the status of Myth Drannor/Shade). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 14:55:00
|
I don't think that you can realistically expect a FRCS before GEN-CON 2016.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 15:26:05
|
Ya know, I've been pondering the definition of a campaign setting since these topics started cropping up, and I think what we've been getting isn't necessarily the best way to do it.
Case in point: geopolitical details don't belong in a campaign setting book, especially in an era-neutral presentation. Because 20 (in-game) years ago, or 20 years from "now", the ruler will often be different. In some cases --like the Border Kingdoms-- the borders and even the name of the realm will often be different. If you want to present a realm in a way that allows wiggle room in choosing the time frame for a campaign, you need a book rather than a blurb.
Furthermore, looking back at 2e and 3e, the campaign setting books were soon outdated and/or superseded by regional sources, so... why put time-sensitive stuff there to begin with? It doesn't belong.
Alternative: move all the geography and much of the politics to regional sourcebooks. This is good anyway, because if the campaign setting gives more than a sentence to a place, and then there's a regional book... the regional book either repeats the info, which means that the space in the campaign setting was wasted (would have been better used for something else), or else it doesn't repeat it which means we need to open both books every time we want to know about that place/person/whatever. Which reminds me, NPCs don't belong in the campaign setting book either. (And full stat blocks don't belong in any book.)
In the process of separating out the things that deserve their own books, we could eventually arrive at something that looks a lot like Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms. A book about the Realms, which doesn't directly expound on individual realms or people, but does talk about things like coinage and laws and magic and daily life in Faerun. These are the things that belong in a campaign setting... "broad strokes" stuff.
I have no doubt that they are planning a Campaign Guide and Player's Guide like we saw in 4e. Because why have only one book when two will sell. And they'll fill both books with specifics that logically shouldn't be in there, much like they've done all the way back to the gray box. Just saying, Ed Presents is a pretty decent foundation and they could just start writing regional books at this point and it would be great. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 16:14:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I don't think that you can realistically expect a FRCS before GEN-CON 2016.
-- George Krashos
Likely. But that means that we aren't getting any substantial FR lore for two years, since the lore in their adventures model only seems to be limited to little snippets about the new FR (like Laeral being the new open lord). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 21:24:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I don't think that you can realistically expect a FRCS before GEN-CON 2016.
-- George Krashos
They've timed it with the release of the 6e Player's Guide? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 13 Nov 2014 : 23:38:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I don't think that you can realistically expect a FRCS before GEN-CON 2016.
-- George Krashos
Likely. But that means that we aren't getting any substantial FR lore for two years, since the lore in their adventures model only seems to be limited to little snippets about the new FR (like Laeral being the new open lord).
That's not necessarily right. Eric Boyd has been doing a ton of hard work in the last couple of months on the North; filling in holes, providing more background lore and history and fleshing out existing information and linking it together where appropriate. Think of the North boxed set, but with more detail and lore as well as updated to reflect the fiction.
It is a lot of stuff. A lot. And he's not done yet. WotC is aware of the work he is doing and I'm hoping they'll release it officially - a bit like they did with GHotR. Fan stuff made good (although Eric is way more than just a fan of the Realms).
Given the likely hiatus till the 5E FRCS, I think that they could do a lot worse than get this work out there.
-- George Krashos
DISCLAIMER: I've helped out Eric here and there on his project and may well be considered to have a vested interest in seeing it published. To be clear, if it did get published I wouldn't ask for a cent. It needs to get out there because Eric's super hard work needs to be recognised and because quite simply, it's great realmslore that he's come up with. |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 14 Nov 2014 : 07:03:12
|
| That's cool. I wish you and Eric the best of luck with getting this project out. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
News on 5e campaign setting?
