| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Renin
Learned Scribe
USA
290 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 02:36:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
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?
To answer directly; I don't think a direct rollback would have been received as well, because for those that really hold to the lore, ignoring/resetting the lore can be just as egregious as the original change that occurred.
I think it's been discussed enough here already about the why of the approach they took. Everything is marketing, then sales earned from that marketing.
What they did before (Spellplague, into the 4e future and current clack) was no longer selling the way as they needed. Or, the market time on that edition was done, and it was time to go forward. Skipping past all the 'throw 4e out with the bathwater talk, here's the second sundering, everything is the same again but different!' talk, I come back to this with my own question;
'What now?'
As it's been, what, 6 years, that 'what now' has become 'this is it.'
And this being it doesn't satisfy me.
I would have been fine to think about coming back to Wizbro to see what directions the Realms would go. 6 novels set that up, a couple of more series too, A new Sword Coast guide, Murder in Baldur's Gate, cool, ...cool I think...then honestly...
that was it. Nothing more on THE REALMS. Just Sword Coast and a bunch of rebaked old adventures without much other thought devoted to it.
So, for me, the question becomes moot about their approach to Sundering 2: Sunder Harder when you don't do *anything* with it really. I found their approach, and execution to it just fine. I don't like how they've done nothing with it since. **my own hyberbole** |
 |
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 04:05:57
|
Learned Scribe Renin,
Great post. I can certainly appreciate what you're saying there!
quote:
To answer directly; I don't think a direct rollback would have been received as well, because for those that really hold to the lore, ignoring/resetting the lore can be just as egregious as the original change that occurred.
I have to admit, based on practices for evaluating this kind of change, where what is at stake is so internalized, i.e. culture, lifestyle, values, that would be tough. You can do focus groups, interviews, etc., but you'd have to have some uber NDA's to make sure you don't get leaks. This kind of cultural stuff is seriously visceral in the rage it can attain, i.e. Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, and more.
The rollback could have been a success, but that is hindsight likely telling me more than anything. If you went to customers before pulling the trigger and said, "We want to do this drastic change, what do you think" (in more technical terms and professionally, but you get my point), you'd get the response of, "Don't you dare!" I think they felt they had to make a decision based on market growth. Their strategy was a Product Expansion strategy, and it blew up in their face, because they seemingly didn't do the research on both a new market segment as well as the current market segment. I mean, what more proof does one need than the reaction and outright hateful rage that came about post-Spellplague? lol I just hope their marketing team was fired after that and new ones hired. That was a disaster!
quote:
I think it's been discussed enough here already about the why of the approach they took. Everything is marketing, then sales earned from that marketing.
Fair enough.
quote:
What they did before (Spellplague, into the 4e future and current clack) was no longer selling the way as they needed. Or, the market time on that edition was done, and it was time to go forward. Skipping past all the 'throw 4e out with the bathwater talk, here's the second sundering, everything is the same again but different!' talk, I come back to this with my own question;
'What now?'
As it's been, what, 6 years, that 'what now' has become 'this is it.'
Agreed. What now is spot on. They are not looking at this as customer satisfaction of the lore based market segment of note. They are looking at this and saying, what elements playing into the cost of goods sold, can be cut to increase profit margins? Easy, remove the labor variable as much as possible! I mean, in almost any cost structure, the variable inputs decrease margins. Lowering those cost inputs saves enormous amounts of money. So, having less people knowing all of that lore makes it much more affordable. That doesn't make for a ton of happy, old school lore wonks, that have a lot of disposable income though. A real crap or get off the pot moment for WotC.
quote:
I would have been fine to think about coming back to Wizbro to see what directions the Realms would go. 6 novels set that up, a couple of more series too, A new Sword Coast guide, Murder in Baldur's Gate, cool, ...cool I think...then honestly...
that was it. Nothing more on THE REALMS. Just Sword Coast and a bunch of rebaked old adventures without much other thought devoted to it.
Yeah, exactly. I'm the kind of customer that can afford to go out and buy every thing they have produced since 2007 in one hit online. I don't do it because of their approach to this stuff. Alas, that will not happen.
quote:
So, for me, the question becomes moot about their approach to Sundering 2: Sunder Harder when you don't do *anything* with it really. I found their approach, and execution to it just fine. I don't like how they've done nothing with it since. **my own hyberbole**
Well, while I feel that the execution was poor, I will say I certainly agree with you that the greatest of the offenses has been their utter lack of well....anything of substance since 2007. Oh sure, they can flap their gums about the SCAG, and a couple of other books, but we know they are avoiding lore, because it is expensive.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 05:11:30
|
cpthero2, I feel like you're ascribing too much to market forces what I think was a deliberate design decision that had a clear vision, albeit one that became massively unpopular. There's elements of what you say, but I think it's worth taking their own words for it.
From the product page for the FRCG, itself quoting the designers in a magazine article:
quote:
What A Difference an Edition Makes: The Philosophy. A major timeline advancement, a Realms-shaking Spellplague, and the mystery of Abeir combined to suggest that there were big changes coming in the 4e Forgotten Realms. And, there were. The Forgotten Realms designers were reimagining the setting in much the same way that everything about D&D 4e was being reimagined. That started with a new nine-point philosophy for the Realms, which Senior Managing Editor Phil Athans and designer Bruce Cordell outlined in Dragon #366 (August 2008).
1. It’s exactly what it says it is: a world of ancient realms to explore and discover.
This matched Ed Greenwood's original conception of the Forgotten Realms. It's what he'd imagined in his early campaigns — which had begun in Cormyr, the Dalelands, the Savage Frontier, and the Sword Coast, and only then explored outward. However, over the intervening decades TSR and Wizards had detailed so much of the Realms that little of it was Forgotten any more. Now, Wizards wanted to restore that sense of mystery.
2. It’s a thousand stories, all happening at once.
The early Realms had succeeded not just based on Ed Greenwood's vision, but also the contributions of developer Jeff Grubb, writer R.A. Salvatore, Moonshae-creator Douglas Niles, and others. Together they told numerous stories of the Realms from numerous points of view.
3. It’s a place where your character can be the most important person in the world or die in anonymity.
This might have been one of the biggest flaws of the published Realms. At least as far back as the Avatar books (1989), NPCs had risen up to take the prominent roles in Realms-shaking Events. Now, the Realms designers wanted to turn that around, to gave players a chance to shine.
4. It’s a fully realized world, full of history and legend.
5. It’s a vibrant, ever-changing world that is constantly moving forward.
These were more philosophies that were drawn directly from Greenwood's original ideas about the Realms. He'd attracted TSR's attention in the first place through Dragon magazine articles that namedropped people and places to hint at the rich histories and legends of the Realms. Meanwhile, his own campaigns had always seen the Realms as a changing, evolving place — something that TSR and Wizards continued with its Realms-shaking Events from the Time of Troubles onward.
6. It’s core D&D “plus.”
This was a new marketing precept for D&D; it presumed that the Realms was a superset of D&D, not a variant. This meant that the Realms had to include the cosmology, races, and classes that were being developed for the core 4e game.
7. It’s contemporary fantasy.
The Forgotten Realms was first published by TSR in 1987, but the setting dated back to 1968 or 1969 when Greenwood started writing short stories in the Realms, while D&D play had begun in 1978. This meant that the setting needed some polishing to make it look more like modern fantasy, and less like the fantasy of the '60s, '70s, or '80s.
8. It’s 50% all new.
9. We’re not retconning. We’re assuming that everything that was, was.
Wizards planned big changes as part of the new 4e Forgotten Realms, but they were intended to be part of the continuing evolution of the Realms, not a reboot.
The 4e Realms were at least meant as an "answer" to the idea that the map was too filled in, that the lore was inaccessible, and that there wasn't enough room for player characters to be important and tell their own stories. You can disagree - and I know you and much of this forum does - but they're critiques I can in part echo, and the fact that the post-Spellplague Realms have their fans who are not just breathless children ignorant of the old material speaks to them having at least some worth. This was a team of people trying to solve problems that they saw, as part of an edition whose main emphasis was on the game itself as a playable thing, trying to handle a setting they felt had grown significant barriers to practical use at the table.
EDIT: Also, I do want to address-
quote:
Well, while I feel that the execution was poor, I will say I certainly agree with you that the greatest of the offenses has been their utter lack of well....anything of substance since 2007.
-this, as I feel like saying the 4e era lacked lore is just dishonest. You might not like what they wrote, but the FRCG is a proper hardcover almost 300 pages long, the Player's Guide over 150, the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is an astonishingly good text, and then there's something like 70 issues of Dungeon and Dragon magazines each across the edition with something Realms in almost all of them (more than once written by Ed!), plus a number of novel series and several years of Living Forgotten Realms adventures.
Dislike what they did write however much you do, but let's not pretend that that the era was any sort of ghost town for Realmslore. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
Edited by - keftiu on 23 Mar 2020 05:19:12 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 16:13:40
|
Learned Scribe keftiu,
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful response with a refutation regarding my motive at the end.
quote:
cpthero2, I feel like you're ascribing too much to market forces what I think was a deliberate design decision that had a clear vision, albeit one that became massively unpopular. There's elements of what you say, but I think it's worth taking their own words for it.
I believe I understand what you mean here. Though market forces is not accurate (those are external factors driving internal decisions), I believe you are meaning that this was a pre-planned decision, internally, and that WotC wasn't driving this from an overly processed, formal marketing design? If so, that may be so. Sometimes companies don't observe the formal marketing process from beginning to end in all that it entails. As I said though, I believe I get what you mean here, and it is possible. I myself don't have the data, etc. in front of me, so I was only going off of what I feel may have happened from my professional and educational background.
The truncation below is not cherry picking, but rather, only picking what I am responding too as I have had requests in recent times to not include quotes unless absolutely necessary as they can make these posts very long.
quote:
From the product page for the FRCG, itself quoting the designers in a magazine article:
quote:
What A Difference an Edition Makes: The Philosophy. A major timeline advancement, a Realms-shaking Spellplague, and the mystery of Abeir combined to suggest that there were big changes coming in the 4e Forgotten Realms. And, there were. The Forgotten Realms designers were reimagining the setting in much the same way that everything about D&D 4e was being reimagined. That started with a new nine-point philosophy for the Realms, which Senior Managing Editor Phil Athans and designer Bruce Cordell outlined in Dragon #366 (August 2008).
The issue at hand isn't the timeline advancement, it is that they blew up any relevant connection to the past by leaving a gaping 100 year hole between the two. It was play in the past, or play up here with us. That separation was felt, and caused feelings of being left behind with the old stuff, or leaving it behind to catch up with the rest and be in the club. People don't like that when it comes to culture and lifestyle in a fanbase. WotC knew what they were doing.
quote:
1. It’s exactly what it says it is: a world of ancient realms to explore and discover.
This matched Ed Greenwood's original conception of the Forgotten Realms. It's what he'd imagined in his early campaigns — which had begun in Cormyr, the Dalelands, the Savage Frontier, and the Sword Coast, and only then explored outward. However, over the intervening decades TSR and Wizards had detailed so much of the Realms that little of it was Forgotten any more. Now, Wizards wanted to restore that sense of mystery.
I understand this. However, going off of the 2nd/3rd edition atlas, there were (10) ten other land masses they could have gone off and kept it all going. Even if they used a spellplague, they could have built in the intervening years to connect it all together. Not have people have to make a binary choice of staying in the past or moving forward. I also don't accept a third of option of building your own stuff in the middle, as one of the things that makes the Realms the Realms is the history.
quote:
3. It’s a place where your character can be the most important person in the world or die in anonymity.
This might have been one of the biggest flaws of the published Realms. At least as far back as the Avatar books (1989), NPCs had risen up to take the prominent roles in Realms-shaking Events. Now, the Realms designers wanted to turn that around, to gave players a chance to shine.
This makes no sense to me. The NPC's, etc. in the Realms were there to provide reality, immersion, substance, and history to the world. All of the (103) accessories produced from 1993 to 2006 were all about allowing PC's a chance to shine. That is what those RPG accessories were all about. This was just non-sense.
quote:
4. It’s a fully realized world, full of history and legend. 5. It’s a vibrant, ever-changing world that is constantly moving forward.
These were more philosophies that were drawn directly from Greenwood's original ideas about the Realms. He'd attracted TSR's attention in the first place through Dragon magazine articles that namedropped people and places to hint at the rich histories and legends of the Realms. Meanwhile, his own campaigns had always seen the Realms as a changing, evolving place — something that TSR and Wizards continued with its Realms-shaking Events from the Time of Troubles onward.
See point (1) above that I responded too.
quote:
6. It’s core D&D “plus.”
This was a new marketing precept for D&D; it presumed that the Realms was a superset of D&D, not a variant. This meant that the Realms had to include the cosmology, races, and classes that were being developed for the core 4e game.
I get that point. I also agree with what I think their point here was: that they screwed up by taking one stance on something at one point and then took another, later. Ultimately, the Realms were the most popular, and this is why they made it thee setting for D&D over Greyhawk, etc.
quote:
7. It’s contemporary fantasy.
The Forgotten Realms was first published by TSR in 1987, but the setting dated back to 1968 or 1969 when Greenwood started writing short stories in the Realms, while D&D play had begun in 1978. This meant that the setting needed some polishing to make it look more like modern fantasy, and less like the fantasy of the '60s, '70s, or '80s.
I can see this. Truly, I can. I mean, fantasy has really changed a lot during the intervening decades. I think they could have made changes that didn't involve destroying what one generation had, to make room for the next by deleting the timeline and starting over with drastic changes 100 years later. I mean, talk about the old Star Trek Original Series to ST:TNG issue with the differences in appearances with the Klingons. lol
quote:
8. It’s 50% all new. 9. We’re not retconning. We’re assuming that everything that was, was.
Wizards planned big changes as part of the new 4e Forgotten Realms, but they were intended to be part of the continuing evolution of the Realms, not a reboot.
It's 50% all new sounds like a used car salesman telling me that their maintenance job makes it 50% new. In this case, they blew up half of it and replaced it with lesser parts that didn't work as well. As far as retconning...whew! I don't even know what they were thinking when they made that statement. You and I both are well aware of the endless scrolls here at the 'Keep about retconning. Everyone knows that that happened and to a great degree.
What was, remains....in history, with no playable connection to it unless you "stay in the past." The idea was the separation of times. All material was moving forward, and had nothing to do with the old times other than a tip of the hat. They knew they were wrong, and that's why they gave their pathetic apology.
quote:
The 4e Realms were at least meant as an "answer" to the idea that the map was too filled in, that the lore was inaccessible, and that there wasn't enough room for player characters to be important and tell their own stories. You can disagree - and I know you and much of this forum does - but they're critiques I can in part echo, and the fact that the post-Spellplague Realms have their fans who are not just breathless children ignorant of the old material speaks to them having at least some worth. This was a team of people trying to solve problems that they saw, as part of an edition whose main emphasis was on the game itself as a playable thing, trying to handle a setting they felt had grown significant barriers to practical use at the table.
As to the map was too filled in....they had (10) other land masses they could have built on. I mean, the world wasn't even close to being filled in. Not even close. This was about adding a new market segment into the income stream for another generation. When you have all of the current Realms folk owning a huge amount if not all, of what has been produced, they wanted to add in more stuff. However, the cost of goods sold was likely adding in huge labor costs for keeping the lore going, so they found a way to blow it up and start over without having to have large labor hours for lore consistency.
I get the barrier to enter argument. This is a valid point: I cannot disagree there. By blowing it up as they did, well, we saw what happened. The clear cut short answer is, they should have gotten a focus group together, and worked with existing fan lords, i.e. Master Krashos, Markustay, and many others, to figure out a solution to bridge the gap.
Heck, a perfect example for a wargame is Star Fleet Battles. You had to have a damn jurisdoctorate to play that game after a certain point in time! hahaha It turned people off because the others had a 30 year head start and the rules were many 100's of pages long. So, this point is well made, but they didn't invest in their current, and ravenous, customer base who could have been tapped themselves to expand this out to a new generation. That is the mess up here.
quote:
EDIT: Also, I do want to address-
quote:
Well, while I feel that the execution was poor, I will say I certainly agree with you that the greatest of the offenses has been their utter lack of well....anything of substance since 2007.
-this, as I feel like saying the 4e era lacked lore is just dishonest. You might not like what they wrote, but the FRCG is a proper hardcover almost 300 pages long, the Player's Guide over 150, the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is an astonishingly good text, and then there's something like 70 issues of Dungeon and Dragon magazines each across the edition with something Realms in almost all of them (more than once written by Ed!), plus a number of novel series and several years of Living Forgotten Realms adventures.
Dislike what they did write however much you do, but let's not pretend that that the era was any sort of ghost town for Realmslore.
Oh heck, my outlook wasn't just 100% accurate, it was understated, and let me with evidence substantiate that I am 100% correct and put this refutation to its death with the nuke that you can hear whistling towards the Earth right now to eat its soul...
I analyzed a (13) thirteen year period spanning 2nd to 5th editions. I grouped 2nd and 3rd edition together from 1993 through 2006, and 4th and 5th editions together from 2007 until 2020. Let's take a look at substance. To be clear, I am arguing the substance since that is the point at hand here: the physical, tangible material that was produced which in turn lent to the setting of the Realms.
2e/3e:
Between the years of 1993 and 2006, TSR/WotC produced 103 RPG accessories for the Realms, at an average rate of 7.92 items per year.
4e/5e:
Between the years of 2007 and 2020, WotC produced 32 RPG accessories for the Realms, at an average rate of 2.46 items per year.
When comparing those two together, that demonstrates that 2e/3e had a 322% production rate over and above that of 4e/5e in the same period of time.
Not only did my nuke just take out the aforementioned refutation, but I dropped a couple more just to make sure the area can't be lived in for another billion years....
If you look at the (6) years of production for 4e, and the first (6) years of production outlined in my timeline above (same 13 year period), 4e produced (total) 11 items whereas there were (70) items produced in the other timeframe: 636% more substance. I'd say that nailed the coffin shut, but wait.... there are no coffins: they were caught in that follow-up double nuke special.
It is sheer pants to argue against those data-driven facts. Which brings me to my closing which is a point made in the quote above from Senior Managing Editor Phil Athans and designer Bruce Cordell outlined in Dragon #366 (August 2008) that you cited:
quote:
1. It’s exactly what it says it is: a world of ancient realms to explore and discover.
This matched Ed Greenwood's original conception of the Forgotten Realms. It's what he'd imagined in his early campaigns — which had begun in Cormyr, the Dalelands, the Savage Frontier, and the Sword Coast, and only then explored outward. However, over the intervening decades TSR and Wizards had detailed so much of the Realms that little of it was Forgotten any more. Now, Wizards wanted to restore that sense of mystery.
Well, if they wanted to restore a sense of mystery, they sure as heck succeeded by producing 322% less material. Now we've all been made to wonder a great deal more as to what has been going on in the Realms during the intervening (100) year gap of history. Mystery attained?
As always, I appreciate your love of the Realms, and your arduous defense of your view on them.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
BrennonGoldeye
Learned Scribe
105 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 16:57:37
|
quote:
What A Difference an Edition Makes: The Philosophy. A major timeline advancement, a Realms-shaking Spellplague, and the mystery of Abeir combined to suggest that there were big changes coming in the 4e Forgotten Realms. And, there were. The Forgotten Realms designers were reimagining the setting in much the same way that everything about D&D 4e was being reimagined. That started with a new nine-point philosophy for the Realms, which Senior Managing Editor Phil Athans and designer Bruce Cordell outlined in Dragon #366 (August 2008).
1. It’s exactly what it says it is: a world of ancient realms to explore and discover.
This matched Ed Greenwood's original conception of the Forgotten Realms. It's what he'd imagined in his early campaigns — which had begun in Cormyr, the Dalelands, the Savage Frontier, and the Sword Coast, and only then explored outward. However, over the intervening decades TSR and Wizards had detailed so much of the Realms that little of it was Forgotten any more. Now, Wizards wanted to restore that sense of mystery.
They had "detailed" 20% of the planet. This is not a viable excuse to massacre a game both Lore-wise and Play-wise.
2. It’s a thousand stories, all happening at once.
The early Realms had succeeded not just based on Ed Greenwood's vision, but also the contributions of developer Jeff Grubb, writer R.A. Salvatore, Moonshae-creator Douglas Niles, and others. Together they told numerous stories of the Realms from numerous points of view.
Also not in any way a viable reason for the destruction.
3. It’s a place where your character can be the most important person in the world or die in anonymity.
This might have been one of the biggest flaws of the published Realms. At least as far back as the Avatar books (1989), NPCs had risen up to take the prominent roles in Realms-shaking Events. Now, the Realms designers wanted to turn that around, to gave players a chance to shine.
Umm... this is infantile. It's like they don't even understand the concept of a living world. If you want your character to equal Cadderly or Cyric or Drizzt.....they can. IN YOUR REALMS. Otherwise write a novel that sells or hush.
4. It’s a fully realized world, full of history and legend.
Wel.....it was...
5. It’s a vibrant, ever-changing world that is constantly moving forward.
Oh, you mean like "discovering" things Forgotten? Oh we can't do that, then they won't be "Forgotten"... see the loop here?
These were more philosophies that were drawn directly from Greenwood's original ideas about the Realms. He'd attracted TSR's attention in the first place through Dragon magazine articles that namedropped people and places to hint at the rich histories and legends of the Realms. Meanwhile, his own campaigns had always seen the Realms as a changing, evolving place — something that TSR and Wizards continued with its Realms-shaking Events from the Time of Troubles onward.
6. It’s core D&D “plus.”
This was a new marketing precept for D&D; it presumed that the Realms was a superset of D&D, not a variant. This meant that the Realms had to include the cosmology, races, and classes that were being developed for the core 4e game.
Uggggg-- So you had to jam in the new stuff by destroying the old? Eberron failed, get over it.
The Forgotten Realms was first published by TSR in 1987, but the setting dated back to 1968 or 1969 when Greenwood started writing short stories in the Realms, while D&D play had begun in 1978. This meant that the setting needed some polishing to make it look more like modern fantasy, and less like the fantasy of the '60s, '70s, or '80s.
Your destroying your own previous arguments, Forgotten things don't get makeovers.
8. It’s 50% all new.
Well when you throw out 85% and add 50% to the 15% remaining.. you get something about a 5th as good.
9. We’re not retconning. We’re assuming that everything that was, was.
And we don't wanna talk about it, it should be "Forgotten"
Wizards planned big changes as part of the new 4e Forgotten Realms, but they were intended to be part of the continuing evolution of the Realms, not a reboot.
Well, your intentions aside, it was. As proof? You had to retcon it.
Thus endeth my long ago rant. Please excuse my inability to correctly highlight my comments. I still follow all the Lore they have created in 4E and 5E. I just refused to destroy the actual Gaming aspects that though not basic addition, held a scope and scale far beyond what they handed us with 4E. It was a NERF, plain and simple. Note that DM's Guild forces 5E. FORCES. That is all you need to know. Well that and the fact Eric and Krash have some seriously wicked new stuff here. In 3.5 I might add.  |
Sam |
Edited by - BrennonGoldeye on 23 Mar 2020 16:58:42 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2020 : 18:18:32
|
Learned Scribe BrennonGoldeye,
I completely get your points there and agree.
The scale and scope as you put it was just dwarfed, as highlighted by the data that I argued with in my rebuttal previous.
Best regards,
EDITED: Removed Learned Scribe BrennonGoldeye's text for brevity.
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
Edited by - cpthero2 on 23 Mar 2020 21:24:28 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2020 : 23:54:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Oh heck, my outlook wasn't just 100% accurate, it was understated, and let me with evidence substantiate that I am 100% correct and put this refutation to its death with the nuke that you can hear whistling towards the Earth right now to eat its soul...
I analyzed a (13) thirteen year period spanning 2nd to 5th editions. I grouped 2nd and 3rd edition together from 1993 through 2006, and 4th and 5th editions together from 2007 until 2020. Let's take a look at substance. To be clear, I am arguing the substance since that is the point at hand here: the physical, tangible material that was produced which in turn lent to the setting of the Realms.
2e/3e:
Between the years of 1993 and 2006, TSR/WotC produced 103 RPG accessories for the Realms, at an average rate of 7.92 items per year.
4e/5e:
Between the years of 2007 and 2020, WotC produced 32 RPG accessories for the Realms, at an average rate of 2.46 items per year.
When comparing those two together, that demonstrates that 2e/3e had a 322% production rate over and above that of 4e/5e in the same period of time.
Not only did my nuke just take out the aforementioned refutation, but I dropped a couple more just to make sure the area can't be lived in for another billion years....
If you look at the (6) years of production for 4e, and the first (6) years of production outlined in my timeline above (same 13 year period), 4e produced (total) 11 items whereas there were (70) items produced in the other timeframe: 636% more substance. I'd say that nailed the coffin shut, but wait.... there are no coffins: they were caught in that follow-up double nuke special.
It is sheer pants to argue against those data-driven facts. Which brings me to my closing which is a point made in the quote above from Senior Managing Editor Phil Athans and designer Bruce Cordell outlined in Dragon #366 (August 2008) that you cited:
quote:
1. It’s exactly what it says it is: a world of ancient realms to explore and discover.
This matched Ed Greenwood's original conception of the Forgotten Realms. It's what he'd imagined in his early campaigns — which had begun in Cormyr, the Dalelands, the Savage Frontier, and the Sword Coast, and only then explored outward. However, over the intervening decades TSR and Wizards had detailed so much of the Realms that little of it was Forgotten any more. Now, Wizards wanted to restore that sense of mystery.
Well, if they wanted to restore a sense of mystery, they sure as heck succeeded by producing 322% less material. Now we've all been made to wonder a great deal more as to what has been going on in the Realms during the intervening (100) year gap of history. Mystery attained?
As always, I appreciate your love of the Realms, and your arduous defense of your view on them.
Best regards,
Are you aware that most of these books didn't sell enough for even covering the expenses of making them, and that this led TSR to bankruptcy, and that situation almost killed D&D, right? That's why WotC had to buy D&D...
So, that lack of books was to avoid the end of D&D, not because they lacked love for it. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 01:55:58
|
Master Zeromaru X,
quote:
Are you aware that most of these books didn't sell enough for even covering the expenses of making them, and that this led TSR to bankruptcy, and that situation almost killed D&D, right? That's why WotC had to buy D&D... So, that lack of books was to avoid the end of D&D, not because they lacked love for it.
With all respect to your outlook, while I feel that production cost certainly did a part, albeit a smaller part than I think you may realize, I provide in the subsequent URL the Vice-President of WotC's analysis. His analysis was as the lead for the purchase of TSR, and this simplified accounting of the process in his blog entry is very straightforward. It reads like the tragedy it was for someone like VP Dancey, as you can tell by his account.
https://www.insaneangel.com/insaneangel/RPG/Dancey.html
I stated that your outlook as to production costs being an element of the failure, is true. I also stated that they are a smaller part of that failure. What clearly demonstrates that the production costs are a small element of it is plain for all to see when you read VP Dancey's writing through the lens of an audit of a company. Not an IRS kind of an audit alone, though certainly accounting is a part of it as you can read in VP Dancey's writing. The managerial audit aspect of VP Dancey's account is powerful: it's agonizing to read the kinds of systemic failures that never seem to be known. This kind of audit I describe is like one you would see from Ernst and Young for example. The reading from my take on it breaks down as follows:
- The owners, Gary and Dave, were business failures in the technical, analytical, and structural sense
- Gary and Dave were visionaries that knew what games people wanted to play during a certain time
- They didn't get business. They didn't understand corporate structure, operations management, marketing (in its truest sense), accounting, finance, and economics
- They had no formal training or education in the world of business and it showed in their profound failings
- Where they had vision, they lacked a mission, had no sensible goals, and demonstrated no leadership to help guide their subordinates to achieve great things so that the mission could be a success
The blog of VP Dancey reads as the slow, cancerous death that TSR wrote for itself. They were eaten away from the inside by profound incompetence, disastrous business decisions, and an agonizing degree of hubris (it seems) that to so simply lay this at the doorstep of production costs is platitudinous. Though I fear this to be seen as churlish, I must confess my inability to capture both efficacy and diplomacy simultaneously, so I defer to the former and inasmuch speak in a clipped manner: the almost monosyllabic analysis provided is so underwhelming, I do wonder from whence you gathered your information?
quote:
So, that lack of books was to avoid the end of D&D, not because they lacked love for it.
This completely lacks in all ways, factual reality. Here is what really happened by tangible, produced fact:
- 1) TSR produced (46) lore based items from 1993 through April 10th, 1997
- 2) WotC produced (24) lore based items from 1997 to 1999
- 3) WotC produced (34) lore based items from 1997 to 2001
As you can see from item (1) above, TSR produced 11.5 products per year from 1993 to 1997.
As you can see from item (2) above, WotC produced 12 products per year from 1997 to 1999.
As you can see from item (3) above, WotC produced 8.5 products per year from 1997 to 2001.
To be crystal clear hear, when looking at the data above and after having read VP Dancey's post-mortem of TSR, that the most generous differential of (3) products per year between TSR and WotC was the game changer? I ask because I want to be clear, not because I think you actually believe that, as the notion is utterly preposterous. That kind of narrow margin cutting in production completely belies the inefficiencies that VP Dancey articulated in his common writing of the problems (I assure you his professional assessment in business language comported with standards and was quite likely savagely brutal and meant to be kept quiet).
I admit though, I could be missing something here. If I am, please provide the data to back it up. I always admit when I am wrong, as that is how we all improve on ourselves in life! :)
VP Dancey, in a rather succinct, and sad description, hits the nails on the head though. VP Dancey was the individual who spearheaded that acquisition process, and it would seem unlikely that someone else would have better insight than him.
As such, I defer to VP Dancey's well articulated but common description of the failings of TSR leading to bankruptcy.
I await your rebuttal.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
Starshade
Learned Scribe
Norway
279 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 08:38:58
|
Cpthero2: I get what you mean, sure. My area of expertise is within a quite different field, culture history, but TSR did produce some products under "Full cost", if i Remember. Some products would never be with profit 
That MIGHT be wise, for entry-level start kits for a cheap hobby-entry. TSRs strategy is not something I know much about…
But for 4e, I think it's ok, brilliant, but it is not D&D. At all. I can't explain it in "business" language. It's like Ruby Rod from "the 5th element", asking if his performance was super green. 2e is "super green", 3e is, 4e is brilliant, but not the same. People started abandon D&D, for Pathfinder. the move to 4e was the most inept decision in business I have ever seen, imho. If not the return to older style, Wotc might have butchered the brand name for what I know, or at least made themself not "marked leader".
|
Edited by - Starshade on 25 Mar 2020 08:39:58 |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 09:34:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starshade
Cpthero2: I get what you mean, sure. My area of expertise is within a quite different field, culture history, but TSR did produce some products under "Full cost", if i Remember. Some products would never be with profit
That MIGHT be wise, for entry-level start kits for a cheap hobby-entry. TSRs strategy is not something I know much about…
But for 4e, I think it's ok, brilliant, but it is not D&D. At all. I can't explain it in "business" language. It's like Ruby Rod from "the 5th element", asking if his performance was super green. 2e is "super green", 3e is, 4e is brilliant, but not the same. People started abandon D&D, for Pathfinder. the move to 4e was the most inept decision in business I have ever seen, imho. If not the return to older style, Wotc might have butchered the brand name for what I know, or at least made themself not "marked leader".
What an original and useful comment that’s never been said before here and is definitely on-topic. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 12:50:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starshade
But for 4e, I think it's ok, brilliant, but it is not D&D. At all.
You do realize that this is 100% factually incorrect, yes? It says Dungeons and Dragons on every cover of every book published. Like, what a silly thing to say..
@ keftiu: what I would've loved to have seen is more multi-edition supplements - especially adventures after their directional change in editions. Similar to what Murder in Baldur's Gate, Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Dead in Thay all did, allowing one to run 3.5, 4e, or 5e.
This could have also expanded into different eras of the Realms, help shore up some of those glaring dark spots of the time-gap between 1385 and 1479 DR. This would have allowed both authors and fans to continue to enjoy certain characters and finalize some plots yet take nothing away from what transpired. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 14:08:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Oh heck, my outlook wasn't just 100% accurate, it was understated, and let me with evidence substantiate that I am 100% correct and put this refutation to its death with the nuke that you can hear whistling towards the Earth right now to eat its soul...
I analyzed a (13) thirteen year period spanning 2nd to 5th editions. I grouped 2nd and 3rd edition together from 1993 through 2006, and 4th and 5th editions together from 2007 until 2020. Let's take a look at substance. To be clear, I am arguing the substance since that is the point at hand here: the physical, tangible material that was produced which in turn lent to the setting of the Realms.
2e/3e:
Between the years of 1993 and 2006, TSR/WotC produced 103 RPG accessories for the Realms, at an average rate of 7.92 items per year.
4e/5e:
Between the years of 2007 and 2020, WotC produced 32 RPG accessories for the Realms, at an average rate of 2.46 items per year.
When comparing those two together, that demonstrates that 2e/3e had a 322% production rate over and above that of 4e/5e in the same period of time.
Not only did my nuke just take out the aforementioned refutation, but I dropped a couple more just to make sure the area can't be lived in for another billion years....
If you look at the (6) years of production for 4e, and the first (6) years of production outlined in my timeline above (same 13 year period), 4e produced (total) 11 items whereas there were (70) items produced in the other timeframe: 636% more substance. I'd say that nailed the coffin shut, but wait.... there are no coffins: they were caught in that follow-up double nuke special.
It is sheer pants to argue against those data-driven facts. Which brings me to my closing which is a point made in the quote above from Senior Managing Editor Phil Athans and designer Bruce Cordell outlined in Dragon #366 (August 2008) that you cited:
quote:
1. It’s exactly what it says it is: a world of ancient realms to explore and discover.
This matched Ed Greenwood's original conception of the Forgotten Realms. It's what he'd imagined in his early campaigns — which had begun in Cormyr, the Dalelands, the Savage Frontier, and the Sword Coast, and only then explored outward. However, over the intervening decades TSR and Wizards had detailed so much of the Realms that little of it was Forgotten any more. Now, Wizards wanted to restore that sense of mystery.
Well, if they wanted to restore a sense of mystery, they sure as heck succeeded by producing 322% less material. Now we've all been made to wonder a great deal more as to what has been going on in the Realms during the intervening (100) year gap of history. Mystery attained?
As always, I appreciate your love of the Realms, and your arduous defense of your view on them.
Best regards,
Are you aware that most of these books didn't sell enough for even covering the expenses of making them, and that this led TSR to bankruptcy, and that situation almost killed D&D, right? That's why WotC had to buy D&D...
So, that lack of books was to avoid the end of D&D, not because they lacked love for it.
I gotta give Zero some support on this. We as gamers never see the pocketbook of the company. However, I have to add that during the era of TSR, they were producing SO MUCH stuff that I couldn't afford to keep up either monetarily OR with time. Even now with very little being produced, I'm stretched for time. I generally have been buying most of the realms stuff just to keep the pipeline going, but I'm genuinely about a year behind on all releases, and a lot of what I read I skim and depend on these forums to catch me up. Now, if I quit playing with maps, 3d models, painting minis for fun, and writing my own material, would I have the time? Yeah. But honestly, that's what makes me enjoy the realms, so that's not going to happen. Furthermore, I'm SLOWLY going back through stuff that was released in 1e and 2e. For instance, last week when I started discovering on the country of Wa in Kara-Tur. There's honestly so much out there that I can understand the lore coming out slowly. What I would prefer to see happen is more rule releases for 5e that add functionality and balance, but we're seeing a lot of that on DM's Guild. The chore just comes down to separating the wheat from the chaff. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6646 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 14:46:59
|
I've learned a few things about the Realms over the years: it's not as popular in the wider gaming community as I thought it was years back; that the "truly dedicated" fans (you can read "obsessed" if you like - I count myself in this category) are very few in real terms and that at its core, many, many more people like to buy RPG products to game with than simply to read (I'm not in this category). The Realms works just as well as a campaign placeholder for 5E adventure books as it ever did as the "flagship setting" of 2/3E and with far less expense attached to it in terms of business cost. And that's where it starts and finishes.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Renin
Learned Scribe
USA
290 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 16:12:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I've learned a few things about the Realms over the years: it's not as popular in the wider gaming community as I thought it was years back; that the "truly dedicated" fans (you can read "obsessed" if you like - I count myself in this category) are very few in real terms and that at its core, many, many more people like to buy RPG products to game with than simply to read (I'm not in this category). The Realms works just as well as a campaign placeholder for 5E adventure books as it ever did as the "flagship setting" of 2/3E and with far less expense attached to it in terms of business cost. And that's where it starts and finishes.
-- George Krashos
That's a *mic drop* to a forum thread if I ever read one.  |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 16:29:06
|
Master Zeromaru X,
I as well respected the edict of Master Rupert. However, I feel I would be denying you your due if I didn't create another scroll allowing for a continuation of this topic as, a) I find it exceedingly interesting, and b) you are a well reasoned and dedicated person to the argument and I would like to hear your continued argument for your position.
By the way, I enjoyed reading the articles you shared: thank you!
The new thread that I invite you to Master Zeromaru X is: "A Continued Discussion on Setting Releases." I would be honored if you chose to continue this debate there.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
BrennonGoldeye
Learned Scribe
105 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2020 : 16:29:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I've learned a few things about the Realms over the years: it's not as popular in the wider gaming community as I thought it was years back; that the "truly dedicated" fans (you can read "obsessed" if you like - I count myself in this category) are very few in real terms and that at its core, many, many more people like to buy RPG products to game with than simply to read (I'm not in this category). The Realms works just as well as a campaign placeholder for 5E adventure books as it ever did as the "flagship setting" of 2/3E and with far less expense attached to it in terms of business cost. And that's where it starts and finishes.
-- George Krashos
Makes perfect sense, still sux. |
Sam |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2020 : 04:12:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starshade
Cpthero2: I get what you mean, sure. My area of expertise is within a quite different field, culture history, but TSR did produce some products under "Full cost", if i Remember. Some products would never be with profit
That MIGHT be wise, for entry-level start kits for a cheap hobby-entry. TSRs strategy is not something I know much about…
But for 4e, I think it's ok, brilliant, but it is not D&D. At all. I can't explain it in "business" language. It's like Ruby Rod from "the 5th element", asking if his performance was super green. 2e is "super green", 3e is, 4e is brilliant, but not the same. People started abandon D&D, for Pathfinder. the move to 4e was the most inept decision in business I have ever seen, imho. If not the return to older style, Wotc might have butchered the brand name for what I know, or at least made themself not "marked leader".
Diffan already addressed most of this, so I'll endeavor not to repeat what he said, but I'll agree with your take insofar as some of the WotC staff admitted it wasn't quite the outcome they had hoped for (James Wyatt stating that "4th Edition has gone off the rails", for example)...they may have been referring to the mechanics, but I would be willing to wager they were discussing FR at the time.
I'd also be willing to wager that they weren't at all expecting the (admittedly extreme and in many cases vitriolic) response they got from the grognards in the Old Guard (and I admit I am one such...at the time, the only thing that kept me from chucking the FR campaign guide across the room is the respect for books my parents drilled into me)) - you can thank some of the more patient sorts (again, Diffan comes to mind as the foremost 4th Edition Realms advocate at the time) in greatly ameliorating a lot of the "injustice" many of us felt had been done to the beloved Realms we knew and loved (a friend of mine once said "If the ToT is a broken nose, the 4th Edition Realms are a sucking chest wound").
After these (many) discussions here in Candlekeep, I managed to lead my own group through the Realms without too much problem (and even managed to shut the naysayers in the group up...no small feat), particularly after the superb Neverwinter Campaign Setting was given to us. The Neverwinter region became our campaign area of choice, and it was as if the Shattered Realms was all but an abstract concept in the greater scheme of things. And while I do admit I particularly like Wooley's idea of dual timelines, I have no illusions that they would have even considered this. Pride? Perhaps. But they figured out how to do the next best thing, so I have no choice but to mute my criticisms (and I do have them, but the previous 3.5/4 Edition War demonstrated that I don't need to make the same mistake twice).
As an aside, and strictly as an observation, I have often felt that WotC would have done well to establish an "alternate label", such as White Wolf Publishing did by creating (in real time) their "Black Dog Game Factory" label...something that had appeared in their published material to represent their alternate-world selves (often in a humorous vein), but that they decided to use when bringing out such published works that contained material that required label warnings and shrink wrap.
That, or 4th Edition (mechanics) need not have been labeled "4th Edition"...perhaps label it something like Dungeons and Dragons: Alternate Currents, and leave off the edition number entirely...something that would let the buyer understand, right off the bat, that yes, this is still D&D, but it's not the D&D you're used to. My group tried 4th Edition (mechanics), and we really didn't have much in the way of strong feelings one way or the other...it was a "meh" response, so those of us with books shelved them, and we went back to 3.5.
To directly respond to the OP: A rollback would have been enthusiastically embraced by some...but it would have caused far more headache that they were willing to roll the dice on (pun intended). They might be able to get away with a series of "What If?" publications (which I would most certainly purchase), but they couldn't put them in context of the greater setting, not if they wanted to keep the relative level of goodwill they've managed to gather. But it's interesting to ponder, nonetheless.
- OMH |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2020 : 05:53:02
|
A rollback serves no purpose if it's still "tainted" with the elements which made the move forward unacceptable to diehards. They're still going to completely reject the newer lore by the simple expedient of sticking to their older materials.
Complicated because the newer stuff has itself attracted an audience. Who probably think a retrograde would be dumb.
So it seems to me the only options are to completely abandon one audience in preference to the other, or to release materials addressed to each.
WotC could have "parallel" lores set in different eras. Which could fork into different paths or even be cleverly written history-spanning adventure arcs.
Or they could write things in such a blandly generic way that it tacitly fits anywhere/anywhen without any disturbance.
It seems they're just steamrolling 5E over anyone who doesn't like it. As Krashos said, minority niches don't produce the same numbers as mainstream markets, WotC is always going to chase the biggest pile of money. So I don't expect a rollback, I only expect to be joined by more dissenting grognards when 6E displaces everything all over again. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2020 : 23:28:40
|
I think it would be easier for them to push the 5th edition version of the Forgotten Realms if we had more information on how the world actually looks, and not just one relatively minor book covering the Sword Coast and very little else.
It's been six years, and in that time we've just straight up not had a proper campaign setting book. At least five other settings have, or have upcoming settings, and four of those are new-to-D&D; Wildemount, Ravnica, Theros, and that one from Acquisitions Incorporated. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2020 : 23:47:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
I think it would be easier for them to push the 5th edition version of the Forgotten Realms if we had more information on how the world actually looks, and not just one relatively minor book covering the Sword Coast and very little else.
While I agree with you that a full-scale setting book for the Forgotten Realms would be amazing, understand that nearly every adventure published is set in the Forgotten Realms (for good or ill, is up to you). And with each adventure, lots of lore of that particular area is published. For example, Storm Kings Thunder - we get a great idea of what's going on in the North, Icewind Dale, and the areas there. In Tomb of Annihilation - we get a great snap shot of Chult (though cultural elements were received with less than enthusiastic response). In Out of the Abyss, we see the Underdark. In Princes of the Apocalypse we see much of the Sword Coast and Western Heartlands. Then there's the Sword Coast Adventure Guide and Volo's Guide to Monsters (an expanded bestiary but many Realms-specific monsters like Gibberlings and Xvorts). What I'm saying is that there is content, just not all clumped into one singular entity like others ones were.
These all have pretty good Realmslore attached to them. I also HIGHLY suggest getting the Sundering series of Adventures (Murder in Baldur's Gate, Legacy of the Shard, and Dead in Thay). For starters, they came out with stats so the adventure can be run using 3.5, 4e, or 5e systems. Second, they have great setting detail and some pretty awesome maps of those regions. Overall a great Realms purchase.
quote:
Originally posted by Scots Dragon
It's been six years, and in that time we've just straight up not had a proper campaign setting book. At least five other settings have, or have upcoming settings, and four of those are new-to-D&D; Wildemount, Ravnica, Theros, and that one from Acquisitions Incorporated.
Not to mention Eberron setting, which just got released. They also made PDFs for other Magic: The Gathering settings like Dominaria. I think, if anything, THAT is the way to go, little Gazetteers about pin-point areas of the Realms. One could be about Cormyr. One could be about The Dalelands. Another about the Moonsea, one about Unther/Tymanther, etc. These snap shots can have a brief history since 1487 DR to current time and maybe some current plots going on, maybe even some rules for local monsters and maybe some bad-guy NPCs in the region. |
Edited by - Diffan on 30 Mar 2020 23:51:06 |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2020 : 00:16:58
|
Yeah, I don't think a guide to the Realms as a whole is really feasible; you'd need a massive tome (hundreds of pages) to give just Faerun more than a page or two per country, which I'm sure would upset almost as many folks as the current scheme does. I think the smarter play would be smaller gazetteers for nations, regions, or even just some killer cities.
If we got more Neverwinter Campaign Setting-style books, I don't think anyone would mind. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2020 : 06:36:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
Yeah, I don't think a guide to the Realms as a whole is really feasible; you'd need a massive tome (hundreds of pages) to give just Faerun more than a page or two per country, which I'm sure would upset almost as many folks as the current scheme does. I think the smarter play would be smaller gazetteers for nations, regions, or even just some killer cities.
With the way in which they handle setting books and most of their printed material right now, you're pretty much spot on. I just don't think they want to invest that sort of man-power into such a project. Not to mention the likelihood of it selling great. Lets face it, outside these hallowed halls is a MUCH bigger RPG community who's absolutely sick of the Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, let along THE Base setting for 5E and less spotlight it gets is the better in their eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
If we got more Neverwinter Campaign Setting-style books, I don't think anyone would mind.
Regional setting books or even small PDFs detailing something specific, would certainly go over a lot better. Similar to what they did with the smaller Planes for Magic: the Gathering. Amonket, Dominaria, Innistrad, Zendikar, etc. all got 24 to 40 pages of lore. I'm absolutely positive they could get some creative Realms authors to throw down some amazing Realmslore about a very specific area with that page-count. |
|
|
|
Renin
Learned Scribe
USA
290 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2020 : 14:00:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I also HIGHLY suggest getting the Sundering series of Adventures (Murder in Baldur's Gate, Legacy of the Shard, and Dead in Thay). For starters, they came out with stats so the adventure can be run using 3.5, 4e, or 5e systems. Second, they have great setting detail and some pretty awesome maps of those regions. Overall a great Realms purchase.
When these came out, I truly believed 'Yup! I'm coming back!'
Imagine my chagrin when they didn't keep up this avenue for very long. |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 31 Mar 2020 : 16:17:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
With the way in which they handle setting books and most of their printed material right now, you're pretty much spot on. I just don't think they want to invest that sort of man-power into such a project. Not to mention the likelihood of it selling great. Lets face it, outside these hallowed halls is a MUCH bigger RPG community who's absolutely sick of the Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, let along THE Base setting for 5E and less spotlight it gets is the better in their eyes.
It's always perplexed me as to why WotC (or any game company that fields multiple game worlds in which they completely own the IP) has never employed a format that has a "multiple choice" structure. You see this concept employed to a much lesser extent in such texts as Ghosts of Saltmarsh, where the adventure is clearly set in Greyhawk, but there are simple paragraphs that describe how this idea fits into the Realms, into Eberron, and so forth. It's a good start, but it falls woefully short of the results they could achieve.
To construct a hypothetical example, they could take a certain concept - let's call this new tome The Serpent Reaches (as Serpent Kingdoms has already been used) - and envision as to how it might look. This should be fairly quick.
Chapter One is setting neutral, and describes the essential information - yuan-ti cities, basically - along with important NPC's, plots, basically everything that is not specific to any one setting.
After that, each chapter is devoted to a certain game world including one or two pages of detailed maps of the area, and descriptions of how the "generic"information is placed into the game world in question. In our hypothetical example, everything apart from maybe Planescape and Spelljammer could merit a chapter...so in the Realms, it's obviously the Vilhon. In Dark Sun, maybe it fits into a secluded canyon near the Last Sea. In Birthright, perhaps the secret rulership of a province in the Chimaeron. And Ravenloft, its a separate domain with a yuan-ti Darklord. And so on.
The point here is to cater to multiple settings with the same information, rather than the Saltmarsh method of placing it by default in Campaign Setting A, then tossing out a paragraph or two each for just a couple of other game worlds. In this way, they can add to their active game worlds, and perhaps give the fans of other worlds a small nibble of things that may be going on in their as-yet-unrevived campaign settings of choice.
- OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 31 Mar 2020 16:22:02 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why wasn't 5e just a rollback?
But I agree with sleyvas' opinion here. Myself, I have lot Realmslore to read, and I've not even finished all the 3e books yet. I don't know if I want to delve into 2e as well...