|
1 year ago ::
Feb 08, 2012 - 10:01PM
#301
|
|
|
4E Realms is the reason my gaming group and I quit playing 4E after less than three months, and continued on with 3.5, and picked up PF on the side. If they don't seriously fix Toril, and do something to bring back the meat and potato's of coolness that most of us enjoyed from 1987 till just a few years ago, well...guess I can spend my extra cash on something else. Come to think about it, I do need to start working on redoing the bathroom. But if they do bring Greenwoods awesome creation back to prime time, well... I was planning on getting another bookshelf anyway. humm... 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 09, 2012 - 7:17AM
#302
|
|
|
which on that note.. I wonder if all the realms haters who like 4e realms play in it now and or read the fr novel line????
regardless dont asnwer that
Why not? It is a good point. The 4E Realms took the shape they did to try an entice people who either disliked them or at least (in the case of several members of my group) felt uncomfortable about gaming there. It was an attempt to bring the Realms to a wider audience. And as abhorrent as I find many of the changes that were made (and posters who saw my responses to the 4E announcements back in the day may attest to exactly how much I hate many of those changes), the fact remains that if I suggest a campaign (long or short) set in the Realms they now jump at it.
Did they lose more people than they gained? Nobody can be sure except from those who actually have the sales figures, and even then it is just an educated guess (because that is about books sold, not games held). But dumping the 4E timeline in its entirity? You might as well wish for the moon to be made of cheese and have it delivered to your doorstep in bite-sized chunks by monkeys.
Support for multiple eras is about the best you are likely to get, and I am glad that it looks like they are attempting that. Exactly how they would support them? Well, I have posted about that before  .
My approach to the NPCs of previous editions. Spoiler:
Show
I always saw the High Level NPCs as shepherds of the Realms not its defenders. Making sure that not too many sheep were lost as they milled around (as they are wont to do) and bringing on the young'uns into the job. In that way a shepherd never has time to go and hunt down all of the wolves but is pretty dashed effective at keeping them away from the sheep when they rear their heads. "It was a puzzle why things were always dragged kicking and screaming. No one ever seemed to want to, for example, lead them gently by the hand." - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 09, 2012 - 8:32AM
#303
|
|
|
I don't mind the 4e Realms, and we play our game in the 1470s. If you don't happen to like the post-spellplague Realms, just set your game in the 2e/3e 1370s. I don't get what's the big deal, it's not like there isn't already a couple hundred books worth of material there you can use... We can both be happy here. That's the joy of the Realms, and according to Ed Greenwood, the reason it exists - as a setting to tell whatever tale you want to tell. That said, the best idea I've heard for moving forward (and one discussed at length over at Candlekeep) is having source books cover multiple eras. To give credit where it's due, this was Eric Scott DeBie's idea: Say you are writing a book on Cormyr. Have most of the book be about the history, the people, the customs, the geography, etc etc, of the region, and then have the last chapter be a "life and times snapshot" at various points: say, 1370s (2e), 1380s (3e), and 1470s (4e). This way the majority of the material is edition neutral, and then you get a "current events" section you can plug into your game based on the time period you are playing in. Time moves on, and history develops. The Realms is a living, breathing world. To pretend 100 years "just didn't happen" is short-sighted. The Earth of the 1900s and the Earth of the 2000s are completely different; a hundred years has made a huge amount of difference. Why wouldn't the same apply to the Realms? The joy of gaming is that if you prefer the earlier time period, well, just use it. No complaining required, and we all get to have fun! 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 09, 2012 - 9:22AM
#304
|
|
|
Anyone who's bothered to actually read Ed Greenwood's Eye on the Realms articles or any of the various Backdrop: [insert Realms location name here] over the last couple of years knows that a lot of careful development has taken place.
This development doesn't usually emphasize the Spellplague, keeps continuity in place and presents the Realms as if a century of time, and not the Spellplague, is the greatest force of change working on the Realms.
People who appreciate Realmslore for its own sake, but want to see the Spellplague errased, probably just haven't bothered to read anything beyond the FRCG and the FRPG. If they did, they'd probably change their tune.
The Forgotten Realms: It's an ugly baby, but damnit it's our ugly baby.
WotC, please don't wreck the Forgotten Realms a third time in order to introduce the latest version of the D&D rules.
Give us back 3rd Edition's Magic Television concept instead.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 09, 2012 - 9:32AM
#305
|
|
|
would not bet on that even if I was a betting man....
but persay I did not like shadowbane, the new lady blackstaff...... o r Elminster's grand daughter...
no new realms novel during the 4e run set in the pre plague era( save by Ed or RAS, last I heard). all of them were to be on the current time line.
btw... I do like Shadowbane, I ADORE the lady blackstaff and I like EL's grandaughter.
that all said.... and novel in 4e that I buy from here on out must be in a spot I'm familiar with....(I must remember to go to b and n's website later...) or a character
but... moving on.... as this train of thought is not going to go anywhere
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 09, 2012 - 10:57PM
#306
|
|
|
4E Realms was a complete pile of dreck from beginning to end.
Dump all of it, including the ridiculous retcons that change the origin story and fabricate "Abeir" out of thin air. Have all of it relegated to the garbage pile and let none of it continue to poison the Realms.
Just moving along and accepting 4E into historical lore is a worse insult than having dreamed up all the 4E destruction in the first place.
So do the right thing and trash it, all of it.
Start up again from the end of 3E, or go all the way back to the original Old Gray Box, but throw out all of the stupid stuff that made its way into the last page of GHotR and be certain you totally invalidate the 4E mistake.
Put something else in front of me, like a watered down version of 4E Realms, and I will refuse to buy it and anything else from WotC again.
Bologna.
The rest is just whining based on that bologna statement.
And your declaration of intent regarding future purchases has to be wieghed against all of the 4e Realms fans, and all of the 4e opponents that hate retcons as much as, if not more than, they hate the 4e Realms.
Because a retcon would lose sales from both groups. Continuing the timeline without retcon only "loses" what they've already lost, and if handled right, might even bring some people back.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 1:58AM
#307
|
|
|
Anyone who's bothered to actually read Ed Greenwood's Eye on the Realms articles or any of the various Backdrop: [insert Realms location name here] over the last couple of years knows that a lot of careful development has taken place.
This development doesn't usually emphasize the Spellplague, keeps continuity in place and presents the Realms as if a century of time, and not the Spellplague, is the greatest force of change working on the Realms.
People who appreciate Realmslore for its own sake, but want to see the Spellplague errased, probably just haven't bothered to read anything beyond the FRCG and the FRPG. If they did, they'd probably change their tune.
You mean the EotR are time neutral? Pretty easy at the samll NPC level.
I want to see nations evolve. Like Thay or Cormyr from 1376. Without a Spellplague. Not just a doppleganger who founded a time neutral guild that does X.
Resident Socialist and Undying Troublemaker
Martyr of Section 1, 2 and 4
Original Troll of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 7:07AM
#308
|
|
|
Bologna.
The rest is just whining based on that bologna statement.
You may feel free to buy garbage if you like. This is my assessment of the 4E material. Frankly, I don't care if you or anyone else wants to support that complete pile of dreck, I'm saying that I won't buy it. And I won't support WotC any longer if they miss this opportunity to completely divest themselves of the dreck.
And your declaration of intent regarding future purchases has to be wieghed against all of the 4e Realms fans, and all of the 4e opponents that hate retcons as much as, if not more than, they hate the 4e Realms.
My decision doesn't need to be weighed against anything. I don't care what others like or want. This is my money, I choose where and how I spend it. But just for the record, retcons have never been an impediment to overall sales of the Realms.
Because a retcon would lose sales from both groups. Continuing the timeline without retcon only "loses" what they've already lost, and if handled right, might even bring some people back.
HA! Lots of speculation there. Too much, really. You have no idea what anyone will actually buy. There are actually no tidy little "groups" in the fandom, people just buy what they like and ditch the rest. This separation of people into camps is a fallacy. It's like saying people in one political party never vote against their party's platform.
What WotC really needs to do is stop making assumptions. They also need to stop making decisions based on internal likes/dislikes, relying on designers' judgments. They need real data, from a wide sample. I'm one of those people that will dump them forever if they allow this travesty of design to continue poisoning the Realms. If there are a lot of people like me who hate 4E, and they decide to keep it, they might risk permanently damaging the entire IP of the Realms.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 7:09AM
#309
|
|
|
You mean the EotR are time neutral? Pretty easy at the samll NPC level.
No. EotR and the Backdrop articles are not time neutral. They exist in the timeline, as Misc suggested, they just do so with a greatly attenuated view of the Spellplague. They do not emphasise that event, but talk instead about the evolution of people, locations, guilds and nations over the intervening century of the time jump.
And much as I hate the Spellplague I adore those articles.
My approach to the NPCs of previous editions. Spoiler:
Show
I always saw the High Level NPCs as shepherds of the Realms not its defenders. Making sure that not too many sheep were lost as they milled around (as they are wont to do) and bringing on the young'uns into the job. In that way a shepherd never has time to go and hunt down all of the wolves but is pretty dashed effective at keeping them away from the sheep when they rear their heads. "It was a puzzle why things were always dragged kicking and screaming. No one ever seemed to want to, for example, lead them gently by the hand." - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:17AM
#310
|
|
|
Hi RM, You mean the EotR are time neutral? Pretty easy at the samll NPC level.
They're for the most part time neutral. EDIT: to clarify, the entries are best understood as being in the current, post-Spellplague era of the Realms, but the content, for the most part, doesn't really depend or focus on the fact that it's "in" the current era.
A lot of the entries are like Volo's Guide material: an unreliable narrator with content that's applicable in pretty much any era of the Realms.
I want to see nations evolve. Like Thay or Cormyr from 1376. Without a Spellplague.
Ah, then you'll be pleased to know that through the lense of DDI articles we do see nations evolve.
Cormyr especially.
I'm not making this up, RM. In January of this year Cormyr received major coverage. As well the Backdrop: Cormyr article by Brian R. James really did a good job of showing Cormyr's evolution and growth in a very detailed, canon-sensitive manner.
I daresay you'd enjoy having a look at those articles.
The Forgotten Realms: It's an ugly baby, but damnit it's our ugly baby.
WotC, please don't wreck the Forgotten Realms a third time in order to introduce the latest version of the D&D rules.
Give us back 3rd Edition's Magic Television concept instead.
|
|
|
