|
1 year ago ::
Jan 19, 2012 - 2:36AM
#71
|
|
|
QFT! In all honesty, let's say they do reverse things to a time before the Spellplague. The designers have really done all the damage they could do with 4th edition and the only thing that could really make things worse is actually shelving the Realms forever. Wizards really has nothing to lose and it's very obvious that Pre-Spellplague was popular and after was not.
If people don't like the changes then they can use their 4th edition material just like we were asked to use our 3rd and 2nd edition material. Defenders of 4th edition through that statement out a lot when we would voice our distaste of the current Realms: "Just use your old stuff, there is nothing stopping you." Well now I'm curious to see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
They could still do a great deal more damage, with this upcoming "Rise of the Underdark" thing (whatever it is), and the novels coming out Apr-Sept. One of the upcoming novels has a prophet-avatar of Lolth wandering around the Realms, making a power-grab for Mystra's portfolio of magic and spinning a new Weave. Because spiders spin webs, I guess she thinks she can spin a new Weave.
Depending on how that's executed, it could end up damaging the Realms a lot more. It already sounds dumb.
I have very little faith that this is going to work out well. After all this time, they're still treating the gods like superpowered PCs.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 19, 2012 - 4:07AM
#72
|
|
|
Just my personal $0,02 worth here. Personally I was a fan of pre-4E Realms and was not a fan of the whole Spellplague thing and the changes wrought on the world simply to "force" the world to match the new 4E mechanics. However, it is what it is, and that was a necessity. 5E-Realms must do the same thing. Whatever the new mechanical iteration of the game is, it will dictate a need for another set of sweeping changes to the FR lore. All we can hope for is a decent "new" Realms that enough people like and will be happy to go forward with. The idea of a multi-timeline FR is just purely impracticle from a publishing standpoint. Far too much would need to go into the product to make it worthwhile, especially considering the vast size of the world. From the business side, they need a single, concise product line to release that will allow adventuring in the new rules system. For those who like historic Realms, you can simply dust off your old sourcebooks and use them. As mentioned before, home games really have nothing to do with canon. Its what most Realms fans I know did with 4E anyway (those that changed over to 4E anyway), simply ignoring the 4E FR book and using their old campaign materials with the new rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 19, 2012 - 4:32AM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2012
|
@ khaalis I think you are spot on with your post above; I would love to see a forgotten realms campaign setting driven just by Ed Greenwoods imagination with the rules adapted from 5e to suit Ed’s vision not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 19, 2012 - 8:37AM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2009
|
Well, I think my work here is done and I'm going to retire the field. I'm not directly included in the 5e FR planning and posting here isn't part of my job. I started this thread because of my very real drive and desire to answer WotC's call for feedback and be part of making a shiny, robust Realms that doesn't throw out canon and pleases fans of all eras. But I have responsibilities to attend to, so I'd better bail and go work on those.
As that is the case, I'll summarize my argument and take my leave:
I've repeatedly asked that we get back on the topic I set forth in the first post (i.e. "How to craft a single Realms going forward that doesn't retcon or reboot"), but aside from a few promising ideas here and there, it seems that people want to discuss their hatred of 4e and how they wouldn't come back to the setting unless it were dead and gone. I'm starting to feel there's no room for my optimism or desire for reconciliation.
As I see it, 4e can be dealt with--that is, made a tiny blip on the radar of Realms canon. Yes, Mystra and some other gods perished, but they can be restored. Yes, some kingdoms fell, but they can evolve into new and interesting things. Yes, the Spellplague happened but it died down (FR has had plenty of huge cataclysmic events in its history, and its weathered them just fine). All these things can be handled and resolved the way the Realms handles things: with lore, logic, and/or story.
I didn't like the Spellplague, hated the 100 year jump, and found a lot of the 4e Realms not to my liking, but I understand that not all that happens in the setting will be to my liking. Maztica, Calimshan, Chult, the Unapproachable East, the Old Empires, Thay--none of those things particularly grab me, and my games don't really dwell on them. But I don't advocate getting rid of them in order for me to enjoy the setting.
That is exactly the attitude that got us into the 4e mess in the first place: non-FR consumer (as you might be) says "I don't like Mystra/the Chosen/Halruaa/Dambrath, and won't touch the setting until they're dead and gone," so WotC says "OK, let's pander by blowing s*** up" and we have the 4e FR. This was the wrong way to do it. The right way was to sculpt the lore in such a way that the "problems" in the setting are downplayed and the "good things" about the setting are played up. This is exactly what I'm proposing be done in 5e, while what many posters in this thread seem to be proposing is a return to the way things were done to get to 4e.
I'm a fan of positive thinking and action. I prefer to focus on the things I *do* like and ignore the things I don't, which is what you *have to do* in a campaign setting that is shared by thousands of people.
I do not support a retcon of 4e or a reboot or alternate realities or any of that, because I think that's the sort of thing that damaged the Realms in the first place. 4e FR was a reboot, and we really don't need another one. I will, of course, support what WotC chooses to do with the Realms, even if it isn't what I'm advocating, because I sincerely enjoy the Realms and love writing/designing there. I just hope that we can learn from the lesson of history and find constructive ways to solve problems, rather than destructive ways.
I appreciate and understand the rancor (I really do), even if I think that's a self-defeating attitude. There's all this world that you love, and here we are discussing the possibility of getting official support for it, and you want to throw all that away because other people have toys you don't like? That just seems . . . I guess unfriendly. This is an opportunity to restore the Realms to greatness, and it seems we can't get past the stumbling block of sheer loathing. It's depressing to me, and it's really starting to take a toll on my other work.
I'm going to go get some writing done. If you guys need me or would like my feedback, PMs are always welcome, and my email addy is erikscottdebie AT yahoo DOT com. Otherwise, best wishes to all.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 19, 2012 - 8:44AM
#75
|
|
|
that is what bothered me from a publication standpoint it did not make since to me either.
its all in the same world, how much of it would be carbopn copied from one book ot the other.
what happens when one of the setting books outsells the other??
say the 3rd edition era outsells the 4e era, what then are you going to retcon it out of existencs and just go back to the 3rd edition era??
a buisiness is there to make money, it takes money to make money. I do NOT foresee making multiple setting books of the same world to be a good idea, either as a hard cover(I'd buy it anyway) or as a pdf or e book.( its unhealthy to stare at a pc screan to long, I would assume its the same for the tablet screans).
which I say correct the mistakes done in 4e.
retcon the retcon of Sehanine being an aspect of SElune and the others retconned like that( Really don't see Yondalla being Chauntea, yondala had firtilty(mothood here) and chauntea had firtilization( planting crops and spreading seads, not in the same case as moptherhood firtilty).
Restoring Mystra would imo end all traces of the spell plague, so if Ed takes care of that in the Elminster sage of shadow dale line.... it would come in time for 5e.
Erik's working on restoring Helm to godhood would retcon that deity's death (really, Helm was an ally of Torm not Tyr the stick in the mud and had no reason to do the favor other than as a nuetral party, but really don't send middle man to do anything)
Kemp's work might restore MAsk the god of thievery which would retcon only slightly his own works so that doesnt reall matter much....hahaha
retcon that all dragonborns came from abeir to some of the dragonborn came from those eggs from the sky.
however a few fixes:
mention returned aBeir thats off to the west from waterdeep, BUT don't give the palce a write up in the FR campaign, like matzca, kara-tur, al-qaddim they are or were part of toril, but like those three places, returned abeir over there does deserve its own book.
Tyrmather and ankanul get be in the realms setting books as they are in teh main continent.
I could go on, but stoping to ponder on it all would infact not get me outside to pick up the dogmess
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 19, 2012 - 8:58AM
#76
|
|
|
A retcon in my humble opinion is far more unforgivable then simply going in a direction I disagreed with.
Exactly
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 19, 2012 - 9:22AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2007
|
Erik started this thread with the idea of unifying the timelines and stories of the realms, not ignoring or retconning some of them out. He's asked people to get back on topic a couple times and that seems to have failed. I'm going to close this one down (kudos to Erik and everyone who tried to keep it on topic). If someone in this thread wants to start up another thread on how the realms lore should be changed for whatever reason, feel free to do so as long as you remain respectful of other people's opinions and play styles.
Trevor Kidd
Community Manager
|
|
|
