All that we've said officially is this: The last entry in the Grand History is set in 1385, the Year of Blue Fire.
From this remark many people have speculated about a timeline jump. More than that I am not at liberty to say right now, but I expect to be able to talk a little more about the "new" Realms in just a couple of weeks.
Hi Rich!
Although we've barely had our first vague glimpses into the 4th Edition, I am already growing very worried about the future of D&D and the Realms. Let me address some 4E game mechanics first:
Magic. Warlocks are fine by me, but these 'organization-like' new 'traditions' are a bit too 'flavoured' and pompous in nature (their names sound like some Martial Arts moves from the 'Karate Kid' movies or some bad anime/manga series) -- not to mention that essentially they all seem to be only slightly varying types of Invokers (with very 'combat-focused' abilities and spell lists, I would guess). I don't like the idea about all wizards being 'specialists'. And did all the 'scholarly' or 'bookish' type of wizards just die on every Campaign World, or are all of them considered to be 'non-heroic' NPCs in 4E? I also don't like the 'implements', except maybe for the Staff. In theory they could be made to work, but wizards waving wands while casting spells reminds me of Harry Potter too much -- and those 'orbs' are just screaming 'Palantir' to me. Wouldn't Tomes, Rings or Amulets have fit D&D wizards thematically better? Or weapons for more 'martially oriented' wizards and especially fighter/wizards? How about a 'familiar-like' unique item/focus/talisman for every wizard? And, besides, like someone already mentioned on these forums, it's very easy to identify to which 'tradition' every spellcaster belongs to by just taking a look at the 'implement' he/she is carrying!
As far the rest of the general mechanics go, I don't want my game to about "More fun", "More cool stuff to do each round", "Clearly Defined Strategic Roles" or even "More monsters". Neither do I wish my characters to become "more powerful" (e.g. Triple Hit Points at first level, 'Second Wind', Feats at every level, enhanced multi-classing, etc.) or capable of semi-mystic tricks that make the characters from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' (and other similar movies) pale in comparison. The way I see it -- after reading all those designer comments, blogs and development articles -- the focus of the game is clearly shifting more and more on combat and military tactics in these 'encounters', and the character creation options will apparently be mechanically limited to 'combat-focused' abilities, classes and Talents/Feats only. So, from my perspective, D&D is turning into a fast-paced strategy game of 'high-flying' heroic action with marginal role-playing qualities (and no 'in-built' mechanics to encourage it anymore). I suspect that all these changes are being made to appeal to WoW/MMORPG players, anime/manga fans and console game fans, rather than catering to the 'old' and loyal (older) fanbase.
However, I am even more concerned by all those potential changes taking place in my favourite Campaign Setting. After reading the excerpt from The Orc King, I felt *very* disappointed with the future of the Realms. First of all, if I've understood things correctly, this Spellplague is supposed to explain away all the mechanical changes in the new magic system and the core classes, right? And won't most of the spellcasters in the Realms succumb to this madness and die? Now that we know this RSE is going to last for a hundred years, I don't see how you even *could* play an arcane spellcaster before it has passed, which might lead to the conclusion that the campaign starting date might very well leap a hundred years forward.
Secondly, I have a hard picturing Ku Klux Klan ('Triple C'), with hoods and all, in *my* Realms. Neither do I understand this politically incorrect analogy between African slaves and *orcs* (who have traditionally been described as ugly, dumb and evil in fantasy fiction and RPGs alike). Did none of the designers realize that some people might find this comparison to be racist and highly insulting in nature?
Thirdly, all these references to a 'ravaged' world reminds me of the 'Points of Light' -theme -- no matter you or the others have told us about it not touching the established Campaigns Settings. While I actually like the concept in theory, I do not wish it apply to the Realms, because I don't want to 'start from a clean plate' -- I have too many 2E/3E FR books to even consider that.
Fourthly, why are so many gods being senselessly 'weeded out'? Most of these 'deicides' are not very logical or even consistent with previously published Realmslore (Tyr killing Helm?). Is that happening due to similarities in portfolior or some mechanical changes in 4E (e.g. Deep Duerra and Laduguer getting 'axed' because there won't be any rules for psionics)? I certainly hope that clerics won't have any 'flavour-heavy' traditions, too. Just keep the domains, because they worked brilliantly in 3E!
Maybe I am not part of 4E's 'target audience', because I think all of these changes we've heard about so far are alarming in nature, and I can't see myself or my friends playing this game or buying into the 'new' Realms. Still, I might in the minority, and many people might find the new rules and the 'shattered' Faerûn more to their liking. I know that it's far too early to decide on whether to 'support' 4E and FR products or not, but so far, I haven't seen anything to convince me to buy them. Still, I have been a loyal fan of D&D and FR for almost twenty years, and thus I'll wait and see how things turn out -- who knows, maybe I'll even end up being positively surprised next year.
I started this thread up as a petition for those of us who would like more lore and less mechanics in future 4e products. I would appreciate if those of you who desire this would "sign" it and give your thoughts about the subject.
I'll try to touch on a couple of your concerns, Asgetrion.
1. The wizardly orders. They're not really specializations in the sense of 3rd Edition specialist wizards; choosing one doesn't make the spells belonging to another unavailable to you. Basically they're a mechanism by which we answer the question, "How did your wizard learn magic? Was he trained in a magical academy, tutored by a single mentor, etc., etc." So each order provides a subset a spells your character is *best* at, but doesn't replace the notion of spell school from previous editions.
2. Wizard implements now provide your character with a reason to care about a signature weapon in much the same way that the fighter cares about a signature sword. We think it's a good thing. Many other implements have been suggested, including things such as mask, dagger, and (of course) tome.
3. Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options.
4. You'll have to take up the CCC with Bob Salvatore. It's his book.
5. Yes, we'd like a smaller pantheon in FR. However, that doesn't mean that three-quarters of the deities will kick off. It does mean that we're looking at a lot of marginal deities and asking ourselves, "Could this deity be a demigod--a divine figure who doesn't really have a continent-wide church with dozens of temples devoted to him or her?" For example, we like a lot of the demihuman deities as demigods who hang around with/work for the real heavy hitters like Moradin or Corellon.
I know this probably isn't very reassuring, but we are keeping an eye on what you folks are saying, and we're committed to delivering the best product we can.
Asgetrion wrote:
Hi Rich!
Although we've barely had our first vague glimpses into the 4th Edition, I am already growing very worried about the future of D&D and the Realms. Let me address some 4E game mechanics first:
Magic. Warlocks are fine by me, but these 'organization-like' new 'traditions' are a bit too 'flavoured' and pompous in nature (their names sound like some Martial Arts moves from the 'Karate Kid' movies or some bad anime/manga series) -- not to mention that essentially they all seem to be only slightly varying types of Invokers (with very 'combat-focused' abilities and spell lists, I would guess). I don't like the idea about all wizards being 'specialists'. And did all the 'scholarly' or 'bookish' type of wizards just die on every Campaign World, or are all of them considered to be 'non-heroic' NPCs in 4E? I also don't like the 'implements', except maybe for the Staff. In theory they could be made to work, but wizards waving wands while casting spells reminds me of Harry Potter too much -- and those 'orbs' are just screaming 'Palantir' to me. Wouldn't Tomes, Rings or Amulets have fit D&D wizards thematically better? Or weapons for more 'martially oriented' wizards and especially fighter/wizards? How about a 'familiar-like' unique item/focus/talisman for every wizard? And, besides, like someone already mentioned on these forums, it's very easy to identify to which 'tradition' every spellcaster belongs to by just taking a look at the 'implement' he/she is carrying!
As far the rest of the general mechanics go, I don't want my game to about "More fun", "More cool stuff to do each round", "Clearly Defined Strategic Roles" or even "More monsters". Neither do I wish my characters to become "more powerful" (e.g. Triple Hit Points at first level, 'Second Wind', Feats at every level, enhanced multi-classing, etc.) or capable of semi-mystic tricks that make the characters from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' (and other similar movies) pale in comparison. The way I see it -- after reading all those designer comments, blogs and development articles -- the focus of the game is clearly shifting more and more on combat and military tactics in these 'encounters', and the character creation options will apparently be mechanically limited to 'combat-focused' abilities, classes and Talents/Feats only. So, from my perspective, D&D is turning into a fast-paced strategy game of 'high-flying' heroic action with marginal role-playing qualities (and no 'in-built' mechanics to encourage it anymore). I suspect that all these changes are being made to appeal to WoW/MMORPG players, anime/manga fans and console game fans, rather than catering to the 'old' and loyal (older) fanbase.
However, I am even more concerned by all those potential changes taking place in my favourite Campaign Setting. After reading the excerpt from The Orc King, I felt *very* disappointed with the future of the Realms. First of all, if I've understood things correctly, this Spellplague is supposed to explain away all the mechanical changes in the new magic system and the core classes, right? And won't most of the spellcasters in the Realms succumb to this madness and die? Now that we know this RSE is going to last for a hundred years, I don't see how you even *could* play an arcane spellcaster before it has passed, which might lead to the conclusion that the campaign starting date might very well leap a hundred years forward.
Secondly, I have a hard picturing Ku Klux Klan ('Triple C'), with hoods and all, in *my* Realms. Neither do I understand this politically incorrect analogy between African slaves and *orcs* (who have traditionally been described as ugly, dumb and evil in fantasy fiction and RPGs alike). Did none of the designers realize that some people might find this comparison to be racist and highly insulting in nature?
Thirdly, all these references to a 'ravaged' world reminds me of the 'Points of Light' -theme -- no matter you or the others have told us about it not touching the established Campaigns Settings. While I actually like the concept in theory, I do not wish it apply to the Realms, because I don't want to 'start from a clean plate' -- I have too many 2E/3E FR books to even consider that.
Fourthly, why are so many gods being senselessly 'weeded out'? Most of these 'deicides' are not very logical or even consistent with previously published Realmslore (Tyr killing Helm?). Is that happening due to similarities in portfolior or some mechanical changes in 4E (e.g. Deep Duerra and Laduguer getting 'axed' because there won't be any rules for psionics)? I certainly hope that clerics won't have any 'flavour-heavy' traditions, too. Just keep the domains, because they worked brilliantly in 3E!
Maybe I am not part of 4E's 'target audience', because I think all of these changes we've heard about so far are alarming in nature, and I can't see myself or my friends playing this game or buying into the 'new' Realms. Still, I might in the minority, and many people might find the new rules and the 'shattered' Faerûn more to their liking. I know that it's far too early to decide on whether to 'support' 4E and FR products or not, but so far, I haven't seen anything to convince me to buy them. Still, I have been a loyal fan of D&D and FR for almost twenty years, and thus I'll wait and see how things turn out -- who knows, maybe I'll even end up being positively surprised next year.
If you're looking at that map on page 231 of the FRCS, I think that Osse is the large "unknown land" due east of Kara-Tur -- the "rightmost" large continent on the page.
You'll see a fair amount of "crunch" in one of our FR releases covering character-building options (we need to create a number of FR-specific prestige classes, for example). Most of the other FR releases we have in mind are generally lighter on crunch and heavier on lore.
hawkinsthedm wrote:
I would greatly appreciate if one of you author/designer types could tell me where the continent/subcontinent/land mass of Osse is. It's driving me crazy.
On a similar note, I would like to see some of the "Unknown Lands" shown on the map named "A Scholar's View of Abeir-Toril" in the 3e FRCS to be "known" or "discovered" or otherwise detailed in 4e FR materials. New FR materials for Kara-Tur, the Horse Plains, Zahkara, Anchorome (which I believe is one of those "Unknown Lands"), Maztica, and Katashaka (I think this is another one of those "Unknown Lands") would be nice. In fact, if stuff like this was included in articles on D&D Insider, I would be a lot more likely to subscribe to it.
And finally, many (I dare say most) of us Realms fans would greatly like to see 4e Realms materials that contain mostly lore (to some, read: fluff) and very, very tiny amounts of mechanics (to some, read: crunch). Please leave the crunch for the 4e Core materials.
I think if we knew that some interesting new facets of the Realms will emerge from this transition, many can more readily hop on board for the new Realms.
Hmm, apparently, you don't seem to understand.
There is no "new" Realms.
It's turning into a completely new campaign setting, with both the "D&D" label, "Forgotten Realms" label, and what little Realmslore has been left intact slapped on to it just to make it sell to the blind sheep consumers out there.
That's it. It's not the "Forgotten Realms" anymore, and no matter how anyone (even Ed Greenwood) spins it, it will NEVER be the "Forgotten Realms" anymore. It will simply be just a brand new campaign setting that stomped out the Forgotten Realms.
After having had lots of lengthy discussions regarding the accuracy of diction, and how much better off people would be if they just decided to define words more narrowly, I have to agree with Razz's sentiment.
If characteristics of A include x, y, z, and o, by original definition, then when one creates object B, holding X, y, n, and m, it's easiest to call the two by different names, logically speaking (and linguistically), regardless of one's personal feelings about either one.
The world would be such a better place if people took more Logic and Discrete.
After having had lots of lengthy discussions regarding the accuracy of diction, and how much better off people would be if they just decided to define words more narrowly, I have to agree with Razz's sentiment.
If characteristics of A include x, y, z, and o, by original definition, then when one creates object B, holding X, y, n, and m, it's easiest to call the two by different names, logically speaking (and linguistically), regardless of one's personal feelings about either one.
The world would be such a better place if people took more Logic and Discrete.
This is on topic. I swear.
Dude, it has been too long since I took Discrete for me to even follow you.
You'll see a fair amount of "crunch" in one of our FR releases covering character-building options (we need to create a number of FR-specific prestige classes, for example). Most of the other FR releases we have in mind are generally lighter on crunch and heavier on lore.
Bring on the Crunch! Put the Fluff on DnD insider One of the things I liked about the realms PRcs is they often had an actual place in society. I often found the complete (XXX) a tich too generic. They were often very easy to incorporate, but didn't have the sense of history that "War-wizard of Cormyr" and the like.
I'm pleased to report that Ed Greenwood will be able to contribute about 50,000 words to the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.
(I wanted to say so earlier, but I had to wait and see if we could work out the scheduling questions. Ed's a busy guy and highly in demand for Forgotten Realms novels as well as game product.)
I don't know about you folks, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what Ed comes up with!
There is no cause for personal attacks suggesting that Hasbro or WotC employees are cowards or purposefully destroying the setting or personally hurting anyone. And it certainly doesn't belong on these or any other boards.
Destroying the setting is not in WotC's best interest. So much of D&D is based on social networks, ticking off a significant part of that network on purpose would be foolish. Plus we have very little to go on at this point. That's not to say you won't feel that the Realms you come to love won't be the same or even to your liking, but its not a personal attack on you or Ed or the Realms and it's simply not fair to accuse people you've probably never met of such behavior.
