|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:07PM
#151
|
|
|
I have noticed something with all the complains of the settings being changed over the years with every edition...and it's a found it fascinating...it's the obsession of preserving a status quo, they don't want to things to change at all and remain static for all eternity, i wonder how are you related to that outside of D&D...do you wish things to remain static and remain the same in the real world too?
?...I want them to preserve the status quo so I can change it at my whim. I want a template or framework from prepublished game worlds and I'll change and fill in what my players or myself need or as the story dictates. Change for changes sake alone (or to sell more books) I've never found particularly engaging or worthwhile.
And sure. I want nothing to ever change in the real world. In fact I don't even want motion of any kind to occur at all in the real world. 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:08PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I have noticed something with all the complains of the settings being changed over the years with every edition...and it's a found it fascinating...it's the obsession of preserving a status quo, they don't want to things to change at all and remain static for all eternity, i wonder how are you related to that outside of D&D...do you wish things to remain static and remain the same in the real world too?
It is fairly common for people to be upset when the thing they like is changed (especially if they don't like the changes). However, this presents a bit of a Catch-22 for the company.
They are going to release new Campaign Setting books for a new edition. So they have a choice: keep everything the same, or make changes.
If they keep everything the same, there isn't a real need for people to buy the book. People who liked the older version like it because they already own it (or have access to it through friends). I'm not going to pay money for a reprint of something I already have simply to see what Elminster's stats are in 4E (for example).
So, instead, they make big changes. In other words, they are now saying, "Hey, now you have access to ANOTHER version of your favorite setting!" In the age of the internet, it is beyond easy to learn about older things, so anyone who dislikes what is presented can simply use an older version.
Take Forgotten Realms, for example. If you thought the original version pre-Time of Troubles was perfect, nothing stops you from setting your 4E campaign there. Similarly, if you really liked what happened in the FR in 4E, nothing stops you from using that setting in your 1st edition game. More options is always better, and that is what we get.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:16PM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I have noticed something with all the complains of the settings being changed over the years with every edition...and it's a found it fascinating...it's the obsession of preserving a status quo, they don't want to things to change at all and remain static for all eternity, i wonder how are you related to that outside of D&D...do you wish things to remain static and remain the same in the real world too?
Just stop, it's embarrassing and insulting...
...are you actually questioning people's views on actual life?
This is a message board for a game, a silly diversion, leave it at that...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:17PM
#154
|
|
|
And to narrow my definitions down a little further: I don't care if they advance the timeline, if rulers die, 'famous' npcs die, and so forth. What I'm opposed to , and FR characterizes this the best, is successions of world-wide crises that actually radically alter everything. Of course I can ignore the new books. I do that already. But I do like pre-generated game worlds because I don't have the time or energy anymore to craft my own. If they say 'awww man, looks like Faeruns going to have the Face Plague where everyone's faces fall off and turn out to be miniature cloakers who want to take over the world followed by the Water Boiling Cataclysm this time around so there's no water left anymore!" It's gotten a litte silly.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:22PM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I have noticed something with all the complains of the settings being changed over the years with every edition...and it's a found it fascinating...it's the obsession of preserving a status quo, they don't want to things to change at all and remain static for all eternity, i wonder how are you related to that outside of D&D...do you wish things to remain static and remain the same in the real world too?
No I want change to be handled competently.
The spellplague is a good example of a change handled incompetently.
I also don't want change to a setting I enjoy to cater to false notions that people that are not fans of the setting have.
Example:
I think it would be an excellent change to make Eberron a more medieval feel. They should really get rid of skyships. Wouldn't that be a good?
Also Mexrage you are pretty clear you don't like the changes that NEXT is bringing. Does that mean that you hate change?
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:24PM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
No I want change to be handled competently.
The spellplague is a good example of a change handled incompetently.
How? And please don't have the explanation be, in any way, that you didn't like it.
My friend honestly loves the spellplague, and he did a great campaign that focused on it.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:27PM
#157
|
|
|
I wouldn’t be opposed to the Realms as default setting for DDN but I don’t see it happening. For thing, it doesn’t need the added exposure; there have been plenty of novels, boxed sets and games set in the setting.
On the other hand, Greyhawk, the default for 3e, was never a money-maker (not like the Realms at least). At best, the setting had a legacy as one of the first worlds of D&D. It couldn’t hurt to give it some additional exposure in the core rules.
= = =
I played in a long-running FR campaign during 2e and then again during 3e (with another group). I was a player in the first group and DM in the second.
Our 3e games were set during the grey box era (before the Time of Troubles, the event that led into the 2e published setting). Our setting was a homebrew version of the Realms, it didn’t follow the published setting. At most, the stuff gave us some ideas.
Forgotten Realms homebrew
Show
I still have some guidelines used for our homebrew Forgotten Realms v3.5 campaign.
* Our homebrew campaign begins in 1357 DR (the date established for the original “grey box” set). In contrast, the start of the published v3.5 setting is set in 1372 DR.
Events and situations described in the novels and supplements have an alarming tendency to become cannon. These Realms Shaking Events essentially take place in the “future” of our campaign however, so they are not set in stone; that is, they might not unfold as detailed in the published products. I like the idea of being able to in effect “see” the future, as it allows some breathing room for the homebrew campaign to grow at its own pace.
For example: The Time of Troubles is remembered as a time when magic failed or went wild. Only the most influential people are even aware of the greater “Avatar Crisis”, and even fewer are aware of the ascension of the mortals Cyric, Midnight, and (later) Kelemvore. In our campaign, the gods are much more distant, ominous beings.
*I want to restore the aura of mystery surrounding the Chosen.
Published material sometimes implies that their true power is widely recognized (especially during 3E in my opinion). As first indicated in Code of the Harpers however, very few people are aware of the existence of the Chosen as such. I hope to place more importance on the PCs and less on iconic NPCs such as the Chosen.
For example, most people have heard of Elminster the Sage, a reclusive archmage who resides in rural Shadowdale. Few however, realize he is a senior Harper. Khelben “Blackstaff” Arunsun on the other hand, is very much the cosmopolitan figure. He is largely suspected to be a Lord of Waterdeep and a Harper. Storm Silverhand, the Bard of Shadowdale, is a driving force behind the Harpers.
Despite considerable renown, none of these individuals are widely recognized as the Chosen of Mystra.
* The Seven Sisters are often misunderstood and mistrusted by the general populace. They often blur the line between hero and villain.
For example, known for her mercurial temper and unfettered use of magic, the Simbul is truly the Witch Queen of Aglarond. Although free of the evil Crown of Horns, Laeral still bears the stigma of once being controlled by a powerful artifact.
* As a group, they are slightly less powerful than portrayed in published material.
For example, Sylune, the Witch of Shadowdale, died defending the Dale from an ancient red dragon in 1356 DR. She does not return as a spectral harpist (as indicated in the Seven Sisters accessory). As first mentioned in the 2nd Edition FR campaign boxed set (and later in The Seven Sisters), the seventh sister is an unrevealed entity (at least of this writing). She is indeed the “dark disaster” Ed Greewood first mentioned—and no, she’s not a drow -- there are worse things out there  .
See also the suggestions in Chapter 8 “Running the Realms” in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. Also note the “rules” on page 297.
We didn't address the Time of Troubles until very late in the campaign. The PCs played deities in a fantasy version of a super-hero brawl. It was a one-shot that sorta wrapped up our FR campaign, right before 4e came out. We considered starting up a 4e Realms campaign but ultimately decided to go with Eberron. We'd never gotten around to that setting during 3e. And I really wanted to. We also played some Dark Sun for the first time. = = = At first, the 4e take on the Realms rubbed me the wrong way. I'm much happier to think of the earlier Realms as a parallel world of sorts to the Spellplague world. Similar but not the same. Sorta like during 3e, were we had our homebrew version of the Realms while at the same time, there was a published setting. If it were up to me, I'd say reset (to the grey box era). It isn't just me though, so multiple-era support is the best compromise I believe.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:30PM
#158
|
|
|
No I want change to be handled competently.
The spellplague is a good example of a change handled incompetently.
How? And please don't have the explanation be, in any way, that you didn't like it.
My friend honestly loves the spellplague, and he did a great campaign that focused on it.
You can't ask a question and say but you can't use the answer...
I also have loved the spell plague. I have enjoyed the novels more since the spell plague occured then I have in a long time.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:31PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
No I want change to be handled competently.
The spellplague is a good example of a change handled incompetently.
How? And please don't have the explanation be, in any way, that you didn't like it.
My friend honestly loves the spellplague, and he did a great campaign that focused on it.
The change was handled to accomodate development decisions (that didn;t even had to made). Advancing the time line, changing the source of magic (from the weave, to what now?), and over reacting to feedback from people that did not even like the realms. There were far too many arbitrary changes made to break those maligned sacred cows of the realms. Development was the excuse used to break the realms.
The power source for magic could have remained the weave, the time line could have been kept, and characters like Elminster still could have had absolutely no impact on a home campaign.
The change from 4e to NEXT seems to be handled competently. The writers are handling the story, and the developers will work around that.
the Plague realms was a case of Developers telling writers how to implement the change.
Also, in order to enjoy the plague realms I would have had to discontinue my campaign continuum and start over anew. The change to a setting should never cause a DM to scrap the campaign.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:33PM
#160
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
No I want change to be handled competently.
The spellplague is a good example of a change handled incompetently.
How? And please don't have the explanation be, in any way, that you didn't like it.
My friend honestly loves the spellplague, and he did a great campaign that focused on it.
I'll have a crack at why folks dislike it. Hell, I hate the spellplague myself...
For one, it made previous campaigns in the Realms feel irrelevant (at least for those who enjoyed going along with the canon for a while.) Why previous RSE and related events did indeed stir up the realms in controversial ways, they felt organic. The spellplague transition felt like a way of shoehorning/mashing Points of Light into a setting that didn't directly welcome it.
In fact, many of the additions created could have been added in a much more organic matter instead of the greatest retroactive edit to date in the Realms (New planet out of no where, smashes into Toril and switches countries). Also, a lot of criticism of the new realms is its bare bones low lore approach due to continuous complaints about the setting being too big.
I've viewed the Realms the same way GrumpyCelt views it (See his review of the 4th edition Campaign Guide), as a "salad bar" with tons of things to sample and choose from including (to paraphrase) "fantastic versions of mythology outside of European concepts." However, the current iteration of the Realms took away much of that "salad bar" feel in a sense.
Of course, YMMV. And personally, I want a very modular Forgotten Realms. One where you can enjoy the SpellPlague era and I can have Abeir-Toril as one planet with no PoL tropes and no spellplague. Since the Realms is probably the most fractured of the D&D fandom, this might be one of the only ways out.
The power source for magic could have remained the weave, the time line could have been kept, and characters like Elminster still could have had absolutely no impact on a home campaign.
And that's what my DM did during his run through of the Realms with 4E mechanics. I see no issues with Weave and Shadow Weave power sources 
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
