Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Reboot of the Realms for 5th edition.
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 22

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3566 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  22:41:01  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

Split timeline is a win for everyone, you get support and have a future full of interesting possibilites.

-Disagree with the bolded part because, as I've written in the past, many of the changes that people didn't like didn't happen in a vacuum. Assuming that a split-timeline was made, with one continuing the 4e era of 1,479 DR+, and the other continuing where the 3e era, in 1,375 DR, the events in that new 1,375 DR timeline are going to directly feed into the events of the 1,479 DR timeline. To give an example, if someone likes Halruaa, Halruaa is still "doomed" to disappear in the Spellplague. Products set in the "past" might not feature the destruction of the nation as it existed until before the Spellplague, but it still happens. Someone who likes a certain NPC that died in such-and-such a manner in some year, they're still going to die in such-and-such a manner in some year.

-That's not to say that I don't think it should be done; it should. I don't think it "solves" as much as people want to think such a split in support might. It's like a lore band-aid and medicine, in a way. You know, come such and such date in the setting's future, the band aid gets removed, the medicine that was put on the wound runs out, and the scar that you were trying to heal will be there, albeit maybe not as prevalent.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4597 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  22:41:55  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
RE the OP: a reboot to the OGB (or any other era in FR) is redundant. What's stopping you from just running your game then, and looking at all future events as "suggestions" rather than fated events? It's your game. Why aren't you taking ownership of it?

RE the discussion at hand: I've discussed the concept of a Split Timeline many places other than here, but I'll try and sum up.

quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

Split timeline is a win for everyone, you get support and have a future full of interesting possibilites.
But split WHERE is the question? Do we accept everything that happened up to a certain point, and then create alternate timelines from there? Different segments of fans are going to want different bits and pieces of Realmslore going in there. If WotC puts in some of those things but not others, what's to stop the fans who don't like the things WotC kept or do like things WotC got rid of?

The answer is, of course, staring us right in the face: the DM makes that call.

I am much more comfortable relying upon the DM to pick and choose what to use, play up, gloss over, or ignore as regards Realmslore, rather than relying on WotC (or any designer whatever) to come up with EXACTLY what each individual DM needs. And to that end, I think it's far better to give the DM every tool in the box, so that the DM can pick an choose what's appropriate to his/her game. So we should not be in the business of cutting things out, whether you or I might like them personally.

On the surface a split timeline in the canon may *seem* like a good idea, but I think it's death for the long-term viability of the IP. It divides the fanbase, far worse than the 4e split did, and basically condemns all products into selling poorly (which if we want the IP to keep publishing, we need to avoid). Because basically, if you split the fanbase in half, any given book is only going to sell to half the fans. If you split it further, like 70/30 for instance, then the 70% book is going to do OK but not great, and the 30% is going to do awful. Splitting the timeline like that doesn't let "everybody win." Indeed, a lot of people are bound to be disappointed, and in the long run--after the IP fails because of falling sales--no one wins.

The canon is just a source of ideas for your own individual game. If you want to use an IP--any IP--you will of course be picking and choosing what you like and don't about it, and using the things you do like and not using the ones you don't.

Let me say this so it's clear: YOUR GAME IS NOT A CANON GAME. The second you create characters, your game isn't canon, because those characters don't exist in the actual canon sourcebooks. If they do someday get "canonized," and they're exactly the way you ran them, and/or the events of your game make it into a sourcebook, then and only then were you running (past-tense) a canon game.

Devotion to the canon is something a lot of Realms gamers are interested in--I get that. But you should never let this impinge upon the fun of your game. You should never incorporate an event you hate just to "be accurate," and you should always feel free to ignore something that doesn't work for you and/or your game.

Do I think certain things that happened in the 4e need to be addressed--absolutely.

But not in a subtractive way--not with a retcon--and not with a split timeline or reboot that throws out the old lore.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page

Shemmy
Senior Scribe

USA
492 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  23:02:31  Show Profile  Visit Shemmy's Homepage Send Shemmy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie


On the larger question of cosmology (Great Wheel, 3e cluster of planes, etc): The D&D cosmology and the Realms cosmology (and that of any mortal world setting) have never aligned properly, and I see no reason to make that the case in 5e.



They certainly lined up perfectly well in 1e and 2e, which as others have said, is where the vast majority of planar lore developed. 3e FR material really just barely touched on the planes, which in my opinion retconned itself out of the Wheel and then never properly developed a replacement, or much attempt to reconcile the problems it caused with lore. 4e went even further down that road by being forced into the default PoL cosmology.

I like FR (liked?), and I loved its inclusion within the Planescape metasetting and shared cosmology it heavily developed within. So I'll admit, I did take some guilty pleasure in inserting a cleric of Lathander into a Planescape article in Dragon in late 3e. ;)

Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4597 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  23:12:23  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I will certainly concur that 1e/2e Planescape cosmology lined up *best* with FR cosmology. I think the concept going into 3e might have been to suggest that you can play a FR game entirely with the cosmology presented in the FR books, without having to look elsewhere to try and find a Planescape-esque product (which didn't exist in anything near that scope past 2e). IMO, 4e represents an attempt to pull the campaign settings back into a common cosmology, but even so it's not one that really contradicts the best cosmology (2e) in any serious way. Sure, the planes are described differently and we have learned more about the mythic origins of the multiverse, but generally I think the "certain point of view" argument holds up.

I rather think, though, that cosmology should be the *last* consideration as regards FR. We scribes (you, me, WotC, etc) have enough work to do on the setting itself. I'd prefer to leave cosmology alone and let DMs do what they want with it.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3566 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  23:33:33  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Sure, the planes are described differently and we have learned more about the mythic origins of the multiverse, but generally I think the "certain point of view" argument holds up.

-For the most part, agreed. I still don't see the relevance of the planes being "arranged" as a wheel, a tree, mush, whatever. Maybe I've been missing some part of the descriptive rules to the planes, but I don't see how all of that is relevant, outside of things like planar descriptions, locales, and so on- and, if I am missing anything, be my guest to explain what I've been missing and why it's so important for Planes to be arranged in certain sequences. If everything exists "on top of each other", just at different frequencies, I don't see how arrangement is anything more than just description. Biggest problem is changes made in the 4e cosmology that changes things, but in general, I don't see too many changes that are "unfixable". That the Elemental Plane were all mixed together, for example, into one "Elemental Chaos" can be explained and/or modified where no lore, 1-2e, 3e, 4e, is really outright thrown away. As long as the deep lore that was created, primarily in Planescape, but also in 3e and 4e sources, is retained, that's all that matters. I don't see why most of it wouldn't be able to be mashed together- 2e Planescape descriptions, maybe, 4e layout, for example.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium

Edited by - Lord Karsus on 19 Mar 2012 23:36:18
Go to Top of Page

Shemmy
Senior Scribe

USA
492 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  23:33:38  Show Profile  Visit Shemmy's Homepage Send Shemmy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

IMO, 4e represents an attempt to pull the campaign settings back into a common cosmology, but even so it's not one that really contradicts the best cosmology (2e) in any serious way. Sure, the planes are described differently and we have learned more about the mythic origins of the multiverse, but generally I think the "certain point of view" argument holds up.



I'm a planes junkie, and I think we might have to agree to very much disagree here on that point. The 4e cosmology is a completely different multiverse, with many many points just not able to be reconciled by direct continuity with prior lore. It's very much divorced from the material that came before it, and some of the 4e era design comments about the 1e/2e/3e Great Wheel were not exactly kind.

I would describe it as a different game/setting that incorporates a few concepts and recycles some names, but it's a completely different cosmos (albeit one that could within the 1e/2e planar canon certainly be linked via various methods to the Wheel, even elegantly so. I would remain open to that option mind you, but how that would interact with how to handle FR's cosmos is a tricky thing to deal with, because ultimately either the 1e/2e/much of the 3e planar lore or the 4e planar lore is going to have to play second fiddle or go away in keeping some kind of continuity).

Perhaps it would be best to retain what (few) things were common between the three different iterations of the cosmology FR has been published within, and simply try to avoid talking about anything edition exclusive if at all possible (mostly all of the 4e PoL stuff).

Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
Go to Top of Page

Tarlyn
Learned Scribe

USA
313 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  19:07:11  Show Profile Send Tarlyn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
But split WHERE is the question? Do we accept everything that happened up to a certain point, and then create alternate timelines from there? Different segments of fans are going to want different bits and pieces of Realmslore going in there. If WotC puts in some of those things but not others, what's to stop the fans who don't like the things WotC kept or do like things WotC got rid of?

The answer is, of course, staring us right in the face: the DM makes that call.



I have two points on this topic.
1)While I have preferences where a split should occur, anytime prior to spell plague works. The difference between 2e-3e FR is very minimal. 1e had a lot less development, but still was ripe with interesting possiblities. The major fanbase split only occurs with the 3e - 4e jump. There were people lost at each jump, but the massive gap in which people playing FR were basically speaking foreign languages only occurs with the 4e jump. There is no guarantee that "supporting all eras" of play attracts back all previous fans.

2) There is nothing preventing a DM from pulling from both timelines for ideas. The split timeline opens up possiblities that development could go in new directions rather than all roads lead to ToT /Year of Rogue dragons / spell plague / tyr & helm or any other RSE that does not make it into the new timeline. The developers could actually surpise the DMs in both timelines in a split timeline rather than just designing lead up events to already existing lore in one.

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
On the surface a split timeline in the canon may *seem* like a good idea, but I think it's death for the long-term viability of the IP. It divides the fanbase, far worse than the 4e split did, and basically condemns all products into selling poorly (which if we want the IP to keep publishing, we need to avoid). Because basically, if you split the fanbase in half, any given book is only going to sell to half the fans. If you split it further, like 70/30 for instance, then the 70% book is going to do OK but not great, and the 30% is going to do awful. Splitting the timeline like that doesn't let "everybody win." Indeed, a lot of people are bound to be disappointed, and in the long run--after the IP fails because of falling sales--no one wins.

The canon is just a source of ideas for your own individual game. If you want to use an IP--any IP--you will of course be picking and choosing what you like and don't about it, and using the things you do like and not using the ones you don't.


Your solution to "fixing" this issue is all books contain timeline neutral material followed by a section dedicate to each of the four major timeline eras, you have outlined. This approach succeeds in selling the book to all audience, because despite only playing in era x the book supports all eras. I believe the original suggestion is a 70/30 split in each book. 70% being edition netrual and 30% being divided between four eras. Take a look at an equal split between eras for a 200 page book. Each of the four time eras get only 15 pages of material.

There is no reason why the same approach cannot work with a split timeline. 70% shared and 30% divided between the two timelines. This forces everyone to buy the product still and gives each era significantly more room to add material. Doubling the developers space per product by select to focus on two timelines rather than 4 eras. DMs can still look at both sections and pull the best of both worlds approach, or even run games that jump between the timelines.

Neither solution resolves the issue that 4e split the fanbase, both solutions cause anyone that wants to purchase a FR product to accept that a significant portion of the material will have to be customized. Neither solution is guaranteed to attract every realms fan back.



Tarlyn Embersun
Go to Top of Page

Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe

USA
486 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  06:59:17  Show Profile Send Old Man Harpell a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Doubling the developers space per product by select to focus on two timelines rather than 4 eras. DMs can still look at both sections and pull the best of both worlds approach, or even run games that jump between the timelines.

Neither solution resolves the issue that 4e split the fanbase, both solutions cause anyone that wants to purchase a FR product to accept that a significant portion of the material will have to be customized. Neither solution is guaranteed to attract every realms fan back.


Since this argument is largely academic at this point, I have little worry about espousing similar views. But I will say that an alternate timeline would be an absolute necessity only if Wizbro simply continued down the path of the Shattered Realms and did nothing to fix the multitude of horrible mistakes they made.

ESdB's 'One Canon' scroll (amongst others) contains a whole bunch of really good suggestions that would make it a palatable place to adventure again. My biggest worry is that they won't listen to him (or anyone else who 'gets it'), and we'll still be stuck with the same 'Points of Light' ridiculousness that never should have defiled the Realms in the first place.

They have to fix the initial screw-up, without invalidating any of the good work (like Neverwinter, for example) that's been done since. And I am admittedly despairing of the fact that they likely won't be able to jump that hurdle. But at least they realize that there are those of us out there who liked the Realms 'the way they were', and thus we have Sire Ed's new tome on the way. This may be all the 'split timeline' we get, but if it is what I am hoping, it will be enough.
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4597 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  15:25:21  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy

I'm a planes junkie, and I think we might have to agree to very much disagree here on that point. The 4e cosmology is a completely different multiverse, with many many points just not able to be reconciled by direct continuity with prior lore. It's very much divorced from the material that came before it, and some of the 4e era design comments about the 1e/2e/3e Great Wheel were not exactly kind.
I don't think one should lend much weight to this commentary on previous design. Of course when you're bringing out a new product, you try to champion it over the old. But I really don't see 4e as a "replacement" for the old--just as a different point of view, as I said.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the designers on the 4e Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea book (I wrote Arvandor, Hestevar, and the Hells, amongst others), and I pointedly drew on as much 2e Planescape material as possible. That was where I started playing D&D, so it's not a surprise it's near and dear. Of that, while Hestevar is obviously a new creation (though it could easily be part of Celestia in one's campaign), I don't think the 4e Hells or Arvandor are incompatible with previous iterations.

Maybe if you gave me some examples of "many many points just not able to be reconciled by direct continuity with prior lore"?

quote:
how that would interact with how to handle FR's cosmos is a tricky thing to deal with, because ultimately either the 1e/2e/much of the 3e planar lore or the 4e planar lore is going to have to play second fiddle or go away in keeping some kind of continuity).
I think the Realms continuity as presented in Realms sourcebooks should be looked at with a grain of salt. Yes, the sages in the Realms point to particular "domains" in which deities dwell, and that's how folk in the Realms understand the planes. From a Planescape perspective, however, those domains are but a small, small part of the actual sweep of the multiverse. They might exist as layers of a particular plane or as segments of a larger whole, etc. The FR-specific cosmology should always be looked at as a smaller add-on to be fit into the larger cosmology, or safely ignored at need. It's a simplified cosmology for those groups that want a taste of planar play, but aren't willing or interested in committing to the vast, sweeping Planescape cosmology.

quote:
Perhaps it would be best to retain what (few) things were common between the three different iterations of the cosmology FR has been published within, and simply try to avoid talking about anything edition exclusive if at all possible (mostly all of the 4e PoL stuff).
I think the 4e PoL cosmology isn't all that offensive, particularly in relation Realmspace. The gods there are nicely isolated from the primordials, and have been for geologic ages. It's only recently (the 4e century) that the old war between primordials and gods has been brewing once more, and it's easy enough to create an event to maintain or change the status quo.

Ultimately, it seems to me that WotC looks at Planescape and each of its campaign settings as being fundamentally different settings, though of course you as the DM can lace them together if you want. I can see arguments for this direction or the opposite (integrating everything), but largely I fall on the "separate but lace-able" team, leaving it up to DMs to decide on the cosmology they're going to use.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4597 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  16:04:02  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well met, Tarlyn--always a pleasure to spar with you. I will address your points one by one, fully acknowledging your wisdom and scholarship.

But since I don't want to clutter this thread any more than I have, I will bring this discussion over to the One Canon, One Story, One Realms thread, since this topic is extremely germaine to what we're talking about there. A split timeline is very much on the topic of a single continuity--a reboot doesn't necessarily contradict either line of inquiry.

Click here (it's toward the bottom of the page, time stamp 21 Mar 2012): http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16093&whichpage=27

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page

Jakk
Great Reader

Canada
2165 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  16:11:24  Show Profile Send Jakk a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

<chop>
Ultimately, it seems to me that WotC looks at Planescape and each of its campaign settings as being fundamentally different settings, though of course you as the DM can lace them together if you want. I can see arguments for this direction or the opposite (integrating everything), but largely I fall on the "separate but lace-able" team, leaving it up to DMs to decide on the cosmology they're going to use.

Cheers



[bold added] The bolded part clearly wasn't true for 4e, or they wouldn't have gone so far to shoehorn everything core into all worlds. Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with everything you've said in your last few posts. I'm waiting for Ed's book, and everything else of Ed's Realms that WotC decides to publish. I'll have a look at the "official" FR book when it comes out, but even with the excellent job done by yourself and others here with making the 4e changes make sense, I'm not holding my breath. Anything for the "open timeline" prior to 1385, I will definitely look seriously at, and I'll even take a look at the later-era stuff too, but 4e has given me the greatest faith in WotC's ability to foul things up, and until they prove that faith unjustified, I'm not buying anything for the new edition, FR or core, without a close look first. That's part of why I've been absent again the past few weeks; the rest of it is a massive RW-myth genealogy project (still ongoing) and my day job.

Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.

If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic.
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3566 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  16:21:09  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

I think the Realms continuity as presented in Realms sourcebooks should be looked at with a grain of salt.

-While I agree, as seemingly most talk of the arrangement of planes is more esoteric than literal as far as I can tell, and this is how I've treated such planar matters in my own setting, the sourcebooks offer definitive "this is how things are" descriptions. It's easier to chalk all of the incongruities off to "well, they don't know what they're talking about and are reporting things inaccurately", but that's not how books have been presenting the info, sadly.

quote:
Originally posted by Jakk

The bolded part clearly wasn't true for 4e, or they wouldn't have gone so far to shoehorn everything core into all worlds.

-I'd say that 3e was the only one that didn't, with separate 'Core'/Pseudo-Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Oriental Adventures, Eberron, and other cosmologies in their respective books.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium

Edited by - Lord Karsus on 21 Mar 2012 16:22:55
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4597 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  17:10:50  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
@Jakk: Totally fair. And my comment about the separate settings wasn't aimed at any edition in particular--I just think there's a tendency (and to my mind, there should be) to develop campaign settings that aren't strictly lined up with others. 2e obviously tried to unite everything, with some measure of success, while 3e rigorously broke it apart, then 4e was a turn back toward a unified cosmology. I don't think the 4e FR specific cosmology quite lines up with the greater Astral Sea/Elemental Chaos cosmology presented in 4e core. It's left up to DM to determine how much of the various cosmologies to use, if any.

@LK: Yes, I agree, the planar discussion is largely an academic one as related to the Realms. Interesting, but somewhat secondary to the development of the setting itself.

All that said, I shall vacate this particular scroll (so as not to cause further discussion disruption) and head back to my own!

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page

Varl
Learned Scribe

USA
278 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  20:34:56  Show Profile Send Varl a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
If WotC puts in some of those things but not others, what's to stop the fans who don't like the things WotC kept or do like things WotC got rid of?


WotC is never going to be able to please all of the Realms fans all of the time. I know you know that, but it needed to be said.

quote:
I am much more comfortable relying upon the DM to pick and choose what to use, play up, gloss over, or ignore as regards Realmslore, rather than relying on WotC (or any designer whatever) to come up with EXACTLY what each individual DM needs.


Exactly. The best lore and canon is that which we can insert into any game and it doesn't cause ripples in the Realmsian lake or cause a building to collapse in Raven's Bluff. Canon is merely another author's suggestions on how they see things happening regardless of how famous an author they may be.

quote:
Devotion to the canon is something a lot of Realms gamers are interested in--I get that. But you should never let this impinge upon the fun of your game. You should never incorporate an event you hate just to "be accurate," and you should always feel free to ignore something that doesn't work for you and/or your game.


I also get that a lot of Realms fans enjoy the canonical aspects of the setting too, but I also think canon can be a Realms curse too. I use the Realms as a game world, not as a bible from which to run my Realms game. For me, the only real useful aspect of canon is when it inspires me or gives me good ideas to create an adventure for my non-canon PCs.

"Intimidation is a weapon of the Legion. Intelligence is not." -Illidan Stormrage
Go to Top of Page

Elsenrail
Seeker

Poland
72 Posts

Posted - 03 Jun 2012 :  12:32:13  Show Profile Send Elsenrail a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm really surprised that so many voted for a reboot. Personally, I dislike reboots, since they are a cheap way to fix things. In the case of the Realms, a reboot will please some folks, and annoy others. I dislike many things about 4th ed Realms, but there are some that I really like.

What is great about FR is that it evolves, changes. Every novel contributes to its rich history. I think the best approach to 5th ed Realms would be to jump the timeline a decade (1489) and iron some things out - make the effects of the Spellplague seem lesser, bring back more of the lore that we liked about pre-Spellplague... and especially, make the setting book rich in lore, not mechanics (FR is all about lore). 4th ed Realms are still the Realms, they just need some fixes.

I don't like the current Calimshan - it would be difficult to completely change the political state of this area, but in 5e the genasi's power could be lesser, they just could rule the realm (a ruling caste), with majority of population being human, and with lots of human controlled, independened areas.

Loved the pre-Spellplague Thay? Let's bring back the Red Wizards as the opposition to Szass tam and his legions. They could control the Wizard's Reach (they still do, perhaps - as far as "Brotherhood of the Griffons" goes"), make them conquer Alaor and Bezantur, and gather strenght for a counterstrike.

Etc etc
Go to Top of Page

froglegg
Learned Scribe

317 Posts

Posted - 03 Jun 2012 :  13:28:36  Show Profile Send froglegg a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul

I love the Realms but I have never been a fan of Elminster (Sorry Ed).

Would I would like to see done is have Elminster wake up after his vision of the Spellplague and Mystra instructing him on how to prevent it but would end up costing him his life.



Now that would take some guts! Talk about putting your money where your mouth.


John

Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!

On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale

The Old Grey Box gets better with age!
Go to Top of Page

Eilserus
Master of Realmslore

USA
1427 Posts

Posted - 03 Jun 2012 :  18:14:29  Show Profile Send Eilserus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm starting to lean towards using the existing lore and building from there. And the main reason is, its a simple matter to keep all the famous characters around with various lore plots and ideas...like we saw in the last Elminster book. With that aside, it allows designers and Ed to revamp lore for certain areas. One of my biggest gripes was seeing reprints of old lore with a smidge of new stuff added in over the years. Not that I have an issue with lore, I just prefer new lore to recycled stuff. With the design team building new stuff in familiar areas, one would assume those products would sell better than a rehash of old stuff. All they need to do is tone down spellplague things like earthmotes and other effects...make them unique like adventure sites and not the norm and it could be good to go. Just my thoughts. ;)
Go to Top of Page

lowtech
Learned Scribe

USA
315 Posts

Posted - 18 Jun 2012 :  15:47:15  Show Profile  Visit lowtech's Homepage Send lowtech a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Simply put, a 'reboot'* is the only thing that could bring me back to the Forgotten Realms....but I suspect that fans like myself will be written off as 'sunk cost', and from a business standpoint that's probably the safest course to take.

*By reboot, I mean alternate timelines with equal company support-and for those who say this will only split the fanbase further, I reply that the fanbase is already broken, and simply altering a few aspects of the 4E Realms is not going to bring me or others like me back. With an alternate timeline, it might be possible to regain the alienated portion of the fanbase without causing 4E fans to lose anything.
Go to Top of Page

Quale
Master of Realmslore

1757 Posts

Posted - 18 Jun 2012 :  16:40:37  Show Profile Send Quale a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm starting to lean towards another setting, hope they do a good job though.
Go to Top of Page

Tarlyn
Learned Scribe

USA
313 Posts

Posted - 18 Jun 2012 :  23:29:35  Show Profile Send Tarlyn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:

Originally posted by Quale
I'm starting to lean towards another setting, hope they do a good job though.


I don't mean to pry, but why in particular and what setting? Just curious.

Tarlyn Embersun
Go to Top of Page

Quale
Master of Realmslore

1757 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2012 :  10:43:31  Show Profile Send Quale a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Nothing new, returning back to Planescape (just Sigil), but with some changes cause I lost interest in (quasi)medieval worlds.
Go to Top of Page

Sightless
Senior Scribe

USA
608 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2012 :  12:48:08  Show Profile Send Sightless a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have always thought the term meant a complete re-start of a system. At least that's how I always used it, and will continue to use that defination when utilizing the term. And while five people that I polled personally agreed with this idea, I and eighty four others say no. I feel that a reboot would be a bad strategy.

We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.

Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
34941 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2012 :  13:08:39  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless

I have always thought the term meant a complete re-start of a system. At least that's how I always used it, and will continue to use that defination when utilizing the term. And while five people that I polled personally agreed with this idea, I and eighty four others say no. I feel that a reboot would be a bad strategy.



This particular poll indicates almost two to one in favor of a reboot...

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Sightless
Senior Scribe

USA
608 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2012 :  13:53:35  Show Profile Send Sightless a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Informative, but not suprising, different samples often produce different results. Hence my posting of question in the One story, one canon thread. My previous sample also showed a greater prefrence for 3 and 4e than what is found here. I wonder if there is a corlation.

What's are sample size?

We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.

Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all.
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2012 :  14:41:35  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'd still prefer a reboot to the old grey box. A soft reboot, which means until overwritten by something new, the old lore would still apply. This would allow them a 'fix things as we go along' strategy.

That's not going to happen though.

I think at this point, I am more interested in the 5e rules then I am in whatever they do to the Realms (if they insist on pushing the timeline further forward). I have my own game setting now - The Realms has just become a place where novels happen. I am still invested in it, but not as a place to RPG.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 19 Jun 2012 14:42:28
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 22 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2021 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000