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

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  15:20:07  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote


quote:
There nothing wrong with 4e , its made the setting more realistic. People today are not interested in shining knights and noble paladins, morally ambiguous characters are more popular. Look at Games of Thrones or even Erevis Cale.


Comparing the Spellplague Realms to Game of Thrones is an insult to Game of Thrones.
[/quote]
This is your personal point of view but as someone who loves goth Game of thrones and the realms i could not disagree with you more. Like it or not there have been many plus points to 4e as well and while i agree that many mistakes were made in 4e, sweeping it all underneath the carpet is not the way forward. FR cannot remain stuck in the past , it has to adapt or die same as anything else.
Go to Top of Page

Ayrik
Great Reader

Canada
7433 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  15:39:22  Show Profile Send Ayrik a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
People today are not interested in shining knights and noble paladins, morally ambiguous characters are more popular. Look at Games of Thrones or even Erevis Cale.
quote:
Comparing the Spellplague Realms to Game of Thrones is an insult to Game of Thrones.
quote:
This is your personal point of view but as someone who loves goth Game of thrones and the realms i could not disagree with you more. Like it or not there have been many plus points to 4e as well and while i agree that many mistakes were made in 4e, sweeping it all underneath the carpet is not the way forward.
An interesting bit of debate. People are attracted to flawed, dark, ambiguous, "broken" characters - the pure and unambiguous hero is no longer believable or interesting.

Yet people cannot accept the same for the setting around the hero? A magical kingdom full of Disney castles and fairies seems as dull to me as the shining paladins who inhabit it. The Realms has been burned, scarred, given a dose of poison - and it hasn't died, it has the opportunity to come back stronger and "grittier" than before.

[/Ayrik]
Go to Top of Page

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  15:52:36  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well said , that was exactly my point. We cannot cling to the past but must move with the times, personally i much prefer the new grittier realms. Its more exciting and real.
Go to Top of Page

Therise
Master of Realmslore

1272 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  16:18:23  Show Profile Send Therise a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Realms 4E is not Game of Thrones by any stretch of the imagination. Game of Thrones is actually good, for one thing. Realms 4E is not gritty and dark, it's just a damaged post-apocalyptic setting that bears little to no resemblance to its former self. Filling Realms 4E with NPCs that are ALL morally gray and villains that are ALL one-note "puuuure eeeevil" (see: devil worshipers, abolethic ya-ya, etc) does not make the setting gritty. It's an uncomplicated, poorly crafted, wannabe land of Cthulhu mixed with dark fatalism.

It's a setting meant to support ridiculously overpowered novel characters like Cordell's "Damascus". This is a character that "the gods fear" and "seek to control" because he is the most overt Mary Sue that I have ever seen in fiction. He's a special Deva with extra powers that reincarnates if he's ever killed. He has multiple artifacts, he never loses, he attacks entire room-fulls of drow, driders, and monsters all by himself and comes out no worse for wear. If things look bad... *boom* suddenly he has just the right new magic power to defeat it. And people complained about Elminster and the Seven Sisters...

Additionally, earlier Realms were never, ever akin to a magical Disney land of good fairies and shining paladins. That comparison is equally as ridiculous.

Only a reboot can fix this mess.

Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families!

Edited by - Therise on 20 Jun 2012 16:25:22
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3478 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  16:27:11  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

quote:
People today are not interested in shining knights and noble paladins, morally ambiguous characters are more popular. Look at Games of Thrones or even Erevis Cale.
quote:
Comparing the Spellplague Realms to Game of Thrones is an insult to Game of Thrones.
quote:
This is your personal point of view but as someone who loves goth Game of thrones and the realms i could not disagree with you more. Like it or not there have been many plus points to 4e as well and while i agree that many mistakes were made in 4e, sweeping it all underneath the carpet is not the way forward.
An interesting bit of debate. People are attracted to flawed, dark, ambiguous, "broken" characters - the pure and unambiguous hero is no longer believable or interesting.

Yet people cannot accept the same for the setting around the hero? A magical kingdom full of Disney castles and fairies seems as dull to me as the shining paladins who inhabit it. The Realms has been burned, scarred, given a dose of poison - and it hasn't died, it has the opportunity to come back stronger and "grittier" than before.



''Broken'' characters and classic heroes can be equally interesting, provided that the former doesn't get the habit of recurring to shady methods just because it's cool and badass rather than necessary, and that the latter doesn't go ''lawful stupid'', but keeps an interesting personality and strong, neat leading principles. What needs to be ambiguous in order to be interesting are the villains. What makes a foe interesting is his/her motivation and the mere dominate/destroy the world flat out sucks in this role.

Same goes for gritty worlds. In a setting, some places can be shining, open minded centers of cultural growth, advanced enough to be capable of resisting threats, but that could use help from the PCs and where intrigue could easily be found; others can be fallen realms, where people are hopeless, bigot and fearful and where the evil guys can easily set foot and deceive the lowly common folks. Again, balance and variety are the keys and making each evil faction more powerful than the previous and capable of stomping who tries to oppose them is for sure not the way to go. My impression is that the Realms are now in this category.

Edited by - Irennan on 20 Jun 2012 16:39:37
Go to Top of Page

The Hidden Lord
Learned Scribe

148 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  16:39:06  Show Profile Send The Hidden Lord a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Therise



It's a setting meant to support ridiculously overpowered novel characters like Cordell's "Damascus". This is a character that "the gods fear" and "seek to control" because he is the most overt Mary Sue that I have ever seen in fiction. He's a special Deva with extra powers that reincarnates if he's ever killed. He has multiple artifacts, he never loses, he attacks entire room-fulls of drow, driders, and monsters all by himself and comes out no worse for wear. If things look bad... *boom* suddenly he has just the right new magic power to defeat it. And people complained about Elminster and the Seven Sisters...




You must be unfamiliar with Elminster in Hell, by Greenwood. The portrayal of Elminster and The Simbul therein makes Damascus look like a veritable henchmen laden with the lewt of his employers.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  16:43:10  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Venger

I'm sure there're some 4E Realms fan they'd anger, too, but how many could there possibly be? If there were that many then one imagines that we would've seen more 4E Realms books published, but aside from the original offering all they published was Neverwinter. If there were very many than WotC should be breathlessly excited about all the campaign settings books they're going to be publishing for the Spellplague Realms with the advent of 5E, but they're not doing that.
Itís my understanding that going into 4E WotC never intended to publish any more hardcover rulebooks for the Realms beyond the first two rulebooks. Likewise with any other campaign world they own.

The only regular avenue for setting support was supposed to be 1) Living Forgotten Realms and 2) Dragon/Dungeon magazine.

Since then leadership has changed at WotC and people have moved on/joined up. LFR has fallen by the wayside. I think itís because of those events that we have the Neverwinter Book and the upcoming Menzoberanzan[sp?] book.

Otherwise we may not have seen anything else hardcover sourcebook-wise from WotC.

For novels, WotC seems to not be slowing down when it comes to novel releases set in the Realms. I think that's a good indicator of popularity on the non-gaming side for the Realms.

quote:
Originally posted by Venger

So again I ask, how many Spellplague Realms fans could there be? How many actual diehard fans could there possibly be, at least in comparison to the 1E-3E Realms fans who were infuriated by the 4E Realms changes and would gladly come back if WotC were to excise the Spellplague from the history of the Realms?
I see your logic, but I wonder if you arenít drawing a false divide.

There is a lot of talk on the internet about the ďdivisionĒ between fans of the Realms. The more I think about it, the more I think this is much ado about nothing; more a product of the internetís amazing ability to make issues seem bigger than they are (that is, continued repetition of some meme isnít any indicator of the truth of that meme) and magnify the voices of people who are unhappy about something and more likely to post online.

As I mentioned before, there are people out there who simply like the Realms for the sake of the Realms. Theyíve got plenty of experience ignoring the parts they donít like and focusing on the parts they do.

I think the majority of people who ignore the post-Spellplague Realms fall into this latter category. They donít hate the post-Spellplague Realms, they just ignore it and use the (massive) collection of Realms books they already own to play their D&D games, and maybe pick up a new Realms novel or two on the side.

In terms of a reboot, these are the people WotC should go after and not the ones who actively hate the post-Spellplague Realms.

With Ed Greenwood at the wheel, I think weíll see the Realms deliberately set on a path that keeps the Spellplague in the rearview mirror where it belongs as the timeline moves forward. That ought to attract back older fans.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).

Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 20 Jun 2012 16:45:31
Go to Top of Page

Therise
Master of Realmslore

1272 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  16:45:24  Show Profile Send Therise a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Those of you that are arguing -for- keeping the 4E Realms entrenched in the history of the Realms... have you actually read any of the new novels? The abolethic sovereignty series, or the new neverwinter novel, or others like Brimstone Angels?

I'm not arguing against gritty, or the idea that more complex motivations would be better. I enjoy Game of Thrones immensely, and my pre-4E, old vision of the Realms had just as intrigue, deception, backstabbing, and complicated/interwoven plots. My home games were quite gritty at times, all based on 1E with a dash of 2E thrown in. My Zhentarim were truly "magnificent bastards" and my Red Wizards were a morally corrupt, twisted set.

TSR never showed the darker aspects of Greenwood's Realms, and WotC didn't either. But instead of opening up the Realms and showing its truly gritty underbelly, we got served with an entirely new setting. I think it's important for people to read the books from this new setting before they rise up in defense of the thing, so they have a clear picture of what they're actually supporting.


Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families!
Go to Top of Page

Therise
Master of Realmslore

1272 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  16:52:03  Show Profile Send Therise a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord

quote:
Originally posted by Therise



It's a setting meant to support ridiculously overpowered novel characters like Cordell's "Damascus". This is a character that "the gods fear" and "seek to control" because he is the most overt Mary Sue that I have ever seen in fiction. He's a special Deva with extra powers that reincarnates if he's ever killed. He has multiple artifacts, he never loses, he attacks entire room-fulls of drow, driders, and monsters all by himself and comes out no worse for wear. If things look bad... *boom* suddenly he has just the right new magic power to defeat it. And people complained about Elminster and the Seven Sisters...




You must be unfamiliar with Elminster in Hell, by Greenwood. The portrayal of Elminster and The Simbul therein makes Damascus look like a veritable henchmen laden with the lewt of his employers.


I think you misunderstand my point. I'm familiar with the old novels. But 4E was supposed to be all about removing the Mary Sues. Because you can't have real grittiness when your main characters are all Mary Sues.

Was the Simbul overpowered? Elminster? Yes, and yes. The old setting did have its share of problems. But this new setting just turned everything post-apocalypse, removed all the NPCs that weren't overpowered, and yet managed to retain or create entirely new Mary Sues like Damascus.

Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families!
Go to Top of Page

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  17:08:58  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Therise

Those of you that are arguing -for- keeping the 4E Realms entrenched in the history of the Realms... have you actually read any of the new novels? The abolethic sovereignty series, or the new neverwinter novel, or others like Brimstone Angels?

I'm not arguing against gritty, or the idea that more complex motivations would be better. I enjoy Game of Thrones immensely, and my pre-4E, old vision of the Realms had just as intrigue, deception, backstabbing, and complicated/interwoven plots. My home games were quite gritty at times, all based on 1E with a dash of 2E thrown in. My Zhentarim were truly "magnificent bastards" and my Red Wizards were a morally corrupt, twisted set.

TSR never showed the darker aspects of Greenwood's Realms, and WotC didn't either. But instead of opening up the Realms and showing its truly gritty underbelly, we got served with an entirely new setting. I think it's important for people to read the books from this new setting before they rise up in defense of the thing, so they have a clear picture of what they're actually supporting.




Yes i have though admittedly not all of them were great some were true gems like the brotherhood of the griffon series or the Twilight war saga, the case as with the older books. Lets keep an open mind here, just because the setting has changed doesn't mean that its not FR anymore. Thats like saying a person who has been disfigured in an accident is not the same person anymore. Even the authors remain more or less the same and the writing quality had not decreased.
In fact the 4e books are much more popular with ordinary people than earlier ones. I know this from personal experience , being a rare fan of fantasy in a country not familiar with it. Friends and family members who would refuse to read Elminister in Hell will gladly read Unholy because these are the type of novels that people today can relate to.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  17:21:28  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Therise

Those of you that are arguing -for- keeping the 4E Realms entrenched in the history of the Realms... have you actually read any of the new novels? The abolethic sovereignty series, or the new neverwinter novel, or others like Brimstone Angels?
Off the top of my head: Iíve read Bury Elminster Deep, Elminster Must Die, Neverwinter (book 1) and Waterdeep. I havenít read any of the Abolethic Sovereignty trilogy, but then again I never read the Threat From the Sea trilogy or any of several other pre-Plague series set in the Realms.

The Aboleth stuff doesnít appeal to me, so I ignored it for my 4E D&D Realms game (and I donít write about it for my own fanwork set in the post-Spellplague Realms).

Likewise I never used the Threat from the Sea stuff in my earlier Realms games.

This doesnít mean that other people didnít find either of those trilogies useful for their Realms games or didnít find them entertaining reads. Rather, it reinforces the point that not everything is for everyone and thatís OK.

Of course, one doesn't need to have read everything in order to support the Realms or have an era of preference.

RE: grit and darkness: I think the newer material is perfectly suited to show the ďgritty unberbellyĒ of the Realmsóand from what Iíve read, it does. Drizztís slide into emotional turmoil due to loss of loved ones, Elminster reduced to a by-the-skin-of-his-teeth hustler trying to do good with no power, Cormyr struggling under the weight of too many fractious and rebellious nobles while a relatively weak king rules, Waterdeep experiencing growing pains while its nobles deteriorate and sell off their titles just to surviveÖto me thatís all pretty grim and a nice way of showing how things change in the Realms as time advances.

Iím not sure if the novels I havenít read depict the Realms as post-apocalyptic, but the ones I have read donít do that, just as the FRCS doesnít depict the Realms as post-apocalyptic either.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).

Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 20 Jun 2012 17:22:51
Go to Top of Page

Therise
Master of Realmslore

1272 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  17:22:25  Show Profile Send Therise a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil

quote:
Originally posted by Therise

Those of you that are arguing -for- keeping the 4E Realms entrenched in the history of the Realms... have you actually read any of the new novels? The abolethic sovereignty series, or the new neverwinter novel, or others like Brimstone Angels?

I'm not arguing against gritty, or the idea that more complex motivations would be better. I enjoy Game of Thrones immensely, and my pre-4E, old vision of the Realms had just as intrigue, deception, backstabbing, and complicated/interwoven plots. My home games were quite gritty at times, all based on 1E with a dash of 2E thrown in. My Zhentarim were truly "magnificent bastards" and my Red Wizards were a morally corrupt, twisted set.

TSR never showed the darker aspects of Greenwood's Realms, and WotC didn't either. But instead of opening up the Realms and showing its truly gritty underbelly, we got served with an entirely new setting. I think it's important for people to read the books from this new setting before they rise up in defense of the thing, so they have a clear picture of what they're actually supporting.




Yes i have though admittedly not all of them were great some were true gems like the brotherhood of the griffon series or the Twilight war saga, the case as with the older books. Lets keep an open mind here, just because the setting has changed doesn't mean that its not FR anymore. Thats like saying a person who has been disfigured in an accident is not the same person anymore. Even the authors remain more or less the same and the writing quality had not decreased.
In fact the 4e books are much more popular with ordinary people than earlier ones. I know this from personal experience , being a rare fan of fantasy in a country not familiar with it. Friends and family members who would refuse to read Elminister in Hell will gladly read Unholy because these are the type of novels that people today can relate to.


Clearly we have divergent tastes in some respects, and that's fine. I did not care for the Unholy series or the Brotherhood of the Griffin series AT ALL. I did like all of Kemp's novels, though.

To me, 4E Realms is not the Realms and never will be. It is too radically different IMO and does not have near the level of quality of 1E and 2E Realms. For those of us that believe this on a deep level, you're not going to change our minds. I know I'm not likely to get a reboot, the chances are almost negligible. But at the same time, I'm putting my opinion out there so that WotC knows that I'm not going to buy anything that keeps the 4E Realms around - even as history. I will not support something that I detest.

Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families!
Go to Top of Page

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  17:33:44  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Each to his own. I am not saying I love 4e unconditionally but i do appreciate most of its aspects.
You don't and that's your choice.
Go to Top of Page

Venger
Learned Scribe

USA
268 Posts

Posted - 20 Jun 2012 :  20:07:00  Show Profile Send Venger a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
To me, 4E Realms is not the Realms and never will be. It is too radically different IMO and does not have near the level of quality of 1E and 2E Realms. For those of us that believe this on a deep level, you're not going to change our minds. I know I'm not likely to get a reboot, the chances are almost negligible. But at the same time, I'm putting my opinion out there so that WotC knows that I'm not going to buy anything that keeps the 4E Realms around - even as history. I will not support something that I detest.


Agreed.

"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power."
Go to Top of Page

Tarlyn
Learned Scribe

USA
313 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  00:38:59  Show Profile Send Tarlyn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
With Ed Greenwood at the wheel, I think weíll see the Realms deliberately set on a path that keeps the Spellplague in the rearview mirror where it belongs as the timeline moves forward. That ought to attract back older fans.


I don't think that Ed in control leads to a realms that appeals to all. On the http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16628 thread, 4e fans already have expressed concern that things may change to much with Ed at the helm. So, pre-4e fans are likely to complain that things don't change enough. Also, Ed is unlikely to be the solo designer. So, if the team is Ed plus the remaining 4e crew, how much do you think will really change?

quote:
Off the top of my head: Iíve read Bury Elminster Deep, Elminster Must Die, Neverwinter (book 1) and Waterdeep. I havenít read any of the Abolethic Sovereignty trilogy, but then again I never read the Threat From the Sea trilogy or any of several other pre-Plague series set in the Realms.

The Aboleth stuff doesnít appeal to me, so I ignored it for my 4E D&D Realms game (and I donít write about it for my own fanwork set in the post-Spellplague Realms).

Likewise I never used the Threat from the Sea stuff in my earlier Realms games.

This doesnít mean that other people didnít find either of those trilogies useful for their Realms games or didnít find them entertaining reads. Rather, it reinforces the point that not everything is for everyone and thatís OK.

Of course, one doesn't need to have read everything in order to support the Realms or have an era of preference.

RE: grit and darkness: I think the newer material is perfectly suited to show the ďgritty unberbellyĒ of the Realmsóand from what Iíve read, it does. Drizztís slide into emotional turmoil due to loss of loved ones, Elminster reduced to a by-the-skin-of-his-teeth hustler trying to do good with no power, Cormyr struggling under the weight of too many fractious and rebellious nobles while a relatively weak king rules, Waterdeep experiencing growing pains while its nobles deteriorate and sell off their titles just to surviveÖto me thatís all pretty grim and a nice way of showing how things change in the Realms as time advances.

Iím not sure if the novels I havenít read depict the Realms as post-apocalyptic, but the ones I have read donít do that, just as the FRCS doesnít depict the Realms as post-apocalyptic either.


I hate to say it, but you just almost entirely killed my motivation to finish reading the two new Elminster books. I was hoping that by the end of the second book, El would at least be a marginally competent mage again. Also, Elminster must Die really highlights the change in tone in FR, Cormyr and Shadowdale both are depressing and gloomy locations compared to there previous incarnations. They are actually a great example of being called the same name, but having very little in common with the old places.


quote:
I see your logic, but I wonder if you arenít drawing a false divide.

There is a lot of talk on the internet about the ďdivisionĒ between fans of the Realms. The more I think about it, the more I think this is much ado about nothing; more a product of the internetís amazing ability to make issues seem bigger than they are (that is, continued repetition of some meme isnít any indicator of the truth of that meme) and magnify the voices of people who are unhappy about something and more likely to post online.


The internet is not a completely unreliable source for information agreed. However, it is rather curious that everytime FR is mentioned in Wotc and Enworld's boards the same arguments occur. Maybe it is just a few disgruntled fans that have multiple different names for each board, but I don't think that is very likely. It is also curious that this does not occur with Eberron and Dark Sun given that the cause is "much ado about nothing". I guess the nothing going on in those other settings does not spark debates. It seems more likely that these fights spring up every time, because of how different the 4e and pre 4e versions. Similarly to how virtual every thread on Wotc / enworld forums devolves into an edition war, because of the large difference between the 3e and 4e user groups. The internet does magnify complaints, but if every where you turn the same complains appear there is likely something behind them.

Tarlyn Embersun

Edited by - Tarlyn on 21 Jun 2012 01:54:48
Go to Top of Page

Venger
Learned Scribe

USA
268 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  01:45:29  Show Profile Send Venger a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
They are actually a great example of being called the same name, but having very little in common with the old places.


There's a lot of that going on in the Spellplague Realms, what I call "INOism." Lots of places and organizations which are using the names of something from before but aren't really that place or organization. The Harpers and the Zhentarim are two great examples of that. The Zhentarim used to be a secret organization dedicated to spreading the power of Zhentil Keep (and their leader, typically Manshoon or Fzoul), and now they're a mercenary company? And the Harpers apparently disbanded, only for a new group of people to form a group called the Harpers whose only purpose now is fighting the Shades. And how many locales were blown up, vanished, and rebuilt just so they could make a break from the history of the original place?

"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power."
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  02:59:35  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm starting to think that trying to appeal to the 'old fans' (pre-4e) - like a lot of us are - might be a VERY bad idea. If they do have an established new fanbase with 4e, then I doubt 5e will make very many 'old fans' happy regardless, and all it will do is alienate the new fans, bringing FR to a close.

I say this because I am now of the mind that without a reboot, old fans will never be happy. The ones that don't care how much they spend on new material have already found a new playground. I just don't think they are going to get those people back (I think it is very possible to do so, but I don't think they have the determination to do ALL that it will take).

Maybe its already over, and we are like Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense.

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

Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

740 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  03:39:26  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Consider the following: Ed's new "Elminster's Realms" coming out shortly might just be the Realms' saving grace. I don't know this for sure, but my bet is that it's just "Ed's Realms" without a lot of the things that happened in the canon Realms. As such, it would be an alternate world (or alternate timeline) Realms.

Again, I don't know for sure if that's what it is, but I hope so.

Let's go a few months out. What if that alternate reality Realms becomes SO popular that it supplants the current, existing canon Realms for 5E? Would this not be the best of all possible worlds for everyone? The canon Realms wouldn't necessarily be invalidated, but the new Realms line would be Ed's world. No ToT, so no Cyric, Midnight, etc. No Spellplague, no Abeir, no weirdness with Shadowfels and whatnot, no earth-motes.

But where would this leave the novelists and lore-enthusiasts? Do they continue with the novel canon Realms, which includes 4E? Or do they start writing novels for Ed's world?

Lots of interesting possibilities, I think.

"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer
Go to Top of Page

Venger
Learned Scribe

USA
268 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  06:14:33  Show Profile Send Venger a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That would be pretty nice, actually. I'll check out Ed's Realms and, if I like it, you can count on my providing it with my financial support.

"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power."
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  08:07:59  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi Tarlyn

I agree with you that Ed likely wonít be a solo designeróand thatís a very good thing. Even though Ed built the sandbox, more then one game designer/novel author has built a sand castle to rival anything Edís created (nod to Mirtek).

Likewise I agree that people will complain, especially fans of the Realms who prefer the pre-Spellplague Realms. But I think we should expect theyíre going to do that no matter what. That also is a good thing (in a way): at least people are talking about the Realms, right?

I think (hope) most fans of the Realms who prefer the pre-Plague Realms will like what Ed has to offer when the 5E Realms is released. Iím keeping my hopes up.

As to how much of the post-Spellplague Realms will change: not a lot, Iím wagering. What I do think will happen is that the after-effects of the Spellplague will be tamped down even more, just as pre-Spellplague influences (like the Shadovar) will get weakened too. This could mean major map changes I suppose, but Iím hoping itís in less overt ways that we get back to what most people over the last twenty to thirty years would collectively agree is the Realms.

I want to see a return to the unreliable narrator (such as is being done currently in Edís Eye on the Realms articles), I want less overt organizationsóones that donít have Realms-wide influence and arenít like a fantasy version of the Legion of Doom, I want dungeons and adventures that are smaller scale and encourage/require gamers to know a little something about the world their characters are in (this encourages roleplaying and player buy-in to the setting).

Stuff like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

I hate to say it, but you just almost entirely killed my motivation to finish reading the two new Elminster books. I was hoping that by the end of the second book, El would at least be a marginally competent mage again.
You shouldnít give me that power. FWIW, Elminster is still a very competent mage. I wonít say anything else, save that you should absolutely finish those books, because youíre on the right track with your hopes.

Have you noticed how much new Realmslore on Cormyr Ed has put in the first two novels? Theyíre filled to the brim with information and history about Cormyr.

quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

Cormyr and Shadowdale both are depressing and gloomy locations compared to there previous incarnations. They are actually a great example of being called the same name, but having very little in common with the old places.
I agree weíre getting a grittier Realms, but I disagree wholeheartedly that Cormyr, for example, has little in common with its older self.

Cormyr is by far still Cormyr, body and soul. As presented, itís practically the same as it would be even if the Spellplague never happened. The place is lively with noble-induced intrigue and plots backed by outlander organizations. (Youíll forgive my bias, I hope. Iím a big Cormyr fan.)

Likewise, in my opinion, for places like Waterdeep.

Shadowdale (what little Iíve read of it post-Spellplague) doesnít seem any different. Just older.

And thatís the key point I think people are overlooking: the advancement of a century in the Realms is by far a greater force of change then the Spellplague. When I read through these forums, I donít think enough attention is being given to whether something is a Spellplague-driven change or a time-driven change.

quote:
Originally posted by Venger

And the Harpers apparently disbanded, only for a new group of people to form a group called the Harpers whose only purpose now is fighting the Shades.
New lore has arisen since the blunt information given on the Harpers in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.

The Harpers are collectively more then a single organization of new people that only battle the Shades. They're much better for this, in my opinion. More variety that way.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).

Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 21 Jun 2012 08:13:24
Go to Top of Page

Venger
Learned Scribe

USA
268 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  08:21:37  Show Profile Send Venger a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
New lore has arisen since the blunt information given on the Harpers in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.

The Harpers are collectively more then a single organization of new people that only battle the Shades. They're much better for this, in my opinion. More variety that way.


Where is this information?

"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power."
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  08:44:53  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Information on the Harpers Under the Stars, the Harpers of Cormyr and the Dales, as well as mention of the numerous other groups who call themselves Harpers (some old, some new) may be found in Ed Greenwood's Eye on the Realms article Whispered Words in Dungeon #188.

ARTICLE LINK ...requires a DDI subscription. Even if you do only the $10.00 - one month subscription, you can easily download all 32 of Ed's Eye articles, which is one hell of a deal, especially (in my not so humble opinion) because it presents material in the way I want the 5E Realms to be written.

Note some of those articles are so post-Spellplague transparent that it's hard to tell just when in the timeline they're set. I've pulled 228 unique NPC names from them (in an excel file) and filled up eight other excel tabs with information on new words of the Realms, trading costers, merchant cabals, adventuring bands and organizations, dragon names, broadsheets and books.

Good stuff.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Brimstone
Great Reader

USA
3202 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  09:41:47  Show Profile Send Brimstone a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

Information on the Harpers Under the Stars, the Harpers of Cormyr and the Dales, as well as mention of the numerous other groups who call themselves Harpers (some old, some new) may be found in Ed Greenwood's Eye on the Realms article Whispered Words in Dungeon #188.

ARTICLE LINK ...requires a DDI subscription. Even if you do only the $10.00 - one month subscription, you can easily download all 32 of Ed's Eye articles, which is one hell of a deal, especially (in my not so humble opinion) because it presents material in the way I want the 5E Realms to be written.

Note some of those articles are so post-Spellplague transparent that it's hard to tell just when in the timeline they're set. I've pulled 228 unique NPC names from them (in an excel file) and filled up eight other excel tabs with information on new words of the Realms, trading costers, merchant cabals, adventuring bands and organizations, dragon names, broadsheets and books.

Good stuff.


Typical Ed Greenwood.

One of my favorites is the hidden Eye Tyrant Realm under or by Cormyr, or what is left of it anyways.

I wonder if there is any connection between them and the Eye Tyrants of Zhentil Keep...

"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep
Go to Top of Page

Venger
Learned Scribe

USA
268 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  13:26:51  Show Profile Send Venger a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
An interesting bit of debate. People are attracted to flawed, dark, ambiguous, "broken" characters - the pure and unambiguous hero is no longer believable or interesting.


1) "Some" people are attracted to characters like that. Those same people can likewise be attracted to other kinds of characters. Pure unambiguous heroes, after all, just made $1.4 billion at the box office.

2) Since when have the heroes in the Forgotten Realms ever been without flaws, pure, and unambiguous?

quote:
Yet people cannot accept the same for the setting around the hero? A magical kingdom full of Disney castles and fairies seems as dull to me as the shining paladins who inhabit it.


Since when has the Forgotten Realms ever been this? And I'm extremely confused as to how you could've ever accumulated such a high post count on a Forgotten Realms centric forum when you obviously detest the Forgotten Realms, not to mention have such a slanted view of it which is so far from the reality.

quote:
The Realms has been burned, scarred, given a dose of poison - and it hasn't died, it has the opportunity to come back stronger and "grittier" than before.


Stronger than before? Is that why WotC is promising support for multiple campaign eras? Because the 4E Realms was so strong that it could support the Realms line on its own? Could it be that maybe mutilating a setting to appeal to people who're looking for a whole other campaign setting wasn't the way to go, and in fact only weakened the game line?

By the way, I believe this is the game you're looking for.

http://greenronin.com/sifrp/

You may want to play that instead of trying to take a square peg and trying to hammer it into a round hole.

"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power."
Go to Top of Page

Dalor Darden
Great Reader

USA
4096 Posts

Posted - 21 Jun 2012 :  13:56:50  Show Profile Send Dalor Darden a Private Message  Reply with Quote
@Venger: who in the hells are you quoting? Try to include the names of folks when you are tweaking their nose...so the rest of us can follow eh?

The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me!
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