| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 20:13:43
Greetings,
In another scroll, I promised my thoughts on the Sundering and what was announced at GenCon, so this my attempt to begin to assemble those thoughts. I don't promise to not change my mind, of course. ;-)
Note most of what follows is in the first person, because I'm trying to talk about how I approached things when writing in the past and why I did that, not because I think my philosophy is the "right one" or to in any way neglect all the many contributions and philosophies of the many authors to this shared world.
Where I'm Coming From
===============
For me, the real question is how to do game design for the Realms. I always tried to write by the rule: Always honor what has come before faithfully, but with nuance.
In practice, what that means, is that I have always tried to never invalidate any bit of prior Realmslore just because I think its awful/bad/noxious/pigheaded/<insert adjective>. What the "nuance" bit means: You can always shape it, neglect it, twist it, or expand on it, that's fine, just don't invalidate it.
For example, I might boil an entire prior project down to "there are vague rumors of X happening over in Y", but never say "X never happened."
In other words, going the "Bobby in the shower" approach (a reference to the American TV show where one whole season was shown to be the fevered dream of one character in the shower) does not honor what has come before, and honoring everything that came before, even if I think bits of what came before were less than good, is honoring the Realms.
For me, the primary reason for this philosophy is that once you say "we're going throw the bad stuff out", there's no way to stop. Who draws the line at what's good and what's bad? I know that many of my favorite designers have all written a clunker here or there, and that I certainly have as well. I also know that all the stuff I think is a real clunker ... (I'm looking at you <censored>) ... other fans absolutely adore. If you take that approach to its logical conclusion, you should reissue the old gray box and never dare write another product.
The secondary reason for this philosophy is that in my opinion game design is better with constraints. In other words, I can make anything up if I'm staring at a blank page, but there's no particular reason to make something up in particular. If I have a fist-full of constraints (like the tangled knot of Fallen Kingdom references before George and I started digging into it), the resulting design I can come up with is both reasoned and complicated for a reason, not just because I wanted to fill the page count.
What about the Sundering?
================
So, my primary issue with the 4e campaign setting is *not* that it blew up the world, advanced the timeline by 100 years, etc. It was that it didn't try particularly hard to explain it in the context of the prior lore. I also really didn't like the paragraph in the front of the 4e campaign setting that said "time to wind down your campaign and start a new one in this bright, shiny new world." (To the first point, I also think there were plenty of past FR products in 1e/2e/3e that also failed that test.)
So, looking at the Sundering and the hoped-for-by-me 5e campaign setting. Based on the statements of the Wizards folks and the authors:
They care very much about the fans and the setting.
They are all good, creative authors / artists/ game designers who want to honor the spirit of Ed's vision.
They are trying very hard to make the setting have the feel of the old grey box (a good thing in my mind).
They are trying very hard to make a setting where the PCs are the heroes and the novels tell more character-driven stories.
They are trying to honor the continuity of the Realms going forward and they are doing that by honoring all things good and honoring / nuancing all things less good about all editions of the Realms.
Do I wish 4e hadn't made some of the changes it made (e.g. Spellplague)? Yes.
Do I wish 3e hadn't made some of the changes it made (e.g. world map changes, escalating RSEs)? Yes.
Do I wish 2e hadn't made some of the changes it made (e.g. Time of Troubles, Maztica, Kara-Tur, Zakhara)? Yes.
Do I wish 1e hadn't made some of the changes it made (e.g. Pools of Radiance)? Yes.
Are all those things able to be improved upon if good design follow? Yes.
Is the Realms far richer for having had even the parts I don't particularly like expanded and improved upon? Yes.
So, if you made it through that long ramble ... I'm optimistic about the next generation of the Realms and the stories that can be told. And I look forward to the continuing stories of Ed's vision. So I am optimistic about what comes next.
--Eric
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 20:43:46
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
They can't create product that support 2 different kings of Cormyr separated by a century with two totally radical political environments because of who they are and if they tried, half the book would be useless to people that don't want the other era.
Heh, did you ever read any of Brian Cortijo’s recent Cormyr articles? He did exactly what you describe in one of them and the article is 100% useful to me.
That said I’m probably not one of the people you’re talking about, since you’re describing people who have hard-coded era preferences, whereas I don’t hamstring my like for Cormyr to certain segments of the timeline.
For me, Cormyr is Cormyr. If you give me in one product a description of Aulsair’s Court and Foril’s Court (as one of Cortijo’s Cormyr articles provided), I’ll happily gobble up all that information because it’s interesting to me even before I get down to the process of using bits and pieces from the whole article for my D&D campaign.
It’s true that some Realms fans pick material by what era a given product covers. But it’s also true there’s a lot of people out there (myself included) who pick material based on what region a book covers. I hope WotC caters to us a whole bunch.
Note: I think it’s important to remember that multi-era books covering a specific place don’t only provide facts relevant to a given era. There’s much information that’s consistent and true across the lifetime of a place that these books also provide. For example, if you write an article about Ranks and Titles in Cormyr (another Cortijo article), DMs can pretty much use that information across the full spectrum of the timeline.
One thing they could do is actually put out essentially "empire history books", focused at first around the realms countries that are exceptionally popular from both 3e and maybe 4e (moreso the ones popular from 3e considering who their trying to win back). I recommend against doing those that have seen a lot of this type of thing already (for instance, Cormyr). So, lets take Halruaa as an example. We've all seen the history as presented in the page or two blurb in Shining South... and we may have picked up more in the Grand History of the Realms. However, the Grand History is thereby spread out. What if someone were to write up a history of Halruaa starting from the first colony, what adversity they had, etc.... then move into the formation of their country, the lines of rulers, go into more detail into problems they had over the years, maybe discuss magic spells and items developed over the years, rumors of this or that wizard and what happened when they died that can be turned into adventure hooks in later millenia, talk about the actual rise of the red wizards and who they were and why they left Halruaa to found Thay etc...
Now take this same topic, apply it to Thay, but build from that history you presented in the Halruaa book... you've got an entirely different story... but don't stop it with Szass Tam taking over.. tell the story of what happened to the other Zulkirs... and maybe hint at where those other Zulkirs led and did it turn into something. Now, do Mulhorand from the time of their god's arrival to the spellplague... and then tell the story of where they went after the spellplague (and if it was Abeir, it gives the ability to flesh out some of Abeir, but localized to Mulhorand).
A similar thing could be done for Impiltur, Damara, Neverwinter (though maybe Neverwinter got this treatment in 4E? Not sure, I haven't kept up), Amn, Tethyr, Calimshan, and other areas of the realms that haven't had this type of treatment yet. Then, from those histories, snippets could be gathered together and resources on various dead empires that haven't gotten a lot of coverage could be given more detail (Raumathar, Narfell, Imaskar, the fallen kingdom, Talfir, the era of the giants, etc....).
In doing this, it might be that authors might find that they want to write a story based in the 1100's in Calimshan. If there's no RSE's in the novel (or if the point of the novel is to detail the RSE that already happened), then it should be doable.
And people may want to run their campaigns in earlier periods, etc... |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 18:44:53
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
They can't create product that support 2 different kings of Cormyr separated by a century with two totally radical political environments because of who they are and if they tried, half the book would be useless to people that don't want the other era.
Heh, did you ever read any of Brian Cortijo’s recent Cormyr articles? He did exactly what you describe in one of them and the article is 100% useful to me.
That said I’m probably not one of the people you’re talking about, since you’re describing people who have hard-coded era preferences, whereas I don’t hamstring my like for Cormyr to certain segments of the timeline.
For me, Cormyr is Cormyr. If you give me in one product a description of Aulsair’s Court and Foril’s Court (as one of Cortijo’s Cormyr articles provided), I’ll happily gobble up all that information because it’s interesting to me even before I get down to the process of using bits and pieces from the whole article for my D&D campaign.
It’s true that some Realms fans pick material by what era a given product covers. But it’s also true there’s a lot of people out there (myself included) who pick material based on what region a book covers. I hope WotC caters to us a whole bunch.
Note: I think it’s important to remember that multi-era books covering a specific place don’t only provide facts relevant to a given era. There’s much information that’s consistent and true across the lifetime of a place that these books also provide. For example, if you write an article about Ranks and Titles in Cormyr (another Cortijo article), DMs can pretty much use that information across the full spectrum of the timeline. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 18:41:39
Yes web enhancements.. bring on the microtransactions and/or subscription fees in hope of getting something I want/can use.
Man.. these 6 years have made me bitter. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 18:24:28
The only way I see that working - and not pissing everyone off in the process - is to have a very generic overview of how something is/works. Then give us a Web-Enhancement with time-specific details. The main source could contain a timeline - I have always loved those - but I am talking about who the 'movers and shakers' were in each era.
Or instance, suppose they told us that Sembia is ruled by 'merchant princes', but there is usually one who is able to manipulate most of the others into getting his/her way (a de facto leader). In each era, this should be someone different, and even be from different families as power waxes and wanes. The main merchant families (like cormyr's nobles) can be detailed, and major historic figures mentioned, but specific details of these individuals should go in era-specific Web Enhancements.
The internet is a beautiful tool - they need to learn how to utilize it to its maximum effect. I don't want a book that is 50% useful to me - I'd rather get a book with more general info, and a something I can download that specifically interests me and effects my campaign.
And BTW, can you imagine anyone not downloading the other information? You actually aren't doing anything at all different - you are just 'tricking' people into thinking they didn't pay for it. Its all about marketing. 
Nothing changes but perception, and we all know how much people's perception of things can make or break D&D. And besides, we would theoretically get never-ending sourcebooks that way. Any time an author decides to set a story somewhere during some other time period, all they have to do is upload a couple of pages of stuff to the WE for that product and *wallah* - instant update. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 18:18:36
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
My takeaway was, to the maximum extent possible, they are going to make Realms products useful for all eras, with Menzo being an early example of this.
--Eric
Then it sounds like all Realms books will be nothing but crutch and no fluff.
They can't create product that support 2 different kings of Cormyr separated by a century with two totally radical political environments because of who they are and if they tried, half the book would be useless to people that don't want the other era.
The new books will be almost 100 % fluff, with as little or no crunch as possible |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 18:12:46
Well I'll take it a step further... let's talk about a setting book for the Realms. Saying that nation-x is like renaissance italy is fine but what about the finer details? Whose ruling it, what are the politics, what are the threats both internal and external. The specifics of 1 era are different then the specifics of another. It's not a game of swapping out proper nouns.. especially when you're dealing with NPCs.
Let's face it, 4e covered even LESS of the Realms in terms of region specific material then 3e did and I don't see 5e doing it any better especially when it has to cover it's own era of play. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 18:11:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This went from an observation to a mini-rant, but it hit a sore spot for me. I am tired of crap like 'grey orcs' and 'green orcs' - don't you think they would have their own racial terminiology? Outsiders would call them that, but they wouldn't call themselves that. Its just silly. Plus 'orcs' itself is already a world-specific term in a well-known setting. I'd love to see 5e get a little creative in this area.
What's wrong with using words your audience is familiar with? I read thru the Castlemourn setting book, and it used alternate words for the directions -- and these words weren't defined until after the setting gazeteer section. So I was having to look at the maps to figure out the directions. Had standard directions been used, I'd've not had that problem.
For a real world example, when I moved to Biloxi, MS, and saw "po' boys" listed on the school lunch menu, I had no idea what those were. And when I asked, a couple of my classmates were incredulous that I'd never had one before -- without bothering to define the term. Then I got into the cafeteria and saw it was just a sub sandwich.
And Tolkien may have made orcs popular, but he didn't create the term.
Besides, if we're going to quibble about that, why not complain about gold elves and moon elves? Or shield and mountain dwarves? And so on...
To a point, its okay, but when it gets over-used (as in the case of 'returned empires'), then it it becomes a crutch, as Red Walker mentioned.
You can have a great idea, but that doesn't mean you should use it over and over again. It gets old fast. Take the two Bachelor Party movies as an extreme example - first one great, second one same movie basically.
As for Orcs, I am not saying to rename them for our sourcebooks and MM's - I think that it would be nice to have second names for everything that that group calls themselves. Even Elves do this (they call themselves Tel-quessir, and now Eladrin). This helps to maintain the fourth wall. Novels and sourcebooks are written from a human perspective (for humans, by humans), so they should contain the human terminology. I'm not saying change the names, all I am saying is give us some more fluff about how they view themselves. In the case of Netheril, wouldn't they have at least used 'New Netheril'? It seems a bit odd to me to be proud of something that failed miserably, and everyone hates. The Halruaans certainly wanted no connection to their heritage that way.
And the Imaskari take that to whole 'nother level. Aside from Egypt, what nation still uses a name from 3-5000 years ago? Why would they have called themselves 'Deep Imaskar'? Or did they? Shouldn't they have had some provocative survivor-name to call themselves? I just think recycling fallen empires - AND using the old names - rings a bit hollow to me.
All I am asking is that Shade becomes 'the Empire of Shade' (or if they loose Sembia, then just call it Thultanther, because even using 'Shade' is a bit redundant with the race itself). Then make whatever replaces the Old Empires some sort of new name or amalgam of old ones (Mulhiskar? Tymunther?). I want to be able to discuss and differentiate between each iteration of these things easily. What they need to do is look at each piece of lore they create, and not only weigh it upon its 'kewlness' factor, but also apply real world variables to it (like time, and racial differences), and how future FR fans will discuss such lore. I don't want folks to have ask things like, "which version of Mulhorand are we talking about?" There is already enough of that in FR, and it would be nice to nip that in the bud moving into 5e.
As for the differences in the names of the compass directions, Wooly - just wow. You have my eye twitching at that one. Sometimes the 'make stuff different just to be different' can be taken too far. Ed is the master of naming stuff, but I guess even he has his off days (or rather, doesn't know when its time to dial it back). I would have handled it just by saying what the folks in-world call it, and then use the English terminology throughout the sourcebooks (only use the in-world terms when characters have dialogue in a story). The same could be applied for things like money, etc. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 18:04:31
To say nothing of acceptable real world terms using the same format (white, black). The Realms already goes a step further than most other settings by giving some of the races several names and terms. Which is what we see in the real world.
Halfling and hin, further divided into strongheart, lightfoot, ghostwise.
Elves have their 'Quessir name, then the Sun/Moon/Wood term, or Gold/Silver/Copper.
Most settings only go so far as Grey vs High.
I do have some reservations about a setting or novel that immediately presents a glossary worth (and you will find a glossary in the back) of new terms right from the beginning. It doesn't add too much. Like in the Horselords, they keep referring to tents as yurts as well as many other terms. I get it, trying to increase immersion. This works if you choose a few important terms, but if I keep seeing more and more terms being used, I wonder why not write the entire novel in Tuigan. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 17:51:28
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
My takeaway was, to the maximum extent possible, they are going to make Realms products useful for all eras, with Menzo being an early example of this.
--Eric
Then it sounds like all Realms books will be nothing but crutch and no fluff.
They can't create product that support 2 different kings of Cormyr separated by a century with two totally radical political environments because of who they are and if they tried, half the book would be useless to people that don't want the other era. |
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 17:44:20
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
For me, the damage was done by 4e. I could have dealt with spellplague and choose to avoid it and that would have been fine.. but 4e went a step further and jumped ahead so far in time that made it so that any character I cared about was dead and any city I was interested had changed. The names on the map were the same but it wasn't the same.
That's why I not only play pathfinder now, but I barely play the Realms or purchase it's products.
It doesn't sound like D&D Next will directly support the era of play I care about beyond not preventing me from playing in it and that saddens me.
My takeaway was, to the maximum extent possible, they are going to make Realms products useful for all eras, with Menzo being an early example of this.
--Eric |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 17:40:05
For me, the damage was done by 4e. I could have dealt with spellplague and choose to avoid it and that would have been fine.. but 4e went a step further and jumped ahead so far in time that made it so that any character I cared about was dead and any city I was interested had changed. The names on the map were the same but it wasn't the same.
That's why I not only play pathfinder now, but I barely play the Realms or purchase it's products.
It doesn't sound like D&D Next will directly support the era of play I care about beyond not preventing me from playing in it and that saddens me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 16:54:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This went from an observation to a mini-rant, but it hit a sore spot for me. I am tired of crap like 'grey orcs' and 'green orcs' - don't you think they would have their own racial terminiology? Outsiders would call them that, but they wouldn't call themselves that. Its just silly. Plus 'orcs' itself is already a world-specific term in a well-known setting. I'd love to see 5e get a little creative in this area.
What's wrong with using words your audience is familiar with? I read thru the Castlemourn setting book, and it used alternate words for the directions -- and these words weren't defined until after the setting gazeteer section. So I was having to look at the maps to figure out the directions. Had standard directions been used, I'd've not had that problem.
For a real world example, when I moved to Biloxi, MS, and saw "po' boys" listed on the school lunch menu, I had no idea what those were. And when I asked, a couple of my classmates were incredulous that I'd never had one before -- without bothering to define the term. Then I got into the cafeteria and saw it was just a sub sandwich.
And Tolkien may have made orcs popular, but he didn't create the term.
Besides, if we're going to quibble about that, why not complain about gold elves and moon elves? Or shield and mountain dwarves? And so on... |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 16:37:14
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The terminology also gets confusing -
Lets talk about the Netherese.
Which Netherese?
Lets talk about Imaskar.
Which Imaskar? (there are technically three)
Lets talk about Mystra.
Which Mystra? (Okay, this one might be splitting hairs, but its valid).
Lets talk about The Sundering.
Don't you mean 'a' Sundering? (and which one?)
This is what happens when separate events/people/locales are given the same name. The Spellplague is one of the worst examples of this - it means three separate things to people; the death of Mystra (which was an instantaneous thing), the 'Years of magical chaos' (which lasted for the most part only 5-10 years) when lands were swapped between Abeir and Tori,. and the century between 3e and 4e. What the hell is the Spellplague? A single event? An era? A magical affliction? All of the above?
In the RW, we have terminology for specific things, but it appears in fantasy gaming, its okay to use very broad terms to describe a multitude of things. It makes writing lore and discussing it a big mess, IMHO.
In our real world, there is one event event called 'The Holocaust', even though the word itself could mean different events. How disingenuous would it be if people started calling something else (like 911) 'The New Holocaust'? Its not okay in the RW, and it shouldn't be okay in fantasy fiction. It just leads to confusion, and is very bad design, IMHO.
At the very least, call Netheril 'The Shade Empire' from now on, 'cause that is what it is. Is it really so hard to come up with new terminology for new things? Its called designing...
This went from an observation to a mini-rant, but it hit a sore spot for me. I am tired of crap like 'grey orcs' and 'green orcs' - don't you think they would have their own racial terminiology? Outsiders would call them that, but they wouldn't call themselves that. Its just silly. Plus 'orcs' itself is already a world-specific term in a well-known setting. I'd love to see 5e get a little creative in this area.
I will almost give The Sundering a pass, because is being presented as all a part or effects of "The Sundering" 19,000 years ago. But when the three Sunderings are seperated by 32,000 years and the first(tearfall) has a diverse name, it doesnt quite fit
But I'm with you on reusing names....it's a crutch. Things for me would be much more interesting with more diverse naming. Even if those names have an origin from another fantsy world or setting.
You gotta think some of this possible new lattitude the writers may be granted , might in itself help to solve this.
Who can't but imagine various conversations like the following have occured in the past-
Editor : Umm, got a question about your major character here....you call him a Manbornfolkmen?
Author: of yeah, it this new race Im really excite about....done alot of background and development back a few thousand years...it's gonna be great.
Editor: Umm...sounds like a northern barbarian to me.
Author: oh no. There is almost no correlation with....
Editor: sorry to inturpt, but people like barbarins....your guy he's tall right? and really strong?
Author: Well some what, but the majoroty of them use the power ot their minds to.
Editor: People will buy a barbarian...he is a barbarian right?? I think a story with a barbarian would fit our needs better.
Author: ohh....a barbarian ....sure |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 15:51:00
The terminology also gets confusing -
Lets talk about the Netherese.
Which Netherese?
Lets talk about Imaskar.
Which Imaskar? (there are technically three)
Lets talk about Mystra.
Which Mystra? (Okay, this one might be splitting hairs, but its valid).
Lets talk about The Sundering.
Don't you mean 'a' Sundering? (and which one?)
This is what happens when separate events/people/locales are given the same name. The Spellplague is one of the worst examples of this - it means three separate things to people; the death of Mystra (which was an instantaneous thing), the 'Years of magical chaos' (which lasted for the most part only 5-10 years) when lands were swapped between Abeir and Tori,. and the century between 3e and 4e. What the hell is the Spellplague? A single event? An era? A magical affliction? All of the above?
In the RW, we have terminology for specific things, but it appears in fantasy gaming, its okay to use very broad terms to describe a multitude of things. It makes writing lore and discussing it a big mess, IMHO.
In our real world, there is one event event called 'The Holocaust', even though the word itself could mean different events. How disingenuous would it be if people started calling something else (like 911) 'The New Holocaust'? Its not okay in the RW, and it shouldn't be okay in fantasy fiction. It just leads to confusion, and is very bad design, IMHO.
At the very least, call Netheril 'The Shade Empire' from now on, 'cause that is what it is. Is it really so hard to come up with new terminology for new things? Its called designing...
This went from an observation to a mini-rant, but it hit a sore spot for me. I am tired of crap like 'grey orcs' and 'green orcs' - don't you think they would have their own racial terminiology? Outsiders would call them that, but they wouldn't call themselves that. Its just silly. Plus 'orcs' itself is already a world-specific term in a well-known setting. I'd love to see 5e get a little creative in this area. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 05:09:26
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Its why I'd love to see Opal or as its now called Selunurra or something like that return to the realms as well, it'd be cool to compare and constrast the forked evolution of both cities. I know that some people would see Opal as just a good verison of Shade, but it was so much more then that. I would love that.
Here's my take on a theoretical return of Selunarra:
quote:
I see Selunarra picking out a mostly empty area of the North and claiming it for themselves. It wouldn't be for conquest, as much as giving them a place to use for producing food and goods. The city itself would prolly wander quite a bit, within its chosen territory.
Individual Selunarrans would protect that area, but also work directly with local power groups like the Harpers. The city would officially be friendly to the Lords' Alliance and the Harpers, though they wouldn't join the former. The Harpers, they'd be friendly to and offer support, maybe even allowing a permanent Harper presence. But it would be like the Harpers and the Lords of Waterdeep -- they would support each other, for the common good, but there would also be times the locals would have to tell the Harpers that a particular Harper goal was not a shared goal, and that it would be a Harper-only effort.
I see the Selunarrans as opposing the Shades, the Zhents, and other evil power groups, but mostly when those groups were acting in the area. Zhents attacking Shadowdale wouldn't be a concern, for example. The Selunarrans would go out of their way to oppose the Shades, but it would only be when the Shades were trying to pull something that negatively impacted others, and it would be as indirect (or at the least, not overt) as possible.
|
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 03:46:16
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Really I view them all as success states, thier related, but far from possessing all thier secrets, and they have many uniquely of thier own.
Successor states that treat their respective ancestral empires almost like they existed yesterday. For Shade this is almost true. Even Deep/High Imaskar acts too 'friendly' with their ancestor's legacy to really feel like a successor state. They also have access to some of their ancestor's biggest toys.
Contrast this with the portrayal of Halruaa. They were presented more clearly as a successor state, one with the scars and triumphs of existence through the intervening centuries. These others arrived almost out of stasis.
Again it's not any one factor or example, it's the collective movement to bring back very direct successors to these ancient legacies, forming these diluted mini-versions but without enough of their individual characteristics developed through the centuries showing through. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 01:32:35
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Abeir will be supported insofar as we'll be pushing to have WotC let us write for it. That being said, I would not have anyone expect it to be anything intimately deailed. If desired, I would be more than happy to provide some fan-fiction for this site. It, of course, would not be canon.
While I'd prefer official content, I'm just as eager to start putting together some fan-based material for Abeir. So if you're looking for help, I'll be happy to try and contribute something.
I count myself among the few who were very intrigued by the concept of the twin-worlds, and what Abeir could bring to it's own game in and of itself. So I do expect that while Wizards will return to Toril, essentially, for the next setting, I really don't want to see Abeir go the away of other previous edition "add-ons" or "expansions" for the most part, because that's how I've come to view it. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 01:25:34
Its why I'd love to see Opal or as its now called Selunurra or something like that return to the realms as well, it'd be cool to compare and constrast the forked evolution of both cities. I know that some people would see Opal as just a good verison of Shade, but it was so much more then that. I would love that.
Deep and High Imaskar is really just a survivor state of Imaskar who went into the underdark and mutanted. The Imaskar are humanities drow/dark dwarves ect... Its not ancient Imaskar resurrected, its a mutant faction. Jhaamdath isn't reborn and has no successors states. Calimshan I agree, unleashing Memmon and Calim was a bad idea that grew worse by destroying so much of Calimshan, including entire cities, and then that weird mutantion of the Genasi. Still love sandstorm, great writing, character, not the,Author's fault they smashed up the place before he got there, but I will say his novel may lead to the beginning of a solution, but no,more so I don't spoil it.
Really I view them all as success states, thier related, but far from possessing all thier secrets, and they have many uniquely of thier own.
|
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 00:52:39
Even if Netheril is not the exact same as the Netheril of old, they're using the name, of the same heritage with a few beings actually of that age, showing up in their floating city, stomping around as if they own the place. They may be aberrant to the other enclaves, but they are of that time. They've exploited the name, even if it's wrapped in their City of Shade secondary branding. I know they're a bit more subtle than this, but to me it feels like you can't speak about anything Netherese anymore without accounting for the big flashing neon sign above Shade saying "Welcome to NETHERIL."
By itself it isn't too bad, but add in Imaskar, Cormanthor, Calimshan, etc. Likewise for all we've heard about the Creator Races, especially the Sarrukh. Too many ancient being yanked into the forefront, blatantly rubbed in people's faces.
"You know those ancient people who everyone thought messed up epically millennia ago? Well, they're still around and they want to rebuilt their empires in their vision. Look here they come in their magical contraptions of doom! Hey, there's the other ancient people and their portals to everywhere. And the elves have returned, even though the last of them left no more than a handful of years ago. I guess the Retreat was just a short day trip. And the dinosaur people wake from their slumber..."
The concept becomes overused and the ancient history starts to become overexposed. Where's the aura of mystery, the element of unknown where anything goes?
Years ago I had some notes for a scenario dealing with the revival of Raumathar by descendants and newcomers who discovered their secrets. It was intended to be a long campaign for players with nation building elements, rivalries with Rashemen and Thay, trade route problems on the Endless Wastes, the demons of Narfell stirring. I felt an intermediate-level ancient empire was more than enough of a draw without pulling out the big guns.
I kept thinking to myself, I can't possibly be more considerate of preserving the setting's playing spaces than the company actually in charge of the damn thing. I watched incredulously as WotC resurrected the ancient empires one by one. Year by year, book by book revealed more details, more expansion of these ancient names into formerly haunted wilds, dangerous areas once ripe for open-ended adventure. Now these areas are under the purview of the returned empires and their rulers. I suppose new opportunities arose from this, but I feel more opportunities were lost without suitable replacements. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 20:17:33
That approach (city states in a geographic area, without any sort of unification) is how Ed has described Netheril here in his own thread. It's an interesting change from what we usually think of as "Netheril," which is a sort of unified nation, but that's probably due to the vagueness of time; at this point, most people don't know much about Netheril's inner workings; it was just this big impressive and dead place. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 19:47:30
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Abeir will be supported insofar as we'll be pushing to have WotC let us write for it. That being said, I would not have anyone expect it to be anything intimately deailed. If desired, I would be more than happy to provide some fan-fiction for this site. It, of course, would not be canon.
Too be honest, I think Abeir works much better as a tool with very little detailing.
Think about it: Suppose 6e comes along (and realistically, we all know it will), and they want to do further tweaks to the setting. They say Abeir becomes coterminous with Toril again, and it explains-away all the changes in-game. As of right now, that means they can do whatever the hell they want (which is pretty nifty when designing).
Once you start to detail Abeir, you begin to loose its open-endedness. You begin to create the same situation in Abeir that caused it to come into being in the first place (the false concept that FR had already become 'too detailed').
A novel, maybe. An anthology, definitely. A series? I don't think so (unless it had major tie-ins with Toril). Sourcebooks? Absolutely not! Otherwise, eventually we get "the rogue planet Mongo" - Abeir and Toril's long-lost triplet. Some basic info and some small stories is fine, but once you begin detailing it you loose its effectiveness.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
Shade is not actually a true return of Netheril, it is in fact a kind of odd city from the original empire. Shade was culturally abnormal from the standard Netherese city. So, I don't really view it as all of Netheril returning. <snip>
In my Homebrew material, I have it where Thultanthar (Shade) was the major antagonist on the raid on Thaeraval, and all its ancient (Talfiric?) lore. The rest of Netheril supported them, after much convincing of 'the threat', but it was really Telamont's desire for their magical secrets that drove them to attack and annihilate Thaeraval, the Land of the Alabaster Towers.
This is how I seeing a lot of the politics of ancient Netheril working - very similar to how it worked in ancient Greece with the Citystates. They would fight with each other (usually covertly, occasionally overtly), but many of them would ally for a common cause, most especially outside threats.
So while Imaskar was more like ancient Rome in its culture - one that was fairly unified (at its core), but with lots of back-stabbing (Machiavellian) politics, and far-flung provinces (who's people and cultures were subsumed by the empire), the Netherese were not really an Empire at all - there was no central authority. They were a collection of citystates (enclaves) unified by a common cultural heritage, but each with very different attitudes and outlooks.
Just my take in all of this, is all. Hopefully I would someday have a vehicle to publish all my Talfir material. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 16:04:02
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Abeir will be supported insofar as we'll be pushing to have WotC let us write for it. That being said, I would not have anyone expect it to be anything intimately deailed. If desired, I would be more than happy to provide some fan-fiction for this site. It, of course, would not be canon.
Any fan fiction by you would always be welcome here! |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 15:18:54
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
One design aspect that annoys me to no end is the resurrection of major ancient empires, Netheril, Imaskar, Cormanthor, and to a lesser extent Calimshan (unleashing the jinn lords). Much of the tension and mystique is stripped away from these historical heavyweights. No recently ruined areas come close to the gravitas of these big names. Meanwhile many true successors were wiped away in the Spellplague. This was simply terrible design, by far removing more opportunity and setting secrets than they replaced.
This is the equivalent of stating definitively what caused the Mournland disaster in Eberron. If that happened to Eberron, the fans would probably riot and ignore it. Heads would probably roll.
I don't see why it's good to keep these layers of mystery for one setting, but for another its almost encouraged to peel away as many layers of the unknown as possible.
Shade is not actually a true return of Netheril, it is in fact a kind of odd city from the original empire. Shade was culturally abnormal from the standard Netherese city. So, I don't really view it as all of Netheril returning.
I have to agree with you that in their current forms Imaskar and Cormanthor were better off as lost civilizations. That being said, if some development attention was given to both locations, I think they could become very interesting. An Old empires box set detailing relations between Imaskar, Mulhorand, Unther and Thay could be very interesting. Also, if the Imaskar started becoming a world reaching power group such as the Red wizards and the Shades that could be interesting.
Cormanthor needs either a Waterdeep style treatment, or it was better off as an interesting ruin for adventurers to explore.
The Calimshan change was just bad IMO.
That being said I think that many heads did roll. Notice none of the 4e FR decision makers are involved with the brand for 5e. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 13:29:36
Abeir will be supported insofar as we'll be pushing to have WotC let us write for it. That being said, I would not have anyone expect it to be anything intimately deailed. If desired, I would be more than happy to provide some fan-fiction for this site. It, of course, would not be canon. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 04:51:20
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by deserk
I'd certainly love to see Kara-Tur and Zakhara redone from scratch, and made more Realmsian. I honestly feel the way they are, they are in the way of Ed Greenwood or other FR designers, from making some new interesting and unique FR nations/cultures.
Then again, FR designers still have the Utter East to properly lay out. :p
Also wasn't Kara-Tur and Zakhara purportedly heavily affected by the Spellplague as well? If so, then this is one of the few cases where I think a region (or continent) desperately needed a Spellplague to blast it to bits, and have it all redone.
I think Maztica, Kara-Tur and Zakhara should be their own settings and not have anything to do with the Realms, if they can't be anything but blatant New World/Asian/Arabian Nights analogues.
Also, the lack of demihuman nations in these regions also make them suffer a lot.
You know, I just went out on a side tangent with forming a new "Thay", and it occurs to me that this new "Thay" that I was discussing would be very close to Zakhara. Given that culture's ties to elemental magic, it might be interesting if these two areas have some involvement with each other as well. Perhaps this new Thay's pirates raid into Zakhara and Halruaa both for lost secrets of magic. Now that the Crintri of Dambrath aren't working as pirates in the area, they might work the entire coast. Hell, maybe some of the Crintri actually come to this new Thay and are accepted as privateers in service to this new magocracy and particularly enjoy raiding for slaves in Dambrath.
damn, my mind is working overtime here... let me throw some more ideas down before they leave. This "new Thay" being near Zakhara... maybe they also have a "colony" that's on what was formerly Zakharan soil somewhere (so that this new Thay is spread out.. the Alaor, this section in the Eastern Shaar, and now a part of Zakhara). Maybe rather than seeking to work with the genies, this new "Thayan Empire" is actually seeing the genies of Zakhara as perfect servants to capture. Maybe they've learned a lot of the lore of tying them to lamps and what not and are enslaving the genies to serve them. Maybe marids and djinn are forced to capture weather and irrigate the land. Maybe Dao are forced to turn the earth for their crops. Maybe efreet are forced to slaughter their enemies. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 04:41:08
quote:
Originally posted by deserk
I'd certainly love to see Kara-Tur and Zakhara redone from scratch, and made more Realmsian. I honestly feel the way they are, they are in the way of Ed Greenwood or other FR designers, from making some new interesting and unique FR nations/cultures.
Then again, FR designers still have the Utter East to properly lay out. :p
Also wasn't Kara-Tur and Zakhara purportedly heavily affected by the Spellplague as well? If so, then this is one of the few cases where I think a region (or continent) desperately needed a Spellplague to blast it to bits, and have it all redone.
I think Maztica, Kara-Tur and Zakhara should be their own settings and not have anything to do with the Realms, if they can't be anything but blatant New World/Asian/Arabian Nights analogues.
Also, the lack of demihuman nations in these regions also make them suffer a lot.
You know, I just went out on a side tangent with forming a new "Thay", and it occurs to me that this new "Thay" that I was discussing would be very close to Zakhara. Given that culture's ties to elemental magic, it might be interesting if these two areas have some involvement with each other as well. Perhaps this new Thay's pirates raid into Zakhara and Halruaa both for lost secrets of magic. Now that the Crintri of Dambrath aren't working as pirates in the area, they might work the entire coast. Hell, maybe some of the Crintri actually come to this new Thay and are accepted as privateers in service to this new magocracy and particularly enjoy raiding for slaves in Dambrath. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 04:27:19
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
What do you mean by not liking Maztica, Kara-Tur or Zhakara? I think the adaptability of playing in an oriental, Mayan/Aztec or Arabian setting and still be set I the Realms was a smart move. Or do you mean uch a thing wasn't executed well? I do believe that, they needed to be more unique and Realmsian. Now they have that opportunity!
Personally, I would have preferred that Wizards had created uniquely Realmsian cultures (like Thay) rather than start with real world analogs (Maztica, Kara-Tur) or classic fantasy analogs (Zakhara / Arabian Nights). But, as a designer, I have no problem with working with the existing Realms and making it more Realmsian. Also, as a fan, I have absolutely no problem with the fact that some folks like some ideas more than me and others like some ideas less than me.
My point was not to critique any specific issue (or to suggest that my criticism was anything more than my opinion), but simply to point out that the Realms has constantly dealt with the introduction of new ideas in all editions. In other words, this is not the first time that "further design would be desirable". (And that applies to many things I wrote as well.)
--Eric
Ummm, just need to say it.... the original Thay rocked... but then anyone that knows me probably knows I thought that...
That being said, one of the things that I've mentioned elsewhere is that I'd like to see "Thay" return. Now, it doesn't need to be all Mulan's. In fact, it might be interesting if some of these High Imaskari were to infuse the culture. It might be interesting if the "schools" of magic and their corresponding "Zulkirs" didn't follow the classic 8 schools anymore either. However, I also think it'd be cheesy if they went back to their old stomping grounds, because it then invalidates what was done with Tam. So, then the question becomes... WHERE can they come back that's not going to absolutely upset a large portion of the realmsian population? The ideas I have are south of the Vilhon Reach and west of Chondalwood OR possibly in the Eastern Shaar in the Council hills area near Azulduth (what in 4E is Okoth).
I'm intrigued with possibly using the Shaar area, so I'm just going to free flow some ideas here. The Shaar area could be really interesting if you don't invalidate that the Sarrukh population is there, but rather just move in a large number of humans (or maybe humans, High Imaskari displaced by the sundering, and Genasi of Akanul displaced by the Sundering ) who seek to "reclaim" the area and form a magocracy. Maybe one of the problems that they have is fighting against Sarrukh infringement. With the nearby beastlands, they could have access to a "non-human" mercenary pool and maybe they've even subjugated some of the beastlands. They could raid the Lluirwood for hin to use as slaves. They are very close to the Sharawood where the everlasting wyrm is and all those death knights. It would give them access to the Gulf of Luiren to become a major shipping lane, and their necromancers may be able to do something with all those drowned halflings. Maybe they don't have access to the river of swords, so they don't have direct access to the inner sea... but maybe they reclaim the Alaor Islands from Thay and setup a gate (either for complete ships, or maybe just for cargo) between there and the lake of salt... just something more to be competition with Bezantur (and to be a minor
%#$@! you to Tam). Maybe they even establish privateers on the Alaor and this version of "Thay" be more piratical (taking slaves on the high seas). These pirates might harry Aglarondan shipping, raid their villages, etc... Also, this Thay might also have some enmity with the dwarves of the great rift, and may have captured some dwarven mines and be employing dwarven slaves alongside human slaves and humanoid slaves from the beastlands. An aside here, they may not use hin as slaves in mines, as they may see hin as perfect little butlers, body servants, chauffeurs... and thus there may be some actual enmity between the castes of slaves based on their treatment.
If WotC wants to run with any of this idea, please feel free to take any part of this and run with it. As always, my intention is to make the realms interesting, and I'm only free forming these ideas in hopes that some of it helps those who are actually designing come up with some good work. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 04:14:43
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just a minor note here. 6 years on 4E? I could have sworn 3E was out until like late 2008. Could be wrong, but I though 4E was in about its 4th year.
Four years up until now, plus two years for the playtesting and production of 5E.  |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 04:03:08
One design aspect that annoys me to no end is the resurrection of major ancient empires, Netheril, Imaskar, Cormanthor, and to a lesser extent Calimshan (unleashing the jinn lords). Much of the tension and mystique is stripped away from these historical heavyweights. No recently ruined areas come close to the gravitas of these big names. Meanwhile many true successors were wiped away in the Spellplague. This was simply terrible design, by far removing more opportunity and setting secrets than they replaced.
This is the equivalent of stating definitively what caused the Mournland disaster in Eberron. If that happened to Eberron, the fans would probably riot and ignore it. Heads would probably roll.
I don't see why it's good to keep these layers of mystery for one setting, but for another its almost encouraged to peel away as many layers of the unknown as possible. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 03:40:21
High Imaskar doesn't have to go puff, they still have Skyclave, thier capital and really only,true High Imaskar City, which was built prespell plague I believe. I heard the suggestion High Imaskar be moved back to the Raurin Desert, the former heartland of thier former Empire and I think this persons idea,is great, don't remember who suggested it.
Noticed how both Akanul and Tymanther where listed as going to Abier, but Imaskar wasn't listed as well, both Imaskar and Mulhorand will be staying and that should make things interesting for both empires, the Freud between them is truely ancient and as deep as any in realms history. |
|
|
