| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ladern |
Posted - 14 Aug 2006 : 01:41:31
It might be that im just wake from the wrong side of the bed, but i have read the treads for a while, have read my FR books and reading the information in the official site of WotC and i realise that they have messed all in the Storyline and the accesories.
In a post before they said that the new format for the accesories is adventures in the geographical zone with some lore about the place. In example "Mysteries of the Moonsea". As i see these format make the things easier for the DM that don't have time to prepare their adventures, but they take away the most important things i look in a Zone accesory, the raw information about whats going on in that place, the history of what's happening, the major diferences that make that place unique (No even one Prestige Class for the Zhent, or a new race or zomething like that). I don't think that site adventures are a bad Idea, but an expanding accesory from a region must expand the rules, the history and the knowledge in that region (as the accesories before that); not using the place to make adventures and adding 5 pages of background for that adventure.
Ok, the other issue is Storyline, In some place of the official site i read that they will take some 24 or more months of real time to advance one year in the events, but since then they made novel after novel after novel and they advance 3 years in just a click. Even so fast that they themselves just don't agree in the official events. The last book Dragons of Faerun make up for the events of the year of Rogue Dragons, but right now there are novels about the year of Risen elfkind and the year of Lightning Storms. As the persons that read some novels have written in this forum many things in the novels don't make sense cause one autor write it even before of knowing whats going to happen in a novel which events happen a year before.
At least but not at last, i think WotC is a respectable enterprise (although i reserve my opinions for Magic.... I need a therapist), and i think that their intentions for calling more persons to play D&D are notable (as seen in D&D for Dummies and the goal of simplify the game) but they must take quality and not quantity in their minds. OK, after all is just a Game, but its my favorite game and i don't want to see the realms(a great proyect, include many congratulations and flattery for Ed Greenwood and all the others that made Toril go round), i said see the realms a mess cause someone upstairs want a bigger sale or just dont take the time to order it.
Maybe im wrong, maybe im a loony, maybe im just meessing around (after all my character is a Tiefling Rogue/Fatespinner CN), But if one of the scribes can send me a way to make my voice be heard by the staff of WotC and if anyone thinks like me (more or less) lets make something to keep a great game GREAT!!. As Big Ed said lets tell them what we want.
Thanks
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Twilight |
Posted - 26 Dec 2006 : 04:03:10
with over 100 books it would be hawd to keep them all in order |
| Draeden |
Posted - 28 Nov 2006 : 16:43:24
Just my two cents...
When I read something that on the surface contradicts something else, I treat it as different perspectives of the narrator/writer.
In a couple of cases with game material inconsistencies, I came up with my own ruling for the campaign and went about my business without a problem.
When you consider how MUCH material has been written for the Realms, I think that overall they have done a very fine job. |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 28 Nov 2006 : 01:35:26
I'm definitely thinkin you're speakin the truth of it Kalin. I'll keep doin what I'm doin and WOTC will do what they're gonna do and we'll see what happens. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Nov 2006 : 00:41:34
quote:
Originally posted by Blueblade
Just a tiny factoid here: Ed has said on many, many occasions (GenCons, Pentacons, etc.) that he not only doesn't have any control over what FR products are released, or their content - - he often doesn't even KNOW Product X or Y is being published until he walks into a hobby shop and sees it.
So he influences what's in some products by what he writes and the behind-the-scenes lore he hands to other writers, but he in no way "controls" the published FR setting.
AS he said once (paraphrasing here): Why would I expect to? I am not now, and never have been, a TSR/WotC staffer. Always a freelancer.
I'm sure Our Lady Hooded can get Ed to say this himself, if someone doesn't believe me.
I would suggest you read through Ed's scrolls here at Candlekeep -- specifically the '04 and '05 files -- since both Ed ad THO have discussed this previously. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Nov 2006 : 00:40:39
quote:
Originally posted by vicar
Yikes! I'm about to leap into version 3.5 after holding-out for years in the comfort zone of good old second edition. I was gonna' get some 3.5 FR supplements, but largely use my cache of existing stuff from the good old days.
Will I be able to integrate them?
Well, that really depends.
If you're going for a complete change-over, the rules integration is going to take some work... especially since there are some significant changes between the 2e and 3e rules systems.
Alternatively, you could follow a course similar to what many of us here do. We use blended rules systems, that build on the history of our own campaigns in terms of utilised rules for each FR campaign. I myself, use a rules set that carries hints of 1e rules, plenty of bits from 2e, with a smattering of 3e mechanics thrown in for added taste. I don't, and never have, used the complete 3e rules set.
I've known DMs who also use this method until they become more familiar with the 3e rules, and slowly drop the older parts from their own blended rules sets as they learn more about the newer edition.
As for the lore... integrating 2e and 3e Realmslore will also take some work, though it really, again, depends on just what you've used from 2e FR in your own campaign. Some elements of the 3e FR have been specifically built upon the foundation of 2e lore, however, if you're not using those bits from 2e, then you can probably ignore or alter what's been updated in 3e. Take the ToT for example, that event never actually occured in my FR, so for the most part, I've been able to either ignore and alter all the updated Realmslore tidbits about the event itself since the 1e-to-2e changeover and added those changes to my FR.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 23:00:43
quote:
Originally posted by Blueblade
Just a tiny factoid here: Ed has said on many, many occasions (GenCons, Pentacons, etc.) that he not only doesn't have any control over what FR products are released, or their content - - he often doesn't even KNOW Product X or Y is being published until he walks into a hobby shop and sees it.
So he influences what's in some products by what he writes and the behind-the-scenes lore he hands to other writers, but he in no way "controls" the published FR setting.
AS he said once (paraphrasing here): Why would I expect to? I am not now, and never have been, a TSR/WotC staffer. Always a freelancer.
I'm sure Our Lady Hooded can get Ed to say this himself, if someone doesn't believe me.
She, or he, doesn't have to say it since it's been said on Keep more then once in his thread. :) |
| Blueblade |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 22:52:25
Just a tiny factoid here: Ed has said on many, many occasions (GenCons, Pentacons, etc.) that he not only doesn't have any control over what FR products are released, or their content - - he often doesn't even KNOW Product X or Y is being published until he walks into a hobby shop and sees it.
So he influences what's in some products by what he writes and the behind-the-scenes lore he hands to other writers, but he in no way "controls" the published FR setting.
AS he said once (paraphrasing here): Why would I expect to? I am not now, and never have been, a TSR/WotC staffer. Always a freelancer.
I'm sure Our Lady Hooded can get Ed to say this himself, if someone doesn't believe me. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 22:42:37
quote:
Originally posted by Kaladorm
Don't know about you guys but material is coming out faster than I can, or want to, use. The PHB, DMG and MM still get the most use (granted though most of the PHB is ingrained into my brain now hehe)
You'll be unsurprised to know I feel the same. That said, WOTC is a business and has to keep producing products so of course I understand the reasons for it. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 21:04:04
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
So if a lack of exact synchronicity doesn't effect game play and does not prevent the reading of more novels, then you're going to have to come up with a good alternate argument for why WotC should bother to spend more time (and therefore money) to synchronize their products.
I basically agree with that, but on the other hand why should we buy more D&D and FR products from Wizards? They have to give us good reasons to, because all we really need to have to play the game are three corebooks and the FRCS. I personally would like higher quality novels in addition to the great ones Ed has been writing. Others would like better attention to continuity. Point is, Wizards has to give us compelling reasons for buying more of their product, not the other way around.
Don't know about you guys but material is coming out faster than I can, or want to, use. The PHB, DMG and MM still get the most use (granted though most of the PHB is ingrained into my brain now hehe) |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 20:59:37
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
So if a lack of exact synchronicity doesn't effect game play and does not prevent the reading of more novels, then you're going to have to come up with a good alternate argument for why WotC should bother to spend more time (and therefore money) to synchronize their products.
I basically agree with that, but on the other hand why should we buy more D&D and FR products from Wizards? They have to give us good reasons to, because all we really need to have to play the game are three corebooks and the FRCS. I personally would like higher quality novels in addition to the great ones Ed has been writing. Others would like better attention to continuity. Point is, Wizards has to give us compelling reasons for buying more of their product, not the other way around. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 20:23:42
quote:
Originally posted by vicar
Yikes! I'm about to leap into version 3.5 after holding-out for years in the comfort zone of good old second edition. I was gonna' get some 3.5 FR supplements, but largely use my cache of existing stuff from the good old days.
Will I be able to integrate them?
One thing that may help is the 2E to 3.0E conversion book. There's also the Revised (v.3.5) System Reference Document.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 20:16:22
quote:
Originally posted by vicar
Yikes! I'm about to leap into version 3.5 after holding-out for years in the comfort zone of good old second edition. I was gonna' get some 3.5 FR supplements, but largely use my cache of existing stuff from the good old days.
Will I be able to integrate them?
Rules wise? It'll take a lot of work. 1/2e rules compared to 3/3.5e rules are a whole different game. Lore wise, not as much work. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 20:14:19
Yes, certainly.
The differences are
-- timeline advancement, which can be problematic to ignore, but no more so than in the 1990s
-- rules changes, which are only different rules, not setting
-- largely minor retcons which you can mostly take up or reject as you prefer.
Making sense of the whole panorama of older and newer Realmslore would be a major task without knowledge of the setting, but you should be OK. |
| vicar |
Posted - 27 Nov 2006 : 19:54:40
Yikes! I'm about to leap into version 3.5 after holding-out for years in the comfort zone of good old second edition. I was gonna' get some 3.5 FR supplements, but largely use my cache of existing stuff from the good old days.
Will I be able to integrate them? |
| FridayThe13th |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 02:59:07
quote:
Originally posted by Gellion
Heh, I like Fifth age DL Novels a lot better than Fourth Age ones. Even if the writing is good it is a chore for me to go through a Fourth Age book.
Anywho, I dont have enough money to buy many FR sourcebooks, but I do agree that the lore parts were good, and that I do not often use premade adventures. But WoTC needs to do what is best business wise for them.:)
I like both, but 5th age just dosen't have enough of a fantasy feel and seems more like Dark Sun crossed with Warhammer. Still, the War of Souls books were amazing.
Faiths and Pantheons was a pretty good 3rd edition sourcebook, don't know about the others though.
|
| Gellion |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 02:54:56
Heh, I like Fifth age DL Novels a lot better than Fourth Age ones. Even if the writing is good it is a chore for me to go through a Fourth Age book.
Anywho, I dont have enough money to buy many FR sourcebooks, but I do agree that the lore parts were good, and that I do not often use premade adventures. But WoTC needs to do what is best business wise for them.:) |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 02:50:36
I don't dislike novels because they're new or old; I judge things as I like them. I just so happen to enjoy the older stuff more, s'all. :)
But I was commenting more on the fact that it felt like the SETTING, and not like the GAME. |
| FridayThe13th |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 02:41:52
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
I don't get that impression; these books are certainly above the level of adventure journals. However I think back to the first Dragonlance trilogy, the Icewind Dale books, the first Spellfire tale and remember how those characters and worlds came alive without me having to know anything about the setting. I don't think I can say the same about some of the recent FR books. I'm a huge fan of FR lore and love roleplaying in the setting. But a recent story had lost me with a barrage of references.
I don't know. I recently read Dragons of Dwarven Depths, and it felt like.. Dragonlance to me. With a touch of D&D to it. Just enough to make me smile, but not enough to make me roll my eyes (like some of the more recent novels have).
And I'm a fan of random references that leave me going "what was that!?" Because, often, info-dumps and random bits of explanation detract from the writing rather than add to it. ("I was born in Shadowdale, a little dale in the Heartlands, known primarily for being a farming community, blah blah blah" - BAD.)
Dragons of Dwarven Depths felt like "old" DL because it was set in the 4th Age and Margaret Weis even said in her podcast that tried to make the writing on it as identical to the writing in the Original Chronicles as possible. Fifth Age however, is a whole different story. Completly different feel. Still good, but not as "bookish" and "old-style."
And I am just fine with the new novels, they still reflect the lore of the Realms and are interesting to read. Just because something is different dosen't mean its not good. But still, it would be nice to have some more books written in the "old" style. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 02:15:36
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I would have been really upset if I had heard about each and every one of the NPCs who cameod. That just doesn't happen in real life, and it shouldn't happen in-game, either. If anything, it leaves one going "Who WAS that?!" and goes actively LOOKING to see who it is. Not many of these NPCs were SO integral to the plot that you NEEDED to know exactly who they were, so to speak. At least, that's how I feel about it.
Agreed. I'm glad to see more long term characters get a bit of air time, the Realms is the people that make it and there are so many great characters out there who don't get mentioned or seen in novels. |
| Ladern |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 00:07:39
I really don't post for novels discution, cause after all novels are written by some persons (one or maybe two) and then aproved or not by WotC, i post this to point the lack of interest in the Setting and their flavor and more in the sales and the mass-production.
I mean, the novels must be carefull revised and at least the writters must read some books (novels and sourcebooks) to get a feeling of the place. Even it would be nice that the writters would be players so in that point they would see the ________ (introduce the word) of killing a Dracolich with a +1 magical rapier when the creature has DR 10/bashing for an example.
But this goes to the Core, we need that the setting is regulated by someone who knows about it, who wants to see it trought. I don't know if Ed have some last word in what goes to sale or not, but for their words in the GenCon seems like not. Then who is? The only way to get something better that patched history lines and cuasi-source books filled with almost generical adventures is by rising our voices.
so lets not argue about the description of a character or if the novels need more words to be understood. Cause i can tell you guys something; if we let that the "Core" of the setting, the Rulebooks loose the meaning and the consistency then the problem in the novels will only increase also.
LEt's try to find a way to let them hear us (and for me is not easy im in another country) |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 23:54:43
I really don't know why Semmemon or Alustriel deserved any more explanation than some of the other NPCs, though.
Maybe you're right, SOME novels are more and more for long-standing fans. But I remember when I first got into reading these books, when such names came up with little explanation, it made me MORE interested in figuring out who they were - not angry or frustrated. |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 23:46:08
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I would have been really upset if I had heard about each and every one of the NPCs who cameod.
Yes, that would be incredibly distracting in a story. No, I am not arguing for such a thing. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 23:29:02
To point out why this is topical to the thread in general: Because it shows WotC the kind of novels we do or don't want. Now, moving on...
quote:
For example, in Blackstaff some well-known characters appear without much explanation about their identity or signficance. Sememmnon and later Alustriel. I get the impression these books are written more and more just for us long-time fans, and for some reason that loses me, despite being a fan too
I would have been really upset if I had heard about each and every one of the NPCs who cameod. That just doesn't happen in real life, and it shouldn't happen in-game, either. If anything, it leaves one going "Who WAS that?!" and goes actively LOOKING to see who it is. Not many of these NPCs were SO integral to the plot that you NEEDED to know exactly who they were, so to speak. At least, that's how I feel about it. |
| Arkhaedun |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 21:43:30
Just a reminder, lets try to stay focused. It seems the general topic here is WOTC and the direction they have taken FR and seem to be taking it in the future. If we have any side discussions that get too confusing, lets try to straighten them out via PMs.
Thanks. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:49:29
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
if the physical description
That's not what I'm talking about.
OK, what are you talking about? |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:23:31
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin
And we have to consider the fact that some of the novels deserve a more deep knowledge of the setting. Lord of the Rings was open to all, but Unfinished Tales demands more from the reader, only to use a non-Realms example. 
The Hobbit, LOTR, The Silmarillion can all be read independently, but knowledge of one book enriches the other. |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:18:41
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
if the physical description
That's not what I'm talking about. |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:09:33
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
...who asks J. to email him offlist if it'll be awkward to air such discussions in public
No problem I can probably do that tonight (after regular DnD Game Night is over) or tomorrow after work.
All the same I'm glad you're writing Realmslore and apologize if mine and Dan's discussion of your prior work history offended!
J. Grenemyer
No offense, and thanks for sending that material offline. A bit off-base, but then I didn't share my thoughts and reasons with everyone at that time. <shrug> No biggee--just shifts in perceptions on the situations.
Steven |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:05:07
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
An important plot point... No.
What specific example are you referring to, exactly?
For example, in Blackstaff some well-known characters appear without much explanation about their identity or signficance. Sememmnon and later Alustriel. I get the impression these books are written more and more just for us long-time fans, and for some reason that loses me, despite being a fan too.
Well, I see this happen in some novels, but not in all (the Fighters series being a valid example)! And we have to consider the fact that some of the novels deserve a more deep knowledge of the setting. Lord of the Rings was open to all, but Unfinished Tales demands more from the reader, only to use a non-Realms example.
|
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:03:45
quote:
Originally posted by Archwizard
I posted my comments on a similar thread on the WotC FR boards (reposted below). I will add one more thing, it is interesting to note that outsiders to the setting, either those who like other settings more or simply don't like the Realms, see some of the same exact problems with the setting as those who understand the setting, at least those with a moderate degree of comprehension. I do not think that is a coincidence.
quote:
Are all of these complaints valid? Probably not, but if any of them are, they should be addressed. Most of these seem to be due to company level (as opposed to designer level) tampering with the setting, marketing moves, sales figures, material for the sake of popularity. FR is perhaps a victim of its own success.
quote:
The formula for FR’s greatest successes is still there; just don't let distractions muddle it up. Otherwise, everyone loses; the fans, the newcomers, the designers, and the company.
I would like to applaud this post, it is wonderful to see someone actually attempting to use past and present facts with a broad and varied number of different opinions to support a line of reasoning and not just have it fueled by one’s personal (and often limited) opinion.
I think those “complaints” are valid points that most long-term Forgotten Realms players have grasped for years (especially those that survived the TSR/WoTC/Hasbro transition) and the designers labor with as they struggle with the “bean counters”.
|
|
|
