| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 18 Aug 2004 : 19:13:25
Is any information available on what ancient kingdoms are to be detailed within this sourcebook?
I hear some time back that (whilst still existing) Mulhorand and Unther will be covered.
With the recent releases of Lady of Poison and Forsaken House, Im hoping to see some of Narfell over in the east as the ruins there REALLY got me intrigued, as well as all that ancient elven realms of the North etc. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jan 2005 : 00:40:33
I'm going to agree with Kuje on this one. I'm not the "canon Nazi" he is, but if something changes drastically, I want an explanation... As I've said before, 1E and 2E were, rules-wise, very similar. And yet we had a big RSE to explain the changes. 2E and 3E are almost totally separate beasts. WotC ran around changing things willy-nilly, and then gave us either no explanation, or a lame one at best. As I long-time Realms fan, I feel I have not only been slighted, I have been disregarded by the same company that's earned thousands of dollars of my money.
As for the amount of lore readily available, I think that WotC has maintained a nice balance. They've offered enough detail to those who want it, but left it vague enough for those who want freedom to mess around. I reject the argument that less is better and that nailing down a few things is limiting to DMs.
I prefer to stick to canon, but it's not because I fear going outside of it -- its because I find canon quite satisfactory, and I don't see it as being at all restrictive. One of the things that attracted me to the Realms was the fact that it is a dynamic setting where things happen and change -- if I was to disregard the changes, then the Realms would lose their appeal for me. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 12 Jan 2005 : 00:19:49
Gentlemen, this thread has gone way off topic. To accomodate your wish to discuss the finer points of "Detail in the Realms" I've started a thread of the same name in the General FR forum. Get out those jousting sticks!
-- George Krashos
|
| Hymn |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 23:54:07
Hear, Hear. I found all your points sound ones to the letter Dargoth. I try to stay as close to FR in the games I have been DMing and are in the process of. But when something comes up that doesn't suit my needs or the realms as I see it I change it to get it to the way I want. It is as in real life, our world are viewed from several billion perspectives at the same time. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 23:42:00
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
I find the arguement that "Wizards shouldnt reveal X because it might not fit in with someones campaign" quite bizarre
If a DM is looking for unrestricted freedom in a campaign setting then they should do a home brew not the FR.
If we take the "Wizards shouldnt reveal X because it might not fit in with someones campaign" arguement to the exstreme then WOTC should never tie any of Faeruns historic sites down. After all there might be a DM out there who finds Shadowdale the perfect town for his campaign but unfortunately he wanted to set it by the sea. So should Shadowdale have been written up as a Generic town with no fixed location?
The problem is that some people are afraid to step away from the published setting and WOTC seem to think that there way to keep them happy is to make things vague.
As I said I want to know what the officially story is, that doesnt mean that Im going to use it example WOTC introduced Smokepowder into the FR after the Time of Troubles (which I view as one of the worse things they ever did) according to the 3.0 source books Smoke powder is still present in the FR well guess what you wont find it in my campaign.
The problem with the way the FR is being run at the moment is that the Tail is wagging the dog. The DM should change the setting to what suits their campaign, the Setting SHOULD NOT be changed/marketed to suit all the DMs campaigns
So endth the rant
Absolutly. I agree with you 100%! |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 22:47:38
I find the arguement that "Wizards shouldnt reveal X because it might not fit in with someones campaign" quite bizarre
If a DM is looking for unrestricted freedom in a campaign setting then they should do a home brew not the FR.
If we take the "Wizards shouldnt reveal X because it might not fit in with someones campaign" arguement to the exstreme then WOTC should never tie any of Faeruns historic sites down. After all there might be a DM out there who finds Shadowdale the perfect town for his campaign but unfortunately he wanted to set it by the sea. So should Shadowdale have been written up as a Generic town with no fixed location?
The problem is that some people are afraid to step away from the published setting and WOTC seem to think that there way to keep them happy is to make things vague.
As I said I want to know what the officially story is, that doesnt mean that Im going to use it example WOTC introduced Smokepowder into the FR after the Time of Troubles (which I view as one of the worse things they ever did) according to the 3.0 source books Smoke powder is still present in the FR well guess what you wont find it in my campaign.
The problem with the way the FR is being run at the moment is that the Tail is wagging the dog. The DM should change the setting to what suits their campaign, the Setting SHOULD NOT be changed/marketed to suit all the DMs campaigns
So endth the rant |
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 22:24:22
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
*nods* I see, yes a bug. That would be nice to explain. As for why human turned into gnome reincarnation comes to mind, though if that was an error the problem is continuity. Ot times the explaination defies explaination, the rest are provided by official corrections.
Such is the nature of a magical world.
Except as far as we know the NPC didn't die. :) But it was just an example, one of many I could have used. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 22:13:32
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Let me clarify here. :) I don't care so much for an in game explaination for mechanic changes since mechanics will change again in 4e, etc.
What I do care about is an in game explaination for changes in Realmslore, like the removal of the who cosmology from 1e and 2e. :) Or why this npc went from a human to a gnome (and yes there are NPC's in the old 2e lore that did that! Even if it is an error. :)), etc.
*nods* I see, yes a bug. That would be nice to explain. As for why human turned into gnome reincarnation comes to mind, though if that was an error the problem is continuity. Ot times the explaination defies explaination, the rest are provided by official corrections.
Such is the nature of a magical world. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 21:35:49
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well it would be interesting to understand how infravission turned into darkvission and MR turned into SR, such a project would appear to be rather major undertaking.
Yes it is useful to have a smooth transition, however the conversion was massive to the entire system and many defy explaination. The redefining of planes yes appears to be a bug not well explained. Lolth it appears might being moving out of the abyse for example.
I do not expect that everything that was canon to be imediately replaced with corrected canon. The amount of material (espcially if including novels) that require revission to be 3.5 complient is massive.
Now if WotC though that they could sell the revisions on a large enough scale, they most certainly would do so. That would result in over something like 1,500 USD per gamer if not more.
Let me clarify here. :) I don't care so much for an in game explaination for mechanic changes since mechanics will change again in 4e, etc.
What I do care about is an in game explaination for changes in Realmslore, like the removal of the whole cosmology from 1e and 2e. :) Or why this npc went from a human to a gnome (and yes there are NPC's in the old 2e lore that did that! Even if it is an error. :)), etc. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 21:20:13
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
My own FR Campaigns (two) has alot more gods than current Canon says.
How many more gods and what roles do they fill?
Alot of the gods that were presented in modules, even if they were one shot appearances. So a good number of Interlopers.
The various Arch-Fiends from Monster Mythology and other old sources of deities. The various Racial deities that have not been transferred over yet.
Several home brew deities.
As to their role, usually background, unless I use one of them for an adventure, or a Player wants their character to follow one of them. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 21:12:16
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
My own FR Campaigns (two) has alot more gods than current Canon says.
How many more gods and what roles do they fill? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 19:30:27
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Or maybe I'm just a vocal loudmouth that needs to shut up and stop being a "canon nazi" who demands that WOTC explains thier changes with an in game explaination. 
Well it would be interesting to understand how infravission turned into darkvission and MR turned into SR, such a project would appear to be rather major undertaking.
Yes it is useful to have a smooth transition, however the conversion was massive to the entire system and many defy explaination. The redefining of planes yes appears to be a bug not well explained. Lolth it appears might being moving out of the abyse for example.
I do not expect that everything that was canon to be imediately replaced with corrected canon. The amount of material (espcially if including novels) that require revission to be 3.5 complient is massive.
Now if WotC though that they could sell the revisions on a large enough scale, they most certainly would do so. That would result in over something like 1,500 USD per gamer if not more. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 19:07:21
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
I'm with Brian, I don't think there can be too much Realmslore.
I love to know every detail of canon, but I don't have a problem changing things up to suit my campaign where needed.
Every campaign diverges from canon at some point. Even if you meticulously try to follow canon, if you are running an ongoing campaign, then a novel or sourcebook is likely to be published that will change assumptions about the NPC, or the place or the god you were using, making your campaign suddenly an alternate history.
But that's okay. I like to think that no one is playing in the real Realms--everyone's campaign is one of an infinite number of alternate reality Realms that diverges in some small measure from every other.
As Gray knows, since I've argued with him enough times about this over on the boards that must not be named, this is how I stand. This is also why I WANT WOTC to detail the new planes and stop giving us the silly, "We changed it and now all your old lore is worthless in canon and the planes have always been this way." They have done this with more then just the planes as well and yes some of us have complained about it for years.
I guess Steven, Ed, Eric, and others spoiled us in 2e and we demand that from WOTC still. :)
Or maybe I'm just a vocal loudmouth that needs to shut up and stop being a "canon nazi" who demands that WOTC explains thier changes with an in game explaination. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 18:49:32
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
I'm with Brian, I don't think there can be too much Realmslore.
I love to know every detail of canon, but I don't have a problem changing things up to suit my campaign where needed.
Every campaign diverges from canon at some point. Even if you meticulously try to follow canon, if you are running an ongoing campaign, then a novel or sourcebook is likely to be published that will change assumptions about the NPC, or the place or the god you were using, making your campaign suddenly an alternate history.
But that's okay. I like to think that no one is playing in the real Realms--everyone's campaign is one of an infinite number of alternate reality Realms that diverges in some small measure from every other.
Aye, being true to canon isn't always the best way to go. My own FR Campaigns (two) has alot more gods than current Canon says.
Then my Drow campaign really goes alway from Canon. Drizzt never left Menzoberranzan, Zak is still alive, House Do'Urden was never destroyed. But otherwise says to Canon. Companions of the Hall do exist and did reclaim Mithral Hall just without Drizzt helping. Matron Baenre is still alive, hasn't attempted to invade Mithral Hall yet. |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 18:03:56
I'm with Brian, I don't think there can be too much Realmslore.
I love to know every detail of canon, but I don't have a problem changing things up to suit my campaign where needed.
Every campaign diverges from canon at some point. Even if you meticulously try to follow canon, if you are running an ongoing campaign, then a novel or sourcebook is likely to be published that will change assumptions about the NPC, or the place or the god you were using, making your campaign suddenly an alternate history.
But that's okay. I like to think that no one is playing in the real Realms--everyone's campaign is one of an infinite number of alternate reality Realms that diverges in some small measure from every other. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 15:06:07
quote:
Originally posted by Realmslore
Don't like where WotC placed the Netheril crash sites? Just move them.
That would seem to make sense. Of course, by doing that, a fan's campaign, if he/she had one, would no longer be following canon  |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 14:19:21
quote:
Originally posted by Elf_Friend
I'll have to go with Wooley and Krash on this one. There is such a thing as too much detail. For example, I'd rather have the freedom of putting a Netheril crash site just about anywhere I want. I think they don't detail these things on purpose so that DM's have the freedom to do it themselves.
I'll have to disagree here. For those of us that no longer DM but has an intense love for the setting, it's impossible to have too much detail. After all, A DM can always alter anything he/she desires to suit their campaign. Don't like where WotC placed the Netheril crash sites? Just move them. Those of us without campaigns have no desire to *customize* things for our worlds. Tell us where the crash sites are damn it!  |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 15:14:32
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
its a 2 page spread like the one in Underdark
A centerfold? How interesting. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 14:44:47
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
I prefer the old school of FR books where the Developers told the DM exactly what was going on (The 1ed Grey Boxset)and what the players know.
As for locating where the cities are its near impossiable the old Age of Netheril boxset had maps with where the cities where but obviously that was pre the appearance of Annouch desert and the disappearance of promient Netherese era land marks (Due to the Sharn magic) however added to this I now have to deal with the 3ed Changes to the FR map which makes most of the Netheril era map completely unrecognisable on the 3ed FR map
I'll have to go with Wooley and Krash on this one. There is such a thing as too much detail. For example, I'd rather have the freedom of putting a Netheril crash site just about anywhere I want. I think they don't detail these things on purpose so that DM's have the freedom to do it themselves.
As for the maps being in the book as opposed to pull out. I actually prefer it. Maps get lost, torn, bent, crap gets spilled on them. If its in the book its safe. I'll never lose it and its easy to reference. It all comes down to personal preference here. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 06:41:50
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It is a nice map, but it would have been nicer if it was bigger. 
Yes, I'm very curious on how big the map is within the product.
its a 2 page spread like the one in Underdark |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 06:07:57
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It is a nice map, but it would have been nicer if it was bigger.
Yes, I'm very curious on how big the map is within the product. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 03:07:02
I prefer the old school of FR books where the Developers told the DM exactly what was going on (The 1ed Grey Boxset)and what the players know.
As for locating where the cities are its near impossiable the old Age of Netheril boxset had maps with where the cities where but obviously that was pre the appearance of Annouch desert and the disappearance of promient Netherese era land marks (Due to the Sharn magic) however added to this I now have to deal with the 3ed Changes to the FR map which makes most of the Netheril era map completely unrecognisable on the 3ed FR map |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 03:02:37
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
I was really hoping that LEOF would show the locations of where all the Netherese cities came down when Netheril fell
Well, we know the locale of the three that the new-born Mystra "caught." And we know the locale of two in the Sea of Fallen Stars and one off the coast of Tethyr... I wouldn't mind knowing a few more, but what we already have is a good enough start for me.  |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 02:45:58
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Have to say im a little disappointed with the map
I was really hoping that they'd include cities on the map but it looks like where only going to get regions and nations.
Hey c'mon - they can't do everything for you. Any FR fan can look through the 17 years or so of FR products and pinpoint all of the cities and settlements and put them on the map themselves. Back in my day ...
quote:
I was really hoping that LEOF would show the locations of where all the Netherese cities came down when Netheril fell
And what would be the fun in that? As a DM I'd then be constrained in terms of where I put my ruined Netherese cities. It's a fine line between detailing everything and detailing most everything.
-- George Krashos
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 01:17:33
There might be more detail and regional maps in prodct.
However we will need to wait and see what is included to know one way or the other. I also was not impressed by the image asfar as that goes. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 01:02:00
Have to say im a little disappointed with the map
I was really hoping that they'd include cities on the map but it looks like where only going to get regions and nations.
I was really hoping that LEOF would show the locations of where all the Netherese cities came down when Netheril fell
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 00:38:47
quote:
Originally posted by Elf_Friend
Speaking of Maps, didja see the preview they posted?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/TheYearofOathsForsaken2.jpg
Nice.
It is a nice map, but it would have been nicer if it was bigger. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 07 Jan 2005 : 13:44:13
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!
I'm pretty excited about that map. Ya know, they could print a book of maps, or a portfolio of maps, and I would likely pay $50 US easy for a product like that.
Lost Empires should be good to.
Speaking of Maps, didja see the preview they posted?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/TheYearofOathsForsaken2.jpg
Nice. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 07 Jan 2005 : 08:30:55
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Now if those excerpts aren't making your mouth water, you can't be a true fan of the Realms. I've seen most of what's coming but I'm still as giddy as a schoolboy!
-- George Krashos
SAGE
If you come at him from Perth and I come at him from Sydney we'll have flanking on George and we can split his advance copy of LEOF 50/50
George has the special ability of being immune to flanking. Tis from being too learned of a scholar, he's read all the tricks that can be done. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 07 Jan 2005 : 06:14:50
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!
I'm pretty excited about that map. Ya know, they could print a book of maps, or a portfolio of maps, and I would likely pay $50 US easy for a product like that.
Lost Empires should be good to.
Good maps like full sized ones? Yeah, I most likely would be right there with you. |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 07 Jan 2005 : 06:07:51
Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!Map!
I'm pretty excited about that map. Ya know, they could print a book of maps, or a portfolio of maps, and I would likely pay $50 US easy for a product like that.
Lost Empires should be good to. |
