| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jimbo32
Acolyte
7 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 09:00:20
|
Ok, here's the deal. I recently got back into the Realms again after a fairly lengthy vacation (started with 2e). I happened to peruse the FR wikia a few weeks ago, and was going through the roll of years to see what I'd missed. I was honestly horrified to see the 4e changes, and I've been catching up on the uproar a bit since then.
So here's what I'm wondering: now that the dust has settled somewhat, what are the general opinions about the "new" Realms (game products I mean, don't care about the novels)? Has the content that's been released so far been of high enough quality to quiet any of the complaints?
Also, I'd be interested to hear from those people who really like the 4e stuff:
- What are some things that you think are better than they were in the 1/2/3e Realms?
- Despite liking the changes, what do you think should've/could've been handled differently?
- What do you think makes the new setting worth buying for those of us who already have a mountain of 1/2/3e Realmslore?
Just to be clear, I'm not looking for another rehash of the "if you dislike change, you're obviously a stone-age grognard" argument. I've read through some of the other scrolls, and it's been done to death.
|
Edited by - jimbo32 on 30 Sep 2010 09:02:30
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 09:44:45
|
This should be interesting... :)
I quite like a lot of the post-plague stuff, personally, especially around the Old Empires area. However, I have the same policy with the new setting material as I do with the older ones, which is to heavily modify or strip out/ignore all the rubbish, so 4e has acted more like an expansion pack than a replacement for me.
As per most people, I would imagine, I'm not a huge fan of the massive strip-out of the pantheon and major NPCs. I get what they were trying to do, but it did kinda go pear shaped.
As stated above, I think some, if not all of the new fluff and developments are rather cool, but if you're a huge fan of the original realms you probably won't be missing much. Also, it might be an idea to look at the new novels rather than the setting book.
EDIT: Also, further to Jimbo's admirable sentiment, we can do without the '4e fan =/= REAL realms fan' dross as well.
EDIT #2: Also, there's been quite a bit of DDI material of high quality for the Realms, and hopefully there'll be more once this Neverwinter sourcebook nears.
Also, if you've any more specific questions, I'll be more than happy to try and answer them! |
Cedric! The Cleric Generic and Master of Disguise!
ALL HAIL LORD KARSUS!!!
Vast Realmslore Archive: Get in here and download everything! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl
2e Realms book PDFs; grab em! - http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2010/07/working-around-purge.html |
Edited by - Cleric Generic on 30 Sep 2010 14:59:47 |
 |
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 16:42:56
|
I like the new Thay. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 16:52:46
|
From the other perspective (someone who is no fan of the Spellplague,etc) there are some things that I *DO* like about the 'New' Realms(and perhaps tellingly, both of them are retcons, rather than outright changes):
1)I like the retconning of the 'high' elves (Gold, Silver,and Mithral) to being Eladrin. It hearkens back to the Tolkienian delineation between the 'dark' and 'light' elves (Moriquendi and Eldar, respectively) with the 'light' or High elves being those that had journeyed to Faerie and the 'dark' elves being those that did not make the journey. Since the Gold/Silver/Star elves came to Faerun from Faerie, this retcon makes loads of sense to me.
2)Also, while I don't like a lot of what has been done with Abeir, I *DO* like the idea. Ed Greenwood has (in his scroll, last year) offered some amazing ideas for incorporating Abeir and the Dawn Titans into the pre-spellplague continuity, and I'm considering doing something with it in my future home game.
There are a couple of other things that have caught my eye (I dig Kelemvor's new style, for instance), but those are the big two.
Edited for clarity |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
Edited by - Knight of the Gate on 30 Sep 2010 19:14:22 |
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 19:00:14
|
As a gamemaster, I find some of the changes very useful -
For instance, Waterdeep is more interesting places for adventures now, IMHO. As a fan of the setting I do not like the new Waterdeep, but as a DM I would set a scenario there now, where as before I found it a bit... boring... for my tastes (I don't like running urban adventures).
Now that the 'dust has settled', and I can look at the changes with a wee bit more... moderation... they are not, unto themselves, terrible.
With a clearer head I can honesty say it was the piss-poor presentation, coupled with disparate lore and contradictory preview-info that really left a sour taste in most people's mouths.
There is no such thing as 'bad Lore' - I know that now.
However, there is a right way and wrong way to feed new material to fans, and barely touching the surface on a setting that has been re-booted in its entirety (YES, MOST of the people on the planet that were around are now dead - hence, NEW setting) is not the best way to get folks interested.
I no-longer blame the designers for the material, but rather the presentation, which blew chunks (IMHO), and the incredibly bad marketing (or lack there-of).
The lore itself is not too shabby, if you put a LOT of work into 'sprucing it up' yourself. Anything works if you spin it right.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Sep 2010 19:18:14 |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 21:53:35
|
I like the Spellplague idea as an reality-altering effect, but not how it was done.
Baldur's Gate, Airspur and Myth Nantar are better than before, also Anauroch, Aglarond and Vaasa, and the lakes in the Shaar. |
|
|
|
jimbo32
Acolyte
7 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 22:53:04
|
| I find Markustay's comments regarding the initial presentation very interesting. I remember that essay by Ryan Dancey about the WotC acquisition of TSR. He mentioned how TSR had lost touch with it's customers, and had no idea what they wanted or needed. If the FR reboot is any indication, it seems like WotC may have fallen into the same sinkhole. Maybe there'll be a Buck Rogers game on the way sometime soon. ;) |
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
|
|
jimbo32
Acolyte
7 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 22:09:13
|
One of the things that I've seen mentioned as a good thing about 4e Realms by *some* people is the "clean slate" aspect. I know there's a group of folks who were of the opinion that the Realms were too unwieldy - too many overpowered NPC's, too few areas which were lightly detailed (thus *supposedly* hampering a DM's ability to freestyle his/her own compaign), etc. How widespread is that opinion? Do people think that if Sembia had been left alone like Ed and Jeff originally intended (iirc) that maybe the "unwieldy FR" camp wouldn't have been so vocal?
Personally, I guess I can see their point - to an extent. My question to those folks would be "If you wanted a lightly detailed setting where you could freely add you own content without worrying about breaking canon, why did you choose the Realms to begin with?" The most highly detailed fantasy setting ever created doesn't seem to be a great place to choose for your campaign if you aren't comfortable changing things to how *you* want it to be (imo).
Anyway. I'm also interested in hearing some more feedback, both from the 4e lovers and the not-so-much crowd. Good, bad, whatever. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 22:52:05
|
Oh, I still loathe much (or most) of the 4e Realms, and I absolutely still blame the designers for it. However, you didn't ask for that, so that's the last I'll say on it in this scroll.
What do I like? The redesign of the genasi. Not of their power set, but just their artistic rendition. Something about the glowing lines is really cool. And I figured out a way of incorporating them into my 2e game: making that kind of genasi the off-spring of the more powerful elemental creatures, whereas the existing genasi design is for the less powerful creatures. So if your parent was a marid, you get the glowing lines. If they were a nereid, you get the 2e Planescape version. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
Edited by - Hoondatha on 01 Oct 2010 22:52:35 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2010 : 00:14:44
|
Hmm....lots to discuss here:
quote:
Originally posted by jimbo32
Has the content that's been released so far been of high enough quality to quiet any of the complaints?
Frankly, no. Don't get me wrong as I'm a really big fan of FR4E and 4E in general, but the content in the FRCG was lacking IMO. I could've been very happy without the detailed description of Loudwater and the small adventures that consisted in it. Also, while the print is bigger that was a gripe I had too. With small print means more content. I sorta wished they did the Loudwater adventure like the ones in the FRCS, short, quick and to the point. Aside from that, the lore-lite approach is something I'm happy with. Just because I'd like more content doesn't mean it HAS to be lore mind you. And the fact that they don't stat-up every NPC is really great for me.
quote:
Originally posted by jimbo32
Also, I'd be interested to hear from those people who really like the 4e stuff:
- What are some things that you think are better than they were in the 1/2/3e Realms?
As I stated earlier, Less detail about NPCs and a lore-lite approach. This gives me, the DM, a lot of room to work with and not even worry about stepping on Canon's toes. Not that I frankly care what canon states, but it's easier that way if I want to share my ideas and not have to explain all my own home-brew, non-canon FR to people. In addition, I like much of the changes to the landscape itself such as earth-motes, the return of Abier, and Spellplagued lands. Plus the spellplague is a great catch-all for adventure hooks.
quote:
Originally posted by jimbo32
- Despite liking the changes, what do you think should've/could've been handled differently?
Ohh so many things, like the death of Mystra for one. I'll admit I was never a fan of the Justic.....er....Chosen of Mystra. I felt the authors put them on SUCH a higher plane that it made adventuring in parts of the Realms impossible without their involvement. But to just knock her off like that was sorta pointless since the 4E magic system already supported the Weave in the first place. If they had a better reason to kill her off than to get rid of the Chosen and explain why magic works the way it does for 4E mechanics, then I'd be ok, but those reasons are pretty lame IMO. Additionally, I don't think the 100 year time-jump was the greatest plan. I understand why they did it, but I felt that maybe 20 to 50 years would've sufficed but oh well. And the initial presentation of 4E in general turned off alot of people to the new system by claiming the older system was bad or awful to play in (which it isn't, just flawed).
quote:
Originally posted by jimbo32
- What do you think makes the new setting worth buying for those of us who already have a mountain of 1/2/3e Realmslore?
OMG so many things. First, ALL of those books can still be used. I use my 3E sources constantly in 1479 DR. Also, nothing stopping people from using the pre-spellplague time period with 4E rules as they are separate from one another. Additionally, it's not like the content is going to $100s of dollars and dozens of books. It's 3 (yep, 3) books you need. The Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (for the Genasi/drow/swordmage), the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, and the Adventure (I forget the name, I don't own it). So that's like a 40 - 60 dollar value for all the info you need on running a campaign in the Realms for 4E. That's sweet IMO.
|
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2010 : 12:00:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimbo32
One of the things that I've seen mentioned as a good thing about 4e Realms by *some* people is the "clean slate" aspect. I know there's a group of folks who were of the opinion that the Realms were too unwieldy - too many overpowered NPC's, too few areas which were lightly detailed (thus *supposedly* hampering a DM's ability to freestyle his/her own compaign), etc. How widespread is that opinion? Do people think that if Sembia had been left alone like Ed and Jeff originally intended (iirc) that maybe the "unwieldy FR" camp wouldn't have been so vocal?
No, there were other of areas left alone in the old Realms, people still complained. Canon purists, they don't know the basics about running a game, the DM is supposed to change things to fit his story. I don't know, if they wanted ''lore-lite'' why they didn't just buy FRCS, why did it bother them that there are other sourcebooks.
Supposedly the real problem was for the novel authors, who were overwhelmed by the volume of research they had to do.
quote:
Personally, I guess I can see their point - to an extent. My question to those folks would be "If you wanted a lightly detailed setting where you could freely add you own content without worrying about breaking canon, why did you choose the Realms to begin with?" The most highly detailed fantasy setting ever created doesn't seem to be a great place to choose for your campaign if you aren't comfortable changing things to how *you* want it to be (imo).
Agreed, their answer (taken from another thread):
''As for the lore- and setting-lite approach, there's always something a DM has to do to make it fit their campaign regardless of what specific setting it is. For myself, I love the freedom to do what I want w/o contradicting canon over-much. I'm not one who needs every NPC statted out or the information on every inn/bar in a specific town or city. I do that stuff already and now I don't have to worry about it contradicting canon over-much. Now you might ask "If I like doing all the leg work, why not jus run your own campaign setting?" And to that I'd say because the history/lore, deities, organizations, cities, and plot hooks that are intrinsic to the Realms.''
- I guess they are worried they would ruin the fun of the pc's who know more canon information than them. Maybe the solution would be to declare that your Realms is Realms-2, Realms-616 or whatever. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2010 : 13:59:49
|
I'm pretty sure that quote posted by Quale was from me, but I feel it still a very valid reason. I do enjoy most of the Deities of the Realms. I enjoy the cities, culture, and diversity that the Realms employs in it's campaign world. I like the fact that there is no over-arching goal or plot like in Dragonlance or Lord of the Rings. Events that happen in Cormyr don't necessarily have to affect Damara, Thay, or the North. I love the fact that I have a TON of source material to pull from if I want to include those things into my campaign.
What I didn't enjoy was the over abundance of deities I felt had no substance or Gods that seemed shoe-horned into the setting. I'd rather have a bigger focus on a smaller group of deities. I also didn't like the fact that the designers felt compelled to put alignments and class levels to every NPC that was mentoned. I can do that all myself.
But I guess I'm the minority when it comes to these opinions, which I'm fine with. What does get annoying is when I feel I'm expected to explain why I like these things and that it's somehow wrong or not what FR is designed for. It often feels like people are saying, "If you don't like how the setting was, why did you use it in the fist place? Because of people like you, now the Realms are dead and it's your fault!". |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2010 : 14:23:38
|
stuff I like and stuff I dont
I don't like the killing off the high pwred npcs.
I don't like the destruction of Halruua
I don't like the new Baldur's Gate
I don't like the the maw over there in the city state that the name of which I forget.
I don't like the new waterdeep
(I love the new Blackstaff though)
what I do like:
that drizzt is still around
the new blackstaff
the fact that the most lovely Fox at Twilight is still around....
that Myth Drannor is still a city
that Cormyr is still standing
the design of the gensai, save the hair ick thats just ugly |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2010 : 19:57:17
|
Thinking more on this, my comments were a bit harsh.
I'm thinking it was more of a 'lack of focus' that killed the new Realms for many of us.
For instance, if the Spellplague was the whole enchilada, that would have been fine (probably). If the Abeir thing was the only change, that also would have been fine. If the hundred year time-jump was the only thing, that may have been fine (I think that was 'the biggy', but thats just IMHO).
Or re-writing the Elves as Eladrin, or re-writing the origins of FR's Dragonborn, or even something as minor as having the halflings 'grow' 12"...etc, etc...
It looks like the had one of those 'brainstorm sessions' (which they said they did have), and everyone had tons of great ideas.......
and they used them ALL.
Not sure how that happened - you even have a lot of redundancy (Airspur/Calimshan, Semphar & Murghom/Returned Abeir, ect..) Not only does it look like they tried to fit-in everything but the kitchen sink, they fit the same stuff into different places.
Also bringing-back many of the 'fallen Empires' actually goes against the very basis of the Forgotten Realms themselves... Forget what? All these folks are still walking around now.
So that's it - a lot of really good ideas, all thrown-together pel-mel, with little in the way of any 'steering' or 'focus'. Its like a dozen people ran in a dozen different directions, and the FRCG was the result.
So, if you take each item or change separately, and look at it and think about how to fit it into your campaign, none of it is truly bad. Think of the FRCG as a 'big book of ideas' and its all fine.
For instance, the Eminenece of Araunt is pretty damn cool, as are the Warlock Knights of Vassa. No matter what era (or setting) I run soon, I will be borrowing from both of those. I have been borrowing cool stuff from 'other settings' for years for my games, so why would the 4e Realms be any different?
If it bothers fans so much, just look at it as another setting entirely, like Eberron, or Greyhawk, or Dragonlance. All had great material we were able to pilfer and adapt - just pretend its an 'alternate reality' and get over it. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Oct 2010 20:07:47 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2010 : 23:04:53
|
| I can agree with most of what you're saying, Marcus, except for the fact that getting the 4e Realms that was can cherry pick ideas from means we aren't getting any more of the "actual" Realms, the Realm we all fell in love with in the first place. I didn't mind Greyhawk or Eberron or Planescape or Dark Sun or any of the others because they *were* other settings that we could take what we wanted from. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2010 : 23:44:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Thinking more on this, my comments were a bit harsh.
I'm thinking it was more of a 'lack of focus' that killed the new Realms for many of us.
For instance, if the Spellplague was the whole enchilada, that would have been fine (probably). If the Abeir thing was the only change, that also would have been fine. If the hundred year time-jump was the only thing, that may have been fine (I think that was 'the biggy', but thats just IMHO).
Or re-writing the Elves as Eladrin, or re-writing the origins of FR's Dragonborn, or even something as minor as having the halflings 'grow' 12"...etc, etc...
It looks like the had one of those 'brainstorm sessions' (which they said they did have), and everyone had tons of great ideas.......
and they used them ALL.
Not sure how that happened - you even have a lot of redundancy (Airspur/Calimshan, Semphar & Murghom/Returned Abeir, ect..) Not only does it look like they tried to fit-in everything but the kitchen sink, they fit the same stuff into different places.
Also bringing-back many of the 'fallen Empires' actually goes against the very basis of the Forgotten Realms themselves... Forget what? All these folks are still walking around now.
So that's it - a lot of really good ideas, all thrown-together pel-mel, with little in the way of any 'steering' or 'focus'. Its like a dozen people ran in a dozen different directions, and the FRCG was the result.
So, if you take each item or change separately, and look at it and think about how to fit it into your campaign, none of it is truly bad. Think of the FRCG as a 'big book of ideas' and its all fine.
For instance, the Eminenece of Araunt is pretty damn cool, as are the Warlock Knights of Vassa. No matter what era (or setting) I run soon, I will be borrowing from both of those. I have been borrowing cool stuff from 'other settings' for years for my games, so why would the 4e Realms be any different?
If it bothers fans so much, just look at it as another setting entirely, like Eberron, or Greyhawk, or Dragonlance. All had great material we were able to pilfer and adapt - just pretend its an 'alternate reality' and get over it.
They used all "Great ideas"? WTF ?
I find that a laughable statement at best, especially after reading two years of your posts!
More like they used a lot of ideas that had previously been rejected as dung, but were able to push through after the wiser ones who rejected them were no longer in charge
I'm glad you have finally found a way to use somethings from 4e, but it still sounds like your re-writing them completely to make them work? How is that great?
I'd also argue your statement that there is no such thing as bad lore. There most definitely is. It is lore that contradicts most every bit of lore that came before it. Like Mystra being killed in her home plane without even an inkling she was in danger. Thats bad lore there. There were many was to kill her off and do most of the other changes while remaining true to prior lore. But that didn't happen, so much bad lore was spread around.
What I do like:
El, and Astorma alive and kicking......
What i dislike :
spellscars
Spellscarred beings
Baldurs gate changes
Silver marches changes starting with obould
Drizzt running around the realms while Regis and Cattie are in some kind of pocket realm for easy future access
New dragonborn
Sembia controlled by shade, sembia was quite interesting enough the way it was thank you |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
Edited by - The Red Walker on 02 Oct 2010 23:53:03 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 00:15:34
|
Okay, so for every Eminenece and Warlock knights, we have our 'ebil catfish' and headless Zhent - you take the good with the bad; every setting had a mix of both.
I can pick-apart every edition of FR as well, from derivative sub-settings to Lichlings and Khan-artists, but I've managed to build-upon the poorer stuff and make it work.
I stand by what I said - the ideas themselves are not bad. Sometimes just re-naming something improves it 100%.
And yes, if I have to re-write a lot of it, it isn't 'great lore' - I didn't say it was. I guess I'm just tired of complaining about every little thing.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
jimbo32
Acolyte
7 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 04:21:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
(...snipped...)
But I guess I'm the minority when it comes to these opinions, which I'm fine with. What does get annoying is when I feel I'm expected to explain why I like these things and that it's somehow wrong or not what FR is designed for. It often feels like people are saying, "If you don't like how the setting was, why did you use it in the fist place? Because of people like you, now the Realms are dead and it's your fault!".
I get that there are things that you (and others) didn't particularly like about the Realms as they were, and I don't think you're in the minority by any means.
There were always some things that I found annoying, for example:
- I never thought that Tyr (for instance) fit particularly well with the "tone" of Realms deities, and couldn't believe that they dumped a temple to such a rigid power in Mistledale for 3e (strict LG doesn't seem to jibe with the Dales mindset, regardless of the newly arrived Drow threat). But as I said, I already disliked him, which didn't help. ;)
- I've always thought that a certain percentage of the novels and game products were complete tripe written by people who didn't have a particularly good grasp of the setting.
- Some areas or features which were tacked on (either by novels or game products) didn't really fit the tone of the setting in my opinion. Ten Towns is one example of an area that I never cared for.
- Occasional minor retcons sometimes drove me nuts. The revamped naming convention for the elven subraces in 3e is a good example. Iirc, they completely effed up the distinction between Green Elves and Wild Elves, contradicting earlier material (like Steven's Cormanthyr stuff). I don't have any books handy, so that's from memory.
My point is this: everyone has their own little pet peeves about the development of the Realms. But what I don't get is how some people seem to be 100% behind all the changes (or 100% against them for that matter - although this stance is more understandable, being more a matter of principle for some folks, and given that the setting was essentially rebooted). The reason I started this scroll was to try to find a bit of balance in the two extremes - if the lovers can come up with some dislikes, and the haters can list some positives, maybe it'll be possible to find some serious truth in there somewhere.
As an aside, I looked up the elven/eladrin subraces on the wikia to refresh my memory. Iirc, the wild elves were originally limited to one small area (the Forest of Mir, maybe?), and their introduction may even have been a continuity mistake to begin with (not entirely sure, I'm just guessing). Then I noticed this little nugget on the page for Wild Elves (source: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Wild_elf):
quote:
Under 1st and 2nd editions, wild elves and wood elves were considered to be one subrace with different names. Wild elf was considered somewhat derogatory, much like calling a moon elf "grey elf." In the 2nd edition accessory Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves (p.19), the terms "sylvan elf", "forest elf", "green elf" and "Sy'Tel'Quessir" were all synonymous with "wild elf."
Is it my imagination, or is that utter and complete nonsense? Well...I'm fairly certain that it is nonsense. There's no source listed for that info. Where did it originate? |
Edited by - jimbo32 on 03 Oct 2010 06:20:37 |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 10:55:28
|
that's probably correct, in the places like the Misty Vale they were even called the grugach
that reminds me, I like how the fomorians were changed in 4e |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 15:06:00
|
Jimbo: No, it's not nonsense. Wild, wood, green, and sy'tel'quessir were all terms for the same race of elves in 1e and 2e: the green, simpler, tribal elves that lived deep inside forests and didn't build cities or empires like their gold and silver cousins (or at least, not within human memory). It wasn't until 3e that some, well, I was going to say idiot, but I really am trying not to let myself get too angry in this thread. It wasn't until 3e that some designer made the decision (totally without reason, IMHO) that they were two separate races, one called wood and the other called wild.
ALL 1e and 2e sources call them exactly the same thing, and at least to me, that's how they always have and will be. That includes centerpieces like Demihuman Deities, or odd-balls like Demihumans of the Realms. In fact, from Demihumans of the Realms we have this:
* * * *
Wild (Forest, Savage, Green, Wood, Sylvan) Elf
(Sy'Tel'Quessir)
Major Homelands: Many old, isolated woodlands, particularly in Cormanthor/Elven Wood (Tangled Trees), Greycloak Hills, Deepingdale (Dalelands), High Forest, Tethyr, Evermeet, and Gildenglade and Xorhun in Turmish.
Allowed Classes: cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, thief, mage, wizard.
Multiclass Combinations: fighter/mage, fighter/thief, mage/thief, fighter/mage/thief.
Initial Languages: Elvish, Common, sylvan creature languages (for example, Centaur, Dryad, Giant Eagle, Pegasus, Satyr, Sprite, Treant, Unicorn), allied demihuman languages (for example, Dwarvish, Gnome, Halfling), giant and humanoid tongues spoken near homeland. Other languages are very unlikely to be known.
Major Deities: Corellon Larethian and the Seldarine (Demihumun Deities; Monster Mythology; Elves of Evermeet); also, Rillifane Rallathil, DRAGON® Magazine issue 191, page 22+.
References: 1993 FORGOTTEN REALMS boxed set, A Grand Tour of the Realms; Elves of Evermeet; The Complete Book of Elves (Faerūnian wild elves are much like sylvan elves); Demihuman Deities; Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast (Greycloak Hills, Halfway Inn); Volo's Guide to the Dalelands (Deepingdale, The High Dale: the Dancing Place); The North boxed set, The Wilderness and The Cities booklets; Elaine Cunningham's novels Elfshadow, Elfsong, and Silver Shadows.
* * * *
Pretty explicit there. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
Edited by - Hoondatha on 03 Oct 2010 15:07:42 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 15:09:19
|
Also, I think for the most part people who don't like the 4E mechanics are less likely to enjoy FR4E than people who generally like 4E mechanics.
As for how great the lore is for the current Realms, that's purely speculative. I could love EVERYTHING about the new stuff and there's nothing that invalidates that. Same goes for people who love EVERYTHING about pre-spellplague Realms. I don't think it's a fair statement to say one era is great while one is poor and attempt to make it fact.
I actually liked the Headless Zhent, so there
And as far as continuity for the Realms (in general) is concerned, there have been loops and changes and issues with it since 1e IIRC so that's nothing new. And if people don't like the changes *gasp!* they don't have to use them, incorporate them, pay them any heed. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 15:16:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Jimbo: No, it's not nonsense. Wild, wood, green, and sy'tel'quessir were all terms for the same race of elves in 1e and 2e: the green, simpler, tribal elves that lived deep inside forests and didn't build cities or empires like their gold and silver cousins (or at least, not within human memory). It wasn't until 3e that some, well, I was going to say idiot, but I really am trying not to let myself get too angry in this thread. It wasn't until 3e that some designer made the decision (totally without reason, IMHO) that they were two separate races, one called wood and the other called wild.
Well if it's any consolation 4E doesn't attempt to create a difference (MECHANICALLY) between Wild and Wood elves. It's all about personal preference and what lore a PC would like to add in. Sure, there's a feat for both of them, but that's hard something that distances the two. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 15:57:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And as far as continuity for the Realms (in general) is concerned, there have been loops and changes and issues with it since 1e IIRC so that's nothing new. And if people don't like the changes *gasp!* they don't have to use them, incorporate them, pay them any heed.
The main problem with this idea is that prior to the Sellplague, changes to the setting weren't so sweeping that they couldn't be easily hand-waved and still reconciled with canon. Not only that, but with the entire setting being changed, people only have two choices with regards to acquiring new Realms material: they either accept the changes and buy 4E stuff, or they don't and buy nothing.
Using the Time of Troubles as an example: if I didn't like the ToT, I didn't have to buy anything pertaining to the deities of the Realms, and there was still plenty of Realms material for me to choose from. If I don't like the Sellplague, I have no choice at all -- I either buy Realms material in which that event is incorporated into the setting's past with ongoing effects still present, or I buy nothing at all.
I am still a fan of the Realms, and I want to buy new Realms material. I want to keep reading new Realms novels. But since I don't accept what's been done to the 4E Realms, I either spend money on stuff I don't like or I keep my money.
And before someone comes in and trots out a tired and overused response: I am not choosing to dislike the 4E Realms. The Realms of 4E was changed into something I don't like, and that was not my choice. To use an analogy I've used before, if my favorite restaurant suddenly takes everything I like off of their menu and replaces it with food I don't like, the problem is not me choosing to dislike the restaurant, the problem is them not serving what I do like.
And I fail to see how buying food I don't like -- giving them money for something unwanted -- is going to encourage them to change their menu back to something I find palatable. If someone is getting money for something, that shows there's a market for that, and does not encourage them to trying catering to a different market. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 03 Oct 2010 15:58:42 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 16:51:15
|
I won't say incorporating new Realms lore into existing (pre-spellplague) campaigns wouldn't take work. It will, just as if you were using 3e lore with AD&D mechanics. But I don't see why people can't use certain aspects of the Realms (like Airspur, Eminenece and Warlock knights as Markus said, or any other DDI article they've published since 4E came out).
I don't think you have to accept the changes to enjoy the material of FR4E. It's not like every article or every part of the FRCG/FRPG is filled with Spellplague and Spellscars. And it's a general rule of thought that if it wasnt mentioned in an article or sourcebook, then it's probably the same or near enough to pre-spellplague status.
What I think it comes down to is Game mechanics and Lore. If you hate the mechanics of 4E, there are still things about FR that are interesting enough to incorporate into any edition. Same goes if you hate the lore of FR4E but enjoy the mechanics, theres nothing stopping you from keeping Mystra, Elistraee, the Chosen, and NO spellplague in the Realms.
But I don't expect anyone to buy the 4E-Realms if they don't appeal to them. It sucks, sure, but I also don't expect WotC to change how they're doing things either. I've gone with the changes and made them fit how I feel the Realms should be. I purchase the game supplements to make my Realm-games better and to have options for my players. If I wanted to, I could easily set the Realms in any pre-spellplague era of my choice with little to no fuss and still incorporate the mechanics of 4E and even the material in the FRCG.
I guess it's just personal preference. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 17:36:15
|
I hate the mechanics and the lore. And because of that, I can no longer buy Realms material. Even if new material doesn't explicitly mention post-Sellplague history or effects, that's still the intended use for it.
So I can't buy any new Realms stuff, though I want new material. That sucks. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 03 Oct 2010 17:38:13 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 17:42:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I hate the mechanics and the lore. And because of that, I can no longer buy Realms material. Even if new material doesn't explicitly mention post-Sellplague history or effects, that's still the intended use for it.
I'd actually have to disagree with that last bit. It's been my contention for some time now, that as the lot of 4e Realmslore has progressed, the actual amount of concentration on Spellplague-specific material has leasened somewhat. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 03 Oct 2010 : 22:03:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I'd actually have to disagree with that last bit. It's been my contention for some time now, that as the lot of 4e Realmslore has progressed, the actual amount of concentration on Spellplague-specific material has leasened somewhat.
I'd have to agree here as well, since most of the DDI articles and Eye on the Realms articles have low spellplague content. It's sorta just "there" in the backround and helpful in a pinch of you need it.
And if you wanted to you could easily adapt something sooo 4E as Spellscars to be a symbol, curse, misshap, or affliction of Wild Magic in 3E and just use the rules of the Dragonmarks from Eberron if your using 3e/3.5/PF. You could even go further with the Order of the Blue Flame but change their description from "a benevolent group of spellscarred who wish to help others while learning more about the Spellplague's effects." to "a benevolent group of spellscarred who wish to help others while learning more about the effects of Wild Magic and it's state within the Realms." Make it an organization that sees Wild Magic areas as a new wonder of Faerun's nature, drawing off it's chaotic effects while exlporing it's great potential. Of course, you'll have to deal with some clergy of Mystra who want to make these areas "right" again and there is some interesting RP right there. |
Edited by - Diffan on 03 Oct 2010 22:03:54 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2010 : 01:50:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I'd actually have to disagree with that last bit. It's been my contention for some time now, that as the lot of 4e Realmslore has progressed, the actual amount of concentration on Spellplague-specific material has leasened somewhat.
I'd have to agree here as well, since most of the DDI articles and Eye on the Realms articles have low spellplague content. It's sorta just "there" in the backround and helpful in a pinch of you need it.
And if you wanted to you could easily adapt something sooo 4E as Spellscars to be a symbol, curse, misshap, or affliction of Wild Magic in 3E and just use the rules of the Dragonmarks from Eberron if your using 3e/3.5/PF. You could even go further with the Order of the Blue Flame but change their description from "a benevolent group of spellscarred who wish to help others while learning more about the Spellplague's effects." to "a benevolent group of spellscarred who wish to help others while learning more about the effects of Wild Magic and it's state within the Realms." Make it an organization that sees Wild Magic areas as a new wonder of Faerun's nature, drawing off it's chaotic effects while exlporing it's great potential. Of course, you'll have to deal with some clergy of Mystra who want to make these areas "right" again and there is some interesting RP right there.
The thing is, I don't want spellscars or blue fire or any of that jazz. I don't want to explain away or adapt elements I don't like, I want a setting without them -- as it was before. I know that settings have to change and all, but I do not feel that what we have now is any kind of logical progression from what we had before. To me, the 4E Realms is so utterly disconnected from pre-4E that its another setting.
I could have accepted the 4E Realms as a new setting, utterly unconnected to anything that came before. I cannot accept it as a development of what did come before. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36989 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2010 : 01:52:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I hate the mechanics and the lore. And because of that, I can no longer buy Realms material. Even if new material doesn't explicitly mention post-Sellplague history or effects, that's still the intended use for it.
I'd actually have to disagree with that last bit. It's been my contention for some time now, that as the lot of 4e Realmslore has progressed, the actual amount of concentration on Spellplague-specific material has leasened somewhat.
It may not be concentrated on it, but it's still intended for a setting where the Sellplague has happened. That's the part I can't get around. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Poking a sleeping lion
Topic Locked
