| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2089 Posts |
 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
|
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6448 Posts |
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 20:19:32
|
Thanks for sharing.
I hate to sound too simplistic, but if your optomistic, as well as every other member of the candlekeep seminar was optomistic that night, then so am I.
I am extremely optomistic , for the first time in a long while. |
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
|
 |
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 20:20:17
|
| ditto, now get back to designing..... so I can give you my money. |
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 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 20:26:24
|
| Thanks for sharing, Eric. It's cool to be able to read the hows and whys that make up a game designer's approach to the work he or she does. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 21:55:06
|
I agree, it's nice to get your opinions on this, as one of the august and revered sages of the Realms.
However, I have to disagree to a point. I think you're right that, by and large, you need to respect what has come before. Shared worlds don't generally work if you don't. However, there are occasions where "what has come before" has been so, I'm not going to say awful, because that's a value judgement, but disruptive, or transformative that it is impossible to reconcile with previous lore.
In this case I'm talking more about the time jump than the Spellplague, though obviously the Spellplague suffers from many of the same issues. The Spellplague could at least perhaps be mitigated or toned down through later updates, though considering how thorough it was, it would be a challenge (easy to re-swap world sections; hard to un-blow-up places). But a time jump is a binary decision. If you jump the timeline forward a hundred years, then 99%+ of the human population, and a significant chunk of the non-human population is dead from old age. There's no wiggle room there.
So while I agree with what you're saying in the abstract, in the specifics that pertain to the situation that the Realms sits in post-4e, I just don't see how it's possible. I haven't heard anyone from WotC say how it is, either, so I would be interested in your thoughts. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2089 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 22:24:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
However, I have to disagree to a point. I think you're right that, by and large, you need to respect what has come before. Shared worlds don't generally work if you don't. However, there are occasions where "what has come before" has been so, I'm not going to say awful, because that's a value judgement, but disruptive, or transformative that it is impossible to reconcile with previous lore.
In this case I'm talking more about the time jump than the Spellplague, though obviously the Spellplague suffers from many of the same issues. The Spellplague could at least perhaps be mitigated or toned down through later updates, though considering how thorough it was, it would be a challenge (easy to re-swap world sections; hard to un-blow-up places). But a time jump is a binary decision. If you jump the timeline forward a hundred years, then 99%+ of the human population, and a significant chunk of the non-human population is dead from old age. There's no wiggle room there.
So while I agree with what you're saying in the abstract, in the specifics that pertain to the situation that the Realms sits in post-4e, I just don't see how it's possible. I haven't heard anyone from WotC say how it is, either, so I would be interested in your thoughts.
So I can't speak for WoTC and I don't know how they are going to address it, except that I think it will be consistent with the principles I tried to list above.
But, I can idly speculate (but its only idle speculation).
Problem: A hundred year time jump has killed off lots of favorite characters.
Solutions:
Note that some people want to play in 1480ish and some want to play in 1357 and some want to play in 1375.
A) Resurrect the Spirit of the Character: In 1480ish, Dauravyn Redbeard is dead and no longer the proprietor of the Way Inn. However, another ex-adventurer now runs the inn. I think the great-grandson approach could easily be overused, but it would be straightforward to create a character with different, but compatible backstory and personality. If you are playing in 1357 DR, then those stories could be layered on to Daurayvn. If you are playing in 1480ish, then you just use the new character.
B) Resurrect the Character: Fzoul Chembryl can return as a banelich. (Maybe using spells to appear like his old self.) Manshoon can return as a clone.
C) Focus on Timeless Places. The Mines of Tethyamar have never been well detailed in any time period. Detailed the Mines of Tethyamar in an time-period neutral way, so that the characters introduced there can be used in any time period. (It's just one more constraint on the game designer ... come up with an adventure that works in multiple time periods.)
D) Detail a historical range for a locale that has evolved significantly. The Way Inn was found in 12xx and looked like yy. In 1357 it looked like zz. In 1363 it looked like aa. In 1385 it looked like. In 1485 it looked like. The new Menzo book does this.
Just some preliminary thoughts. |
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 00:50:09
|
Eric, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I've been thinking about this since Thursday, and your four points more or less echo the ways I'd come up myself on how it could be handled. That's one of the reasons I'm still nervous, because in my opinion:
A and B are cop outs. It doesn't solve the larger problem and is only applicable for a (very) selected people or places. You could recreate and/or bring a few favorites, but there's no way you could do it for, say, Waterdeep as described in its glorious detail.
C is completely valid, and goodness knows there are plenty of areas that have been dying for additional attention. Under C we could also throw "historical" campaigns, like a relaunch of the Arcane Age sub-setting. But while this broadens the published Realms, it doesn't do anything for anywhere that's already been described.
D is the only option that actually seems to address the issue, but there are two major problems with it: first, by definition if you need to describe something at two or more radically different times, you're taking up page space compared to if you picked a single time. And second, also by definition, literally everyone who buys the book will be buying material they don't want. The 4e people won't want the "classic" era, the classic people won't want the 4e stuff, and the timelines are divergent enough that there probably won't be much that can be mined from one for the other.
Which leaves us with with likely possibility of (at best) a bunch of sourcebooks that are trying to serve too many masters, and run the very large risk of thereby serving none. Though they will at least have a coherent and very likely awesome art design, if the Future Look of D&D panel is anything to go by.
Does that seem to make sense? It's something I've been nervous about ever since they started talking about time and/or edition neutral works. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36982 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 04:53:44
|
| On a related topic... From what I'm gathering on the Sundering, Abeir and Toril are going to go their separate ways again. Is Abeir going to be supported, I wonder, or will it be -- pardon the pun -- forgotten? |
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!  |
|
|
|
Aulduron
Learned Scribe
USA
343 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 05:43:30
|
| Honestly, I'd like to see some of Abeir stay on Toril, and then see stories about Abeir too. I'd like to have Evermeet back, but I wouldn't mind stories about it in another world either. |
"Those with talent become wizards, Those without talent spend their lives praying for it"
-Procopio Septus |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 06:03:01
|
I think more DMs modify Realms material to suit the needs of their games then present Realms material as is for a game.
Because of this, the timeline advancement is a non-issue inasmuch as DMs who are familiar with, or otherwise want to use, a given NPC will do so—regardless of when the sourcebooks or novels say that NPC lived (and died).
I like option A because it’s interesting and a nice change: instead of getting one set description of who runs a place, you get multiple descriptions. While the descriptions are meant to overlap, I think if each is made different from the other in some small but interesting way (beyond just different first names for NPCs who are related) then you end up serving DMs better because you give them more choices and options.
More choices and options means a larger swath of gamers are better served.
Option B has been used a bit already in the novels and it’s going to get old, fast. Stuff like this needs a really good back story to make it interesting and make it work.
I’d like to see how option C is executed in print first. This may seem contradictory, but sometimes it’s easier to break from canon when you have a baseline in place first.
Also there are a lot of folks out there who like to know more or less when NPCs lived and died and crave historical information; basically they read sourcebooks for the lore’s sake. I don’t think this option will serve lore seekers very well.
D sounds interesting and seems immediately useful to me in that I can run an NPC who makes idle chatter about buildings or places and relates this kind “how things changed over time” info, which makes the world around the PCs more alive.
I believe if the content of the book is interesting then people will buy it. I don’t believe there is any substance to the idea that a book that mixes era content is immediately repellant to all people who have even the least preference of one era over another, especially if the book is rules free.
If it’s new and never before seen stuff, I think people will snap it up.
(Agreed with Aulduron about Abeir...keep Laerakond around at least.) |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
MalariaMoon
Learned Scribe
324 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 06:51:57
|
Eric - I'm on board with your philosophies!
I've never played in the 4e Realms, but I also wouldn't like to see Abeir forgotten |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6448 Posts |
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1288 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 08:06:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by MalariaMoon
Eric - I'm on board with your philosophies!
I've never played in the 4e Realms, but I also wouldn't like to see Abeir forgotten
My problem with Abeir is that it is not Forgotten Realms. It seemed to be tacked on as a way to enforce the 'everything is core' mentality. it allowed the Dawn War to be included, and gave very weak reasons for the new 4e races (which could have been explained as always being in the realms.)
The one thing I am truly hoping for is that Abeir disappears to bring back the old FR lands. I am ok with the spell plague and time jump at this point, but I find Abeir to be completely outside the flavor of the realms.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 10:39:48
|
| WotC should test their FR fanbase somehow (without the haters this time), seems to me that the number of people who prefer 1479 DR is really small, and to represent that equally with all other eras is not fair. Maybe if it was presented as one of possible futures (e.g. Fzoul becomes a banelich, or a demigod, or he grows beholder eyestalks etc.). I don't see what's worth keeping from Abeir except Airspur, my feeling about the Dawn War is that it is interesting, what a waste that it's far away. |
|
|
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2089 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 12:05:29
|
E) There were time-altering aspects of the Spellplague as well. Some characters could have sojourned in Abeir and returned without aging, but somehow changed by their experience. Other characters could have simply vanished and then reappeared.
But the basic point that this is hard do to for a favored city-full of inhabitants remains true (although that missing mythal city of gold elves in the High Forest might say otherwise ...)
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
And second, also by definition, literally everyone who buys the book will be buying material they don't want. The 4e people won't want the "classic" era, the classic people won't want the 4e stuff, and the timelines are divergent enough that there probably won't be much that can be mined from one for the other.
I'm not sure I agree with this. If you focus on the era-neutral content (like I think Ed's book this fall will do), then almost all of it is good to everyone. Moreover, if you keep an open mind about era specific content (e.g. the proprietor of the Way Inn in 1485 DR is an ex-adventurer who found a heretofore unknown ruin along the edge of the High Moor with a hidden armory of Phalorm in the depths), then you could use the bulk of the content regardless of the era (i.e. the ruin is there, to be found by your PCs).
--Eric |
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
|
|
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2089 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 12:11:07
|
It's interesting on this thread alone how varied the responses are ...
1) Get rid of it all except Airspur and the Dawn War.
2) Keep the extra continent of Abeir.
3) Make Abeir interesting like Maztica
etc.
My basic point being ... Wizards clearly indicated they want to give the design of the world back to the DM and let the stories be told by the DM and the PCs. To me that means let the DM choose how much of Abeir to keep / drop / never have included in the first place. |
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 12:36:24
|
One thing that we have to accepting of is the Realms fans that became so recently, or because of the Living campaign. They fell in love with the Realms in another era, so we should try to be inclusive.
As for Abeir, I am trying to get some coverage there, but there may or may not be other authors who already have some things in the works. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 14:14:28
|
| Inclusivity is good up to a point. On the other hand, if there were enough 4e Realms fans on their own, WotC wouldn't be trying to woo back all the people they drove away with the new edition. The fact that they are says that there aren't enough 4e fans by themselves to make it financially viable. That puts the "classic" Realms fans in a position of some power, since we're the ones who they're trying to win back, and they won't do it unless they address our concerns. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 14:24:52
|
| WotC was clear that they want to be inclusive and not invalidate anything that has already come. In fact, the novels are going to be set in the current timeline (1480+). I'm not sure this should be a matter of whom is in power and who is not. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4492 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 14:31:31
|
I would be extreamly happy if they kept Returned Abeir, detailed the crap out of it, wrote stories about it AND rote stories of Maztic, Mulhorand, Unther set frm the other side. Lets see what's been going on there for the last century.
Eric, I'm glad people are excited and we can, at some length, finally close the door on the angst between the transitions of editions. I'm glad they're supporting a neutral era approach and look forward to what comes ahead. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 14:37:42
|
| If the novels are set in the 1400's, then I'm not buying them. It's as easy as that. That time period is not my Realms, and I refuse to spend money validating bad decisions on WotC's part. If they start setting novels and game products back in the real Realms, then I'll start buying again. This has been my position since 4e came out, and it's not changing. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4492 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 14:47:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Inclusivity is good up to a point. On the other hand, if there were enough 4e Realms fans on their own, WotC wouldn't be trying to woo back all the people they drove away with the new edition. The fact that they are says that there aren't enough 4e fans by themselves to make it financially viable. That puts the "classic" Realms fans in a position of some power, since we're the ones who they're trying to win back, and they won't do it unless they address our concerns.
Lets be sure we understand the differences between the 4E RULESET and the Post-Spellplague Realms. Also, keep in mind that we don't know how much WotC is making with 4E or if it's under-producing. A 6 year run (which is just 2 years shy of 3E) is nothing to balk at even with the drastic changes we saw with the edition change (Realms and rule alike). It's also a pretty big assumption that the changes to the Realms are a direct correlation to the supposed decline of 4E in the last two years or so.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
ericlboyd
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
2089 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 14:51:26
|
Regarding rulesets, Wizards made it very clear they are continuing to solicit feedback and take the time to get it right.
If you care about the ruleset (and how it might influence 5e Realms products, although the goal seems to be to have the rules have less influence on the world), please take the time to look at the playtest materials and make comments.
--Eric |
--
http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/ |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4492 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 15:02:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
If the novels are set in the 1400's, then I'm not buying them. It's as easy as that. That time period is not my Realms, and I refuse to spend money validating bad decisions on WotC's part. If they start setting novels and game products back in the real Realms, then I'll start buying again. This has been my position since 4e came out, and it's not changing.
The 'real' Realms? See, it's that sort of attitude and dismissive connotation that makes any sort of constructive discussions nigh futile. As a post-Spellplague fan I can accept that not eveyone wants lore from that time period. I can accept that people want info and lore and details from past eras. I can accept that older source material has value and people use it for a list of various reasons. I accept it has a place. Therefore, it makes sense to me if authors write novels detailing these things. It also makes sense to me that the GAME supplements provide elements that fit a wide variety of places, eras, and styles.
But that also includes producing stuff that i might find specifically enjoyable such as lore for Returned Abeir and Airspur or info and dealings of the Warlock Knight of Vaasa (for example). And I think it's sad and even a bit pathetic that people can't show a bit of compromise when it comes to lore that they might not find instantly useable or not 'real' Realms information. Heaven forbid they put stuff in that might appeal to people who enjoy post-Spellplague Realms. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
Edited by - Diffan on 21 Aug 2012 15:04:39 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 15:09:45
|
This is the type of thing we need to avoid
All eras of the Realms are the "Real Realms" to different people
The last thing that will help this, is to start judging people by what Realms is real to them.
|
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 21 Aug 2012 15:11:19 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 15:18:58
|
The general consensus in the publishing community, and around the internet, is that Pathfinder has been outselling D&D 4e since at least mid 2011. Of course, neither company releases its sales numbers, so there's a lot of conjecture as to what the exact numbers are, but it's clear that Pathfinder has taken a large, and perhaps huge, chunk of business away from D&D. Since Pathfinder has been described as "D&D 3.75," it's a fair assumption that many of its players are disaffected D&D players.
Now D&D is clearly trying to woo back those people who have left, both because of the system change, and the changes to their game worlds. They wouldn't be doing that if they were satisfied with their current sales numbers of user base. Yes, some of the WotC people on the ground are using it as a chance to get good lore-related things done (like the FR art direction bible), but at heart it's a corporate decision based on sales figures.
That's what I meant about us non-4e people having power. We're their target audience. Obviously, the audience they have already isn't enough. But if they want to attract people who have left in disgust over the years, they need to make the product they're offering attractive to us. For a lot of Realms fans, that product isn't going to be attractive unless they remove most and/or all of the changes made in the 4e transition, which is what made us leave in the first place.
Eric, your point about joining the playtest is a good one. I just haven't had time up to this point, but I'm hoping to take a look and maybe jump in later this week.
Diffan, I'm trying to respect Wooly's request and not re-fight the 4e wars in these 5e threads. I will suffice it to say that a setting that kills off all of its characters and blows up or vanishes large chunks of the landscape is not the same setting anymore. I have never understood how people can argue that it is. It might be a decent setting on its own merits, but it isn't the original, the "real" Realms. And the Realms is the only setting I'm interested in spending my money on. Not this different one. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 16:03:34
|
Personally I hope that certain aspects from 4e are retained in this new setting. The dragonborn are a good example( for me at least) and hope not to much emphasis is put on making it the same as the good old days instead of coming up with some fresh new ideas.
A static setting is a dead setting. |
|
|
|
The Hidden Lord
Learned Scribe
148 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 16:37:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I will suffice it to say that a setting that kills off all of its characters and blows up or vanishes large chunks of the landscape is not the same setting anymore. I have never understood how people can argue that it is. It might be a decent setting on its own merits, but it isn't the original, the "real" Realms. And the Realms is the only setting I'm interested in spending my money on. Not this different one.
By this logic, none of us exist on the "real" Earth; I guess I am typing this on one of the many 'divergent Earth-alternate timelines'.
When the Stroggli island blew up, which generated a tsunami, which completely submerged the Minoan civilization, the Earth began an alternate timeline...
Just in 'time' for Vesuvius to explode, eradicating Pompeii, which generated another 'alternate-Earth'.
Which lead the way to the Black Plague, which as we all know killed 1/2 of Europe's population, thereby generating yet another 'alternate-Earth' timeline.
Which I guess means that the eradication of 90% of North America's indigenous population due to European disease was the catalyst for another divergent time-stream... generating yet another "not-real" Earth.
I wonder how many other events have occurred which has generated "not-real", alternate-Earths...
and I hope that one day, scientists will develop a space-time refractor-beam to take me back to the REAL Earth... Whichever one that is. |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 16:57:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I will suffice it to say that a setting that kills off all of its characters and blows up or vanishes large chunks of the landscape is not the same setting anymore. I have never understood how people can argue that it is. It might be a decent setting on its own merits, but it isn't the original, the "real" Realms. And the Realms is the only setting I'm interested in spending my money on. Not this different one.
By this logic, none of us exist on the "real" Earth; I guess I am typing this on one of the many 'divergent Earth-alternate timelines'.
When the Stroggli island blew up, which generated a tsunami, which completely submerged the Minoan civilization, the Earth began an alternate timeline...
Just in 'time' for Vesuvius to explode, eradicating Pompeii, which generated another 'alternate-Earth'.
Which lead the way to the Black Plague, which as we all know killed 1/2 of Europe's population, thereby generating yet another 'alternate-Earth' timeline.
Which I guess means that the eradication of 90% of North America's indigenous population due to European disease was the catalyst for another divergent time-stream... generating yet another "not-real" Earth.
I wonder how many other events have occurred which has generated "not-real", alternate-Earths...
Hoons was talking about a fictitous setting, where changes can be made or unmade by any designer. Not the real world.
Most people would have understod that.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
and I hope that one day, scientists will develop a space-time refractor-beam to take me back to the REAL Earth... Whichever one that is.
We all hope for that. Sooner, rather than later. |
. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 17:07:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
It might be a decent setting on its own merits, but it isn't the original, the "real" Realms. And the Realms is the only setting I'm interested in spending my money on. Not this different one.
For new players who've come to the Realms through LFR, via a friend introducing them to 4th Edition D&D and the Realms, through any of the online Realms articles on Dragon or Dungeon magazine (several of which are the equal or better of anything that's come before Realms-wise) or by means of a Realms novel that caught their eye in the bookstore, your point is moot.
Those new fans, as well as people like me (i.e. a fan of all the Realms) shouldn't have to wade through the muck of petty sniping about what is and isn't the "real" Realms that's clogging up all the recent scrolls about the 5E Realms. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Sundering and Game Design
