| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 07:22:32
|
This came up in Ed's thread.
Basically, from what was said, FR is NOT going to be the core 5e setting (and we don't know if there will even be a core setting). Ergo, just like in 3e, FR is to be the 'Flagship setting' (a position it moved into during 2e as well). I'm not sure if I'd call it the flagship setting of 4e, even though it came first. It just doesn't sound right, all things considered.
Which brings me to my point - 'flagship' almost seems like another word for 'guinea pig'. We saw what happen in 4e - do we really want to 'go first'? I think Eberron got a much better (less drastic) treatment in 4e because they saw the FR backlash.
Maybe it would be best if Eberron got shoved through the portal into the Abyss first this time? I hate the idea that FR is the test bed, and some other setting is going to get the 'perfected' treatment. Going first didn't work out so well for us the last time.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Aug 2012 07:22:49
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 15:36:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This came up in Ed's thread.
Basically, from what was said, FR is NOT going to be the core 5e setting (and we don't know if there will even be a core setting). Ergo, just like in 3e, FR is to be the 'Flagship setting' (a position it moved into during 2e as well). I'm not sure if I'd call it the flagship setting of 4e, even though it came first. It just doesn't sound right, all things considered.
Which brings me to my point - 'flagship' almost seems like another word for 'guinea pig'. We saw what happen in 4e - do we really want to 'go first'? I think Eberron got a much better (less drastic) treatment in 4e because they saw the FR backlash.
Maybe it would be best if Eberron got shoved through the portal into the Abyss first this time? I hate the idea that FR is the test bed, and some other setting is going to get the 'perfected' treatment. Going first didn't work out so well for us the last time.
I understand your fear of being the guinea pig...but what I would fear even more, is two more years of flailing along before deciding to make changes. I know it seems like my mantra(and surely everyone had heard by now) but, Ed is at the helm. Take heart!
I know Ed is snowed under a couple of thousand emails at this point, but Im hopeful that when he soon emerges, he sees his shadow and declares six more decades of Realmslore from my pen!.....but I am hopeful he shares "his take" here for all, when he has time. Im sure a few paragraphs from him would go a long way to letting people know what to expect(at least as long as current wotc management team is unchanged)in the future. |
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 30 Aug 2012 15:37:11 |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 17:05:05
|
The Realms were the flagship for AD&D too. Let's not focus only on bad examples, m'kay?  |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 17:12:57
|
I'm not focusing, just playing "Devil's advocate". I can't have people thinking I've 'gone soft'.
I want new (good) Realmslore just as desperately as everyone else here. I just don't want it to all be rushed. How many years did they develop 4e FR? From the looks of it, you'd think they had their first meeting three days before it went to print. I'd rather wait longer and get a true gem, then have them produce an amalagm setting that got rushed to print just because they wanted to get it to us as fast as possible.
In other words, if it isn't 'perfect' the day D&Dnext comes out, don't just 'go with what you have'. I think all of us can agree that we'd be willing to wait an extra 90 days or so if we were to get a more polished product. I want them to take their time and get it right.
I guess my point is that 4eFR felt like a 'first draft'. I don't want to start beating 4e up all over again, because I am sure nearly everyone here knows what I mean. I'd rather they take a little extra time and pass the FRCG (if there is to be one) around amongst 10-20 FR experts, and make sure they all agree on whats presented. I don't just want a 'second pair of eyes', I want a consensus of lots of old-school designers who know the Realms better then they know their hometown. The more people who look over it with a fine tooth-comb, the better the end result will be. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Aug 2012 17:20:36 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 21:33:22
|
I've brought up this point in previous posts. This problem is not limited to just the 4E Realms, even though that iteration repeatedly took a Bludgeon of Experimentation to the face.
The 3E Realms encountered troublesome 'growing pains' in the areas of:
- Rules proficiency, the designers became better with the rules in later books, for the most part.
- Drastic change in focus of play level over time, made evident in the switch over from inclusion of high-level epic material (NPCs and Deity stats) compared to material better suited for levels 1-20 (most Elder Evils in Champions of Ruin).
- Mid-edition transition: Going from 3E to 3.5E could have gone a lot smoother or in the case of Eberron, skipped 3e altogether. Eberron actually had a Player's Guide, the FR one was a 3.5E update. Some of the Realms books belong in the weird hybrid interlude.
- Format fidgeting such as going from softcover to hardcover, page count drop, fluff vs crunch, regional sourcebook vs themed mechanics books vs regional adventures vs full blown adventure.
Even 2E Realms is not free of issues from being the flagship or core setting. Recall 2E dumped all the generic cultural sub-settings into the Realms, whether or not they fit with the main setting. They were not given much integration. Aside from a few attempts now only relegated to footnotes, they remain almost separate worlds in tone and setting history.
The 4E Realms' mistake was tampering too much with the setting and even reaching back to lore that probably should have been left alone. WotC hit the big red panic button that said "Do Not Press."
I wouldn't mind if WotC practiced with a shorter Core World gazetteer. Perhaps with Nentir Vale, possibly with integration notes for the Realms and maybe with Greyhawk and Eberron so the designers and writers could get their feet wet. Work out the 5E rules presentation, how much setting information to include, format issues, etc. This satisfies fans of Nentir Vale, gives the other settings something new to play with, meanwhile gearing up the 5E team to get to work on the actual 5E Realms setting boo.
|
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 30 Aug 2012 21:39:28 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4492 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 22:25:27
|
I hope the first books detailing the rules of D&D:next are generic in their application. I actually want NEW gods that take place in Nentir Vale, not the same ol' Pelor, Kord, Bahamut stuff we saw with 4E. A whole new pantheon would be preferrable for that specific world rather than stealing from Greyhawk.
As for the Realms, I think a flagship is a good place for them, but we should remember that the designers don't plan on doing too much mechanics with the FR books, attempting to keep them as Edition-Neutral as possible to appeal to a broader group of fans. If that's truely the case, then I don't see it having any impact on the rule-area of the game. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2012 : 12:02:59
|
| I wish FR was core during the 3e days, I hated it when Eberron was being detailed and we got nothing new. It's better not to repeat that in 5e. These quasi settings Nentir and Greyhawk were useless. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2012 : 12:16:19
|
Greyhawk was hardly a quasi setting :p
Nentir Vale was a blanket medieval generic setting, so that would align more with being a quasi setting. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4492 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2012 : 13:18:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
I wish FR was core during the 3e days, I hated it when Eberron was being detailed and we got nothing new. It's better not to repeat that in 5e. These quasi settings Nentir and Greyhawk were useless.
As Matt stated, Greyhawk was no where near quasi thought I can see why someone might think that. In 3E, as they were the "default" setting, there was little elements that actually made a reader thing "Hey, this is Greyhawk with it's own distinct identity" because there were hardly any maps or background or setting stuff for greyhawk that wasn't also considered "Default Core".
Nentir Vale was more what they were looking for but even that got more detail as they started to produce more lore to justify rules fluff. The Raven Queen got quite a bit of Lore as well as the ruined nation of Bael Turath (a once prominent Tiefling nation). So what I'd like to see is Greyhawk become it's own unique, distinct setting again with NPCs, Maps, Cities, etc.... as well as promote the setting of Nentir Vale with it's own distinguishing features and lore.
As for Eberron, people have to realize that not everyone likes the Forgotten Realms and detailing other settings is important in keeping a larger fan-base. Additonally, it's a rich setting with a huge difference than that of the FR, with more steam-punk elements, a bit more technologically advanced frame-work, and with unique takes on things such as the divine, elves, Dragonmarks, etc. To strike all that off to promote another setting (which frankly has 5-times the amount of lore and information) just isn't fair nor needed. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2012 : 20:23:29
|
Then why not produce a GH book first, or a Nentir Vale one?
I just don't like the idea that once again, we are getting 'shoved out the airlock'.
Pointing-out 3.5 was a brilliant addition to my argument Dark Wizard - TY for that. I'd rather 'catch the 5.5 train' then ride the slow bus to nowhere.
Also, 4e borrowed from GH and FR for their gods, plus created a few new ones. I agree it probably would have been better to just come up with new names (their whole explanation on why they picked 'Bane' was just plain BAD, IMHO). You want someone like Bane, then create someone just like Bane - don't hand us Bane. By that token, they should have just handed us the Greek pantheon, or whatever. Funny thing about designing is that it usually involves naming stuff.
Even if they wanted the actual Bane, it would have been far better to create a god named Banthioch (or whatever), and then just say he is known as 'Bane' in The Realms. Such a simple fix. {shakes head}
Same goes for Pelor - Give us a generic god name Solios (or whatever), and say he is known as Pelor in Greyhawk, and Lathander in the Realms (etc, etc). I think this sort of treatment would have helped a lot way back when they did Old Empires. How hard would it have been to just alter the names a bit? That would have been the fine line between derivation and homage. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 31 Aug 2012 20:27:27 |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2012 : 23:34:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
I wish FR was core during the 3e days, I hated it when Eberron was being detailed and we got nothing new. It's better not to repeat that in 5e. These quasi settings Nentir and Greyhawk were useless.
I think is very important to have multiple campaign setting, so one setting is not stuck needing to conform to every game groups needs. Want steam punk play Eberron, horror Ravenloft, gritty survival Dark sun, high magic and high fantasy FR etc. If you don't have those other options then you are forced into the 4e approach of everything printed in generic land is automatically included in all campaign settings. The beauty of multiple campaign settings is that they have some dramatically different environments, deities, cosmology, tones and creatures. Of course, every game group is not going to like every setting but that doesn't mean those settings aren't deserving of attention. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2012 : 07:04:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Then why not produce a GH book first, or a Nentir Vale one?
I just don't like the idea that once again, we are getting 'shoved out the airlock'.
I suggest WotC work out the new edition kinks with a smaller product like a Nentir Vale Gazetteer to build up their 5E/Next skills (mechanics design, lore management, format and layout).
I can't help but admire the execution of the Eberron books in 3.5, everything from the way information was relayed to the policy regarding rules and play levels to the art (actually having some semblance of art direction). There was clarity and a certain unity in the presentation.
The Realms in contrast had the rules in their main setting book (THE setting book) partly obsoleted by mid-edition. At the very least, much of the PGtF should have been a free web enhancement/errata, maybe the regional benefits and feats, which were mostly reorganized charts and listings of feats and gear. This would have freed up page count for the vital task of being an actual Player's Guide.
In 4E, perhaps if WotC updated Eberron first (or Dark Sun even) and saw positive fans respond to the lack of a cataclysmic transition event, it might have helped mitigate the Spellplague and other related decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I think is very important to have multiple campaign setting, so one setting is not stuck needing to conform to every game groups needs.
Indeed, the Realms have pulled double duty as the flagship setting and as a pseudo-core setting for too long. Perhaps it's time to let the Realms be just a distinctive setting all its own. Let the Forgotten Realms be the Realms, not a place to throw in very piece of core material or for experimental product formats.
"Generic" is not something you want people to use as a descriptor for your popular setting, yet I hear this all the time regarding the Realms. |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2012 : 15:41:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
In 4E, perhaps if WotC updated Eberron first (or Dark Sun even) and saw positive fans respond to the lack of a cataclysmic transition event, it might have helped mitigate the Spellplague and other related decisions.
It kind of worked out in the opposite fashion of what you are describing in 4e. FR face planted out the gate and the large negative response caused the other settings to be spared FR's fate. Shortly, after 4e FR's changes were announced WotC quickly pointed out that Keith Baker(Eberron's creator and not a WotC staffer) would be heavily involved in bring Eberron into 4e and that no major event would be necessary. The reason the other settings were spared cataclysmic events was FR. If Eberron had been released first, it would have gotten the shaft and the other settings spared. So, really FR helped out all the other settings by damaging its brand and facturing its fanbase. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8041 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2012 : 00:30:52
|
I think it all boils down to legal complications, or at least an executive/managerial decision to avoid them.
Wizbro acquired Greyhawk along with the D&D/AD&D "1E" brand - it's now their exclusive IP so they can choose to do as they wish without issue.
Ownership of the Realms seems to be less definite - Wizbro, Ed/Grubb, and perhaps countles Realms authors are involved. They largely work cooperatively using the Realms as a common framework, but I think Wizbro is unwilling to gamble everything on establishing the Realms as "core" ... they don't want to be caught standing in a slippery fetid explosive legal marshland if their allies should choose to attack and seize territory. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2012 : 04:48:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
It kind of worked out in the opposite fashion of what you are describing in 4e. FR face planted out the gate and the large negative response caused the other settings to be spared FR's fate. Shortly, after 4e FR's changes were announced WotC quickly pointed out that Keith Baker(Eberron's creator and not a WotC staffer) would be heavily involved in bring Eberron into 4e and that no major event would be necessary. The reason the other settings were spared cataclysmic events was FR. If Eberron had been released first, it would have gotten the shaft and the other settings spared. So, really FR helped out all the other settings by damaging its brand and facturing its fanbase.
We could look at it that way. That is how the events happened and evidence that first setting updated with new editions is not always a good position.
I was under the impression the changes to Eberron, no matter how the Realms faired, were relatively minor, either 2 months or 2 years or perhaps originally 2 years but reduced with the news of the Realms reaction. |
|
|
|
Calmar
Acolyte
49 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2012 : 11:54:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Even if they wanted the actual Bane, it would have been far better to create a god named Banthioch (or whatever), and then just say he is known as 'Bane' in The Realms. Such a simple fix. {shakes head}
Same goes for Pelor - Give us a generic god name Solios (or whatever), and say he is known as Pelor in Greyhawk, and Lathander in the Realms (etc, etc). I think this sort of treatment would have helped a lot way back when they did Old Empires. How hard would it have been to just alter the names a bit? That would have been the fine line between derivation and homage.
Banthioch and Solios are so much better than the original names!
"Bane" is just a word like "doom" or "discomfort", but "Banthioch sounds deep and sinister and has a really threatening ring with it. I can picture dark-robed cultists chanting the name of invincible Banthioch to bring destruction upon their enemies.  |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Core or Flagship?
