# The Sundering has launched...



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

WotC has a cool promo video for the big *The Sundering* event they're doing with _Forgotten Realms_: You can find out more about The Sundering here -- "Now, the world is being shaken and reshaped once again—for the last time....  The Spellplague, the magical catastrophe that reshaped the world so  dramatically, has come to an end. The Weave of magic is rewoven, and  many lingering effects of twisted magic fade. The intermingling of  worlds brought about by the Spellplague also comes to an end, as what  belongs to Abeir returns to Abeir, leaving the Forgotton Realms looking  much as it did before." The Sundering is a cross-medium event: novels, D&D Encounters, a party at Gen Con, all starting with _D&D Encounters: Murder in Baldur's Gate_ from August 21.  The novel _Sundering Book I: The Companions_, by RA Salvatore, releases today and features a drizzt; you can read a sample chapter here ("As  Drizzt's fate hangs in the balance, he reflects on the lives of the  trusted allies who stood by his side throughout his early life -- the  friends now known as the Companions of the Hall. Meanwhile, the first  stirrings of the Sundering begin.")

[video=youtube;2W__zxJroio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W__zxJroio[/video]​


----------



## Tuft (Aug 6, 2013)

High-level cmd-Z?


----------



## Kinak (Aug 6, 2013)

Tuft said:


> High-level cmd-Z?



Sounds like.

I hope for all the realms fans and writers out there that this goes better than the Spellplague.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## JeffB (Aug 6, 2013)

Bhaal makes a comeback. Did I see myrkul as well in the stained glass?

Might as well.retcon back to the OGB.

FWIW, I liked the idea of the 4e reset after all the garbage of mid 2e throughout 3e, and I really loved the format of the 4e FRCS (though perhaps the order of the material as presented was suboptimal), but yeesh Cordell,.et al really blew it on the actual story elements of the spell plague.

I hope they truly do this one right,.and moreso keep their word on no more. I do not use a post OGB timeline, but I steal from all eras of FR product (as well as others like Mystara, Oerth, The Wilderlands, etc.)


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 6, 2013)

> "Now, the world is being shaken and reshaped once again—for the last time.... The Spellplague, the magical catastrophe that reshaped the world so dramatically, has come to an end. The Weave of magic is rewoven, and many lingering effects of twisted magic fade. The intermingling of worlds brought about by the Spellplague also comes to an end, as what belongs to Abeir returns to Abeir, leaving the Forgotton Realms looking much as it did before."




Weak


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Okay
1. The intro of the video looks a lot like the videos they use in League of Legends, just something I noticed.
2. So the Sundering seems to be one giant 4E "retcon", undoing everything which happened to the realms during the Spellplague.
3.They bring Bhaal back and feature Baldurs Gate prominently. Is WotC really that desperate that they have to ride this hard on the success of the video games?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 6, 2013)

The New Coke cycle is nearly complete.  

This sounds like a combo of, "We're sorry for the 4e Forgotten Realms, guys!" combined with "Lets blow it up again!" and strange shades of Noah's Rainbow ("for the last time").


----------



## jodyjohnson (Aug 6, 2013)

Module 1:  Baldur's Gate
Module 2:  Icewind Dale
Module 3 and following?

Neverwinter, Waterdeep, Cormanthyr and the Dalelands?

Definately getting a ride the video games vibe.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The New Coke cycle is nearly complete.




Forgotten Realms Classic, perhaps?


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> Is WotC really that desperate that they have to ride this hard on the success of the video games?




I don't think using your own IP is something to mock as "desperate".  

I think it's better described as "basic common sense", and is what every successful company on the planet from Coca Cola to Apple does.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I don't think using your own IP is something to mock as "desperate".




Particularly not when you're invoking the nostalgia or "back to basics" approach that WotC is taking with D&D Next.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Aug 6, 2013)

What my kids know of the Realms they learned from Baldur's Gate.

Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Waterdeep, and Neverwinter gave the Realms a lot of exposure and the Modules are 2/3 Setting Guides, 1/3 adventures.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I don't think using your own IP is something to mock as "desperate".




It is to me when the core franchise is piggybacking a side product because of its popularity.
Does D&D/FR not have enough "pull" on its own so it has to resort to riding on the success of 15 year old video games?


----------



## jodyjohnson (Aug 6, 2013)

At least they'll never rode a whole year on their poster child for cool, the drow.

Or nearly a year on Neverwinter.

Baldur's Gate gets 3 months in the sun until they move on to Icewind Dale.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> It is to me when the core franchise is piggybacking a side product because of its popularity.
> Does D&D/FR not have enough "pull" on its own so it has to resort to riding on the success of 15 year old video games?




What's with all this loaded language? "Desperate"?  "Piggybacking"? "Pull"?  "Resort"? The derision is dripping from your posts.  I my opinion, which seems to be the diametric opposite of yours, if a company doesn't use its established, successful, popular IP, it's run by idiots.  Are you suggesting that they should adopt a strategy of just using the unpopular stuff?

Does it bother you when DC makes a Batman comic?  Why is DC piggybacking on Batman because of his popularity?  Does the DC Universe not have enough "pull" on its own so it has to resort to riding on the success of 80 year old comic book characters?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> It is to me when the core franchise is piggybacking a side product because of its popularity.
> Does D&D/FR not have enough "pull" on its own so it has to resort to riding on the success of 15 year old video games?




"Side product?" Dude, there's probably more people out there who have played those games than have ever or will ever chuck a d20. It's the vanguard, the first volley, the opening salvo.


----------



## ruemere (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I don't think using your own IP is something to mock as "desperate".
> 
> I think it's better described as "basic common sense", and is what every successful company on the planet from Coca Cola to Apple does.




In that case, naming the new initiative *dndsundering* (aka: the breaking of DnD) is a freudian blunder, isn't it?
Even dancing on a grave of a still living edition (i.e. announcing coming of Next and slowing support of 4E to almost nothing, while 4E was still supposedly in game), did not look as bad to me as this. 

One thing more, they should be, IMHO, bolder with the retcon. It is hard to succeed if you just extinguish a cast of known heroic pantheon by fastforwarding, offer little to nothing new personnages, and then just reinvent the setting again. Come on - idols, face figures, champions of all causes - they sell the setting, because you find characters you want to hate, follow, help or thwart. The maps and empty names won't do.
Therefore, by reverting the change on the comological level, they should turn back the time (well, they can kill Mystra again, if they really feel like it - I really disliked that dumb notion of magic being handled by a single god) and go back to the golden age of FR. [*]

Regards,
Ruemere

[*] I'm all for culling deities, retiring of some obnoxiously ultrapowerful yet always impotent NPCs etc. Just bring back the realms as they were.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> if a company doesn't use its established, successful, popular IP, it's run by idiots.




Except that the Baldurs Gate were never really WotC IP. Oh sure, they owned the rights of the world it played in, but the game was a product of Atari. And yet WotC seems the need to heavily draw on the popularity of products from a other company to promote their new edition instead of coming up with something on their own.
Was there any mention of the Baldurs Gate games in the FR PnP products? Small tidbits at most. And now suddenly WotC uses the iconography of the game heavily to promote their new product. Its not even sure that the Sundering has anything to do with the games and that instead WotC just uses the combination of Baldurs Gate and the Bhaal symbol to get cheep advertising. You might of course love it, but to me that does look like WotC does not trust that their own products are interesting enough.

And to use your example, did DC use the Dark Knight movies to heavily promote their Batman Comics and put lots of things from the movie into the comics like the new Bane? No, even though there were likely more people having watched Dark Knight than who read Batman comics.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Side product?" Dude, there's probably more people out there who have played those games than have ever or will ever chuck a d20. It's the vanguard, the first volley, the opening salvo.




For WotC licensing out D&D was a side business. The core were and still are PnP products and novels. But now they have to use the products of other companies to promote their stuff as apparently they can't do it alone.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 6, 2013)

Part of me wonders if this won't just be a big "reset" to 1e that creates multiple timelinses, some where the Time of Troubles happened, some where the Spellplague happened, some where neither happened, some where both happened, some where other apocalpses happened...


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> Except that the Baldurs Gate were never really WotC IP.




Of _course_ it's WotC's IP.   Maybe the actual game code isn't, but the content is.



> And yet WotC seems the need to heavily draw on the popularity of products from a other company to promote their new edition.




You keep saying that like it's a bad thing.  _It's a good thing_.  Using your own IP is what you're supposed to do with it.  It's like complaining that I'm using my own car.

You know what_ is_ a bad thing?  Having valuable IP and never using it.  That's almost mismanagement.



> And to use your example, did DC use the Dark Knight movies to heavily  promote their Batman Comics and put lots of things from the movie into  the comics like the new Bane? No, even though there were likely more  people having watched Dark Knight than who read Batman comics.




Holy keep editing your post, Batman!  It's making it really hard to hold this conversation.  

A quote from Dark Knight Returns was used in the SDCC press conference to announce the new Batman/Superman movie a couple of weeks ago.  Again, an example of sensible promotion using one's own IP.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Of _course_ it's WotC's IP.   Maybe the actual game code isn't, but the content is.




No, not even the content. That was 100% Atari too. What WotC owned where a few names in the game. The little D&D/WotC logo in the corner of the box.
When a new Baldurs Gate was announced, people thought "Yay, another Baldurs Gate game by Atari", not "Yay, another WotC licensed game using the Forgotten Realms".



> You keep saying that like it's a bad thing.  _It's a good thing_.  Using your own IP is what you're supposed to do with it.  It's like complaining that I'm using my own car.




It is a bad thing when your core franchise needs a popularity boost from some 15 year old video games sharing which shared only some names with your setting.
What is the reason for now using so much stuff from the Video games 15 years after they were released? And while it is possible I am pretty convinced that the Sundering will not even use the Story from Baldurs Gate. They just took the symbols and put it into their product because they couldn't come up with anything more eye catching than referencing a 15 year old popular video game.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> No, not even the content. That was 100% Atari too. What WotC owned where a few names in the game. The little D&D/WotC logo in the corner of the box.




Do you have a cite on that? 



> It is a bad thing when your core franchise needs a popularity boost from some 15 year old video games sharing which shared only some names with your setting.




OK, we're just repeating ourselves now.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION], it's impossible to keep up with this conversation when you keep repeatedly editing extra stuff into all of your posts after I've replied to them. If you have something further to add once somebody has replied, please put that in a new post.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Do you have a cite on that?




Lead Producer: Ray Muzyka
Lead Designer (And Director of Writing): James Ohlen
Lead Writer: Lukas Kristjanson

And as far as I know none of them worked for TSR as did anyone else involved in the production of the Baldurs Gate series, especially the story, at a higher level. I couldn't even any mention of TSR in the credits except at the very end that they owned the D&D license.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> Lead Producer: Ray Muzyka
> Lead Designer (And Director of Writing): James Ohlen
> Lead Writer: Lukas Kristjanson
> 
> And as far as I know none of them worked for TSR as did anyone else involved in the production of the Baldurs Gate series, especially the story, at a higher level. I couldn't even any mention of TSR in the credits except at the very end that they owned the D&D license.




That is not evidence of IP ownership.  What might be is the copyright and trademark info in the booklet.  But at this point you now appear to be accusing WotC of IP violation. Mainly because you don't much like the Sundering trailer, as far as I can tell.

Derrin, it's OK to not like stuff. Your tastes are your tastes. But things not being to your taste (man, I read an article about this today - weird coincidence) does not equal wrongdoing, mismanagement, desperation, or IP violation.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That is not evidence of IP ownership.  What might be is the copyright and trademark info in the booklet.  But at this point you now appear to be accusing WotC of IP violation. Mainly because you don't much like the Sundering trailer, as far as I can tell.




If you want to strictly talk about the IP, the Forgotten Realms/D&D brand of course belonged to TSR at that time, but the point is that the Baldurs Gate IP belonged to Black Island/Bioware and, more importantly, no customer associated the Baldurs Gate games with WotC/TSR. They saw the logo at startup and that was it. 
WotC/TSR had no influence on the games, apart from getting paid so Black Island could use some names from D&D and TSR/WotC also received no recognition from the customer. It was always just Black Islands/Biowares product in the eyes for them.
Thats why it feels wrong for WotC to now use Baldurs Gate references so heavily to promote 5E and it looks to me that WotC doesn't believe that D&D/FR alone is enough to attract customers and the only thing they could come up with was using references to a 15 year old game. All this years the events of the video games were hardly referenced at all in PnP products. One or two sentences about Bhaalspawn and that was it. But now, suddenly, the Bhaal symbol is everywhere and linked to Baldurs Gate (Just look at the map on the Sundering website).

What remains to be seen is if the story of the Sundering will indeed be linked to the Baldurs Gate games, or if they just put in the symbol and name to leech of the fame of Baldurs Gate and the events of the Sundering will have no connection to the game at all.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Bhaal was created by Ed Greenwood and appeared in Dragon around about 1980 or so, and various novels and products since, of which Baldur's Gate was one.

Baldur's Gate is a city in the Forgotten Realms which appeared in the 1990 Forgotten Realms Adventures by Jeff Grubb and Ed Greenwood.

Baldur's Gate was later a 1990 video game which used vast amounts of WotC IP - both fluff and crunch (it uses the D&D 2E rule set) under license. This included both Bhaal and the city, Baldur's Gate.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Aug 6, 2013)

Once you ignore the races, classes, locations, names, stats, spells, deities, religions, organizations and history -- it is all obviously Bioware/Black Isle IP.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

And @_*Derren*_ you're still editing in additional content to your posts after my replies. I won't be searching your old posts for new content, I'm afraid, so those items will go overlooked. Please put new content in new posts, as I asked above. Thanks.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 6, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Side product?" Dude, there's probably more people out there who have played those games than have ever or will ever chuck a d20. It's the vanguard, the first volley, the opening salvo.



Very true this.

Although this made me laugh "reshaped once again—for the last time." So DnDNext is the _last_ edition of DnD then, for the last time YEAH RIGHT.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 6, 2013)

jodyjohnson said:


> Once you ignore the races, classes, locations, names, stats, spells, deities, religions, organizations and history -- it is all obviously Bioware/Black Isle IP.




LOL


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> And @_*Derren*_ you're still editing in additional content to your posts after my replies. I won't be searching your old posts for new content, I'm afraid, so those items will go overlooked. Please put new content in new posts, as I asked above. Thanks.



If you look at your posting times you are posting way after my edits.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

jodyjohnson said:


> Once you ignore the races, classes, locations, names, stats, spells, deities, religions, organizations and history -- it is all obviously Bioware/Black Isle IP.




And how much of that really mattered in Baldurs Gate?
Dragon Age has shown that there is no problem with replacing a generic fantasy setting (which FR is) with another.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> If you look at your posting times you are posting way after my edits.




I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about the times when one hits the reply button and the submit button other than that there is a finite period of time between the two.  But that aside, please put new content in new posts; I am seeing even now additional content in a post that wasn't there when I originally hit reply.  Thanks. The edit button is best used to correct typos and the like, not to add entirely new paragraphs and points.

It's just a little courteous request to help make this conversation possible.  I'd appreciate it.


----------



## n00bdragon (Aug 6, 2013)

"For the last time." Sure, until they change it again. Raise your hand if you've heard this line or something like it from comic books before. The gods of Forgotten Realms bow to Ao, and Ao bows the most supreme god of all: The Status Quo.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about the times when one hits the reply button and the submit button other than that there is a finite period of time between the two.  But that aside, please put new content in new posts; I am seeing even now additional content in a post that wasn't there when I originally hit reply.  Thanks. The edit button is best used to correct typos and the like, not to add entirely new paragraphs and points.




I usually don't like double posting in a thread but ok.
I don't think there is any need to say any more anyway.

I don't like that WotC is using a game they hardly acknowledged before and had no active influence in to now heavily promote the new edition. I also see WotC resorting to this either as a lack of ideas or, imo more likely, as a fear by WotC that the FR has lost too much of its brand recognition to hype/attract PnP players on its own.
And if WotC really only uses the symbols and the Sundering has no real connection to the video games it is especially audacious (is that the correct one? There are so many different words for that concept in English).


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> And how much of that really mattered in Baldurs Gate?




Quite a bit. Truth is, most people bought it because it was a computer RPG version of D&D, not because it was Bioware/Black Isle. They were the ones who were making a game using licensed IP, that their own IP is also in there doesn't negate that fact.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> And if WotC really only uses the symbols has the Sundering has no real connection the the video games it is especially audacious (is that the correct one? There are so many different words for that concept in English).




Which symbol are you referring to?  The Bhaal symbol? It predates Baldur's Gate by at least a decade.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Quite a bit. Truth is, most people bought it because it was a computer RPG version of D&D, not because it was Bioware/Black Isle. They were the ones who were making a game using licensed IP, that their own IP is also in there doesn't negate that fact.




I remember it quite differently.
The first game was bought because it was a RPG in a time where this genre was thought dead. And the second one was bought because it was Baldurs Gate (franchise) and Black Island/Bioware. That fame followed them to Neverwinter, Dragon Age and Mass Effect.
Some people might have bought them because of D&D, but no one credited WotC with the success of the games.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Which symbol are you referring to?  The Bhaal symbol? It predates Baldur's Gate by at least a decade.




Yes the Bhaal symbol.
And while it predates Baldurs Gate, as far as I know, there was no specific link between Bladurs Gate and Bhaal & his symbol before the video game. Correct me when I am wrong.
But now the complete city map of Baldurs Gate is plastered over with Bhaal symbols. Why? Coincidence? Certainly not.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> Yes the Bhaal symbol.
> And while it predates Baldurs Gate, as far as I know, there was no specific link between Bladurs Gate and Bhaal & his symbol before the video game. Correct me when I am wrong.
> But now the complete city map of Baldurs Gate is plastered over with Bhaal symbols.




That's_ it_? That's the complaint?  

It was Bioware putting TSR's symbol of TSR's Bhaal and TSR's Baldur's Gate together in TSR's Forgotten Realms using TSR's D&D rules that was the only important part?  Not any of the rest of it?



> Coincidence? Certainly not.




I don't think anybody has ever claimed that marketing happens by coincidence.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That's_ it_
> It was Bioware putting TSR's symbol of TSR's Bhaal and TSR's Baldur's Gate together in TSR's Forgotten Realms using TSR's D&D rules that was the only important part?  Not any of the rest of it?




And whats your point here? That those things are the reason for the success of the video game which would have tanked if it had used a different license or something created by Bioware or that because TSR once invented those two things there is no problem using them for marketing reasons by clearly invoking a connection to games they did not created and till now hardly acknowledge?

I think you are vastly overestimating the contributions of D&D to the success of the Baldurs Gate video games. When the first game came out there was no competition on the market. No matter the license, RPG players would have bought as long as it was good (which it was). It was probably the first time many people even heard of D&D so the license did nothing for them to advertise the game.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> I think you are vastly overestimating the contributions of D&D to the success of the Baldurs Gate video games.




I don't think I am. That would require me to estimate the contributions of D&D to the success of the Baldurs Gate video games, which I haven't done.  I haven't even commented on the success of the BG video games; it's not relevant to my point.

What I HAVE commented on is your assertion that WotC is ripping off a video game, when it's clearly using its own IP and using it as it is meant to be used.

Whether or not you find that to your taste is another matter entirely.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 6, 2013)

I can think of plenty of reasons not to like the Sundering that has nothing to do with successful video games.

For instance, apparently Mystra's back. I think WotC messed up a lot of things with 4e's version of the Realms, but killing off Mystra was one of the bright spots. And now it's being reverted.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> I remember it quite differently.
> The first game was bought because it was a RPG in a time where this genre was thought dead. And the second one was bought because it was Baldurs Gate (franchise) and Black Island/Bioware. That fame followed them to Neverwinter, Dragon Age and Mass Effect.
> Some people might have bought them because of D&D, but no one credited WotC with the success of the games.




I suspect you're the oddball on this one. I'd bet the D&D license sold Baldur's Gate just like it sold the SSI gold box games, since Bioware was the unknown at the time. Sure, their success with it may have brought them their own well-deserved fans, but their D&D license got them into the public eye.

I'm not sure the D&D owners don't deserve some credit for the success of the games. Do you think they'd have been equally successful if they had been built on completely original IP and not a widely known licensed property? Bioware built its rep bringing licensed IP to market and doing it well.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> What I HAVE commented on is your assertion that WotC is ripping off a video game




They are not "ripping off" a video game, at least as far as we know. In the end it remains to be seen when they release the story/module for the Sundering.
What they are doing is that they are using the fame of a product they had hardly any contributions to (no meaningful ones in my eyes) which they also have ignored for 15 years to now promote their own stuff because they apparently don't think their stuff is good enough or because they ran out of ideas.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> What they are doing is that they are using the fame of a product they had hardly any contributions to (no meaningful ones in my eyes) which they also have ignored for 15 years to now promote their own stuff because they apparently don't think their stuff is good enough or because they ran out of ideas.




Yeah, so you keep saying.  Do you need me to disagree yet again, or can we take it as read?


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 6, 2013)

The D&D game and the Forgotten Realms setting obviously had a big influence on the developers of Baldur's Gate. They were inspired by it, so they were directly inspired by TSR/WotC. There's somewhere a quote about it on the internet, how they were all big D&D and realms fans etc.

The game is dripping with Realmslore. Take your old Grey Box and read the entries of Baldur's Gate and its surroundings. The team at Bioware faithfully recreated the whole western Sword Coast, right down to that famous NPC smith and that NPC hedge wizard in Beregost. Please, do me a favor, and read it.

WotC has all the rights to use its IP to its fullest potential, especially as it introduced so many new faces to the setting (me included).

-YRUSirius


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, so you keep saying.  Do you need me to disagree yet again, or can we take it as read?




And what exactly will you disagree with?
That WotC is using Baldurs Gate to promote the Sundering?
That they ignored the video games so far with only devoting maybe a few sentences in a single book to it if at all?
That WotC did not actively participate in making the Baldurs Gate video games?
That it is bad style to use a product someone else made and you ignored for 15 years to promote your product does look a bit desperate?

Your entire point to me seems to be that just because Baldurs Gate used the D&D license WotC deserves a big part of the credit for the game and using it to promote the Sundering does in no way bad style and does not mean that WotC does not believe in the power of the FR brand any more or have run out of ideas how to promote the Sundering to attract customers any better.

If that is your point, I simply think differently. And that the Sundering seems to be one giant retcon reinforces me in that believe.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> What they are doing is that they are using the fame of a product they had hardly any contributions to (no meaningful ones in my eyes)




It was TSR's own friggin rulessystem and setting, how much more can you contribute?

-YRUSirius


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 6, 2013)

What they did with the 4E realms killed any interest I have in it going forward.  

(Unless, of course, it was all just a dream.  Ha!)

I'd *love* it if they went back to where it was at the start of 3E.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

YRUSirius said:


> It was TSR's own friggin rulessystem and setting, how much more can you contribute?
> 
> -YRUSirius




Story, Design, Coding,...


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> And what exactly will you disagree with?




I feel like I've just gone back in time.  Didn't we just have an entire thread about that?  With all due respect, I don't particularly fancy starting the whole conversation again from the beginning!


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I feel like I've just gone back in time.  Didn't we just have an entire thread about that?  With all due respect, I don't particularly fancy starting the whole conversation again from the beginning!




Most of the time you talked about IP ownership and edit etiquette. So no, we didn't had that already.
Just say if my assessment of your point is true or not. If it is then everything has been said. If not, feel free to correct me or not. By now you should know how I feel about this Sundering - Baldurs Gate connection and the only ones who can change my feeling is WotC in case they manage to pull it of really awesomely which I doubt.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> And what exactly will you disagree with?
> That it is bad style to use a product someone else made and you ignored for 15 years to promote your product does look a bit desperate?




TSR/WotC licensed their products (the D&D rules and the Forgotten Realms setting) to Bioware, so Bioware could use WotC's successful products to promote and sell their own.

Now WotC is using their OWN products (The IP of Baldur's Gate is theirs) to promote and sell their own products.

If you ask a roleplaying newbie what rulesset the computer game "Baldur's Gate" is using, what do you think will be their answer?

-YRUSirius


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> Story, Design, Coding,...




So you want a computer game programmed by Ed Greenwood et.? Nice. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> . By now you should know how I feel about this




Oh, believe me, I don't think anybody is the slightest doubt about how you feel about this!


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 6, 2013)

I kind of see what Derren is getting at. Bioware took parts of FR (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter, Bhaal) and did the heavy lifting to make them popular. The face of TSR/WotC's FR at the time was Waterdeep, Icewind Dale, Cyric and Mystra. There's no question that Bioware built off a lot of TSR/WotC's work, and now WotC is building off Bioware's work.

To use a different example, consider Knights of the Old Republic. It's clearly based off Star Wars, but it's also it's own entity. If the next Star Wars movie came out in the KotoR time period and referenced Revan, it would be clear that Disney is building off Bioware's work.

However, I don't see anything wrong with that. Bioware expanded those universes with style, and I think it's great that the parent company would use those expansions.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> I kind of see what Derren is getting at. Bioware took parts of FR (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter, Bhaal) and did the heavy lifting to make them popular.




Companies don't license their IP to others in order to make them less popular.  That's a licensing arrangement which clearly had exactly the desired effect - for both parties.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> However, I don't see anything wrong with that. Bioware expanded those universes with style, and I think it's great that the parent company would use those expansions.




It would have been great if they used it 15 years ago. Using it now seems cheap to me, as if WotC is digging in their closet to find something they can use for promoting the Sundering.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> It would have been great if they used it 15 years ago.




But... why?  Do you think the video games' feelings have been hurt?  That it is feeling neglected?  That this is somehow analagous to a deadbeat dad expecting a child he never met to look after him in his old age, or something?  It's only IP.  It's not a person.  It doesn't mind, honestly.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> It would have been great if they used it 15 years ago.




Yes, they should have. But they didn't. And that's a shame. That's the reason why I think it's so cool that they rectify their missed chance and that they capitalize on that right now. They bring out the heavy hitters to show the pen and paper newbie where the cool setting from that cool game from 15 years ago came from. It just makes sense.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> But... why?  Do you think the video games' feelings have been hurt?  That it is feeling neglected?  That this is somehow analagous to a deadbeat dad expecting a child he never met to look after him in his old age, or something?  It's only IP.  It's not a person.  It doesn't mind, honestly.




As I said, by now it feels as if WotC are rummaging through their closet to find something still popular with D&D. If the events of the games were a lot more referenced in the setting than what I have seen it wouldn't feel that way to me.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 6, 2013)

So Derren, would you find it equally objectionable for WotC to publish a new adventure that was a followup to something published 15-20 years ago by TSR (and never subsequently referenced again- I dunno, maybe Labyrinth of Madness or something)?


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

YRUSirius said:


> Yes, they should have. But they didn't. And that's a shame. That's the reason why I think it's so cool that they rectify their missed chance and that they capitalize on that right now. They bring out the heavy hitters to show the pen and paper newbie where the cool setting from that cool game from 15 years ago came from. It just makes sense.
> 
> -YRUSirius




If they actually do that.
We do not know if the events of the Sundering are in any way related to the events of Baldurs Gate or if they are just plastering Baldurs Gate with Bhaal symbols to get some fame of the video games even though the Sundering has nothing to do with them.


----------



## Derren (Aug 6, 2013)

the Jester said:


> So Derren, would you find it equally objectionable for WotC to publish a new adventure that was a followup to something published 15-20 years ago by TSR (and never subsequently referenced again- I dunno, maybe Labyrinth of Madness or something)?




No, because TSR did do Labyrinth of Madness by themselves. But as far as I see that is not an FR adventure so its kinda hard to reference.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 6, 2013)

Derren said:


> If they actually do that.
> We do not know if the events of the Sundering are in any way related to the events of Baldurs Gate or if they are just plastering Baldurs Gate with Bhaal symbols to get some fame of the video games even though the Sundering has nothing to do with them.




Read the "Murdering in Baldur's Gate" documents in the new playtest package.



Spoiler



Bhaalspawn etc. The document gives a lot of hints and even talks about tracking "Favor Points" with Bhaal. Bhaal is about to be resurrected it seems. NPCs try to win the favor of Bhaal. Reminds me of a certain scheme of some blackguard called Sarevok.



-YRUSirius


----------



## JeffB (Aug 6, 2013)

I am getting tennis-neck here.

WOTC, if you are listeniing, please Sunder the last 4 pages of this thread. Yeesh.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 7, 2013)

Derren said:


> As I said, by now it feels as if WotC are rummaging through their closet to find something still popular with D&D.




Should they try and rummage through the 4E FR to find something popular to promote their new old realms? 

With all that talk about Bhaal they even reference the very popular 1E Grey Box. It's a super nice nod to the old school realms. And it's even niftier that Baldur's Gate is such a highly cherished popular PC game too.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Derren (Aug 7, 2013)

YRUSirius said:


> Should they try and rummage through the 4E FR to find something popular to promote their new old realms?
> 
> With all that talk about Bhaal they even reference the very popular 1E Grey Box. It's a super nice nod to the old school realms. And it's even niftier that Baldur's Gate is such a highly cherished popular PC game too.
> 
> -YRUSirius




I guess it depends on how you feel about retcons in general.
I do not like them, even when they restore something I liked. Time progresses forward and settings should, too.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 7, 2013)

Yeah, I like reboots, even if they are soft reboots. It's just a fantasy world afterall.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2013)

Derren said:


> As I said, by now it feels as if WotC are rummaging through their closet to find something still popular with D&D. If the events of the games were a lot more referenced in the setting than what I have seen it wouldn't feel that way to me.




Yes, but you still haven't explained why that's a bad thing.  Other than you feel it is like "rummaging through a closet" (which is what closets are for, no?)


----------



## Blackwarder (Aug 7, 2013)

The thing that really piss me off is the requirement to use Facebook, frack Facebook I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole.

I'm reading The Companions (loving it so far btw) and I ordered the Murder in Bulder's Gate adventure but I'm really disappointed with this stupid Facebook logging.

Warder


----------



## Derren (Aug 7, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Yes, but you still haven't explained why that's a bad thing.




I think I have a few times by now. But in the end you can't really explain feelings.
I just don't see referencing 15 year old video games and having a giant retcon as a good sign for the Sundering.
Either WotC is desperate for customers so they pull every trick in the book, doesn't believe the FR is a strong brand any more and thus need to reference external, so far ignored, products (+ the retcon) or simply has no ideas of their own (at least ideas they are convinced off to not be bad).
There is a reason for using Baldurs Gate references now and not before, reasons that go beyond "Hey, you know what would be nice acknowledge in the setting? Those video games everyone liked".


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 7, 2013)

But you know why they might be so desperate about their flagship setting?

-YRUSirius


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2013)

Derren said:


> There is a reason for using Baldurs Gate references now




You keep saying that as though it has a moral value attached. Yes, of course there are reasons.  I'd be appalled to find they were doing things without reason.  Are reasons a bad thing, now?



> doesn't believe the FR is a strong brand any more




But it's not that.  Who knows what their reasons are?  I don't.  You definitely don't, either.  But that ain't it.  I don't know why we have to invent shady, nefarious reasons for perfectly sensible strategies.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 7, 2013)

Having watched the vid the big shock for me is that it is pronounced FAE-RUNE not FAE-RUN!


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2013)

mach1.9pants said:


> Having watched the vid the big shock for me is that it is pronounced FAE-RUNE not FAE-RUN!




You clearly haven't yet acquainted yourself with the D&D Pronunciation Guide!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 7, 2013)

Nope I haven't, don't intend to either! I've been pronouncing it as FAE-RUN (as it is spelt FAE-RUNE should be faeruun, faerune or maybe faeruhn) for over 25 years, too old to change now!


----------



## JeffB (Aug 7, 2013)

mach1.9pants said:


> Having watched the vid the big shock for me is that it is pronounced FAE-RUNE not FAE-RUN!




Original pronunciation is actually Fay-er-roon. The ER runs into ROON  pretty quick so they just started sayng Fay Roon in materials after the OGB..


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 7, 2013)

Probably is in the OGB like that I guess, but it never stuck with me


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 7, 2013)

It was written as Faerûn too.

-YRUSirius


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 7, 2013)

Yeah it was too! But teenage me probably never knew what the ^ meant, just decoration to look cool  You can figure that out in seconds on the internet but not in the 80s!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 7, 2013)

Derren said:


> And what exactly will you disagree with?
> That WotC is using Baldurs Gate to promote the Sundering?
> That they ignored the video games so far with only devoting maybe a few sentences in a single book to it if at all?
> That WotC did not actively participate in making the Baldurs Gate video games?
> ...




Umm, didn't WOTC publish THREE Baldur's gate's novelizations?  Yup, doing a bit of fact checking, that's true.  And, IIRC, the events of the video games are considered canon for LFR throughout 3e.  Yup, that's true too.  So, basically, WOTC has had ongoing support and promotion for the video games up to 2008 when 4e and the Spellplague came along.  

How is that "devoting a few sentences in a single book"?


----------



## dd.stevenson (Aug 7, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Yes, but you still haven't explained why that's a bad thing.  Other than you feel it is like "rummaging through a closet" (which is what closets are for, no?)




I don't know if this was [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] 's point or not, but I found their over-reliance on Baldur's Gate a little tasteless. Like, if I had just stumbled across this video in the wild I would have assumed it was a trailer for a new video game titled "Baldur's Gate III: the Sundering". 

I say this as a HUGE fan of the video game series, if that helps.


----------



## ShaneB (Aug 7, 2013)

What I find surprising is the surprise that WotC are retconning the Realms. From the moment that they started D&DNext they have been pretty clear that they were bringing Ed back in to "revert" the Forgotten Realms to Ed's vision (if not version) of the Realms. As for the whole BG and IP and stuff I am fairly sure that I read somewhere years back that Ed had a fairly large impact on the story for the BG games (not so much the IWD ones) so WotC going back to tie these things back together seems like just an extension of their already specified want to return to Ed's vision of the Realms.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2013)

dd.stevenson said:


> I don't know if this was  @_*Derren*_  's point or not, but I found their over-reliance on Baldur's Gate a little tasteless.




That's what I'm not connecting with.  I don't know how you act tastelessly towards a video game.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 7, 2013)

It's threads like this that make me very glad that D&D is in the hands of businesspeople, and not hobbyists.

I mean, you've got a hugely successful video game, that was just released a year ago to pretty good reception (despite some current issues).  Something that is broadly known far outside the niche of D&D gamers who play in Forgotten Realms.  But, apparently, despite the fact that WOTC owns virtually 100% of the IP of that video game, playing on its popularity to drive marketing is a bad thing somehow.  

Of course, no one has even begun to suggest what other FR IP we should be using instead of probably the best known FR IP outside of maybe Drizz't.  

So, Derren, put your money where your mouth is.  If you were going to relaunch Forgotten Realms with the Sundering, what FR IP would you be leaning on?


----------



## dd.stevenson (Aug 7, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That's what I'm not connecting with.  I don't know how you act tastelessly towards a video game.




Tasteless as in lacking aesthetic judgement.

I can agree that no video games were victimized by this clip.


----------



## Squire James (Aug 7, 2013)

All this tends to remind me of Dragonlance, where cataclysms and ret-cons were all over the place.  Since I already have enough Realms material to choke a Terrasque, and I'm not particularly interested in spending several hundred more dollars on yet another edition of D&D, I'll pass.  That's not saying the material is bad or good - in my case it doesn't matter.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 7, 2013)

DaveMage said:


> What they did with the 4E realms killed any interest I have in it going forward.
> 
> (Unless, of course, it was all just a dream.  Ha!)




Largely my feelings as well.

From what I've seen they admit the mistakes made with 4e FR and honestly intend to make 5e FR something that resembles the popular setting prior to that point. I loved FR prior to 4e, and I want to love it again, but leaving the 4e changes and 4e's own bevy of retcons to the setting in place in some capacity really sours me on the Realms as a whole moving forward. Other settings have since caught my eye for the atmosphere and style that initially attracted me to FR, and while I'll look at the 5e material, because of what happened in 4e, there's going to be a substantially higher barrier to overcome to gain and keep my attention.


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 7, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That's what I'm not connecting with.  I don't know how you act tastelessly towards a video game.




I'll try for another stab at describing the issue. 

To me, Baldur's Gate is fan fiction. It's _authorized_ fan fiction, and quite good fan fiction at that. But it's still fan fiction. To see the original authors drop their own work and embrace this one is a little ... disconcerting, I guess.

WotC's Forgotten Realms should be Waterdeep and Shadowdale. Helm, Torm, and Mystra. Sure, Baldur's Gate and Bhaal should be present. But they should be secondary characters, not primary ones.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2013)

It's a problem with authenticity.

Which ultimately feels a lot to me like some pointless tribalism. "No, you're not allowed in, you're _a videogame_. That's not what we are."

....hmmm....

/me goes to write an article....


----------



## Plaguescarred (Aug 7, 2013)

There is also lots of interviews and announcements on the web released yesterday. Here's a few;


CNBC  www.cnbc.com/id/100942206
IGN     ca.ign.com/articles/2013/08/06/dungeons-...
IGN     talkgeek.net/community/threads/massive-y...
Forbes www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/08/06...


----------



## Plaguescarred (Aug 7, 2013)

Derren said:


> What they are doing is that they are using the fame of a product they had hardly any contributions to (no meaningful ones in my eyes) which they also have ignored for 15 years to now promote their own stuff because they apparently don't think their stuff is good enough or because they ran out of ideas.



There was hype about Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition in end of 2012/start of 2013 and the D&D Website http://www.wizards.com/dnd/videogames.aspx has a link to it. WoTC cares so much about its IP that the game was removed from sales due to disagreement with publishing partners, as they announced.  http://www.baldursgate.com/


----------



## dd.stevenson (Aug 7, 2013)

Plaguescarred said:


> There was hype about Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition in end of 2012/start of 2013 and the D&D Website http://www.wizards.com/dnd/videogames.aspx has a link to it. WoTC cares so much about its IP that the game was removed from sales due to disagreement with publishing partners, as they announced.  http://www.baldursgate.com/




I suggest you google "atari baldurs gate" and bask in the glory of the information age.


----------



## Plaguescarred (Aug 7, 2013)

Just did thanks. Because the publishing partners wasn't mentioned in BG site, i thought it was a disagreement with WoTC, like for the upcoming D&D movie by Solomon, but it appears its with Atari sorry my bad.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Aug 7, 2013)

And I in turn apologize for any unnecessary sarcasm on my end. Alcohol and posting don't mix so well. To say nothing of the endless Jdramas I'm being forced to endure.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 7, 2013)

Out of my own curiosity I went back and watched the author panels from the 2012 GenCon on The Sundering event... what the first six novels were going to do, and how the event would play out in the FR timeline and in the D&DNext game itself.  If you haven't watched it, it'll answer a lot of questions.

First... The Sundering isn't a true "reboot" or "remake"... because the setting _is not_ going back in time.  The timeline is advancing just as it always has.  So it is still post-hundred-year-jump, post-Spellplague.

Second... the story is playing directly off of a plotline established in the Times of Trouble novels-- Shadowdale, Tantras & Waterdeep.  Towards the end of that series, Ao the overgod destroyed the Tables of Fate... thus allowing the gods to go nuts on Toril (and apparently the primordials similarly to go nuts on Abeir).  As James Wyatt and the other authors talk about it in the video... this "Third Sundering" (there have been three according to canon) is Lord Ao bringing to an end these 150 years (approx.) of rampart deity nuttiness (called The Era of Upheaval)... recreating the Tablets of Fate, and bringing all the gods (on Toril) and primordials (on Abeir) back under the strictures of their portfolios and shunting them back to their divine realms to stop them from screwing around on the planet so much anymore.  And thus... the Forgotten Realms will now be more about the peoples of the Realms and much less about the gods flittering about.

Now yes... you could say that parts of the Realms are like a "reboot" in that now that Ao is basically cleaning up the mess from the Era of Upheaval that began with the Avatar Crisis.  So a lot of what occurred during these 150 years will be wiped up... the Spellplague fixed, dead gods brought back, current gods who had ascended being dropped back down, the parts of Abeir that showed up from the Spellplague merge getting sent back etc.  But none of it is being erased from "history" as far as I can tell.  Ao isn't going to wipe the memories of every single god and creature to make them forget what has happened these last 150 years.  Historians will still know that the first Mystara died during the Avatar Crisis, Midnight ascended to become Mystara, Cyric then killed Midnight/Mystara to being the Spellplague... even though the original Mystara now returns to her place as the holder of the arcane magic portfolio post-Sundering.

"Soft reboot" is perhaps what you can call it.  But time in the Realms is moving forward, and we are now in a new era of mortals holding their own destiny, rather than just as playthings of the gods.


----------



## BC1 (Aug 7, 2013)

1) WotC did bring "Baldur's Gate" into the PnP world - they put out a whole "Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate II", one of the first books they produced after getting the D&D franchise and one of the last of the 2E books.  So, they never completely ignored it.  "Neverwinter Nights," "Icewind Dale" and "Torment," those are different stories.  2) This wouldn't be the first time WotC piggybacked their PnP material to a video game.  Does no one remember the massive push behind "Neverwinter" (novels, source book, Encounters adventure) - years before the game itself even came out?  3) Yes, Bioware created fan-fic.  Actually, they created a campaign that everyone could play and TSR could use for their purposes if they saw fit.  In other words, TSR outsourced writing an adventure.  For them not to use it is silly (again, see the other video games mentioned above).  4) So what if they haven't gone back to this well in a while?  How many of you heard of "Guardians of the Galaxy" before the movie was announced?  Pretty good series from the 80's, revived in the 90's, revived again in the 2000's, now subject of a major motion picture.  See, happens all the time.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2013)

BC1 said:


> 2) This wouldn't be the first time WotC piggybacked their PnP material to a video game.  Does no one remember the massive push behind "Neverwinter" (novels, source book, Encounters adventure) - years before the game itself even came out?




Which Neverwinter game are you referring to? The Bioware one or the SSI/America OnLine version from 1991? If you're referring to the Bioware one, my guess is most of the other Neverwinter stuff that came before that game was probably part of an active cross-promotion with the original Neverwinter Nights game.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 7, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Which Neverwinter game are you referring to? The Bioware one or the SSI/America OnLine version from 1991? If you're referring to the Bioware one, my guess is most of the other Neverwinter stuff that came before that game was probably part of an active cross-promotion with the original Neverwinter Nights game.




Actually, I think he's referring to the free-to-play Neverwinter MMO that was released in June.  The Neverwinter Campaign Setting book and Encounters season I think were meant to be released alongside it concurrently, but the game got pushed back.


----------



## BC1 (Aug 7, 2013)

Yes, the MMO was what I was referring to.  It was kind of comical to look at the copyright date on Salvatore's "Gauntlgrym" and see it was 2009.  I think the sourcebook came out a year later.  All for the "upcoming" video game.


----------



## Blackwarder (Aug 8, 2013)

Just finished reading The Companions. I came to the book very skeptical, I stoped reading any FR book (mainly the Drizzt ones tbh since they were the ones I read) when 4e came out, it simply didn't feel like the realms to me, and in the first couple of chapters I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and make me throw the book in frustration (not really, I'm reading it on my iPad and my iPad is precious to me *gollum* *gollum*) but it never happened and I was quickly pulled into this great story.

so if you haven't, go and read it, it's great.

Warder


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 8, 2013)

World shaking events are boring as ****. Especially when you try to _start_ a new era in an intellectual property with one.

I don't care at all about your stupid world yet, guys. I don't care that you're blowing it up, or bringing gods back, or using the most cliched 'Extreme Fantasy Doom' word of them all: sunder. 

(Well I kind of care that you're using that word, because it sounds ridiculous, to the point that it was parodied by Penny Arcade with their fake fantasy setting's timeline, which had The Great Breakening, The Sundering, The Unsundering, and then The Resundering.)

Just start a new story, don't make it about world-shaking events, and let me grow attached to characters and locations. All you need to do is obliquely reference, "Oh yeah, some real crazy s*** went down a decade ago," and let that be that . . . for a few books. Then eventually, once we care about these characters, weave that backstory in so that it matters to what's happening now.

To me, starting with a multi-author interconnected world-spanning plot line is just getting ahead of yourself. Prove to me that you know what you're doing with one amazing story -- basically, get people talking about Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man -- and then see if you can build enough trust to create The Avengers.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 8, 2013)

[MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION], talk to me about the story. Why is it worth reading, especially if I've already swum in the waters of Salvatore for many an hour in my childhood? Is there anything really new?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 8, 2013)

RangerWickett said:


> Just start a new story, don't make it about world-shaking events, and let me grow attached to characters and locations. All you need to do is obliquely reference, "Oh yeah, some real crazy s*** went down a decade ago," and let that be that . . . for a few books. Then eventually, once we care about these characters, weave that backstory in so that it matters to what's happening now.




Trouble is they had one and they screwed it up. FR didn't start with any world-shaking events that I'm aware of and it built up a stable of characters that people were genuinely interested in. And *then* they started in with the world-shaking events with each edition change. I might argue that it has become something of a sacred cow for the owners of D&D to have some campaign event in FR to "justify" the changes in the mechanics from edition to edition - of course I'd be more inclined to say that was what should have been ground into hamburger rather than have the tradition continue.

Given my druthers, I'd turn the clock back on FR to before the Spellplague debacle and quietly pretend it never happened or that it was a "Days of Future Past" alternate timeline. Reboot from there.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 8, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I might argue that it has become something of a sacred cow for the owners of D&D to have some campaign event in FR to "justify" the changes in the mechanics from edition to edition - of course I'd be more inclined to say that was what should have been ground into hamburger rather than have the tradition continue.




To be fair, that did solve the problems of reconciling game material-based changes with their in-game reflections. It is possible to simply retcon any changes (which, if I recall correctly, was what they did from 2E to 3.X) as having "always been that way," but sometimes the changes are big enough that you need a reason for why things are suddenly so different.



> _Given my druthers, I'd turn the clock back on FR to before the Spellplague debacle and quietly pretend it never happened or that it was a "Days of Future Past" alternate timeline. Reboot from there._




When I heard about how some of the forthcoming adventures will let groups report how the adventure went, and that will be incorporated into future Realms material, I wanted to start a movement to have end their report with "and then the PCs went back in time and stopped the Spellplague."


----------



## BC1 (Aug 8, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> To be fair, that did solve the problems of reconciling game material-based changes with their in-game reflections. It is possible to simply retcon any changes (which, if I recall correctly, was what they did from 2E to 3.X) as having "always been that way," but sometimes the changes are big enough that you need a reason for why things are suddenly so different.




They sort of did that between 2nd and 3rd, though they had to go and add in new mechanics like the Dark Weave and mess with the cosmology (FR was no longer part of the Great Wheel with the other worlds but was its own thing).  No Realms-shattering event was really needed since the mechanics weren't changing that much.  4E needed something because of major changes to gameplay and the introduction of races like Dragonborn, but I think everyone agrees that the method, plus the setting's tone, were way off from what players wanted.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 8, 2013)

RangerWickett said:


> World shaking events are boring as ****. Especially when you try to _start_ a new era in an intellectual property with one.
> 
> I don't care at all about your stupid world yet, guys. I don't care that you're blowing it up, or bringing gods back, or using the most cliched 'Extreme Fantasy Doom' word of them all: sunder.
> 
> ...




This post is a flawless victory.  When I quipped "weak" earlier in the thread, this was the post that I didn't write.


----------



## Feeroper (Aug 8, 2013)

I have been a realms fan for a very long time, and unlike alot of people here, I have enjoyed the changing nature of the realms and the RSE's. When 4e hit and the Spellplague, I  actually really liked it. I thought it took alot of guts to do, and stick with. Obviously in the end it was received very poorly and Im sure if they could go back in time they wouldnt have done it, but i think the realms are all the better for it. Its kept it fresh and interesting. 

Im really excited about the Sundering, and although it clearly is an excuse to bring the realms back to its former state, Im very glad they didnt decide to pretend the Spellplague didnt happen. They are sticking to their guns and trudging on. This is what makes the Realms great I think, it feels like it is alive, not static. 

I also like more static settings like Golarion, but I find the problem with them is that they do get stale, and you dont get alot of good interplay between stories as they are not assumned to have happened. Alot of people prefer that, and thats fine obviously, but for me, I prefer to have a more organic setting. 

Sometimes I think that some of the vitriol towards the setting is more to do with it being WotC as they are sort of public enemy #1 to alot of gamers. I remember before the Spellplague all the harsh criticism re: having too many ultrapowerful NPCs and too many places very detailed by the novel line (however Spellplague was a much harsher reaction, especially combined with the backlash from 4e). Regardless though, Im really excited for The Sundering, and cant wait to see what is going to happen.


----------



## Feeroper (Aug 9, 2013)

Sorry, accidental double post.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 9, 2013)

Derren said:


> > I think you are vastly overestimating the contributions of D&D to the success of the Baldurs Gate video games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wicht (Aug 9, 2013)

Feeroper said:


> I also like more static settings like Golarion, but I find the problem with them is that they do get stale, and you dont get alot of good interplay between stories as they are not assumned  to have happened.




The beginning of the Shattered Star adventure path says different. It very much takes place after the events of preceding APs. In fact, my kids, who played through the entirety of Rise of the Runelords were very enthused in tying their new heroes in with their old heroes in some way, so that the world proceeds apace.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 9, 2013)

Granted, Golarion is more static than say the Realms, but there is some change in future storylines based on events in old story lines, but they are telling the world's history through the APs, which I kind-of like, personally.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 9, 2013)

Which WotC is trying now too with their Sundering AP.  

-YRUSirius


----------



## Wicht (Aug 9, 2013)

I appreciate, actually, that WotC is now taking some leads from Paizo.  I found out today that the recently published WotC adventure, Murder in Baldur's Gate, is being released with Pathfinder compatible stats able to be downloaded to run the adventure using Pathfinder, which pleases me. If WotC keeps publishing Pathfinder compatible adventure material, I will most certainly give their adventures a look-see.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 9, 2013)

Wicht said:


> I found out today that the recently published WotC adventure, Murder in Baldur's Gate, is being released with Pathfinder compatible stats able to be downloaded to run the adventure using Pathfinder, which pleases me.



The product page for _Murder in Baldur's Gate_ includes downloads for using the adventure with 3.5e, 4e and D&D Next rules -- these are mostly monster and NPC stat blocks. That means it isn't properly Pathfinder compatible, but 3.5e compatible, which is nearly-but-not-quite the same thing.


----------



## thewok (Aug 9, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> First... The Sundering isn't a true "reboot" or "remake"... because the setting _is not_ going back in time.  The timeline is advancing just as it always has.  So it is still post-hundred-year-jump, post-Spellplague.



Just wanted to echo what Defcon is saying here: there is no retcon.  A retcon would mean that WotC is going back into the Forgotten Realms and changing the history.  That is not happening.  The history of the Forgotten Realms will move forward.  The Many-Arrows kingdom was formed, the Spellplague happened, Abeir and Toril merged, Neverwinter was destroyed by a primordial, and so on.  Pick up _The Companions_ and see that it picks up after _The Last Threshold_.  Not-really-spoilers follow:



Spoiler



Cattie-Brie, Bruenor and Regis choose to be reborn so they can be with Drizzt again, not because Drizzt is that awesome (though Cattie-Brie does love him still), but because Mielikki says that _he_ needs _them_.  Wulfgar, however, declines this opportunity and continues on to his reward at Tempus' side.  So, the Companions of the Hall will be reformed, but in a post-Spellplague world, and not by going back in time and saying that nothing happened.



Sword and Laser had a pretty good interview with Salvatore about the Sundering from the time _The Last Threshold_ released.  They went into the difference between how the writers were treated in the lead-up to 4E and now.  it was not pretty back then.

I have to say that I really enjoyed the Neverwinter saga.  I enjoy the Dahlia character, and I like Ambergris a lot.  I'm hoping to see them in the future.

Back to the point of IP: everything belongs to Wizards of the Coast.  Salvatore created Drizzt, but WotC owns the character.  It's the same with Baldur's Gate.  Bioware really brought it to the forefront of the Forgotten Realms, at least until they did Neverwinter Nights, where Neverwinter took the spotlight.  Even so, WotC is the owner of that IP.  Star Wars is the same way: Timothy Zahn created an excellent character in Grand Admiral Thrawn, but that character, from the mere fact that he appeared in an official Star Wars novel, became the property of Lucasfilm Ltd. (who sold everything to Disney).


----------



## Feeroper (Aug 9, 2013)

Wicht said:


> The beginning of the Shattered Star adventure path says different. It very much takes place after the events of preceding APs. In fact, my kids, who played through the entirety of Rise of the Runelords were very enthused in tying their new heroes in with their old heroes in some way, so that the world proceeds apace.




I know Shatered Star had that as a concept and I was very excited to see it, but didnt think it went far enough. James Jacobs has since stated that was a one time experiment, and that it is one of the least successful AP's (sorry I dont have a cite, it was comments he was making on their forums). Every AP since has reverted ot the "no other AP/module/story has happened" stance. They are very adament about not advancing the story beyond just moving up the date every year. There is nothing wrond with doing it that way, and in fact it is that way by design, I just find that to me, it gets stale and I prefer a more organic breathing world. The upcomming Wrath of the Rightous AP has the potential to deal with some very world altering events with the Worldwound, and I'd be disappointed if there werent some kind of consequence in the world going forward as a result. However, I do enjoy Golarion overall, its just that, in my opinion, it doesnt have that same dynamic and living feel that FR has. Dont get me wrong though, I do love Golarion, it definetly has some quality stories and great module writing from Paizo and you can easily get lost in the stories of the world.

But alas, this isnt a Golarion thread, my apologies for derailing a bit here, and my thanks to you Wicht for not ripping my head off in your reply.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 9, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I know I picked up the BG series simply because it was a D&D game using the 2nd edition ruleset.  I still play through the infinity engine games because it's the only way to get an AD&D fix on the computer.  The gold box games are a bit dated and I'm too spoiled by modern interfaces.  The forgotten realms logo didn't make a bit of difference.  It was AD&D!  on the computer again finally!  That's all that mattered.




Indeed - I originally bought Baldur's Gate because I'd played D&D in school in my youth, and wanted an RPG that used that ruleset. I enjoyed the game and its sequel so much that when Bioware were developing Neverwinter Nights, I joined the development forums and actually bought the 3e rulebooks purely in order to participate in the discussions.

And having bought and read the rulebooks, I was inspired to finally seek out local RPG clubs and get back into playing tabletop RPGs. So not only do I directly relate the games to the D&D setting, I consider them responsible for me getting back into D&D after a 15-year break, re-introducing me to what has since become my favourite pastime.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 9, 2013)

Derren said:


> Okay
> 1. The intro of the video looks a lot like the videos they use in League of Legends, just something I noticed.



Other than the FR namedrops, felt like a generic fantasy MMORPG opening.



> 2. So the Sundering seems to be one giant 4E "retcon", undoing everything which happened to the realms during the Spellplague.



Since the folks who backed 4E are mostly likely to be most upset anyways, might as well tick em off more.



> 3.They bring Bhaal back and feature Baldurs Gate prominently. Is WotC really that desperate that they have to ride this hard on the success of the video games?



If they have any sense they certainly will! Getting free advertisement from the very existence of a time proven video game property is a no duh decision. To not do so would be a dereliction of duty to the Hasbro shareholders.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 9, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> I'll try for another stab at describing the issue.
> 
> To me, Baldur's Gate is fan fiction. It's _authorized_ fan fiction, and quite good fan fiction at that. But it's still fan fiction. To see the original authors drop their own work and embrace this one is a little ... disconcerting, I guess.





> You could say that any Batman fan writing a Batman comic is writing fan fiction.
> —Neil Gaiman




http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RunningTheAsylum


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 9, 2013)

Sigh - I cannot believe I actually read through this meaningless thread. So I'll just contribute some quotes from Xan that sum things up nicely:

Interviewer: Xan, what does this thread prove about BG, WoTC, and the Sundering?


			
				Xan said:
			
		

> "Life is so hollow"




Interviewer: Have you read through this thread on Enworld


			
				Xan said:
			
		

> "It is hardly worth the effort of trying"




Interviewer: Would you comment on Bhaal's upcoming role in the Sundering?


			
				Xan said:
			
		

> "What is the point?"




Interviewer: If you could go back in time to the beginning of this thread and tell people one thing, what would it be?


			
				Xan said:
			
		

> "We're all doomed"




Interviewer: Some might say this is a classic "win the Internet" type thread. What are your thoughts on "win the Internet" type threads? 


			
				Xan said:
			
		

> "Their quest is vain"





Interviewer: "What is your opinion of anyone that continues to post in this thread?"


			
				Xan said:
			
		

> "Onward, to futility!"





Of course, we cannot talk BG and not quote Minsc:


			
				Minsc said:
			
		

> What? Boo is outraged! See his fury! It's small, so look close. Trust me, it's there.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 9, 2013)

Echohawk said:


> The product page for _Murder in Baldur's Gate_ includes downloads for using the adventure with 3.5e, 4e and D&D Next rules -- these are mostly monster and NPC stat blocks. That means it isn't properly Pathfinder compatible, but 3.5e compatible, which is nearly-but-not-quite the same thing.




Sigh.  Subsequent investigation shows that this is indeed the case and that my initial understanding of what I was told was off a bit.  It would have been really cool to have WotC produce a Pathfinder compatible something.... One can continue to dream...


----------



## Blackwarder (Aug 9, 2013)

amerigoV said:


> Sigh - I cannot believe I actually read through this meaningless thread. So I'll just contribute some quotes from Xan that sum things up nicely:
> 
> Interviewer: Xan, what does this thread prove about BG, WoTC, and the Sundering?
> 
> ...




Can't XP you but that is pure gold.

Warder


----------



## jodyjohnson (Aug 9, 2013)

I didn't see anything in the 'make your own encounters' style of this adventure to make it Pathfinder incompatible.  It's really compatible with anything since it is all plot and humanoids.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 12, 2013)

JeffB said:


> Bhaal makes a comeback. Did I see myrkul as well in the stained glass?
> 
> Might as well.retcon back to the OGB.
> 
> ...




This. I stopped purchasing FR products after they came out with the Time Of Troubles nonsense and 4E actually got me back in to the Realms.


----------



## Scars Unseen (Aug 12, 2013)

I'm...  conflicted.  On the one hand, I like that they are undoing the lion's share of the 4E changes, which collectively were the straw that broke the Scars Unseen's D&D buying back.  On the other hand, what I really wanted was for it to never have happened at all.  A retcon.  I guess realistically that couldn't happen without having to support multiple eras a la 3E Dragonlance.  Still, not quite what I was wanting.

Whether I support Forgotten Realms Next or whatever will largely be determined by the extent of Ed's influence on it, I guess.


----------



## YRUSirius (Aug 12, 2013)

I hope for a soft "reboot" to some edgreenwoodish realms from the  old grey box era. And the hints are out there. AO is trying to "retcon" the age of upheal that began with the time of troubles by recreating the tablets of fate. So there might be a chance that the old deities will be back and the new ones, like cyric will be gone. I'd be okay with this.

-YRUSirius


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 14, 2013)

YRUSirius said:


> I hope for a soft "reboot" to some edgreenwoodish realms from the  old grey box era. And the hints are out there. AO is trying to "retcon" the age of upheal that began with the time of troubles by recreating the tablets of fate. So there might be a chance that the old deities will be back and the new ones, like cyric will be gone. I'd be okay with this.



I would be okay with Cyric being killed off in one of the Sundering novels. Let him go out the same way he got in.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Aug 14, 2013)

I think Cyric will be gone or, perhaps more accurately, the effects of his imprisonment will be increased so he no longer has any ability to grant spells or influence Toril. That would still leave him as a poor man's Tharizdun waiting to be released from his prison.

One of the reasons I think this will happen is that Elminster's Guide to the Forgotten Realms reduced its description of Cyric to about a paragraph unlike most of the other deities that it mentioned. I think if Cyric was going to play a larger role in the post- Sundering Realms he would have gotten a full write-up like Bane _et al_.


----------



## Orius (Aug 14, 2013)

TarionzCousin said:


> I would be okay with Cyric being killed off in one of the Sundering novels. Let him go out the same way he got in.




This.  Get rid of the worst part of the Realms since the Avatar Crisis.



Scrivener of Doom said:


> I think Cyric will be gone or, perhaps more accurately, the effects of his imprisonment will be increased so he no longer has any ability to grant spells or influence Toril. That would still leave him as a poor man's Tharizdun waiting to be released from his prison.




Ugh.  Tharizdun is one of the coolest concepts in D&D.  Cyric is one of the lamest concepts.  The two should never ever meet.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Aug 14, 2013)

Derren said:


> I remember it quite differently.
> The first game was bought because it was a RPG in a time where this genre was thought dead.




Not so sure about this - Fallout came out the same year, Might and Magic VI came out the same year, Diablo was new for 97, Ultima Online was new for 1997 - CRPG's were fairly popular at the time. No one knew who Bioware was - people bought it because it was D&D 



GSHamster said:


> WotC's Forgotten Realms should be Waterdeep and Shadowdale. Helm, Torm, and Mystra. Sure, Baldur's Gate and Bhaal should be present. But they should be secondary characters, not primary ones.




The city of BG was in the 1990 FR Adventures hardback - map, notes, etc. Bhaal was likewise not a new addition from the videogame. They're just as legit, and probably less worn, than Waterdeep and Shadowdale. There's no harm in letting the focus move around the map.


----------



## gban007 (Aug 17, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I think Cyric will be gone or, perhaps more accurately, the effects of his imprisonment will be increased so he no longer has any ability to grant spells or influence Toril. That would still leave him as a poor man's Tharizdun waiting to be released from his prison.
> 
> One of the reasons I think this will happen is that Elminster's Guide to the Forgotten Realms reduced its description of Cyric to about a paragraph unlike most of the other deities that it mentioned. I think if Cyric was going to play a larger role in the post- Sundering Realms he would have gotten a full write-up like Bane _et al_.




I can live with the idea of the imprisonment increasing.  I am probably in the minority, but Cyric is one of my favorite Gods of the Realms, and my most memorable NPC I created as a DM was a sorcerer who worshipped Cyric, and one of my most memorable characters was a Cleric of Cyric 

I think my liking of Cyric started from the Avatar trilogy, he was easily my favorite character from there, though I didn't like his degeneration into the mad god of prince of lies / trial of a mad god, I found him an interesting God for Chaotic Neutral characters.

I think in the end, despite his beginnings in the Avatar trilogy, the portfolios he gained from Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul he doesn't really fit anymore, but I think he would still be good as a God of strife to an extent, and as a God of the insane, as I don't think any other God fits that role.  

I wouldn't like to see him disappear altogether, but I could always house rule him back in, with that NPC preserving him somehow


----------



## Orius (Aug 18, 2013)

I don't see anything wrong with them using Baldur's Gate to promote the setting really.  It's probably the best damn D&D licensed game series ever made, and WotC would be foolish not to market with it.  Better Baldur's Gate than Drizzt I say (especially since you can kill Drizzt and take his stuff in the game).  

Baldur's Gate had the best adventuring duo in all of Faerun: Minsc and Boo.

And this is a great piece of music to kick off a D&D campaign:

[video=youtube;ZP7vWiaxw7Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7vWiaxw7Y[/video]


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 18, 2013)

Orius said:


> I don't see anything wrong with them using Baldur's Gate to promote the setting really.  It's probably the best damn D&D licensed game series ever made, and WotC would be foolish not to market with it.  Better Baldur's Gate than Drizzt I say (especially since you can kill Drizzt and take his stuff in the game).




On that topic, most of the commentary on the promotion of The Sundering has ignored the fact that _Murder in Baldur's Gate_ is only the first adventure in the Sundering series. The second adventure is _Legacy of the Crystal Shard_ and anyone not expecting Drizzt and friends to be somehow involved in the promotion of that one should probably steer clear of the Internet during November .

Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense for WotC to use all of the popular themes and characters to promote the Forgotten Realms, and to be inclusive of the whole history of the setting in computer games and novels, and not just the parts that have received the most attention in RPG products.


----------



## Blackwarder (Aug 18, 2013)

Are there only two sundering adventures? Can anyone at gencon check with WotC folks?

Warder


----------



## Feetz (Aug 18, 2013)

http://www.wizards.com/wpn/News/Article.aspx?x=2013_06_10_DDEBaldur

"The six novels and *five* D&D Encounters seasons spotlight the impact of the Sundering on different places and people of the Realms." (emphasis mine)

We know of "Murder in Baldur's Gate" and "Legacy of the Crystal Shard." The other 3 haven't been named yet.

Maybe someone can get more info during the Sunday morning Q&A at Gencon.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Aug 20, 2013)

Plaguescarred said:


> There was hype about Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition in end of 2012/start of 2013 and the D&D Website http://www.wizards.com/dnd/videogames.aspx has a link to it. WoTC cares so much about its IP that the game was removed from sales due to disagreement with publishing partners, as they announced.  http://www.baldursgate.com/



Now here's a thought for conspiracy theorists to mull over: almost exactly 24 hours before GenCon 2013, Beamdog mysteriously announced that the publishing disagreements had been cleared up, BGee was back on sale everywhere, and in response to questions about the development of BGIIee they devs posted coy pictures of yoda saying "yes". The only official statement made so far by Beamdog is that further information will be forthcoming but they are not free to comment at this time.

What do you want to bet that Wizards had a hand in getting this game back up on the iPad right before THE SUNDERING launched?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 20, 2013)

dd.stevenson said:


> What do you want to bet that Wizards had a hand in getting this game back up on the iPad right before THE SUNDERING launched?




They probably had some tangential effect - but courts move in their own time. I doubt they engineered an 11th hour clean up of disputes and other legal questions just to have give Beamdog a GenCon-timed announcement.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Aug 20, 2013)

billd91 said:


> They probably had some tangential effect - but courts move in their own time. I doubt they engineered an 11th hour clean up of disputes and other legal questions just to have give Beamdog a GenCon-timed announcement.



I wasn't suggesting that Wizards could affect the speed of court decisions.

I was suggesting that Wizards could have prevailed on Atari in some fashion to get Baldur's Gate: The Video Game back on the iPad the day before Murder in Baldur's Gate was launched at GenCon.


----------

