# Are you excited about the Forgotten Realms setting changes?



## Najo (Jan 14, 2008)

Well, are you? Now that we know some of the changes coming, what are your first impressions? I would like to see the results in the poll.

thanks


----------



## Filcher (Jan 14, 2008)

Not a fan of the changes. (But I'm not rabid with anger, either  ) I'll be playing 4E in the pre-2008 Realms, rather than partaking in the Fourgotten Realms.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 14, 2008)

Where's the poll?  EDIT:  Poll came up on refresh

Also I don't like it.  Not because they pulled an RSE yet again so much as because the areas that could've done with some changes mostly weren't and areas I did like.  Like enough to rip off for pretty much every homebrew I've run and use in every FR campaign I've run, were changed in ways that reduces or ends their usefulness to me.  Not really major because I never had the Time of Troubles in my campaigns either and mostly run FR when I do out of older 1e and some 2e materials.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jan 14, 2008)

i do not like em nore the time jump not planning on useing 4e anyhow so thats no prob i still have plenty of realms stuff guess wotc didnt want my realms money anymore books or games used to love the realms too sad


----------



## Odysseus (Jan 14, 2008)

I don't like any of the 4e realms changes, although I am looking forward to 4E core.

I could understand advancing the timeline or even a reboot. But it seems the sellplague (deliberate misspell) is erasing 3/4 of the realms they don't like, and keeping the bits they do like.


----------



## Voss (Jan 14, 2008)

You left out an option for 'This latest in a series of bad changes since the Time of Troubles also fails at making the Realms better'.


----------



## dagger (Jan 14, 2008)

I like the changes, the Realms was getting stale anyway.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 14, 2008)

I never liked the Realms before. I think these changes are distinct improvement for the Realms. I will need to see the final product before I can really say whether I will ever like the new one enough to play in it, though.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 14, 2008)

Meh. It will be "business as usual" for me. I just like the Spellplague for story purpose only, and not an excuse for changing the rules of resolving magic in a game.


----------



## Toben the Many (Jan 14, 2008)

No option for "on the fence". There are parts I like, and parts I don't like.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jan 15, 2008)

If I run an FR campaign again, I'll be pulling out my grey books.


----------



## Numion (Jan 15, 2008)

Did the Red Wizards get the shaft? 

I mean, they were the best aspect of 3E FR: changed from EEEEVIL to evil who spanks people by commercial expansion. 

Kinda like if Number Two was running things instead of Dr Evil. So it's a shame if they got screwed from the way of the EEEEVIL Shades. Shades are pretty cool, but the Red Wizards just had so much potential as an adventuring source in 3E.

But maybe they didn't get the shaft, I might've easily misread something.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jan 15, 2008)

Well there is a series of novels showing Thay in civil war, and the recent article says that their Geography was changed with the plateaus being elevated to even greater heights. Szass Tam is confirmed to be in 4E. The novels showed Thay in civil war sparked by Tam but the blurp from the second novel which is all we have till march indicates that both sides make such excessive use of undead forces that in the end the undead outnumber the living in Thay. Creepy.


----------



## Faraer (Jan 15, 2008)

This repost should do.







> I like the progressive detailing and deepening of the Realms, and the way it currently works. It isn't the least bit speculative to regret that that detailing is being ended, or to doubt that a world written from stated design principles and commercial purposes other than those of Ed's Realms will be one I'll like as much.
> 
> Put another way, the Realms they're promising, if the promises (except the vaguest ones like 'you'll like it') are fulfilled, is one I wouldn't give much time or attention to. I'm therefore hoping, and I really am, that the power and integrity of Ed's world will somehow keep prevailing over the more superficial work laid on top of it, and that the counterweighing new ideas and other unknowns will be better and more wonderful than the designers' past work gives reason to expect.



This is based more on the designers' comments about their aims in interviews, blogs and message board posts than on Rich's article, which just tells us a little more about the implementation of purposes they've already been pretty clear about.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 15, 2008)

I like it much, although I think the exciting adventuring period will be _during _ the spellplague, rather than after it.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jan 15, 2008)

I've had a distaste for FR pretty much since I heard about it, but I like the coming changes.  I'd still rather _run_ a game in a homebrew world or Eberron, but I certainly wouldn't be adverse to playing in FR 4e, or playing during the Spellplague.


----------



## Spinachcat (Jan 15, 2008)

I have never been impressed with FR.  It was always a weak and generic setting compared to the other TSR offerings.  

I am just very glad it is not the default setting for 4e.   I feel bad for the RPGA players who won't get another option for their campaign world.


----------



## bgaesop (Jan 15, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I never liked the Realms before. I think these changes are distinct improvement for the Realms. I will need to see the final product before I can really say whether I will ever like the new one enough to play in it, though.



This, almost exactly.


----------



## Vael (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm intrigued but apathetic to the changes in the Realms. While I've played NWN, and read a bunch of Realms books, I've never played D&D in the Realms, and never had a strong urge to. Now, I still don't know if I'll play in the 4e Realms, but I will certainly flip through a copy of the 4e FRCS and see about whether it fires the imagination.


----------



## Alikar (Jan 15, 2008)

Personally I love the new Realms, adds a lot of refreshing changes that I look forward too. Plus this makes the Living Realms a lot more appealing to me.


----------



## Mortellan (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm excited about 4gotten Realms but in a 'slow down curious about a car wreck' way.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 15, 2008)

Never liked the Realms, and now maybe I will, but I seriously doubt I will ever play in them anyway. I might find more stuff worth stealing, though, maybe. We'll see. But, either way, I don't really care one way or the other.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 15, 2008)

_I do not like the new changes. The realms changed too much so I will keep the current timeline. _


----------



## Khairn (Jan 15, 2008)

I actually want a setting that has been created to showcase 4E, not a setting that has had so much cosmetic surgery done to it that Elminster now looks like Joan Rivers.

Some of the changes might be good, but the amount of history I have with the current FR, will make comparisons between the 2 versions a constant.  I always respected the opinions of those players who just plain didn't like the "classic" FR.   The choice of any setting for your campaign  is a very personal and important decision.  For me the changes are just too dramatic and arbitrary with too little fluff that gives it any real sense of being the Forgotten Realms I've always known.

For those of you who like it, great!  Glad you're happy.

Time to start a "Classic Forgotten Realms" site for the rest of us.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jan 15, 2008)

Not a fan of the Realms. Don't hate it either - just too much stuff.

If I was to ever to play in the Realms 4e would be the time. Much better place to start without the years of canon getting i the way.

I bought the FRCS for 3.0 and liked it. But with too much info out there it would be hard to run a serious campaign. Like others more and creating my own even better (though stealing great ideas, art and other aspects from a detailed setting like Faerun is still on the radar ).

C


----------



## Fenes (Jan 15, 2008)

I did not even use most of the changes from 3E to the Realms (Azoun lives, no shade, no elven/dwarven renaissance), so there's not much of a chance I'll drop my customised FR campaign (all NPCs, all plots) for this - especially since it is set in Unther.

Instead, I will probably pick what I consider fun and fitting from the 4E FR, plot-wise, and see how best to use it in my campaign. 

The Realms were much more fun to DM in though once I stopped reading the novels, a policy I may keep up.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jan 15, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> Fourgotten Realms.



Heh. Nice one


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 15, 2008)

3e screwed up the Realms, actually. It COMPLETELY RUINED all the wonderful plot points in the last 2e FR product, that gem Cloak and Dagger.

In short, 4e certainly can't screw it up any worse. In fact, there's a good chance the 4e FR could very well be better.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jan 15, 2008)

As more and more information about the 4e changes appears, I'm becoming more optimistic about the whole thing. That said, we'll probably stick to our current campaign, possibly trying to adapt to the new rules while sticking with the old timeline.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 15, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> 3e screwed up the Realms, actually. It COMPLETELY RUINED all the wonderful plot points in the last 2e FR product, that gem Cloak and Dagger.



Do you want to elaborate on that statement because I don't have _Cloak and Dagger_ 2e product?


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 15, 2008)

I'll be into it, my ongoing _Realms_ campaign (18 years) has already deviated enough – Elminster slain by Asmodeus around the time of the Yamun Kahan invasion (_Horde_), Drizzt now working as rough trade on the streets of Skullport, and many other changes, so why not.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 15, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Well, are you? Now that we know some of the changes coming, what are your first impressions? I would like to see the results in the poll.
> 
> thanks




You kind of missed my option:

"I used to like the FR but drifted away. I like the changes and will come back." so I voted for the "I didn't like the FR before but will play it now." one.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 15, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I actually want a setting that has been created to showcase 4E, not a setting that has had so much cosmetic surgery done to it that Elminster now looks like Joan Rivers.
> 
> Some of the changes might be good, but the amount of history I have with the current FR, will make comparisons between the 2 versions a constant.  I always respected the opinions of those players who just plain didn't like the "classic" FR.   The choice of any setting for your campaign  is a very personal and important decision.  For me the changes are just too dramatic and arbitrary with too little fluff that gives it any real sense of being the Forgotten Realms I've always known.
> 
> ...



What would be cool if it was possible to play in the FR at multiple eras. Basically, all the cataclysmic change mean that you can do very "crazy" things in your game, but after one of these events happend, you start with a more or less blank state.

Though it might not be to everybodies taste, if everything you did will be undone after the next ToT/Spellplague event. But that doesn't have to be the case - you still rescued the lives of some people, and you might even end up as one of the "Heroes of Note" of your time period. And if a smaller city was rescued by the heroes efforts, whose to say that they won't survive something like the Spell Plague, or that some survivor of that event from that city won't have the chance to do something great later?

Hell, you could even rune some time-travelling campaigns - you can safely travel to an era before such an event and fiddle around with the time-stream - unless you get to kill some gods before their time, many of the "ripple" effects will be compensated by things like the Spell Plague. (And the only real lasting effect is exactly the one you wanted)


----------



## D20Dazza (Jan 15, 2008)

Where's the "I'll wait until more information is available before deciding" option?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 15, 2008)

I've never liked the FR setting. Nothing I've seen about the 4E changes to the setting has changed anything about that.

Luckily 4E won't be a topic for my group in 2008, so I won't have to wait for an interesting 4E setting. Otherwise I'd probably just used the default setting or a homebrew.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 15, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> You kind of missed my option:
> 
> "I used to like the FR but drifted away. I like the changes and will come back." so I voted for the "I didn't like the FR before but will play it now." one.



_Precisely _my situation.

Loved the Grey Box, loved FRA, even enjoyed the 2e campaign box. Then the setting started groaning under the weight of its own canon. 

I welcome the opportunity to start fresh, with everyone on the same page (as it were).


----------



## ferratus (Jan 15, 2008)

See, and that's why I think a reboot would have worked better.   You still have to know about Unther and Mulhorand's ruins, even if scaly Dragonborn overrun the place.  You still have to know about Sembia's merchant past, even if it is conquered by Netheril.   You have to know why the Spellplague sucks by knowing all the stuff that happened in the past, and it still makes for adventure designing to be canonically a pain in the neck.   The canon wasn't erased, it was just added to with a new time of troubles.   

For example, now instead of having to know about Bane, you have to know that Bane was replaced by Cyric, Bane was ressurected, and that Cyric is now banished from Faerun.  It is a long way to go just to get back to the status quo.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 15, 2008)

ferratus said:
			
		

> See, and that's why I think a reboot would have worked better.   You still have to know about Unther and Mulhorand's ruins, even if scaly Dragonborn overrun the place.  You still have to know about Sembia's merchant past, even if it is conquered by Netheril.   You have to know why the Spellplague sucks by knowing all the stuff that happened in the past, and it still makes for adventure designing to be canonically a pain in the neck.   The canon wasn't erased, it was just added to with a new time of troubles.
> 
> For example, now instead of having to know about Bane, you have to know that Bane was replaced by Cyric, Bane was ressurected, and that Cyric is now banished from Faerun.  It is a long way to go just to get back to the status quo.




I have to call shennanigans on this. It's extremely unlikely that any adventure, unless it was specifically about the history of death/evil gods in the FR, would require you to know all that. Mulhorand/Unther's ruins just provide convient Egyptian-themed dungeons and don't really need much more explanation than that.


----------



## Toryx (Jan 15, 2008)

I've played FR in the past and though I enjoyed it, I got bored with the setting as it currently exists several years ago. So I'm interested in seeing how the changes play out and would enjoy playing in the setting once again.


----------



## Odysseus (Jan 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What would be cool if it was possible to play in the FR at multiple eras. Basically, all the cataclysmic change mean that you can do very "crazy" things in your game, but after one of these events happend, you start with a more or less blank state.





One of the things I do with my Realms campaigns is set them historically, around some big event back drop. The big thing I like about FR is that there's some much history and wide ranging settings within the realms. I can run pretty much any sort of campaign some where some when in the realms. The 4E FR changes don't effect that so much. But what I will have to do, is adapt 4E to run in historical campaigns. And I don't know as yet how much of the core 4E  will need tweeking.


----------



## Ripzerai (Jan 15, 2008)

First off, the negative posts are way more fun to read than the positive ones. I think the reason is that personal opinions are boring, but when people angrily dis WotC I can bask in the schadenfreude.

I am sympathetic toward the long-time fans who feel like their favorite world's been trashed. I feel like people who _aren't_ long-time fans weighing in gives something of a carpetbagger impression, like giving the local Baptist church a say in how Yom Kippur will be observed this year.

As for me, I voted "Who the hell is Drizzt?" I know damn well who he is (I read the novels in high school), but I like to pretend I don't.


----------



## Faraer (Jan 15, 2008)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I am sympathetic toward the long-time fans who feel like their favorite world's been trashed.



Thank you. I'm sympathetic towards the people who are more enthusiastic than I am, but some of their posts are pretty callous about what's being lost, like the selfish calls for _Dragon_ not to feature setting-specific articles or for _Polyhedron_ to be removed from _Dungeon_.


----------



## La Bete (Jan 15, 2008)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> First off, the negative posts are way more fun to read than the positive ones. I think the reason is that personal opinions are boring, but when people angrily dis WotC I can bask in the schadenfreude.




I know it isn't in the spirit of things to enjoy it, but I must admit to feeling the same way* - it makes me want to lay all the hate and venom in a line and pull out a fifty-pound note.

I voted like the realms, like the changes. Fundamentally in the unlikely event the FR 4e stuff sucks, I'll pull out the 3e gear. But just reading therecent articles has had the idea gland pumping.

(* Please god, let them do a 4e Dark Sun or Planescape. The nerd rage will be enough to shift the earth in it's orbit.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 15, 2008)

La Bete said:
			
		

> (* Please god, let them do a 4e Dark Sun or Planescape. The nerd rage will be enough to shift the earth in it's orbit.)




I suspect pathetic nerd-gratitude would severely diminish the quality and quantity of nerd-rage associated with a "straight" 4E DS or PS. However, if they re-wrote it in a way that really just pee'd all over the entire concept and feel of the original, well, then we'd seem some sparks fly.


----------



## EATherrian (Jan 15, 2008)

I didn't vote because my choice wasn't obvious.  I like what I'm seeing in general, but I'll wait until I can read the product to decide.  I've been a fan of the Realms since the Grey Box, but haven't run a game there since they took back Sembia from player control and all of my hard-work was gone.  Not really gone, but you get the picture.  The weight of the canon is something all older settings have to deal with, and we'll see how WoTC does here.


----------



## La Bete (Jan 15, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I suspect pathetic nerd-gratitude would severely diminish the quality and quantity of nerd-rage associated with a "straight" 4E DS or PS. However, if they re-wrote it in a way that really just pee'd all over the entire concept and feel of the original, well, then we'd seem some sparks fly.




Honestly? One mans "straight" would be another mans "rainbow". Whatever they did, there would be a loud faction wailing and gnashing their teeth.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jan 15, 2008)

I disliked the Realms as a campaign setting before, now I like it much more. Part of FR's charm was its genericness, or rather being a generic high fantasy world with a long history. However, it became cluttered with many stuff, not all of it was great.

The "new" realms maintain the draw of a rich and deep history (heck, basically all books before became are exceedingly good history supplement!), but the specifics are blank enough to give me, as a DM, these blanks.

Note, I do not need blanks because I fear contradicting material, no blanks are mysteries. These blank parts are often "Here are Dragons!", they make me more imaginative. And with all FR stuff of before, my mind is sent into speculation mode - "what happened to...?"

So many hooks and creative blank spaces are now in the Realms!

After all, that's what I want from a campaign setting: Enough backdrop so I don't have to work on worldbuilding, but enough blanks to send my mind speculating - to get my brain into creative mode. And new FR seems to fill that niche for me, at least high fantasy-wise.

And that's good, because I was lacking a good high fantasy backdrop with the mentioned features. Greyhawk is nice... but I cannot get over some names and similar silliness, Eberron is not high fantasy, and the rest is usually not very generic as well.

As a backdrop for stories, the old FR were a notch better... but if I want a compelling world, I'd rather delve deeper into real history, Tolkien or other worldbuilders.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Jan 16, 2008)

I'm a fan of the changes and the original.  I will play in both - more places, ways and ideas to play in is never teh problem - the reverse however is bad.  In short - I don't care too much about the "sandbox" I'm playing in as long a I'm getting to play.  As far as making "changes" I just see it as an expansion to the playground - I can play in the old playground *and* the new - what's not to like?!!


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 16, 2008)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Do you want to elaborate on that statement because I don't have _Cloak and Dagger_ 2e product?



In a nutshell, because it would take a small novel:

- Glossing over the consequences of the Harper Schism.

- Resurrecting Bane was just flat out lame. And I do NOT want to see anyone using the Tyrantfire as an excuse.

- Turning what would've been an intriguing subplot involving the "young officer" Scyllua into a chick FR version of Anakin Skywalker's fall.

- Disposing of Orgauth so conveniently. Gheh. Even leaving a whole bunch of plotholes between C&D and the 3e FR in its explanation.

Just a few. Like I said, I could write a book on how 3e screwed up Cloak and Dagger if I felt inclined to.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 16, 2008)

Ah yes, the Realms...


A setting so nice

They nuked it twice


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 16, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the Realms...
> 
> 
> A setting so nice
> ...




Why am I thinking of refried beans…?


----------



## herald (Jan 16, 2008)

IS there a choice for _Meh_?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 17, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Just a few. Like I said, I could write a book on how 3e screwed up Cloak and Dagger if I felt inclined to.



Meh. I'll just gloss over _Cloak and Dagger,_ then.

At least 3e help chronicles Drizzt's class origin better than 1e/2e.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 17, 2008)

1st to 2nd ed was a little goofy but you could at least play through it and it didn't advance the timeline that much.

2nd to 3rd had a lot of internal changes but no big big events in terms of the game.

3rd to 4th hits every branch of the "Joe Kushner will not like this" on the way down.

I'll still look over the core book for crunch and ideas but I'm far from done with the old FR and if I do use the new FR, it'll be an 'alternative' timeline.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 17, 2008)

There are some elements I like (2nd age of Netheril) and there are elements I don't like (spellplague; elimination of notable NPCs).


----------



## Paragon (Jan 17, 2008)

seems like a lot of change for the sake of change.


----------



## Green Knight (Jan 17, 2008)

If there were an option for not liking most of the changes, but being willing to play the 4E Realms, then I'd vote for that. That pretty much sums up my opinion, though. I don't like most of the changes, and wish they hadn't made those changes, but there's still enough of the old Realms left that I'm willing to play it, and there's a few new things here and there that I like.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2008)

Well currently the poll has 368 responses, so, that's not a bad sample.

The two largest groups either like the changes or don't care.  The group that hates the changes is balanced by an equal sized group of players who find the changes interesting enough to come back to the FR.

Looks like WOTC knew what they were doing huh?


----------



## Mkhaiwati (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well currently the poll has 368 responses, so, that's not a bad sample.
> 
> The two largest groups either like the changes or don't care.  The group that hates the changes is balanced by an equal sized group of players who find the changes interesting enough to come back to the FR.
> 
> Looks like WOTC knew what they were doing huh?




except that there is also the larger combined balance of people hating the changes and  either keeping the current timeline or keeping 3.5. About 29% (combined) do not like and probably won't bother as opposed to about 11% who didn't like FR and now do. 

Maybe WotC didn't know what they were doing.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jan 17, 2008)

Where is the "apprehensive, but still willing to wait until holding the FRCG until making a final decision" option?

Or, "Still on the Fence" if you want to cut it down some.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2008)

Mkhaiwati said:
			
		

> except that there is also the larger combined balance of people hating the changes and  either keeping the current timeline or keeping 3.5. About 29% (combined) do not like and probably won't bother as opposed to about 11% who didn't like FR and now do.
> 
> Maybe WotC didn't know what they were doing.




Yup, if you ignore the majority who actually like the changes, the minority who don't outnumber the new people who do.

Isn't math grand.  Ignoring the numbers for those who don't care, those that like the changes outnumber those who don't by about 2:1.  That's pretty darn good.


----------



## Cmarco (Jan 17, 2008)

I am stoked for the 4e Realms.

Hope that some of you will at least join in with us on Living Forgotten Realms. It'll be fun.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 17, 2008)

Mkhaiwati said:
			
		

> Maybe WotC didn't know what they were doing.




Or maybe math isn't one of your strengths, since the first entry alone (a pro-4e FR attitude) comprises 35.77% of the poll's votes.


----------



## Uzzy (Jan 17, 2008)

Since when were internet polls accurate? Besides, you can go stick this poll on Candlekeep and the WoTC FR Boards and get pretty much a 90% response of disliking the changes. *shrug* 

Of course the FRCG is going to sell well. You'll have those people who's interest in the realms has been gotten via these changes, those who want to play the LFR, those who want to see how a campaign setting works under 4th edition and even some of the old timers who want to see the 'damage' done. 

Will that interest turn into long term commitment, though? Will that majority stick around for the 2nd sourcebook? The 3rd splatbook and the new adventure path? Who knows? WoTC certainly admit they are taking a huge risk on this. If it does take off and becomes successful, well that's sad but I've got plenty to work with for my current campaign.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 17, 2008)

Uzzy said:
			
		

> Since when were internet polls accurate? Besides, you can go stick this poll on Candlekeep and the WoTC FR Boards and get pretty much a 90% response of disliking the changes. *shrug*




Hussar and my point was not that this poll is accurate, but the person we quoted claimed that this poll said something that supported their opinion, *because he ignored the actual results of the poll*.



> If it does take off and becomes successful, well that's sad but I've got plenty to work with for my current campaign.




That's a real nice attitude to have.

"If it succeeds, well... that sucks... if it fails... well... party time!"


----------



## Uzzy (Jan 17, 2008)

If this risk succeeds, then WoTC just saved me a whole lot of money, as I won't be purchasing another Realms product. This makes me sad, as I like the Realms and like supporting the Realms by buying the products, but I won't spend money on what I consider to be a useless and substandard product. If it fails, then it's possible WoTC will release a 'Classic Realms' or just kill the thing. Either way, I've plenty of stuff for my current campaign.

As for polls, well it's silly using that one to back up what he said.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 17, 2008)

Uzzy said:
			
		

> This makes me sad, as I like the Realms and like supporting the Realms by buying the products, but I won't spend money on what I consider to be a useless and substandard product.




Pretty much how I felt about the FR continuing down the "MOAR DETAILED NPCS" "Every innkeeper a level 16 fighter!" "Lengthy, complicated RSEs you don't care about!" "Good goddesses of necessarily-neutral concepts!" "Detailing every tiny fraction of setting no matter how many times we said we wouldn't!" path of late 2E and 3E. I did stop spending money on the product, whereas I will almost certainly spend money on this product.

As for all the attitude about "Oh but will it turn into commitment?", the only real deciding factor is likely to be the actual quality/usability of the FR books WotC put out. If they put out a ton of crap detailing places that I don't really care about esp. in uselessly crunch-tastic detail (I'd rather NOT know what level the King and his bodyguards are, thanks, then I can tailor it to fit my campaign without "contradicting" anything), and/or stuff that isn't useful to running a non-dungeon-delving FR campaign, then I'm not likely to buy it. If they fill books with "A PrC for every possible organisation!" and "More feats than you'll ever need!" like in 3E? Then I probably won't buy it.

If they fill books with earlier-2E-style, or Shadowrun-style setting info, though, full of non-crunch goodness, adventure hooks in the best possible sense, stat blocks for cool and interesting monsters (not freakish good-aligned _things_...), FR-specific magic items with style (like in 1E/2E), pump out a nice campaign or ten and and remember to leave areas blank, and mysteries unsolved, then, well, they could take a lot of my money.


----------



## Najo (Jan 17, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Or maybe math isn't one of your strengths, since the first entry alone (a pro-4e FR attitude) comprises 35.77% of the poll's votes.




His math is correct. The 35.77% are current fans who like the changes. Either at 3e or 4e, they are on board with Forgotten Realms. There are 11% who are now considering playing the realms and like the changes who didn't like the realms previously. There are nearly 30% though who liked the way it was and do not like they changes. The rest essentially do not care either way. So, that means before 4e 65.77% of the enworld users polled like Forgotten Realms, while only 46.77% like the new realms. According to this poll, WOTC hurt the setting's core market.

Now, will the new Forgotten Realms apply more or less to either group after we know more? That is a wait and see. Will the new Forgotten Realms draw in new players? Doubtful, but who knows.

Personally, my gut is that WOTC made one mistake with the new edition of Forgotten Realms. Forgotten Realms needed an easier entry point and it needed some re-focusing for DMs and players to start playing. I also think it needed some clean up on gods, magic and heroes. I even think some of the things they did to do it are fine. The key though, is the Realms had a soul to it that was guided and nurtured by Ed Greenwood. This spirit of Forgotten Realms is rich with lore, life and gives the realms a depth of realism and mythic scope that its fans love. The characters and locales were tied to this soul. WOTC may have snuffed some of that soul out when they made these changes, which is why the negative reaction of the long term fans who loved the Realms for its spirit. 

WOTC should have worked harder to keep that soul intact while making the changes to the setting that needed to be done. Hopefully those things are in there, but as of now, it isn't looking that way, and that is why the fans are upset.


----------



## Pulsecrawler_79 (Jan 17, 2008)

-is about to paint a hate here sign on his own back- 

I for one like the changes and don't think there where enough done. Now for all of you who say that I'm wrong. Thats fine. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I don't like the idea of there being 13 different gods for one portfolio do more trimming. 
I don't like the idea of there being super power beings running around with the power to help or harm the world with too few if anyone able to police them aside from other super powerful muckers that you really can't see eye to eye with. FR to me lost it's luster a long time ago.
Trim the gods more trim ALL of the Elminsters and Semmemons and lets see some new groups running around getting noticed aside from the Harpers or The Cult of the Dragon, just something a little different. Now I know your going to say if you don't like it so much then don't play it. Well I don't this is just my opinion.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 17, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> WOTC should have worked harder to keep that soul intact while making the changes to the setting that needed to be done. Hopefully those things are in there, but as of now, it isn't looking that way, and that is why the fans are upset.




You're contradicting yourself so severely here ("should have worked harder" implying you know/have a clear idea vs "isn't _looking_ that way", emphasis mine, proving that you do not) that it really makes a nonsense of your whole post. All you're succeeding in pointing out is that:

A) People who invested a lot of time and effort in something often fear change, particularly if that thing wasn't _obviously_ failing financially (I would suggest that the current FR is/was slowly failing financially, but that's a different thread). Sometimes they fear change even if a product has basically been binned, dependant on the culture, but again that's another thread.

B) Self-proclaimed "fans" are pre-judging a setting based on extremely sketchy information, and going to great lengths to bend the information to their most negative possible prejudices. Which really says a lot more about them and/or human nature than the new FR.*

Either way, you're not telling anyone anything they don't already know.

As for the number, pffft, if we went by surveys on specialist messageboards, we'd believe a lot of crazy nonsense. Your math, particularly, is fantastical, and your attempt to work out how many people like the FR before the changes by messing around with these figures? Really silly.

* - Some of these posts, and esp. ones on the FR boards/Candlekeep really really REALLY remind me of Marvin the Paranoid Android, to the point where it's actually getting increasingly funny.


----------



## Uzzy (Jan 17, 2008)

> Pretty much how I felt about the FR continuing down the "MOAR DETAILED NPCS" "Every innkeeper a level 16 fighter!" "Lengthy, complicated RSEs you don't care about!" "Good goddesses of necessarily-neutral concepts!" "Detailing every tiny fraction of setting no matter how many times we said we wouldn't!" path of late 2E and 3E. I did stop spending money on the product, whereas I will almost certainly spend money on this product.




I don't recall WoTC or TSR forcing you to play in the Realms. However, many people did. Enough for it to be the one old campaign kept when 3rd Edition came out, and for it to be the first campaign out when 4th comes round. I don't believe the Realms needed such a drastic change to be a success, either on it's own merits or a financial success. (If you have information about it's financial success or lack thereof, such as having access to WoTC's financial data, I'd be happy to see it)

Furthermore, many things you decry in that post are things many fans of the Realms like. I quite like having a Good Aligned Goddess of magic. It makes a change. I like my detailed NPC's with their own hopes, dreams, schemes, ideas and plots. I like having things detailed. I can use as little or as much as I want to. Again, no one forced you to use the Realms. You didn't like it, and that's fine. Many did.



> As for the number, pffft, if we went by surveys on specialist messageboards, we'd believe a lot of crazy nonsense. Your math, particularly, is fantastical, and your attempt to work out how many people like the FR before the changes by messing around with these figures? Really silly.




Last I checked this was a specialist messageboard. It specialises in DnD. This forum in particular specialises in 4th Edition, so there's already a bias. 

People on Candlekeep and the WoTC FR boards have access to exactly the same information as you do, and have come to a different opinion to you. If there's enough information for you to form a positive opinion of the new realms, then surely there's enough information for others to form a negative opinion?

Furthermore, some of the posts here are quite annoying and frustrating, along the lines of people laughing about someone's favourite toy being destroyed, saying they were silly for liking it and rubbing their new, 'cool' toy in their face.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2008)

> People on Candlekeep and the WoTC FR boards have access to exactly the same information as you do, and have come to a different opinion to you. If there's enough information for you to form a positive opinion of the new realms, then surely there's enough information for others to form a negative opinion?




This is a point that gets brought up quite a few times.  There's a problem though.  The number of fans on, say, Candlekeep, is dwarfed by the number of casual Realms users who either know the Realms through video games or the novels.  That the hard core gamers maybe don't like the changes is fairly irrelavent.  They simply don't have the numbers to matter.

When a couple of  Salvatore books sell more than all the RPG supplements for 3e combined, you know that the future of the Realms is FAR beyond the hands of gamers.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This is a point that gets brought up quite a few times.  There's a problem though.  The number of fans on, say, Candlekeep, is dwarfed by the number of casual Realms users who either know the Realms through video games or the novels.  That the hard core gamers maybe don't like the changes is fairly irrelavent.  They simply don't have the numbers to matter.
> 
> When a couple of  Salvatore books sell more than all the RPG supplements for 3e combined, you know that the future of the Realms is FAR beyond the hands of gamers.




Precisely. It's like going to any specialist set of WoW messageboards for a specific class, or hardcore endgame raiding or whatever, and good grief, they'll see a minor change and tell you that it's the end of the game, that everyone is going to quit, that people on the board already have and so on. Six months later, most of the people who "quit" are posting happily about their characters/progression, and WoW's population is bigger than ever.



			
				Uzzy said:
			
		

> I don't recall WoTC or TSR forcing you to play in the Realms. However, many people did. Enough for it to be the one old campaign kept when 3rd Edition came out, and for it to be the first campaign out when 4th comes round. I don't believe the Realms needed such a drastic change to be a success, either on it's own merits or a financial success. (If you have information about it's financial success or lack thereof, such as having access to WoTC's financial data, I'd be happy to see it)
> 
> Furthermore, many things you decry in that post are things many fans of the Realms like. I quite like having a Good Aligned Goddess of magic. It makes a change. I like my detailed NPC's with their own hopes, dreams, schemes, ideas and plots. I like having things detailed. I can use as little or as much as I want to. Again, no one forced you to use the Realms. You didn't like it, and that's fine. Many did.




I would like you to explain what bearing WotC "forcing" people to play the FR has on this discussion. I never mentioned any such thing, and it seems to be central to your viewpoint. No-one has ever, as far as I'm aware, forced anyone to play any setting, nor are they in 4E. So what are you on about?

As for the NPCs, I like _my_ detailed NPCs. I don't want or need _someone else's_ detailed _friendly_ NPCs, particularly when there is a 95% likelyhood their statistics will never see use (knowing that someone is a NG Elf Wizard level 14 is helpful, knowing their personality and history and having some hooks is great - having some important skills/areas of expertise is cool - having their entire stat block and skill list laid out is worthless to me and this is what 3E seemed to love to give me).

I will not comment on the raging hilarity of "it makes a change" as a reason a Good magic-god being acceptable. I also think it's extremely funny that you, like so many others, seem to think that you are a "fan" of the FR, and that anyone who likes the 4E stuff is in some way not. Yeah, I guess that giant stack of 1E and 2E FR material shows how much of a Realm-hater I am. I'm going to go burn an effigy of Drizzt right now.


----------



## Set (Jan 17, 2008)

I quit playing in the Realms setting after the changes from the Time of Troubles.  

Reading about the Time of Troubles 2.0 just makes me feel bad for the people who decided to give them another chance after that mess.


----------



## borc killer (Jan 17, 2008)

The Dragonborn stuff is my only dislike so fare.  I don’t see why they even put them into the game and I don’t see way they had to put them into FR.  And I have no plans on having Dragonborn in any world I run.

I am still going to buy the setting book, and I was not planning on running FR anyway so it won’t affect me much.


----------



## Uzzy (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This is a point that gets brought up quite a few times. There's a problem though. The number of fans on, say, Candlekeep, is dwarfed by the number of casual Realms users who either know the Realms through video games or the novels. That the hard core gamers maybe don't like the changes is fairly irrelavent. They simply don't have the numbers to matter.




I see you missed my point, which was this. Why are people who have looked at the changes and said that they like the new direction the Realms are going then accusing those who have looked at exactly the same information and said they don't like it of jumping the gun? Surely if there is enough information already out for some to get positive opinions of the changes, there is enough information for people to get negative opinions, right?



> When a couple of Salvatore books sell more than all the RPG supplements for 3e combined, you know that the future of the Realms is FAR beyond the hands of gamers.




Oh, absolutely. I'm going to enjoy seeing the reaction of the Drizzy faithful when they realise that any Drizzt novels set in the new realms will be missing all the supporting cast. 



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I would like you to explain what bearing WotC "forcing" people to play the FR has on this discussion. I never mentioned any such thing, and it seems to be central to your viewpoint. No-one has ever, as far as I'm aware, forced anyone to play any setting, nor are they in 4E. So what are you on about?




Simple. There is no need to change the Realms drastically in order to fix what you perceive as flaws in the Realms, because people have other choices. If they don't like the Realms, that's fine. 



> As for the NPCs, I like my detailed NPCs. I don't want or need someone else's detailed friendly NPCs, particularly when there is a 95% likelyhood their statistics will never see use (knowing that someone is a NG Elf Wizard level 14 is helpful, knowing their personality and history and having some hooks is great - having some important skills/areas of expertise is cool - having their entire stat block and skill list laid out is worthless to me and this is what 3E seemed to love to give me).




And some people don't have time to create lots of stat blocks. Besides, that's more a general 'problem' in 3rd Edition, and is hardly the Realms fault. I do think that they went a bit overboard with the detailing of stats for some NPC's in 3rd edition products, but it's no biggie, nor does it need a 94 year jump to fix. 



> I will not comment on the raging hilarity of "it makes a change" as a reason a Good magic-god being acceptable.




Boccob - Neutral
Aureon - Lawful Neutral
The Shadow - Chaotic Evil

Sure, those are details ripped from Wikipedia, but it would appear that Mystra is on her own as a Good aligned magic goddess. I think it's perfectly acceptable for Mystra to be good aligned, I certainly haven't seen you present a reason why it's not acceptable for her to be good. Now, if she stopped all evil characters from using magic, then it would be an issue, but she doesn't. Mystra being Good Aligned gives the Church of Mystra an interesting twist, with many new people in the church working to promote good uses of magic. Though, Mystra still gives clerical spells to those worshipping her under the guise of the former Goddess of Magic, who was LN. So you have the High Cleric of Mystra in Waterdeep being LE. So, what's your objection to Mystra being good aligned?



> I also think it's extremely funny that you, like so many others, seem to think that you are a "fan" of the FR, and that anyone who likes the 4E stuff is in some way not.




From your words, you seemed rather adamant about not liking the current Realms. That's fine.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 17, 2008)

Uzzy said:
			
		

> If this risk succeeds, then WoTC just saved me a whole lot of money, as I won't be purchasing another Realms product. This makes me sad, as I like the Realms and like supporting the Realms by buying the products, but I won't spend money on what I consider to be a useless and substandard product. If it fails, then it's possible WoTC will release a 'Classic Realms' or just kill the thing. Either way, I've plenty of stuff for my current campaign.




Here's the problem with this theory:

There's pretty much _zero_ chance of WotC releasing a "Classic Realms" if the new Realms fails. It's simple economics. It's true that the Old FR seemed to be the most popular D&D setting. Obviously, for a time, it was. But that popularity was waning.

How do I know this? The very fact that WotC decided to so severely shake up the setting means that it was no longer selling in acceptable numbers--or at least, it was quickly on the road to selling in insufficient numbers. Companies might experiment here and there, but rarely if ever do they throw away a product that is still working as well as they want it to for one that's untested.

Therefore, if the new Realms setting fails, the Realms setting goes away.

So what you're saying, essentially, is "I've got enough stuff to play, so I'd rather they kill the setting then cater to the people who _do_ like the changes." I don't think that's what you _meant_, but that's what a wish for the new setting to fail ultimately expresses.


----------



## Uzzy (Jan 17, 2008)

> "I've got enough stuff to play, so I'd rather they kill the setting then cater to the people who do like the changes."




When did I say that? I have no preference for them killing the setting, nor did I indicate such.  What I meant was that I have enough for my current campaign, and that if others enjoy the changes, then that's fine. I just won't be buying into it. If it fails, it fails. It would be sad, but I certainly feel no loyalty to the Realms brand anymore. 



> How do I know this? The very fact that WotC decided to so severely shake up the setting means that it was no longer selling in acceptable numbers--or at least, it was quickly on the road to selling in insufficient numbers. Companies might experiment here and there, but rarely if ever do they throw away a product that is still working as well as they want it to for one that's untested.




I think they've continually said it was a gamble to do it. I honestly don't know what the economics are behind it, but I don't think changing everything about the Realms is the way to solve the 'problems'. Still, I believe there is meant to be a forthcoming Dragon editorial explaining the 'why' they are changing it all.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 17, 2008)

Uzzy said:
			
		

> When did I say that? I have no preference for them killing the setting, nor did I indicate such.  What I meant was that I have enough for my current campaign, and that if others enjoy the changes, then that's fine. I just won't be buying into it. If it fails, it fails. It would be sad, but I certainly feel no loyalty to the Realms brand anymore.




As I said, I don't think you _meant_ to say that. But taking your posts together, you say that



> If it does take off and becomes successful, well *that's sad* but I've got plenty to work with for my current campaign.




(Emphasis mine.) That certainly suggests that you don't want it to succeed.

And later



> If it fails, then it's possible WoTC will release a 'Classic Realms' or just kill the thing. Either way, I've plenty of stuff for my current campaign.




I certainly took those together to mean that you hope it fails, so that WotC will either go "Classic" or kill it. As you phrased it, both of those were acceptable results. Thus, I took those two thoughts together to mean that you'd rather the setting die than go on in its new form.


----------



## Mkhaiwati (Jan 17, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Or maybe math isn't one of your strengths, since the first entry alone (a pro-4e FR attitude) comprises 35.77% of the poll's votes.




okay, maybe, just maybe, we are interpreting the questions wrong.

1st group is they like changes and will use them.
3rd group, very important, is those who don't use FR and now will. my guess is new players, good idea?

4th group are those who don't like changes and keep same timeline. players leaving!
5th group are those who don't like changes and either drop D&D or stay w/3.5. layers leaving again!

I see group 1 as those currently playing FR and stay with it.
group 2 are new players for FR
groups 3 & 4 are current players of FR leaving

math, isn't it great! groups 3 & 4 leaving outweigh those new ones coming in. biggest group is, yes , those staying, but if WotC goal is more players, they seem losing more than gaining.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jan 17, 2008)

I already wasn't thrilled with what I was seeing of 4e, and seeing that instead of adapting the system to fit the setting they were trashing the Realms to shoehorn it into 4e sealed the deal of me not wanting to buy or play 4e.  Rewriting the map also didn't help (I've got the big 4-part poster map from Dragon from years ago on my wall, all framed and everything, so admittedly I'm shy about parting with it).

Yes, big "RSE"'s are part of the setting, but the last big one was still pretty recent, comparatively speaking.  The Fall of Netheril/Karsus's Folly, the Dawn Cataclysm, previously big events like that were centuries or millennia apart, with the Time of Troubles (a.k.a. Avatar Crisis/Godswar) being the latest in the series.  A cataclysm even bigger than the Avatar Crisis less than three decades later seems forced.  It reminds me of what was done to Krynn, with so many huge cataclysmic events happening in one lifetime (the gods are back, the gods are gone again and all known magic with them, the gods back yet again, each time with a world-shaking war, and with a huge game system jump in the middle. . .).

It feels like it's now the Forsaken Realms, a dark post-apocalyptic setting where most of the gods are dead, demons are running rampant, magic has gone berserk, the map has been redrawn, and aside from a few big kingdoms most of the world is in a new Dark Age.  Then again, I didn't agree with the "points of light" concept to begin with, much less sledgehammering the Realms into being Points of Light with Realms names added on.  

"It's a hundred years in the future, Shar killed Mystra and kept her from reincarnating, and then magic went wild and ravaged the world in these waves of blue fire.  Fighting among the gods has killed most of them, and the planes are rearranged now too.   Most of the famous NPC's are dead, and Baldur's Gate is the biggest city now, and a race of dragonmen appeared out of nowhere and is now a main PC race, and tieflings are now a main PC race too. . ."  Think how those changes sound.  If I didn't know it was the new "official" Realms if I was told about it I would swear it was some idea that some Goth/Emo 13 year old DM came up with.

I never got the problems people said they had with the Realms though. . .

Lots of famous NPC's.  Nothing says they all have to appear in your game or show up regularly.  I have run the Realms for years and famous big names appear very rarely, and even then usually as cameos or plot hooks.  Elminster and Drizzt aren't there to sweep in and save the day for the PC's, they are there to be heroes of novels and video games and provide a way for players to feel like they are in the same setting as the novels and video games they play.  A well played short encounter with Elminster can do more to give a "Realms" feeling to a game than any number of precisely recreated small towns or tiny inns from some obscure book or Dragon article.

Lots of backstory/canon.  I didn't understand this problem either.  That's the appeal, the world is very fleshed out and detailed, to help it feel real.  Yes, for somebody to know it all would be an insane task, and if you have players that are incredible canon nuts that will flip out if you change one inn or one NPC's name it's a problem, but I've never encountered that in real life, only on message boards.  In reality, I'm a big fan and know the canon pretty well, well enough to run a game lavish in details for casual players that know the basics of the setting and may have read a few novels or played Baldur's Gate or (going way back) Pool of Radiance.  If my PC's point to some random location on the map and say "Let's teleport there!" I can look up that land and what it's like and look up that town or whatever and be ready to run quickly, instead of having no idea what most of the world is like aside from a few famous spots.

Lots of Gods.  This was something else I saw as a big strength of the setting, that was trashed by the events leading to 4e.  There were so many deities providing many churches and orders as NPC organizations to work with (or against), and enough that just about any character could find a religion that fit them fairly well.  Not every god is going to have a temple in every town, not even close, some were worshipped in only fairly limited places (Siamorphe being mainly worshipped in Waterdeep comes to mind), so it's not like towns had malls of temples.

Getting rid of most of the personalities, pantheon and world gets rid of most of what makes it Forgotten Realms.  These "Fourgotten Realms" seem like just the generic "Points of Light" setting with some Realms names and details added on to help it sell.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 17, 2008)

Mkhaiwati said:
			
		

> math, isn't it great! groups 3 & 4 leaving outweigh those new ones coming in. biggest group is, yes , those staying, but if WotC goal is more players, they seem losing more than gaining.




People who will use the new Realms: 192 (44.65%)
People who will not use the new Realms: 133 (30.93%)
People who are undecided: 96 (22.32%)
People who like the new Realms, but will use the old timeline: 9 (02.09%)
Total votes: 430

You claimed this...



> except that there is also the larger combined balance of people hating the changes and either keeping the current timeline or keeping 3.5.




This only works when you ignore the largest group: People who like the Realms and like the changes. Sure, you can claim "Hey, they'll lose more old fans than attract new ones, according to this poll," but that conveniently ignores the larger group of old fans that will remain, shifting the entire poll in the favor of 4e FR.


----------



## Thundershield (Jan 18, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> 3e screwed up the Realms, actually. It COMPLETELY RUINED all the wonderful plot points in the last 2e FR product, that gem Cloak and Dagger.
> 
> In short, 4e certainly can't screw it up any worse. In fact, there's a good chance the 4e FR could very well be better.



Hmm, seems your opinion of _Cloak and Dagger_ is quite different from Rich Baker's, according to Rich's latest posts.

Instead of using the plots, they'll try to repair the damage that product apparently caused. Not having complete knowledge of the plots or damages in question, I'll stay out of that discussion and instead comment on the original topic:

I find the changes reinvigorate the setting and move more freedom into the hands of DMs instead of leaving it in the hands of the FR lore-addicts. Good move, if you ask me.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 18, 2008)

> Lots of famous NPC's. Nothing says they all have to appear in your game or show up regularly.




I'm a critic of the famous NPCs and I've rarely seen them enter a game. (And even then, usually because the players want to say "I spoke to Khelben for ten minutes!")

The problem was *why* weren't they appearing in the game? This is why DMs often complained that they had to come up with reasons for this (and something better than the Simbul is on vacation right now). They're extremely powerful* and extremely well connected*, not to mention motivated. They don't really care about things like "XP"** or treasure, and (this may just be my experience) but nowadays players seem more interested in moving the story forward and killing stuff than in scrounging for treasure. So the PCs feel weird because the setting isn't logical in a big, breaking the suspension of disbelief way.

*Novel terms. The novels do a better job of describing the characters than the game books do. For good or for ill. Probably ill.

**And that's metagaming, too.


----------



## Green Knight (Jan 18, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> It feels like it's now the Forsaken Realms, a dark post-apocalyptic setting where most of the gods are dead




Faiths & Pantheons lists 119 gods. Add Bahamut, and it's an even 120. 10 of them have died. How does 10 out of 120 equal "most"? 



> demons are running rampant




Are you talking about anything in specific? Because I haven't seen anything about demons running rampant. Monsters popping out of the Changling Lands and similar areas? Sure. But then again, random monsters have always run rampant through every D&D world. The Realms has been no exception to that. However, random monsters is different then demons running rampant. 



> magic has gone berserk




It did go berserk, but it settled down something like 80 years prior. Magic has been pretty stable for decades in the Realms, now. 



> the map has been redrawn




Maps are always getting redrawn. 



> and aside from a few big kingdoms most of the world is in a new Dark Age.




What constitutes "most"? Because from what they've shown, that's now the case. Sespech and Chondath are pretty much done for, as is Unther. But most of Faerun has come out of the Spellplague pretty much alright, not just the big countries. 



> Then again, I didn't agree with the "points of light" concept to begin with, much less sledgehammering the Realms into being Points of Light with Realms names added on.




How "points of lightish" is the 4E Realms, to be honest? We've got Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, the Sword Coast, the Silver Marches, and the friendly Orc Kingdom of Many-Arrows to the west. We've got the resurrected Netheril to the north. Imperial Cormyr and Sembia. The Dalelands are still chugging along, as always. There's a resurrected Myth Drannor in Cormanthor. Thay is still there. Unther was replaced by a stronger nation. Amn is still doing alright. When you got a continent packed full of mighty city-states and nations, it hardly fits the mold of the "Points of Light" concept. 



> Fighting among the gods has killed most of them




Once again, how does 10 out of 120 equal most? 



> a race of dragonmen appeared out of nowhere and is now a main PC race




You do realize, right, that half of Faerun is descended from non-natives? They came from other worlds. Hell, the people from Unther and Mulhorand are originally from Earth! At least one of the two breeds of Orcs on Faerun is also from another world, and they also appeared in Faerun in that very same region. That part of Faerun has a long history of dragging people from other worlds into Faerun. The Dragonborn are only the latest examples. 



> and tieflings are now a main PC race too. . ."




...Tieflings were right there in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. They've BEEN a player race since the beginning of 3rd edition!


----------



## Najo (Jan 18, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> You're contradicting yourself so severely here ("should have worked harder" implying you know/have a clear idea vs "isn't _looking_ that way", emphasis mine, proving that you do not) that it really makes a nonsense of your whole post. All you're succeeding in pointing out....
> ....Either way, you're not telling anyone anything they don't already know.




I would prefer to keep things positive. You are judging my intentions and reading into my words wrong. I am merely saying by what we've seen so far my opinion is some neglect towards the Spirit of Forgotten Realms, and that I hope that this wasn't the case. I agree with the need for the changes, and the degree the changes took. There just seems that keeping true to the way Forgotten Realms feels is important. Your also taking my statement out of context and judging my character with it. Please show more respect and don't make assumptions. You can disagree with me, but do so politely.    



> As for the number, pffft, if we went by surveys on specialist messageboards, we'd believe a lot of crazy nonsense. Your math, particularly, is fantastical, and your attempt to work out how many people like the FR before the changes by messing around with these figures? Really silly.




To my understanding, the math is correct of this sampling. Instead of generalizing and mocking, can you please point out constructively how the math is wrong?



> * - Some of these posts, and esp. ones on the FR boards/Candlekeep really really REALLY remind me of Marvin the Paranoid Android, to the point where it's actually getting increasingly funny.




Hey, on one hand its a game. Sure... But on the other, people invest alot of time and money in being fans of something they love. There is change coming, and in some of those people's minds that change isn't good. I personally am interested in understanding that from a persecptive of the market as a whole. It is important to me personally and professionally when the movers and shakers of the hobby industry do things right and wrong, and what the reaction of the fans are. Everyone is intitled to their opinion, and although the reactions of some fans are extreme, I am listening to them and doing my best to understand what it is that is upsetting them. My previous post only attempts to reflect that.


----------



## Najo (Jan 18, 2008)

Mkhaiwati said:
			
		

> okay, maybe, just maybe, we are interpreting the questions wrong.
> 
> 1st group is they like changes and will use them.
> 3rd group, very important, is those who don't use FR and now will. my guess is new players, good idea?
> ...




For those arguing about the math, this is exactly why it is correct. I too do not see what some people are having touble with. The first group is players already playing and staying. The poll states more people leaving then coming in. Over twice the amount actually.


----------



## Najo (Jan 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> People who will use the new Realms: 192 (44.65%)
> People who will not use the new Realms: 133 (30.93%)
> People who are undecided: 96 (22.32%)
> People who like the new Realms, but will use the old timeline: 9 (02.09%)
> ...




The mistake your making Mourn is combining the new people playing 4e FR with the old people playing 4e FR. You have to remove the 35.37% from that first total. They are players that were already there. This is the correct math:

Previous fans are equal to 35.37% (1st group) + 2.04% (2nd group) + 18.14% (4th group) + 12.02% (5th group) + .91% (6th group) = 68.48% of the fans who took this poll are interested in/ playing FR before 4e. 

After 4e FR fans are equal to 35.37% (1st group) + 2.04% (2nd group) + 9.02% (3rd group) = 46.43% of the fans who took this poll are going to cross over to 4e. 

This means 22.05% of the fans who were polled were lost. That is a big hit so far. As we learn more and do a poll down the road, it will tell us if the fans perceptions of the 4e are changing or not. Once the product releases another poll will tell if the feelings of the fan base were correct. So far by this poll, WOTC is losing the faith of the realms fans overall and they are incurring a market loss.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 18, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> The mistake your making Mourn is combining the new people playing 4e FR with the old people playing 4e FR. You have to remove the 35.37% from that first total. They are players that were already there.




And _your_ mistake is assuming that all 100% of that 35.37% were planning to _stick_ with FR into 4E. How many of them liked FR, but were slowly drifting on to something else? How many like the new FR enough that they won't look at 3rd party settings, when earlier they might have?

This doesn't even account for the people who say they don't like it, but may be won over in the future when their disappointment fades and they see what it has to offer.

No, the only thing that this poll shows is that Mark Twain was entirely correct about statistics, and that people _on both sides_ will continue to see what they want to see.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 18, 2008)

Thundershield said:
			
		

> Instead of using the plots, they'll try to repair the damage that product apparently caused.



Well, Rich Baker's lone point of reasoning is pretty ridiculous. The Harpers NEEDED shaking up. So if by "damage" you mean "making the Realms grow a pair for once," then sure. Then 3e came along and neutered it.

4e is wiping the slate clean of the damage 3e caused.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 18, 2008)

> ...Tieflings were right there in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. They've BEEN a player race since the beginning of 3rd edition!




SInce second in fact, at least in lore and semi-core race; the Wheel, Planescape...


----------



## Green Knight (Jan 18, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> SInce second in fact, at least in lore and semi-core race; the Wheel, Planescape...




Yep, they were one of the main player races in Planescape. I was talking about the Realms in specific, though. The FRCS has them down as one of the main player races, alongside Humans, Moon Elves, Sun Elves, Gold Dwarves, Shield Dwarves, Genasi, etc. Which is why I was more then a bit surprised by that particular complaint, as they've been one of the main PC races in the Realms for the past 8 years or so. 

Anyway, the upcoming Forgotten Realms Player's Guide is going to have two races written up. One of them will be Drow, and the second will be a mystery race. I REALLY hope the second are Aasimar/Celestials. That's been one of my favorites ever since the Planescape days (Hell, I bought the Planescape Monstrous Compendium II just to get their stats).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 18, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> YAnyway, the upcoming Forgotten Realms Player's Guide is going to have two races written up. One of them will be Drow, and the second will be a mystery race. I REALLY hope the second are Aasimar/Celestials. That's been one of my favorites ever since the Planescape days (Hell, I bought the Planescape Monstrous Compendium II just to get their stats).




My money is on the genasi.


----------



## Green Knight (Jan 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> My money is on the genasi.




Nah, they said there's one mystery race. The Genasi are four. And the differences between Air, Earth, Fire, and Water Genasi are FAR greater then the differences between Elves, Eladrin, and Drow, for instance. So I doubt we'll see them get mashed together into one race.


----------



## Set (Jan 18, 2008)

Thundershield said:
			
		

> I find the changes reinvigorate the setting and move more freedom into the hands of DMs instead of leaving it in the hands of the *FR lore-addicts.* Good move, if you ask me.




"The Realms has a wildly enthusiastic, passionate and loyal fanbase who've spent thousands of dollars individually, and millions collectively, on Realms-branded products.  Clearly the best course of action for the health of our bottom-line is to *punish them,* make them regret their loyalty to the brand and discourage them from buying new products from us."


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well currently the poll has 368 responses, so, that's not a bad sample.



A terrible sample, considering it's a self-selecting internet poll, at ENWorld, in the 4e forums.



> Looks like WOTC knew what they were doing huh?



No evidence either way, of course.

What, is the semi-annual ENWorld statistics refresher needed so soon? Looks like it should be changed to monthly. :\


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 18, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> I would prefer to keep things positive.
> 
> I'm afraid your post was decidely negative, to my mind  In a further irony, was filled with the very kind of assumptions (about the 4E FR, about the validity of fan reactions, etc.) you seem upset about others making. If you keep things positive, your posts will be replied to in a positive and constructive way, no doubt. However, claiming (as you seem to) that they've already failed to keep the FR "spirit" is patently ludicrous and negative.




The FR spirit is one of the most subjective things I can think of, as the FR is a setting that has gone through many phases, been influenced by many many authors, and been "spun" in several different ways. However well WotC did, if they actually made changes, they would be accused of "failing to keep the FR spirit", because for someone, somewhere (on Candlekeep) the FR spirit was all about sexiness in Silverymoon, and Silverymoon being hit by a comet (I can dream!) has broken the FR completely and oh god he can't play it any more. I mean, clearly for me, the FR had already lost the "FR spirit", had it not? From my entirely subjective perspective, definately, it lost it at the end of 2E and continued that path in 3E, only with megatons (like, more than I'd ever seen) more PC/NPC-oriented crunch.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> Hey, on one hand its a game. Sure... But on the other, people invest alot of time and money in being fans of something they love. There is change coming, and in some of those people's minds that change isn't good. I personally am interested in understanding that from a persecptive of the market as a whole. It is important to me personally and professionally when the movers and shakers of the hobby industry do things right and wrong, and what the reaction of the fans are. Everyone is intitled to their opinion, and although the reactions of some fans are extreme, I am listening to them and doing my best to understand what it is that is upsetting them. My previous post only attempts to reflect that.




That's lovely talk, but I see nothing in your posts genuinely about "understanding the market as a whole", and a lot based from various specialist forums on the internet. You seem to assuming that, from these specialist forums, you're getting a better picture of the market than WotC did.

That seems a little... um, I dunno, dodgy to me.

Also, why are you "listening" to "extreme" fans? They're the least useful source of opinion on any kind of financial or "market as a whole" deal. You go on and on about how "in some people's mind it isn't good", but I've not seen a word from you about how in many people's, it is!



			
				Set said:
			
		

> "The Realms has a wildly enthusiastic, passionate and loyal fanbase who've spent thousands of dollars individually, and millions collectively, on Realms-branded products.  Clearly the best course of action for the health of our bottom-line is to *punish them,* make them regret their loyalty to the brand and discourage them from buying new products from us."




Apparently, it is, because, a few dozen individuals who have, over twenty-odd years spent "thousands" of dollars (more likely hundreds) is utterly meaningless in the face of a gigantic casual fan-base who spend a few dozen dollars every year. 

If you can't understand that, well, I'm sorry for you, but it's very simple and straightfoward economics.

"Extreme" fans are few in number, loud in voice, and incapable of supporting this kind of product line by themselves. How hard is this to understand? Impossible for some, apparently. It really blows my mind.

What makes it even funnier, is that these extreme fans are in utter 100% denial that anyone has ever gotten bored with the 2E/3E realms and their tendencies, and stopped spending. I'm pretty sure WotC aren't in denial about this, however.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 18, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Apparently, it is, because, a few dozen individuals who have, over twenty-odd years spent "thousands" of dollars (more likely hundreds) is utterly meaningless in the face of a gigantic casual fan-base who spend a few dozen dollars every year.
> 
> If you can't understand that, well, I'm sorry for you, but it's very simple and straightfoward economics.
> 
> "Extreme" fans are few in number, loud in voice, and incapable of supporting this kind of product line by themselves. How hard is this to understand? Impossible for some, apparently. It really blows my mind.



You seem shocked and confused that no believes you, what with your complete lack of evidence and all. (Just as you don't believe others due to their lack of evidence.)

Really - without hard numbers (which no one has), you're blowing  just as much of the next guy.

No wonder you're so confused.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 18, 2008)

Let's just say, that after reading Richard Baker's article on the Spellplague, I would like to get all of the FR design team together and smack them all three stooges style.  After reading this garbage, I think that WotC should start giving it's employess random drug tests.  I really can't express how ill-conceived, moronic, and insulting these changes are to fans of the Forgotten Realms.  They should now be called the Totally Forgotten Realms, because this will probably be the death of the FR cash cow.


----------



## Green Knight (Jan 18, 2008)

> They should now be called the Totally Forgotten Realms, because this will probably be the death of the FR cash cow.




Given something that Rich Baker said a while back, I think it's been a while since it's been a cash cow. Seriously, if the Realms were a cash cow, do you really think they'd be instituting these changes?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 18, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Seriously, if the Realms were a cash cow, do you really think they'd be instituting these changes?




Hey, don't bring actual logic concerning how businesses conduct their operations in here. You'll only get painted as a fanboy.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> A terrible sample, considering it's a self-selecting internet poll, at ENWorld, in the 4e forums.
> 
> 
> No evidence either way, of course.
> ...




Thank you for the condescension.

I am aware of how valid the points are here.  However, why is it, whenever polls directly back up a talking point, the polls are completely invalid, but, when polls don't, they should be taken as gospel?

Of the almost 400 people who responded here, a fair chunk are pretty happy with the changes.  Of course it's self selecting, but, then again, look at the question?  It deals with 4e, it deals with the FR and specifically about changes to FR.  Any poll you could possibly make that would give you meaningful results at all would have to be self selecting.

In other words, polling what people at, say, Canonfire, think about the changes would be stupid.  So, where would you poll, and what would you ask that would be any more valid than this?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 20, 2008)

It sounds like the hardest hit areas of Faerun were in the Old South region, or what was the Technomancy in the 1st and 2nd IR threads here on ENWorld.  We have Lantan, Amn, Tethyr, Calimshan, the Vilhon Reach, Chondath, Unther, Mulhorand, and Thay being the most affected.
  I *always* envisioned Mulhorand as being like Zamora (from Conan) with an attitude problem of extremis proportions (some of that Tuigan aggression plus add some Imaskari blood and power, plus a harsh climate of hot and cold, and a nation that is a crossroads of trade.)
  The new Mulhorand/Unther, a wasted ruin now occupied by the Dragonborn (with lots of Mulhorandi slaves?) seems appropriate.  Let the Dragonborn beware ... the Mulhorandi may be down, but out?  Don't bet on it.
  Thay?  Wizards may be dufuses, but with the Dragonborn south and Netheril north, Thay will be one nation under the wizards (miracle of miracles.)  With mile high cliffs and massive fortress cities digging down well below sea level.  And dragons ('hey dragonborn, come here, get eaten!')
  Unther?  Squished.  Time for the sahaugin and aboleth to take it over and give trouble to these new Dragonborn.

  Chondath?  Weren't there beholders ruling somewhere around here?  Maybe there are beholders ruling here again.  LOL.  Better than aboleth ... (beholders eat people, nice and clean.  Aboleth dominate them into mindless servitors for life.)
  The Vilhon Reach?  It's still there.  It's just that Here Be Dragons.  Forget Volo and his maps.  Enter for the peril, the pleasure, and the treasure.  Cowards need not apply.

  Amn is still around, which means those Knights of the Shield are still around (and trying to take over the Moonshaes.)
  I'm guessing Amn took over Tethyr.  Too bad.  That means Baldur's Gate and Waterdeep (without Khelben to protect it) had better watch out.  Amn has no use for Northern Barbarians, except as slaves.
  Calimshan?  Hopefully, gone back to Djinn rule.  Djinn were the only competent rulers in the first place.  If the Pasha is history, let the historians write about him.

  Candlekeep?  Probably untouched.  If destroyed, probably all it's information and treasures evacuated.  Alaundo might not know of the Spellstorm beforehand, but he *would* know what to do when the castastrophe occurred.  (And there are places aplenty on Faerun to store and protect historical knowledge.)

  Ah, now ... the Shaar.  The western Shaar is a big hole in the ground?  Give the illithid, drow, dwarves, aboleth, and others time.  They'll fill it up in no time.  The dwarves of the Great Rift had BETTER get their act together, if they wish to survive their new neighbor.  The halflings of the Chondalwood?  If that wood is still there, they had better be *capable* halflings and not Shire types, if they wish to survive enemies north, south, and west.

  I'm guessing that Aglarond was obliterated in the chaos that took out Mulhorand and Unther.  Where would the survivors go?  To that woodland in the middle of Aglarond, of course.  Coastal cities are useless when the Simbul is dead, sahaugin and Dragonborn are invading, and hordes of monsters run amok.

  Thesk?  I'm guessing it bows to either Netheril or Thay (would you want your nation caught between these two powers?)  Rashemen?  Caught between Thay, Netheril, and the Tuigan (who now have full magic plus their attitude to boot.)  Those witches had better have their copies of Dragon #47 (I think that's it) and their berserker warriors ready, or else it's curtains.
  Murghom?  LOL.  Probably declared itself the new Imaskari, after discovering vast magical arsenals and artifacts in the Raurin Desert.  Ready to take on Thay, Rashemen, the Dragonborn, the Tuigan, AND Var the Golden all at once.

  (grins)  Hyperboria, here we come.  Heh, this even looks like The Land during the book The Power That Preserves (Lord Foul's Armies and Pillagers running amok everywhere.

  It isn't the FR I knew.  It's changed as much as FR changed in the 1st IR (which was meant as humor only, of course ... I merely compare the magnitude of the change.)  It's a wild, savage FR with tieflings, faery, dragonborn, and hordes of monsters new and strange, aboleth empires, and heaven knows what else, IN ADDITION to all the usual chaos and uproar.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jan 20, 2008)

I think the FR is dead.

I really don't like the changes (Actually the philosophy behind them).

A).  I never had a problem with the Uber-NPC.  At low levels, they were legends to inspire the PC's.  At mid-levels, patrons.  At high to epic levels, they were equals.  The high level (and corresponding bad guys) let me run lots of games where the same threads get moving in & out of the spotlight.  

B).  Too many gods.  Sorry.  I liked all the gods & cults (many of which I'd nab for a campaign or 2).  Oh yeah.  The way they kill off Helm is one of the most idioitc things I own in my RPG Stable.  

C).  The things they keep telling me that DM's kept having problems with, just don't exist in my experience (which is limited compared to the RPG Base at Large).


With all the changes & design emphasis, I jut don't see this as FR.  It might be good,  it might be real good, but I can only see it as, a D&D setting called "Forgotten Realms", not "The Forgotten Realms"


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 20, 2008)

Sembia is getting exactly what it deserves.
  While the Lord's Alliance, the Elven Alliance, the Dalelands Alliance, and Zhentil Keep made confederations, Sembia stood alone.  Wealthy, in a prime location, plenty of seaports, and large regions of fertile cropland, it was a prime target.
  The *only* reason Sembia survived this long is no one power dared attack it, because all the other powers would have ganged up to protect it.  With the Spellstorm, that no longer applies.  Enter the Shade/Netherese, and now Sembia's produce, wealth, and ports belong to them (Sembian merchants will now learn the true meaning of *taxes*, if I know the Netherese.)

  I'm guessing Westgate, if it survived, is in collusion with the aggressionist, expanionist Cormyr (the only way to be, in a hostile world.  Go, Cormyr!)
  I'm guessing that those holier-than-thou elves of Evereska FINALLY decided they just had to cooperate with humans, to fully embrace humans.  The first lesson was learned against the phaerimm.  Now they have Netheril, and Netheril has OLD Netheril's power, as a neighbor ... and of course Zhentil Keep and it's subjugated cities, and orc hordes, and dragons, and the drow (nothing will ever stop the drow, much less stop their War of Vengeance ... and Eilistraee is no longer in the way.)
  Myth Drannor is back (why didn't the Srinshee take over?  Talk about refusing to live up to your responsibilities!!)  So Myth Drannor, Evereska, Cormyr, and the Lord's Alliance, are in a detente against Netheril.  (Hint:  It won't work:  it took the entire ancient combined might of 4 elven nations with full High Magic to hold Netheril in check.  The Shade are coming.  When they arrive, better get out of the way!)

  Now, where is the Aboleth Empire?  Where Luskan was?  In the Sea of Fallen Stars?  Where the Vast Dale was?  Hmmm ...
  And what have the Mind Flayers been doing, with all that psionic might, while their magical opponents have been going insane from the Spellstorm?  They've not been sitting doing nothing!  There should be a great Illithid Empire down there somewhere, with designs on the surface world that make the drow look like nice guys and girls in comparison.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2008)

The way I see it, here is what I consider to be facts:

A) The FR as a product is not performing as well as it had in the past.  We can infer this pretty strongly by the fact that they are changing things.  If it was making money strongly, it wouldn't be changed.

B)  While there is a strong core of dedicated fans, they aren't numerous enough on their own to keep the line viable.  They could buy every book published, but, it doesn't matter.  They are certainly important, but, on their own, not bringing in enough money.

So, with these two "facts" you have three options:

1.  Keep the Realms more or less unchanged and relagate FR to the backwaters.  Drastically reduce the number of new titles per year in order to reflect this.  The Realms still get support, but, that support reflects the cash coming in.

2.  Try to redo the Realms in a sort of Infinite Earth Crisis way to clear the slate and appeal to both existing fans and bring in new fans who won't be chased away by the bulk of canon that exists currently.

3.  Try a RSE to reduce the amount of canon while still keeping the history built into the setting.

IMO, 1 just isn't an option.  The novel lines are too profitable to reduce publications to appease core fans.  If they continue publishing novels, they have to continue publishing setting books to supplement the novels.  It becomes a vicious spiral.  

2 isn't an option either.  A redo will truly piss off the existing hard core gamers because it completely invalidates their collections.  It's also not viable because the novel fans won't accept it.  Why should they?  They don't care about the setting in the same way that gamers do.  It's the plot that's important in novels, not setting.

So, your only real option is 3.  And a simple timeline change won't do it either since that won't actually change very much.  Most of the big NPC's are immortal (or close enough) and the politics of the Realms shouldn't actually change all that much in a 100 years.  After all, what's 100 years to an Elf or a Dwarf?  

So, bring on the spell plague.  I've yet to see a really convincing fourth option.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 20, 2008)

Even though I've gamed far more in homebrews than published settings I've always had a soft spot for the Realms.  As I look through my copy of _Grand History of the Forgotten Realms_, I think I'll celebrate it as a wonderful final offering of the setting and just consider it the capstone of FR.  Everyone else can go boldly into these new Realms but I'll leave here on a high note with a product I like and ignore any future instances of the FR logo.


----------



## Khairn (Jan 20, 2008)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> I think the FR is dead.
> 
> I really don't like the changes (Actually the philosophy behind them).
> 
> ...




Hey Darkfang ... looks like our opinions towards FR's npc's, gods and DM problems, and what WotC has decided to do with them are almost identical.  On a separate note, the lazy design of the spellplague with its confusing impact on FR (who knew a magical plague could become geographically challenged ) would be depressing if it weren't so humorous.

I have no problem with players who are now looking forward to playing FR.  I hope you have a blast.  For many long time fans, these changes effectively gut out large sections of the Realms history, flavor and ultimately our enjoyment.  After all these years its a tough pill to swallow, but WotC has made it clear who 4E is being designed for, and its not FR's existing fan base.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> (who knew a magical plague could become geographically challenged )




You mean, exactly like real world plagues?  How much did the Black Plague affect China?  

I ask you again, do better.  Come up with a way to acheive the following goals:

1.  Lessen the canon requirement for playing in the Realms that turns off new players
2.  Allow the new core mechanics of 4e to exist in the Realms.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 20, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You mean, exactly like real world plagues?  How much did the Black Plague affect China?




Substantially, actually.  It more or less originated there.



> I ask you again, do better.  Come up with a way to acheive the following goals:
> 
> 1.  Lessen the canon requirement for playing in the Realms that turns off new players
> 2.  Allow the new core mechanics of 4e to exist in the Realms.



[/QUOTE]

Mystra whacks Cyric.  Ao slaps Mystra.  Magic changes without massive cataclysms (a weak spellplague would work here, but isn't required by any means).

Given how problematic the ToT was, Ao decides to train Cyric's replacement(s?) for a long time.  With Cyric's portfolios in abeyance, the Realms calm down.  Nothing much happens (i.e. no RSEs) for the next century/centuries, over which the previously existing canon dies a natural death.  Dragonborn originate from Spellcasters tapping perhaps unwisely into the pool of draconic magical power that got stripped from the dragons when they were updated to 4e (either directly or through their descendants).

We pick things up when Cyric's replacements step on stage.

You don't need to attack the Realms with a chainsaw to achieve the goals you list.  In fact, I'd call doing so counterproductive in that it earns you nothing while angering some dedicated fans and stripping you of previously designed geography and regional tendencies.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jan 20, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> After all these years its a tough pill to swallow, but WotC has made it clear who 4E is being designed for, and its not FR's existing fan base.




I take issue with this statement and others like it.  I'm a long time FR fan.  I've been one since I purchased the Gray Box at some point in the late Eighties, I've continued to purchase, use and enjoy FR material in the intervening almost twenty years, and I like the changes.  Also, I don't want to start another argument over the accuracy of the poll, but from this small sampling at least, there are more current Realms fans who are satisfied or happy with the choices than those who are not.  It's incorrect, then, to say that the existing FR fanbase isn't part of the equation.  Sure, they are taking the risk of alienating segments of the existing fanbase; something like that is inevitable when making changes, but there's no sense in outright trying to alienate a fanbase that has been so loyal.  For all your anger and dismay over these changes, you can't honestly think that WotC was trying to "fire" you.


----------



## Khairn (Jan 20, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You mean, exactly like real world plagues?  How much did the Black Plague affect China?
> 
> I ask you again, do better.  Come up with a way to acheive the following goals:
> 
> ...




The answer to #1 is very easy.  Allow me to illustrate.

As a GM I decide that the only FR setting book I am using is Silver Marches.  One softcover book that is 158 pages long.  That, along with a few pages from the FRCS is all I will need. All characters need to fit within the concepts of the Sillver Marches.  And voila ... very little canon to know.  If and when my players want more detail, I can add another book and expand out my game.  

Within a year of the launch of FR 4E there will be well over 20 supplements, adventures, FR monster manuals, and paperback books.  Nevermind all the official content that will come via the DDI.  What are you going to do with all this new canon?  Ignore it if it causes a problem would be my guess.  So why can't you do the same with 3E FR canon?  Ultimately, the arrival of FR 4E, will not solve the "canon" question.  Its just a temporary band-aid.

The extent to which we use FR Canon is completely in the hands of the players and GM's to determine.  It is not something that is controlled by publishing a new edition.  The problem is not that detailed canon exists.  The problem is how we (GM's & players) use it.

As for #2, I wouldn't try to shoe horn 4E's gaming paradigm into a setting with such extensive history in the first place.  I'd create a setting that would really showcase 4E's new rules and new style of play to the fullest.  What I wouldn't do is alter an existing setting to the degree that a sizable part of your loyal and passionate customer-base is up in arms.

I'm glad there are folks who are excited about 4E FR.  But for me, the changes to the setting are too dramatic.   It just doesn't appear to have the same feeling as the "classic" FR.  And since the only thing that is truly important to me is the fun my friends and I have at the gaming table, we'll just stick with the current version of the FR.



			
				PeterWeller said:
			
		

> For all your anger and dismay over these changes, you can't honestly think that WotC was trying to "fire" you.




First off you are right.  I stated that WotC was not developing 4E FR for their current fan base.  I should have said that they are not designing it for their entire fan base.  I clearly included "all" FR fans in my statement, and that was wrong.  I know that there are clearly some FR fans who really like the changes, just as there are some who really don't.

I don't for the slightest moment think that WotC is trying to fire me.  But I do think that they knew a portion of their player base would be outraged by the changes they were making, and calculated that potential loss of former players as acceptable.  I don't hold it against them, as its a straight business decision, and not anything personal.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2008)

> Within a year of the launch of FR 4E there will be well over 20 supplements, adventures, FR monster manuals, and paperback books. Nevermind all the official content that will come via the DDI. What are you going to do with all this new canon? Ignore it if it causes a problem would be my guess. So why can't you do the same with 3E FR canon? Ultimately, the arrival of FR 4E, will not solve the "canon" question. Its just a temporary band-aid.




Because most of the 3e canon is written on the assumption that you have been following 2e canon as well.  They reference, repeatedly, events that occured before the release of 3e.  The entire reason the Realms looks like it does originates in 2e, not 3e.  (okay, I'm ignoring bits here for simplicity, but, bear with me)

Even with books like PGtF, they reference numerous books and events outside of 3e.  This is the base book that all FR players are probably assumed to have.  You don't just start with "Silver Marches" and go from there, ignoring for the moment that you're talking about a book that's for 3e and not even for 3.5.  At least, a new player wouldn't.  A new player is going to start with the PGtF.  A fairly reasonable place to start.

And, right in the introductory book, he gets slapped in the face with twentyish years of canon, much of it out of print.  Why are the Elves coming back?  Why did they leave in the first place?  Myth Dranor and the Mythal.  Harpers.  Elminister.  Kelben Blackstaff.  

Right in the opening book, a new player is being whacked with a big stinky canon fish.

Now, hopefully, I can pick up the new PGtF, and it will begin historical references at the beginning of the Spellplague.  I don't need to know what Unther was - it's gone.  I don't need to know what happened in the Underdark beforehand - it's a big open pit now.

Fantastic.  I no longer have to wade through pages of reprinted historical material because a major event has rendered most of it irrelevent.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jan 20, 2008)

Thanks for the very reasoned response Devyn.  I'm just getting tired of the sweeping generalizations being tossed about that only turn discussions into arguments and arguments into pissing matches.

Now for my question.  A lot of you who are upset with the changes have argued that these changes disturb the essential characteristics of the Realms.  Personally, I can't see why this is the case.  To me, the Realms has always been the all you can eat fantasy buffet setting.  If you have a group of players who want to play an eclectic assortment of characters inspired by an equally eclectic assortment of sources, the Realms is the setting for you.  The Realms give you room to run high fantasy alongside gritty sword and sorcery alongside hard boiled investigations alongside comic farces and gripping dramas.  The setting, in the hands of a decent and mildly knowledgeable DM, can be everything to everyone.  None of the changes I've seen have caused me to believe this will no longer be the case.  So what then (and now it's finally time for my question) about the changes has disrupted the essential core of the Realms to you?  I understand that my idea about what makes the Realms THE REALMS may be totally different than yours, but so far, I've only seen arguments about the quality of the story events and some mention about how the perceived problems weren't problems at all, but nothing about how the changes upset the core assumptions and themes of the setting.  As for the quality of the fluff, it's hokey, but the Realms has always been pretty hokey, and it seems to be hokey in the same vein as previous Realms story events.  As for the perceived problems, I agree that a lot of them were problems of perception or player quality rather than inherent problems with the setting, but that's only because I believe one of the core tenets of good DMing is ignoring anything and everything that is detrimental to your group's enjoyment of the game.  Stuff like the preponderance of high level spell casters was something we either ignored outright or worked around in some way, so why does it matter so much if it has been toned or cut down to appeal to the people who did perceive a problem with it?  Does that really change the feeling of the setting, especially if it's part of the setting that you downplay at your table?

That's a little rambling and excessive and I apologize, so for the TL;DR crowd:  I feel like the core of the Realms, geographically and thematically, hasn't changed in any really significant way.  It's still a setting that can incorporate a huge variety of characters and play styles in one campaign, and that, to me, is what the Realms truly is.  My question is: if you think the core character of the Realms has been changed, what do you consider that core character to be, and what changes upset that core character?

Also, I'm not saying my idea of what makes the Forgotten Realms forgotten realms is the one true way; it's just why I like the Realms.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 20, 2008)

I need an " I think the changes are silly, and so were the 3.X changes and the TOT, and "The Horde", and I'll just stick with that old grey box and a few of the early FR# supplements" choice for the poll   

Personally I liked the whole Xvim thing they were working with during C&D....I kinda went off my own tangent writing a vader-ish "Bane Returns and he and his son will rule the galaxy" type of backstory, "fixing" other things I did not like (Cyric,Kelemvor, etc)  and ultimately realized it was alot of work for nothing. The original timeline works best and doesnt have ANY baggage. The OGB and FR1 and FR5 are pretty much all I'll ever need.

But hey WOTC has gotta sell some books, and although I may think the changes are "lame" for 4E, the baggage DEF needs stripping away, so I think the intentions are good.  FR jumped the shark 15+ years ago.


----------



## Khairn (Jan 20, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Even with books like PGtF, they reference numerous books and events outside of 3e.  This is the base book that all FR players are probably assumed to have.  You don't just start with "Silver Marches" and go from there, ignoring for the moment that you're talking about a book that's for 3e and not even for 3.5.  At least, a new player wouldn't.  A new player is going to start with the PGtF.  A fairly reasonable place to start.
> 
> And, right in the introductory book, he gets slapped in the face with twentyish years of canon, much of it out of print.  Why are the Elves coming back?  Why did they leave in the first place?  Myth Dranor and the Mythal.  Harpers.  Elminister.  Kelben Blackstaff.
> 
> ...




I understand what you are saying, and for new players & new GM's to FR you have a point.  Personally I never used the PGtF, and never felt I missed out on anything.  But that's because I never tried to play a game using the entire FR line & history.  I would certainly hope that any experienced players would also know that you don't have to use everything that is made available to you.  But your example does not invalidate my 2 points.  

The first being that the amount of canon you use is controlled by the players themselves not by the edition, and the 2nd being within a year of its launch the number of books and official FR articles will be back to the point where new GM's will feel daunted by what they feel they have to know in order to play FR.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 20, 2008)

If I were DMing, I'd treat FR as two separate settings.  One would be the 1st/2nd edition setting, and one would be the 4th edition setting (the alternate Toril.)  
  3.0 and 3.5?  A subset of 1st/2nd edition.

  I'd run campaigns set in both settings.  The players I knew would ask for that.

  I'd use the old maps from the FR Atlas for the one setting, and use the 3rd/4th edition maps for the alternate setting.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 20, 2008)

The 4e Realms are an Alt-Verse, in fact that would be pretty interesting.  You could have your FR players use a well of worlds or a jaunt through the plane of shadows to find this deranged facsimili of the world they know.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, and for new players & new GM's to FR you have a point.  Personally I never used the PGtF, and never felt I missed out on anything.  But that's because I never tried to play a game using the entire FR line & history.  I would certainly hope that any experienced players would also know that you don't have to use everything that is made available to you.  But your example does not invalidate my 2 points.
> 
> The first being that the amount of canon you use is controlled by the players themselves not by the edition, and the 2nd being within a year of its launch the number of books and official FR articles will be back to the point where new GM's will feel daunted by what they feel they have to know in order to play FR.
> 
> We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.




Quite probably.  

And I agree that the canon will eventually grow to the point where it turns off new gamers.  However, I think your time frame is off.  They usually crank out four or five new Realms books a year, not counting novels.  Heck, maybe it's six or seven.  But, you only really need the FRCS to get started.  I know I said PGtF, but, that's my brain not working.  If the new FRCS basically spends a page or two on what came before and then starts at the beginning of the Spell Plague, then all those thousands and thousands of pages of canon don't have to be referenced.

So, you get a few years anyway before you're right back to the same problem.  Hopefully in that time you'll rope in enough new players to reinvigorate the line.


----------



## William Ronald (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Quite probably.
> 
> And I agree that the canon will eventually grow to the point where it turns off new gamers.  However, I think your time frame is off.  They usually crank out four or five new Realms books a year, not counting novels.  Heck, maybe it's six or seven.  But, you only really need the FRCS to get started.  I know I said PGtF, but, that's my brain not working.  If the new FRCS basically spends a page or two on what came before and then starts at the beginning of the Spell Plague, then all those thousands and thousands of pages of canon don't have to be referenced.
> 
> So, you get a few years anyway before you're right back to the same problem.  Hopefully in that time you'll rope in enough new players to reinvigorate the line.





Hussar, I think that you have suggested a good format for the new FRCS- a few pages on what came before and then starting up again.  I thought that the FRCS was well done for 3rd edition, but some areas received very little attention.  (Murghom and a few other places received a paragraph.)  Possibly each entry on countries and regions will be detailed enough for DMs to use those areas - with some history (written up to give a DM a few good ideas) and information on the various regions.

I have been a homebrewer, but I do find the changes interesting - and no less dramatic than several  of the events in the histroy of the Realms.  (Indeed, with all the immigration from gates opening to the Realms, one has to ask if there is a single race - humans included - that it is truly native to the setting.)


----------



## Filcher (Jan 21, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> I quit playing in the Realms setting after the changes from the Time of Troubles.
> 
> Reading about the Time of Troubles 2.0 just makes me feel bad for the people who decided to give them another chance after that mess.




I'm in the same camp. Gray box Realms for me. DMs shouldn't feel intimidated by "canon." It's a _game_, and if a player has a problem with non-canon material ("Elminster never would have done that!"), well, I'll be happy to play in whatever game they want to run.

All that said, it does seem that an easier entry point could have been created without wiping clean 3 editions of Realmslore.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 21, 2008)

(humor)

  Yeah, trying to add some humor.  We need humor and laughter.  Especially here.

  Consider something.  It's 10 years til the Spellplague.  Then decades of that.  Then many decades more before 1472 (or whenever 4E starts.)
  So, let's say your DM starts you playing in 1372, and your characters have to adventure *in regular game time* through all the trouble, the Twilight War, the Spellplague, and so on, until they reach 1472 and the 4E Realms.

  By the time you and your group have done this, I'm guessing that ... what ... 10th Edition will be ready for playtesting?
  And you will have gone through about every variant of FR ever known, and then some, as FR changes through a 100 year period.  That's a lot of adventuring we are talking about.  100 years of hard adventuring!!!

  You and your friends just might die of old age, before you ever reach 4E.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2008)

Filcher said:
			
		

> I'm in the same camp. Gray box Realms for me. DMs shouldn't feel intimidated by "canon." It's a _game_, and if a player has a problem with non-canon material ("Elminster never would have done that!"), well, I'll be happy to play in whatever game they want to run.
> 
> All that said, it does seem that an easier entry point could have been created without wiping clean 3 editions of Realmslore.




How?  How can you make it easier to enter the Realms while retaining twentyish years of canon?

Edena - lol


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And _your_ mistake is assuming that all 100% of that 35.37% were planning to _stick_ with FR into 4E. How many of them liked FR, but were slowly drifting on to something else? How many like the new FR enough that they won't look at 3rd party settings, when earlier they might have?




True, there is many variables to consider. True that this survey is not an exact science. But no surveys are, though some are more or less bias. For our purposes this gives a rough idea, and overall the exact make up of the 35.37% doesn't matter because the percentage is constant between the two comparrisons I made. The end result is line 2 when compared with the lines of fans leaving is smaller, and therefore overall general consensus at this time, on enworld, in this forum, is that more fans are leaving then they are gaining. 



> This doesn't even account for the people who say they don't like it, but may be won over in the future when their disappointment fades and they see what it has to offer.




You can't cover every possiblity, and you do your best to keep it as accurate as possible. 



> No, the only thing that this poll shows is that Mark Twain was entirely correct about statistics, and that people _on both sides_ will continue to see what they want to see.




I suppose you can look at that this way. Personally I want WOTC to suceed with FR 4e and was hoping it would not be the case. I have professional interests in the success of these products, I believe in WOTC's professional talents and I overall think 4e is going to be good. 

It would be counter productive to my own interests to "see what I want to see". I have a great deal of respect for your work and I know you are normally very open minded and fair on these boards. With that I am surprised of your statement towards the polls results and my intentions. I take great care to keep my polls as accurate as I can. I am interested in the demographics and group interests of our community here and I think these polls when used constructively show broad but accurate pictures of exactly that. 

Any rate, I wish you well and no hard feelings. Peace.


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> The FR spirit is one of the most subjective things I can think of, as the FR is a setting that has gone through many phases, been influenced by many many authors, and been "spun" in several different ways. However well WotC did, if they actually made changes, they would be accused of "failing to keep the FR spirit", because for someone, somewhere (on Candlekeep) the FR spirit was all about sexiness in Silverymoon, and Silverymoon being hit by a comet (I can dream!) has broken the FR completely and oh god he can't play it any more. I mean, clearly for me, the FR had already lost the "FR spirit", had it not? From my entirely subjective perspective, definately, it lost it at the end of 2E and continued that path in 3E, only with megatons (like, more than I'd ever seen) more PC/NPC-oriented crunch.




In your original post, you missed qouted me and added your own typing to my statement. I wanted to clarify that as it makes your post confusing. If you can please correct it. 

Of course spirit could be subjective. The way I am using the term is to define the IP's feel and the elements that are popular to long term fans. The fans majority spoke well of the 3/3.5 product line. Most people are impressed with the campaign setting book. The previews before were not reacted to with such a negative response nor was Ed Greenwood publicly showing dislike. Ed Greenwood himself has stated about the 4e FR he is not happy about the changes. These things are what I am referring to, not some personal idea of what I like or don't like about the realms. Personally I am a Dark Sun kinda guy, not a Realms one.  




> That's lovely talk, but I see nothing in your posts genuinely about "understanding the market as a whole", and a lot based from various specialist forums on the internet. You seem to assuming that, from these specialist forums, you're getting a better picture of the market than WotC did.
> 
> That seems a little... um, I dunno, dodgy to me.




Let's not turn this into an attack on my character. You know nothing about me or my research or professional involement within the industry. So please do not be so condemning. I am not looking to have a personal conflict with you. 



> Also, why are you "listening" to "extreme" fans? They're the least useful source of opinion on any kind of financial or "market as a whole" deal. You go on and on about how "in some people's mind it isn't good", but I've not seen a word from you about how in many people's, it is!




You twisted my words. I said that some of the dedicated fans are being extreme. I didn't say I was listening to all of them. My comment was that the hardcore Realms fan base seems to be back lashing to the 4e changes. As of this writing, the uphappy fans are now nearly equal to the ones who are going to stay interested. That is a near 50% loss of current market with the new edition if nothing changes. The question is why are those 50% of the market not happy? I fully understand that the verbal minority can skew results. That is why the poll is more accurate then the forum responses. 

Forgotten Realms campaign setting sold roughly 40,000 copies into the market place through non-wotc hobby distributors within the first year of release. It can be estimated that WOTC sold roughly the same amount up to twice that amount. I do not have WOTC's exact sales numbers, but I do study the releases of direct sales from non-wotc and wotc distribution and that is a safe estimate. This means in a year, Forgotten Realms 3.0 sold 100,000 copies. In that same time, the player's handbook sold 250000 copies through distributors, it sold 2-3 times that amount through direct. That is 500,000 to 750,000 3.0 PHB upon first year sales. With these numbers you can get a rough market count of the Forgotten Realms customer base and what that percentage is compared to the D&D market as a whole. It should be noted that mass-market distribution (Borders, Amazon) is not included in these numbers.  

Now those numbers are not entirely accurate because 1) The FRCS was new and many people bought it and then bought nothing else or weren't FR fans 2) The change over at 3.5 lost some fans 3) DMs usually buy campaign settings, so we don't know the size of the fan base solely on these numbers. From my own findings, most D&D groups use 2.5 player's handbooks amongst their 4.5 players. So this means that the D&D market is larger than PHB sales would indicate. 



> Apparently, it is, because, a few dozen individuals who have, over twenty-odd years spent "thousands" of dollars (more likely hundreds) is utterly meaningless in the face of a gigantic casual fan-base who spend a few dozen dollars every year.
> 
> If you can't understand that, well, I'm sorry for you, but it's very simple and straightfoward economics.




Again, you are assuming I am referring to extreme fans. You are also assuming how much they spend, how much a casual fan spends and that I don't have an understanding of simple economics. The economics involved are a bit more complicated than that, but yes I get that a handful of hardcore fans do not add up to the many purchases of the masses. What you may not understand is that RPGs are a niche market with the majority of its particpants being dedicate fans, with very few casual players. The majority of FR fans are dedicated to the setting, just as Greyhawk's fans are. I think it takes that to run or play in a setting honestly. WOTC is trying to change that with 4e. The only part of the FR fan base that is gigantic is the people who read RA Salvatore's novels. Most of which don't play D&D.



> "Extreme" fans are few in number, loud in voice, and incapable of supporting this kind of product line by themselves. How hard is this to understand? Impossible for some, apparently. It really blows my mind.
> 
> What makes it even funnier, is that these extreme fans are in utter 100% denial that anyone has ever gotten bored with the 2E/3E realms and their tendencies, and stopped spending. I'm pretty sure WotC aren't in denial about this, however.




Your overall tone, disregard for those "extreme" fans and negative attitude towards me is very rude. Can you please take a step back and not read into my statements with such disdain. Also, please don't be so quick to make assumptions about people posting here. I would prefer to have a ration discussion with you instead of being attacked unecessarily.


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Thank you for the condescension.
> 
> I am aware of how valid the points are here.  However, why is it, whenever polls directly back up a talking point, the polls are completely invalid, but, when polls don't, they should be taken as gospel?
> 
> ...




Exactly, I agree 100% Hussar. I would like to add to what you are saying, that once we have poll results like we do, we can discuss the reasons why the poll is showing what it is. The poll is more accurate than anyone's hunches. Those discussions could lead to valuable insights. It is important to understand what the disgruntled fan base reasons for not being happy, and then look at those reasons that are consistantly coming up.


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Because most of the 3e canon is written on the assumption that you have been following 2e canon as well.  They reference, repeatedly, events that occured before the release of 3e.  The entire reason the Realms looks like it does originates in 2e, not 3e.  (okay, I'm ignoring bits here for simplicity, but, bear with me)
> 
> Even with books like PGtF, they reference numerous books and events outside of 3e.  This is the base book that all FR players are probably assumed to have.  You don't just start with "Silver Marches" and go from there, ignoring for the moment that you're talking about a book that's for 3e and not even for 3.5.  At least, a new player wouldn't.  A new player is going to start with the PGtF.  A fairly reasonable place to start.
> 
> ...




Although I agree the Realms needed a good reset button, the reason I think that the FR fans who are not happy are reacting the way they are is because of this last part, that most of the history has been rendered irrelevent. Hopefully the team finds a way tribute the past without getting in the way of the new players. Otherwise, that is the very spirit being snuffed out I spoke of earlier. 

The other thing that I think is dangerous WOTC is doing is making the Realms so apocalyptic feeling. Forgotten Realms is feeling like a chainsaw was used on it, instead of a surgeon's scalpel. This is another area causing the group that loved the realms to push away from it now.

Finally, I disagree with WOTC trying to crowbar the 4e races into the Realms. Just because the races are in the player's handbook doesn't mean that they have to be in every setting. Both the new version of the Tieflings and the Dragonborn feel like they don't fit the feel of the Realms. The designers even said that the Dragonborn that popped in at the end of 3.5 were different species and that they are having to ignore them because of the 4e dragonborn being put into place. I think it would have been better to say that the Dragonborn descended from the previous ones and the spellplague changed them over the 100 years instead of just ignoring the past event and plopping the new dragonborn down into the world. The tiefling could be handled similiarly, being demons or half-demons that become altered when the planes and gods are thrown into ruin.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 21, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Exactly, I agree 100% Hussar. I would like to add to what you are saying, that once we have poll results like we do, we can discuss the reasons why the poll is showing what it is. The poll is more accurate than anyone's hunches. Those discussions could lead to valuable insights. It is important to understand what the disgruntled fan base reasons for not being happy, and then look at those reasons that are consistantly coming up.



Though note, there might be two different groups of people, one that says all internet polls are skewed and not good indicators of general opinion, and those that only select/allows polls that are in their favor.

I don't know what's generally true (I should try a poll on that!  ), but personally, I think internet polls are always skewed. The real question is if you can still gather something from it, and how so? Maybe you can get a tendency, but you need to add further information sources? (I guess that's what WotC has been doing in the past)


----------



## Fenes (Jan 21, 2008)

It's not just that the FR history is thrown away or rendered irrelevant, it's that all the _campaign history _ of many of those who run long campaigns is rendered irrelevant.

I am not about to dump all my home-made NPCs, areas and politics in exchange for a 100 year jump into a fresh start - on the contrary, I don't want a blank slate, I spent years changing the FRs into a setting I am comfortable with.

Currently it looks like I'll just mine the 4Realms for ideas, and ignore most of it.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> It's not just that the FR history is thrown away or rendered irrelevant, it's that all the _campaign history _ of many of those who run long campaigns is rendered irrelevant.
> 
> I am not about to dump all my home-made NPCs, areas and politics in exchange for a 100 year jump into a fresh start - on the contrary, I don't want a blank slate, I spent years changing the FRs into a setting I am comfortable with.




You can just ignore what a few people/writers have chosen to do and keep going with your ongoing FR campaign (about 18 years for me) as I am – Elminster was slain a while ago by Asmodeus  around the time of the Yamun Kahan (horde) invasion, and Drizzt has been working the streets of Calimport as rough trade for years.

I have always thought the Zhentarim were lame – they don't exist and a bunch of other tweaks.

I hate when writers come along with a novel or adventure/module and completely decimate the flavour/premise/canon etc of a campaign setting – Faction War, The Prism Pentad etc.

…Ptui!


----------



## Fenes (Jan 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> You can just ignore what a few people/writers have chosen to do and keep going with your ongoing FR campaign (about 18 years for me) as I am – Elminster was slain a while ago by Asmodeus  around the time of the Yamun Kahan (horde) invasion, and Drizzt has been working the streets of Calimport as rough trade for years.
> 
> I have always thought the Zhentarim were lame – they don't exist and a bunch of other tweaks.
> 
> ...




I already haven't used much of the 3E changes, but some of them I had on a backburner, as possible plots with variable outcomes. Most of the 4E changes we know about don't fall into the "useful for my campaign" category.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I already haven't used much of the 3E changes




I wasn't even aware of any 3rd Ed changes for FR.

Was it that Thundering business and what not?

Time of Troubles made me ill…


----------



## Fenes (Jan 21, 2008)

Return of Shade, Death of King Azoun, Thunder Twin stuff, Elven Renaissance - all things that didn't happen in my Realms.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 21, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> I would prefer to have a ration discussion with you instead of being attacked unecessarily.




I wish I believed you on that, but from the whole tone of your post, which _seems to me _ (note I am biased!) entirely irrational and about your hurt feelings rather than anything rational (unlike Devyn and Hussar). I can't help you with your hurt feelings. The huge irony in your complaint is that you've consistently ignored everything I've said about being an ex-FR fan.

A lot of the other stuff you've posted seems to be entirely opinion-based, rather than based on rational argument. I'd go through it, but good grief, there's a lot of it. Suffice to say, numbers that you don't even hint at the source of are intriguing, but ultimately unhelpful without the source and/or a little more discussion of what you're implying.

As for internet polls, well, a lot of it is about the wording an options of the poll. I know this because many times in the past I've manipulated poll results by choosing the wording, options and poll order carefully  For example with this poll we had a lot of negative options, and only one really positive option. Several people, including me, commented that "our" option wasn't there. Combine that with the fact that this is a specialist D&D forum, where "casual" D&D players do not typically post, and I think that the poll is interesting, but not necessarily revelatory.


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I wish I believed you on that, but from the whole tone of your post, which _seems to me _ (note I am biased!) entirely irrational and about your hurt feelings rather than anything rational (unlike Devyn and Hussar). I can't help you with your hurt feelings. The huge irony in your complaint is that you've consistently ignored everything I've said about being an ex-FR fan.




My tone has been fine and non-bias. No different than Devyn or Hussar. Hussar even agreed with my points and has backed up the poll. I have stated I have no hurt feelings and I am not personally affected by the Realms. My interests are business based, not emotional. You keep twisting everything I post into something else. I have pointed this out to you. Please stop. 



> A lot of the other stuff you've posted seems to be entirely opinion-based, rather than based on rational argument. I'd go through it, but good grief, there's a lot of it. Suffice to say, numbers that you don't even hint at the source of are intriguing, but ultimately unhelpful without the source and/or a little more discussion of what you're implying.




Again, more making objective statements into things they are not. I am not fueled by emotions in my posts. I could lay out sources for everything, but then that would take up alot thread space, be boring to most and at times reveal information I prefer to keep private. Your really the only person who seems to be making this discussion personal and attacking me. You keep taking my posts out of context too. Again, I wish you would please stop doing it before moderator shuts the thread down or bans you for a week. You seem like you have things to add to the discussion, but your methods are lacking diplomacy and you are reading negativity into statements that are not there. Plain and simple, I have stated my intentions and tone and you still say you don't believe me. That is your choice, but it is the reason we are having this problem.  



> As for internet polls, well, a lot of it is about the wording an options of the poll. I know this because many times in the past I've manipulated poll results by choosing the wording, options and poll order carefully  For example with this poll we had a lot of negative options, and only one really positive option. Several people, including me, commented that "our" option wasn't there. Combine that with the fact that this is a specialist D&D forum, where "casual" D&D players do not typically post, and I think that the poll is interesting, but not necessarily revelatory.




Not every single possible poll choice can be represented, but the major choices are reflected. Most of the "missing" choices you referring to in the thread (like 3 of them) can fit into one of the choices on the poll and still give us fairly accurate look at the state of the fan base on ENworld. I repeat STATE OF THE FAN BASE ON ENWORLD!

This poll is not claiming to be the end all of the world's surveys, nor is it 100% proof of Forgotten Realms verring into self inflicted ruin. There is alot about the Forgotten Realms 4e setting we have yet to see. WOTC may have many more wonderful things within it, and we won't know until the book is in our hands if the new FR is better than the old one. This has been stated many times in this forum, by myself even. So I don't know where you are getting that I have some personal opinions and that I am some hurt FR fan or something. I already stated I am not a Realms fan, in fact I have never even read a Forgotten Realms novel and I played in a Forgotten Realms campaign for like 3 sessions. The realms is not quite my cup of tea. I was impressed with the scope of the setting though, and I have spoken with many of the fans over the years and understand why they love it. I personally was impressed with the work 3e did on organizing the Realms (props to Sean K Reynolds and crew). I have kept every design article on 3e's Realms creation, from changing the Thay Wizards to redoing the middle of the map. All very fascinating stuff to learn from. 

As for whether or not a poll is accurate, no poll is a 100%. You have isolate your target market, word the questions right based on what you are measuring, you need to understand the environment you are polling within (i.e. a web forum, city street, workplace). Thing is, I wanted to get a perspective of the general vibe here on ENworld. Enworld reflects the D&D community a bit better than the WOTC forums as the community here is more mature and willing to contribute. Thing is, the percentages of who plays 3.0/3.5/4.0, who likes what campaign settings, who DMs and who plays, who uses the internet etc are roughly the same as on any D&D forum. This is because D&D is such a tight knit community of gamers who run in a niche market together. The results are going to be a fair snap shot of things to pay attention too.

In regards to polling D&D forums not representing the full market because not all D&D fans have internet access etc. Well, most of them do and a good percentage of them use the forums of either WOTC or here. I am willing to bet at least 2 out of 5 gamers from a single gaming group regularly browse the forums. I also am willing to bet that half of the DMs out there do as well. 

That means, the only way to get a more accurate poll is to put survey cards in the books and then collect the data (which is not done immediately). Ironically, that only polls the people who return the cards...   

Or.. we could poll the attendants of D&D experience or Gen Con or Origins...but that is skewed too.

We could go into game stores and poll all of the people walking through, but again, those online or dead guys aren't accounted for and a game store poll only reflects the people caught in that time. Some customers only come in once or twice a month. 

So what option does that leave us? Well, by placing a poll online in the middle of traffic that is a fair sampling of most of the gamers, it gives us a picture of what is going on. It is no different than going out into nature and getting samples from an area for a test. As most D&D fans reflect there groups and a decent portion regularly uses the forums, then polls in these places do give helpful insight into the state of the industry. 

If I still haven't made my point to you, I don't knwo what will. Please be constructive and less judgemental. If you don't like the thread and can't help but be rude to me then don't post in it. If you still feel the need to be rude and share it, then I will let the moderators deal with you. If you can be constructive and add to the discussion then you are welcome to join us. 

Thank you for your understanding Ruin Explorer. I hope you take this constructively as it was intended. Peace.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 21, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Again, more making objective statements into things they are not.




I'm sorry, I don't see many "objective statements" in your post. This is not an attack, I just don't see them. I see a lot of subjective opinions, just like everyone else in this thread is posting.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> I am not fueled by emotions in my posts. I could lay out sources for everything, but then that would take up alot thread space, be boring to most and at times reveal information I prefer to keep private.




There's some hardcore irony right there, because you're concerned about being "boring" and taking up "thread space", but you can devote an extremely long post to rebuking, yet you can't detail the sources, despite their important to making your argument "objective" as opposed "something some guy said on the internet". PM with the full details of your sources and information then, if you don't want to put them in the thread. That'll sort things out real quick.  



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> Not every single possible poll choice can be represented, but the major choices are reflected.




Obviously, I disagree.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> So what option does that leave us?




To create a better-worded, more thoughtful poll, with more positive options presented?


----------



## Shazman (Jan 21, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Hey, don't bring actual logic concerning how businesses conduct their operations in here. You'll only get painted as a fanboy.




WotC fanboy.  See, he was right.  If the game products weren't seeling well, why would they even do a 4E Forgotten Realms?  They killed evey other setting that wasn't a commercial success. Why would they give the Realms a second chance?  It is my understanding that the Realms novels do quite well.  I don't think that these changes bode well for the D&D or novel lines for the Forgotten Realms.  If people buy Realms books to read stories set in the Realms, they probably won't be too interested in reading about an unrecognizable Realms.  I know that I would have no interest in any post-Spellplague novels. Let's just change the name to Completely Forgotten Realms and be done with it.


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I don't see many "objective statements" in your post. This is not an attack, I just don't see them. I see a lot of subjective opinions, just like everyone else in this thread is posting.




First I want to state that I appreciate your much more constructive approach and you not using biting statements and general attacks on my character in your latest reply. There is a big difference in your overall approach here, and you are raising and asking questions instead of just blindly condeming and assuming. Thank you for that.   

In reply to your qoute, my statements are objective because my position is one of studying the health of the industry without influencing. D&D 4e doing well, as is FR 4e doing well, is important to me and my business descisions. It could be argued that no perspective is objective, but mine is as much as one's could be. It would harm my work to not be so. 



> There's some hardcore irony right there, because you're concerned about being "boring" and taking up "thread space", but you can devote an extremely long post to rebuking, yet you can't detail the sources, despite their important to making your argument "objective" as opposed "something some guy said on the internet". PM with the full details of your sources and information then, if you don't want to put them in the thread. That'll sort things out real quick.




Except PM you doesn't keep my hard earned, sensitive research on sales figures and trends private. You and I do not personally know each other, you are not under any binding contracts with me or my company and anything I share with you privately is now in your hands to do with whatever you want. I may as well share the information in the thread because I will breaching NDAs I am under. Besides, even if I did post sources and how I collect market research, you could still state I am wrong or a liar. So either I am telling you the truth and you trust me or you don't believe me. Either way, it doesn't change much with the poll results or the comments about the setting made by the people within the thread.   



> Obviously, I disagree.
> 
> To create a better-worded, more thoughtful poll, with more positive options presented?




Ok, if you feel we could have put the poll together better, then in hindsight now, what would you do differently. Do not actually start another poll, just lay out the choices you would use and critique what is better about yours and what is wrong with ours where they differ. 

Either way we get some where from here and move towards constructive discussion about the Forgotten Realms setting. 

Anyrate, I felt it was worth taking the time to resolve our conflict because arguments just lead to so much unproductive time. It is much better to resolve concerns and understand each other's interests, then move forward in an agreeable manner.

Thanks again for taking the time to present your point of view in a more constructive fashion. I look forward to your input on the poll choices.


----------



## Najo (Jan 21, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> WotC fanboy.  See, he was right.  If the game products weren't seeling well, why would they even do a 4E Forgotten Realms?  They killed evey other setting that wasn't a commercial success. Why would they give the Realms a second chance?  It is my understanding that the Realms novels do quite well.  I don't think that these changes bode well for the D&D or novel lines for the Forgotten Realms.  If people buy Realms books to read stories set in the Realms, they probably won't be too interested in reading about an unrecognizable Realms.  I know that I would have no interest in any post-Spellplague novels. Let's just change the name to Completely Forgotten Realms and be done with it.





WOTC is trying to remove what are called Barriers to Entry. Basically, anything that keeps a person new to a product/ game/ setting from trying it and becoming a long term customer. World of Warcraft is a good example of a game that has very few barriers to entry when you first start playing. 

For example, in World of Warcraft complicated class and race combinations are broken down into simple step by step choices. 1) Choose horde or alliance 2) choose race  3) choose class 4) choose look. 5) choose name. It is kept visual and uncomplicated. Imagine what WOW would be like if you had both Horde and Alliance laid out at once or if did some complicated mixing and matching of race with class and then determine once playing if the character was viable. The game is streamlined and simplified to allow anyone able to use the basic functions of a computer to play.  

When you start playing, the NPCs in the original starting areas guide you through the basics of game play without you realizing it. How to get quests, follow the ? and ! using you inventory, collecting drops and turning them in to npcs, doing combat, buying class skills, etc. The new areas where the Blood Elves and Draenai are not designed as well as the original areas for Undead, Humans, Elves and Tauren. The orc/ troll and dwarf/gnome areas suffer a little bit in this department, as there are some counter intuitive parts. 

Then each level block (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc) takes you into a new section of the game. You progressively learn about talents, skills, open regions, multi part quests, multi region quests, etc. 

The areas where players hit speed bumps are grouping for dungeons, the auction house, raiding, pvp, navigating the cities, and some environmental and mob quests with the activation icon (the pointer/ gear thing). Though some of this stuff is a no duh for gamers, causals have trouble with these areas. Also, before the expansion, WOW did not transition level 60 players into end game very well. They still have some issues there, but there is more for players to do at 70 and so is not as much of a problem.

Anyrate, many hobby games (D&D very much included) suffer from these issues too. It is that learning curve and ease of finding people to play with that get in the way of new players having fun. You want to get those out of the way, both in the rules and setting. 

In Forgotten Realms, the problem was 1) no obvious easy starting place for new GMs and players. 2) a overwhelming feeling of being lost in history, npcs and lore of the realms. 3) Not knowning how to use those elements appropiately to invoke the feel of the realms. 4) Tightening up marketing elements (for example, I personally do not like the egyptian and norse gods that are in Forgotten Realms being there. It ruins the feel of the setting as an outsider to me. I know it implies a connection to earth mythology that was partially intentional, but it comes off as uninspired. I would put money on it that those gods are gone now.)

So, by moving the realms forward in time and causing an event that lets the designers fix marketing elements, bam! The realms gets most of these issues solved hopefully. The problem is, it seems like it became an opportunity to change the look and feel of the realms and remove the legacy of well loved characters. 

This could be avoided by down playing the devestation and ruin that remains, allow most of the starting zones for characters to be intact, and let the many heroes and villians have moments in history that changed the world during the 100 year gap for the better or worse. Allow those loved heroes to leave a mark on the world, or be betrayed, or do something long term players can enjoy learning about them. Likewise, keep that Ed Greenwood essence in the cultures and traditions passed down from the 3.5 setting into the 4.0 setting. Let the heart of Cormyr, Waterdeep, etc be true to what they were before. 

I think doing that would resolve the initial negative backlash we are seeing and still invite new players by the removed barriers and jumping ahead in the time line of the setting.


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 22, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> It's not just that the FR history is thrown away or rendered irrelevant, it's that all the _campaign history _ of many of those who run long campaigns is rendered irrelevant.
> 
> I am not about to dump all my home-made NPCs, areas and politics in exchange for a 100 year jump into a fresh start - on the contrary, I don't want a blank slate, I spent years changing the FRs into a setting I am comfortable with.
> 
> Currently it looks like I'll just mine the 4Realms for ideas, and ignore most of it.



I had a similar feeling during the publication of the Time of Troubles.  I hated all the changes it made to the realms, I hate Ao, I hated the way they portrayed the gods and I hated the new cosmology.  I just ignored the whole thing and in my Realms campaigns, the Time of Troubles never happened.  I've since bought a fair number of 2e and 3e Realms supplements and mined them for ideas and used some parts all wholesale in my campaigns.  I'll be picking up the 4e FR Campaign Guide and we'll see what I can get from that.  I will say that some of the changes that the 4e team implemented mirror what I've done in my Realms (killed off Mystra and the Chosen, trimmed down the number of gods), so perhaps I'll find it more useful than those who have followed canon more closely.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 22, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> It could be argued that no perspective is objective, but mine is as much as one's could be. It would harm my work to not be so.




It befits anyone discussing things on the internet, and especially someone who is a professional in some sort of research field, to realize that they are not objective (indeed, no-one is, as you say), but rather _attempting_ to be objective. I can respect attempting to be objective, but once you start claiming that you actually are, well, it rings false to me.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> Except PM you doesn't keep my hard earned, sensitive research on sales figures and trends private. You and I do not personally know each other, you are not under any binding contracts with me or my company and anything I share with you privately is now in your hands to do with whatever you want. I may as well share the information in the thread because I will breaching NDAs I am under. Besides, even if I did post sources and how I collect market research, you could still state I am wrong or a liar. So either I am telling you the truth and you trust me or you don't believe me. Either way, it doesn't change much with the poll results or the comments about the setting made by the people within the thread.




Indeed, but this is the internet, land of liars and frauds, and worse, people who convince themselves that they're telling the truth whilst bending it so far that most people would think it fiction. To me, given my experience with the wild claims of internet denizens, your entirely unsupported claims are worse than worthless. They actually detract from the quality of the debate, rather than enhancing it. By posting figures that you point-blank refuse to source in any way, shape, or form, you damage the debate, I would suggest. By alluding to secret knowledge you "cannot share for business reasons" you come across potentially as a phoney, and again you damage the quality of the debate because it becomes about your truthfulness, rather than about the subject. I would suggest you do not continue to mention how this is "your business", do not bring up unsourced figures, and do not allude to secret knowledge. It doesn't help, in my experience, at least 




			
				Najo said:
			
		

> Ok, if you feel we could have put the poll together better, then in hindsight now, what would you do differently. *Do not actually start another poll*, just lay out the choices you would use and critique what is better about yours and what is wrong with ours where they differ.




First you _might_ want to be careful with your language. I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker, because use of the imperative (as bolded) on other people who are cooperating with you, rather your underlings/students, is usually considered somewhat rude. Most people would have put "please" at the beginning of the bolded part. Without please? It sorely tempts me to go post just such a thing immediately 

As for criticism, well, first off, I think it's very important to have a where the options are more concise and precise. It's also important to balance the number of negative and positive responses.

For example, I would have had a title that reflected the poll, rather than a general title about how one feels, I would have made the poll more oriented towards facts rather than feelings, and I would have laid out the answers (assuming I wasn't trying to bias the poll ) as follows:

1. I currently play/run the FR and will likely continue to purchase FR products in 4E, and play/run the 4E setting.

2. I currently play/run the FR and will likely continue to purchase FR products in 4E, but play/run the old setting or an extremely variant setting.

3. I do not currently play/run the FR, nor have done before, but am interested in playing/running the 4E FR.

4. I do not currently play/run the FR, but I am an old FR "fan", and am interested in playing/running the 4E FR.

5. I currently play/run the FR, but am uncertain whether I will continue to purchase FR products in 4E.

6. I currently play/run the FR, and am very unlikely to continue to purchase FR products in 4E.

7. I do not currently play/run the FR, nor have done before, and I am not interested in the 4E FR.

8. I do not currently play/run the FR, but I am an old FR "fan", and I am not likely to purchase FR products in 4E.

Just off the top of my head. Duller, no doubt, but more accurate, I think. Feel free to criticise/modify.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Hussar (Jan 22, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Exactly, I agree 100% Hussar. I would like to add to what you are saying, that once we have poll results like we do, we can discuss the reasons why the poll is showing what it is. The poll is more accurate than anyone's hunches. Those discussions could lead to valuable insights. It is important to understand what the disgruntled fan base reasons for not being happy, and then look at those reasons that are consistantly coming up.




The problem that I see with this poll is that it's placed on EnWorld - a site which is predominantly older, experienced players.  So, any new players are not likely going to be reached by this poll.  So, your line 2 comparison doesn't really work since we don't have enough of a sample of possible Line 2 players.  

But, I agree, it's a decent place to start.



			
				Shazman said:
			
		

> WotC fanboy.  See, he was right.  If the game products weren't seeling well, why would they even do a 4E Forgotten Realms?  They killed evey other setting that wasn't a commercial success. Why would they give the Realms a second chance?  It is my understanding that the Realms novels do quite well.  I don't think that these changes bode well for the D&D or novel lines for the Forgotten Realms.  If people buy Realms books to read stories set in the Realms, they probably won't be too interested in reading about an unrecognizable Realms.  I know that I would have no interest in any post-Spellplague novels. Let's just change the name to Completely Forgotten Realms and be done with it.




The problem is, novel readers care about plot and character.  Setting is a far third.  Setting considerations aren't a big issue for readers.  We read Drizzt novels because of Drizzt, not because of the Underdark.  It works for other settings as well.  Do you read Conan because it's set in Hyboria or because it's Conan?  

Heck look at Thieves World.  There's a setting who went through its own Spellplague and 100 year reset.  And, after its return, it's as popular as it ever was.


----------



## Voss (Jan 22, 2008)

Thieves World came back?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 22, 2008)

It did indeed

And Green Ronin has brought it back as an RPG too.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 22, 2008)

There's an old saying: Don't trample over your old friends while trying to gain new ones.

The spectacular failure of SOE's attempt to get more subscriptions for Star Wars Galaxies by changing the game in a way that drove off most old players and did not attract enough new players should have proven this.

I fear this will do the same - drive off many of the current fans, while not attracting enough new fans. A successful franchise - the novels - alone is not a guarantee any game will do well.


----------



## Najo (Jan 22, 2008)

Ruin Explorer,

I am tired of your constant berating me and trying to twist everything I post into something negative. Even though I asked multiple times to please take me positively and that my intentions are honest, you keep implying or directly saying that I am lying, you have attacked my character and intentions and even my ability to communicate through written word. The thread subject is the Forgotten Realms setting for 4e not you having a personal issue with me. I wish you would stop, but since you can't perhaps the moderators can make you understand.

As for your poll suggestions, I invited you to constructively offer them. Likewise I will offer my input as you have asked. My feedback is to remove the play/run as it is a given and to change fence sitting statments like 'likely' as it does not commit the polled poster to a descision. You also want to remove redundant questions like 7 and 8 and combine them into a single question, unless it is important to know if they are an old time fan or not, since they do not currently play/ purchase and they do not plan on playing/purchasing 4e it only tells you that the new setting didn't bring back some old fans who left the realms already. 

Simply put, I can not fathom how you have taken my posts so negatively. How my direct and polite requests are turned in your perceptions into manipulative, evil actions. Its sickening. 

The internet is not a land full of liars and thieves. It is a place where most people are honest, but occasionally forget (like you have) that real people, with real feelings are behind posts and handles. There are some who lie, cheat and steal, and of course you should take precautions because of that. But I think it takes a criminally minded person to do those things. You need to take a reality check and learn how to treat people with more respect becuase the people online are the people who we meet and interact with everyday. They just are scattered across the world. 

Any rate, I wish you well and am sorry that you can't seem to keep chewing on my leg, but hey, that is your progative. Ultimately it reflects badly on you.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 22, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> There's an old saying: Don't trample over your old friends while trying to gain new ones.
> 
> The spectacular failure of SOE's attempt to get more subscriptions for Star Wars Galaxies by changing the game in a way that drove off most old players and did not attract enough new players should have proven this.
> 
> I fear this will do the same - drive off many of the current fans, while not attracting enough new fans. A successful franchise - the novels - alone is not a guarantee any game will do well.




Yeah, they are definitely burning their bridges with me with this "nuke the Realms for the noobies" mentality.  Of course, WotC already lost most of it's goodwill with me when they cancelled Dungeon and Dragon.  The online versions are a joke.  Anyway, it seems that most of the customers they are targeting with these changes, (maybe all of the 4E changes), do not know of or care about the Realms or Dungeons and Dragons.  Why are they all of the sudden going to "discover" and "fall in love " with 4E and the new Realms?  I just don't see it.  They are getting rid of loyal customers for the possibility of getting new customers whiich may not be in it for the long haul.  It seems awfully short-sighted.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 22, 2008)

Never let the work of one writer wipe away years of established flavour/feel/canon etc from a campaign setting if you do not wish.


-Faction War – not in my Planescape!

-Prism Pentad – not in my Dark Sun!

-Whatever that Ravenloft tragedy was – not in my Ravenloft!

-All that crap from Dragonlance after the War of the Lance – not in my…well, you get it.


----------



## Dronehound (Jan 22, 2008)

I've got a question.  At the end of 2Ed, the Realms were near the gunpowder (smokepowder) revolution mostly due to Maztica and Spelljammer settings.  In 3Ed, this was mostly ignored, because many felt that it made the Realms less "iconic", so only Latan and gnomes were using them.  But with HYL (hundred years later) jump of the Realms and the death of most mages shouldn't smokepowder weapons have taken a more bigger place?  I know that if my players vote that we do the HYN jump to 4Ed Realms, smokepowder weapons will be at least uncommon in states like Cormyr or Waterdeep.  And I know one of my players that will want to play a Harper Ranger armed with a pistol named Yon Wajne...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 22, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> My feedback is to remove the play/run as it is a given and to change fence sitting statments like 'likely' as it does not commit the polled poster to a descision. You also want to remove redundant questions like 7 and 8 and combine them into a single question, unless it is important to know if they are an old time fan or not, since they do not currently play/ purchase *and they do not plan on playing/purchasing 4e* it only tells you that the new setting didn't bring back some old fans who left the realms already.




I'm going to ignore the parts of your post where you're complaining about things I really don't care about. It's clear to me that English isn't your first language (e.g. "missed quote") and you're misinterpreting my posts as badly you say I am yours (if you think I'm attacking you, well, heh, good thing I'm not attacking you, I don't even know what you'd think then!), and sadly I can't see any way to bridge that gap (particularly as you take my suggesting that it is exists as an "attack" - Sorry you feel that way, but nothing I can do about). Probably the best thing to do is accept that you find my posts "upsetting", and just ignore anything you regard as an attack. I'd remove it if I knew how, but you take things I regard as calm, non-personal statements as personal attacks (such as "some people on the internet lie therefore I don't believe unsupported claims").

So, on to the criticism:

1) Forcing people into "decisive" statements about a product they've not seen is bad practice. Period. This is precisely why those are there.

2) It is _extremely important_ to know if someone is an ex-fan, because many of WotC's changes hinge of modifying the FR _based on the criticism of previous FR players_. I can get you a quote on that from a WotC person if you don't believe me.

Thus, if the changes aren't bringing back old fans, then your case that WotC are doing something wrong is _much stronger_ and more rational.

Also, with the bolded part, I don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't seem to connect with anything I've said and appears to represent a serious misunderstanding of what I've said. Can you clear that up?


----------



## Najo (Jan 22, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Yeah, they are definitely burning their bridges with me with this "nuke the Realms for the noobies" mentality.  Of course, WotC already lost most of it's goodwill with me when they cancelled Dungeon and Dragon.  The online versions are a joke.  Anyway, it seems that most of the customers they are targeting with these changes, (maybe all of the 4E changes), do not know of or care about the Realms or Dungeons and Dragons.  Why are they all of the sudden going to "discover" and "fall in love " with 4E and the new Realms?  I just don't see it.  They are getting rid of loyal customers for the possibility of getting new customers whiich may not be in it for the long haul.  It seems awfully short-sighted.





Read my post above on barriers to entry. That is why WOTC is doing much of this as it let's new blood into the hobby easier. If new blood doesn;t come in, then our beloved hobby dies overtime through attrition. 

As for 4e D&D, from everything I've seen so far in the preview books, heard from inside the industry and the tidbits online, they are heading the right direction. Only complaint people might have is the Fluff named game mechanics (see debates from before about Golden Wyvern Adept). Over a third of the mechanics is named like this now. Some DMs will find this frustrating potentially. Otherwise, everything I've heard makes 4e sound incredible to run and play. Read the worlds and monsters book for a 4e DM perspective. 

As for the Realms, it will depend on how true to the setting's feel they stay. If the Realms turns into the Road Warrior, there might be a problem. Reminds of the part in Fight Club when Ed Norton beat the hell out of the blonde guy, and then stated that he wanted to destroy something beautiful. I think this is how some of the realms fans are feeling right now. 

One other point, I think some of the Points of Light/ Surrounding Darkness is what they are trying to put back into the realms. This would require "destroying/ ruining" places. The trade off is a sense of mystery and exploration of the unknown. So, I guess we will see.


----------



## PeterWeller (Jan 22, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> The spectacular failure of SOE's attempt to get more subscriptions for Star Wars Galaxies by changing the game in a way that drove off most old players and did not attract enough new players should have proven this.




By the time they tried the whole New Game Experience, SWG had already driven away most of its player base by being a poorly designed and supported, bug ridden, flaming pile of garbage.  That game was broken junk to its very core and the NGE failed because it didn't bother trying to address the game's problems but instead just gave us an entirely different game wearing the old one's skin.

Now, unless you consider the 4E changes akin to taking a skill-tree based, player economy driven, open ended MMO and swapping it unannounced with one that was class based and quest driven (basically a bad WoW clone with pew pew lasers), SWG has nothing to do with this discussion.  In fact, the 4E revisions, which keep the core and fix what was "broke," could serve as a good example as to what they _should_ have done with SWG.


----------



## IanB (Jan 23, 2008)

Indeed, SWG's NGE isn't a good model for this.

The problem with the NGE was simple:

SWG had a ton of subscribers. Over time, huge numbers of them left because of the various problems. Once that happened, the _only people left were people who liked the game as it was_. So instituting the NGE was guaranteed to piss off the only existing customers there were. On top of that, when people leave an MMO, they generally go to a new one and invest a lot of time and/or money there - and newer MMOs have a built-in advantage in terms of technology and design compared to old ones, so any change made to an *old* MMO has to be incredibly awesome to draw people back from what is usually a superior play experience to what they remember from the old game.

However in the case of FR and 4e, I would bet good money that most of the people who stopped playing/buying FR didn't ditch _D&D itself_ - and I'll bet there's another significant chunk who have issues with the FR as they currently stand but are still playing there, because ultimately what setting you choose to play in is up to the DM or group, not most individual players. So the barrier for returning to FR is much lower than it would be for returning to a years-old MMO. On top of that, 4e is shiny new technology, like that new hot MMO you left SWG for. So you can probably count on some more positive movement towards the new FR because of that - and this is important - because FR is going to be the only WotC campaign setting on the block for the first year or so! So if you want that fully supported 4e experience, FR is your destination.

On top of that, the RPGA is going to be running FR too - so if you want to play RPGA games, you're going to be playing in the FR, and probably buying at least some of those FR books. 

With all those factors I think the new FR will *easily* be a success.


----------



## danbuter1 (Jan 23, 2008)

I hate the new changes. But my two favorite FR books are "Dreams of the Red Wizards" and "Unapproachable East".


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 23, 2008)

(solemnly)

  Hey there, all.

  In the rather bleak reality we are stuck with facing in the Real World, we just do our best.  And isn't that all we can do?
  Gaming is no different.  We do our best, and it's the best we can do.

  We cannot alter or affect what WOTC is doing with FR.  We can choose to like or dislike it, but we cannot change it.  We can only react to it.

  My way of reacting is simply to say that more Realmslore is available now, than has ever been available in history (compliments of countless TSR and WOTC products, the Candlekeep Forum, and other sources.)
  Some of this Realmslore, such as 4E Realmslore, conflicts with other Realmslore, such as 2E Realmslore.

  So, it's a simple matter of picking and choosing which Realmslore to use, in which campaign.  Or what combination of conflicting Realmslore.  Or how much homegrown Realmslore to add in.  And so on.
  I'll pay the money, and buy the books.  I'll support the Hobby.  But I'll do it my way, not the way in which I am told (and isn't fantasy heavily about freedom to do what you want, not what you are told? ... thus, this is in the spirit of the Hobby.)

  I will not become angry over changes, or insult others.  On the other hand, I won't subscribe to any rulesset I don't happen to like.  I just do my own thing.

  Why get bothered about changes in FR?  Have FR your way.  Have FR using your favorite edition (there will soon be five full editions of D&D to choose from, plus C&C.)  Make home changes as you please.  Add Candlekeep stuff in as you please.

  It's futility to rail against WOTC.  They have decided on the changes, and we cannot alter that.  We can, however, agree to play FR based on those changes, or play based on older versions of FR.  We make this choice.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Jan 23, 2008)

It might be good.

It might be very good.

I might even buy it & play it, I just don't think it will feel like THE Forgotten Realms to me.

I ditched Dragonlance many years ago do to all the changes (I'm not talking about the 5th age cards as much as the wierd fluff that went down).

In fact, Star Trek the Next Generation is the only example I can think of where they both jumped the timeline a lot, and the new product FELT like the old.

Maybe WotC will pull it off, but I'm not counting on it.


----------



## Voss (Jan 23, 2008)

Edena,

Its not really that simple though.  Say a group is starting up a new campaign. The DM and 1 other like the new realms.  2 are die hard grey box era fans.  1 doesn't care.  They start to bicker: the supporters arguing that the New Realms are all that are going to get official support, grey box fans claiming there is plenty of old material that works just fine, as fluff is independent of the new rules.  Some don't want to learn the new lore, others don't want to learn the old lore.

The group breaks up and doesn't play.  Boy, that makes for a fun experience!

The other side of the issue- the book is still 6 months out.  There is still time for people who care to try to talk WotC out of the really stupid stuff.  Being quiet and accepting whatever you're given isn't all that productive.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 23, 2008)

Voss:  Groups like that suck and should be avoided if the behavior persists beyond middle school.


----------



## Rel (Jan 23, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm going to ignore the parts of your post where you're complaining about things I really don't care about. It's clear to me that English isn't your first language (e.g. "missed quote") and you're misinterpreting my posts as badly you say I am yours (if you think I'm attacking you, well, heh, good thing I'm not attacking you, I don't even know what you'd think then!), and sadly I can't see any way to bridge that gap (particularly as you take my suggesting that it is exists as an "attack" - Sorry you feel that way, but nothing I can do about). Probably the best thing to do is accept that you find my posts "upsetting", and just ignore anything you regard as an attack. I'd remove it if I knew how, but you take things I regard as calm, non-personal statements as personal attacks (such as "some people on the internet lie therefore I don't believe unsupported claims").
> 
> So, on to the criticism:
> 
> ...




Hey, Ruin Explorer, two things:

1) Don't respond any further to Najo in this thread.  It's clearly not being productive for either of you.

2) I'd suggest that any furrther posts in this thread be far less riddled with snarky condescention.  That's not productive either.


----------



## Voss (Jan 23, 2008)

Yes, but sometimes the only way you can find out they're like that is by joining them (however briefly).   And with gamers, at least in my experience, its the kind of thing that does tend to persist.

And while I wouldn't take it that far, I would try to talk a group out of playing in the new Realms (at least get them to vote on it), as it would definitely lower my enjoyment of the game.  I certainly wouldn't want a DM to surprise me with it.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 23, 2008)

I understand and appreciate your point, Voss.
  I just don't know how to address it.  Different people want different things.  Too much difference, and there is a compatibility problem.
  The players, in the case you are discussing, have a very real problem and some creative thinking is called for to solve it.  Everyone wants to have fun, of course, and should be able to find a way to enjoy themselves in the game.


----------



## Teemu (Jan 23, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Edena,
> 
> Its not really that simple though.  Say a group is starting up a new campaign. The DM and 1 other like the new realms.  2 are die hard grey box era fans.  1 doesn't care.  They start to bicker: the supporters arguing that the New Realms are all that are going to get official support, grey box fans claiming there is plenty of old material that works just fine, as fluff is independent of the new rules.  Some don't want to learn the new lore, others don't want to learn the old lore.
> 
> The group breaks up and doesn't play.  Boy, that makes for a fun experience!



How does this differ from the current situation? Gray Box era =/= 3e Realms.


----------



## Voss (Jan 23, 2008)

Teemu said:
			
		

> How does this differ from the current situation? Gray Box era =/= 3e Realms.




Why make it worse?


----------



## Sammael (Jan 23, 2008)

I have _Cloak and Dagger_, and I honestly don't see what he's saying. Roughly 90% of plots from _Cloak and Dagger_ remain viable in 3E.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 23, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Why make it worse?




To give different people different eras of play? Should TSR never have produced the arcane age supplements? If you cannot decide in which era to play with your group, well.... I begin my next campaign in the Grey Box era. Maybe the next game after that is after the 100 year leap, who knows. More options.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 23, 2008)

Stories that have done well with time jumps:

Star Trek
Heh, Lord of the Rings - after all, Frodo sits around for like many, many years after Bilbo leaves.
Thieves World
Alien (in the Dark Horse comics, NOT the movies)
Battlestar Galactica - and here's a time jump that pretty much dumps all previous canon
The Shanara series
Narnia

But, the point is certainly valid.  There are all sorts of examples where trying to move the timeline forward, or messing with canon, has produced some very mixed and sometimes quite bad results.

Look at the first three seasons of Enterprise.  Phew.  Those stunk and I'm a pretty easy going viewer.  But, to be fair, the fourth season, once they finally found their legs, was some of the best Trek in years.  Unfortunately, too little, too late.

The problem is, it's very, very hard to compare RPG settings to any literary or media settings.  We have no say in how the Trek universe plays out.  None.  We can watch or not watch, but, other than that, we're completely passive.  In an RPG setting, players are actively meant to engage in the setting - which means that the setting changes for each and every group that plays.

I can totally sympathize with those who feel kicked in the teeth by these changes.  People own their settings.  They put huge amounts of work into them and for someone else to come along and kick over the sand heap is not fun.  But, unfortunately, WOTC can't protect your setting.  They can only do stuff which hopefully keeps their setting economically viable.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 23, 2008)

Try this as a way of looking at the Grand History of the Realms:

  - The Arcane Age Setting (all Arcane Age rules in effect) - Covers all the time from -100,000 DR (the end of the Age of Thunder and the Time of the Creator Races) to the Fall of Netheril
  - The Fall of Myth Drannor Setting (modified Arcane Age rules in effect) - Covers the time from the Fall of Netheril to the Fall of Myth Drannor, a time in which the use of High Magic was truly deadly
  - The 1st Edition Realms (all 1st Edition rules in effect) - Covers the time from the Fall of Myth Drannor to the Time of Troubles.
  - The 2nd Edition Realms (all 2nd Edition rules in effect) - Covers the time from the Time of Troubles until the End of the Elven Retreat and the Rise of the Dwarves (the dwarves start becoming wizards.)
  - The 3rd Edition Realms (3.0 and 3.5 rules in effect) - Covers the time from the Rise of the Dwarves until sometime during the Spellplague.
  - The 4th Edition Realms (all 4th Edition rules in effect) - Covers the Forgotten Realms from sometime during the Spellplague onward.

  So, for example, for around 95,000 years, you had to deal with assorted ways of casting magic (elven, Netherese, Imaskari, Djinn Calimshan, etc.) and 10th and 11th level spells could be freely cast.  And there were *Archwizards*, super-mages who could throw 40d6 fireballs.

  After the Fall of Netheril, no more 10th and 11th level spells (except for elves, and only 10th level for them.)  Elven High Magic is deadly to cast, but less so as time wears on.
  A 30th level wizard, like the Simbul, could still throw a 30d6 fireball, since no caps existed on spells.
  No more 10th level spells.  Period.

  Enter the Time of Troubles.  After that, assassins worked differently (if they worked at all) and your fireball was limited to 10 dice, along with many other spells.

  Enter the 3rd Edition world.  We have new concepts such as Prestige Classes, so history must be subtly rewritten (it makes sense that they were always there ... a Purple Dragon Knight was a generic cavalier or fighter;  now he's a Prestige Class with his own abilities.)

  Enter the 4th Edition world.  Things are new and strange.  All the rules are different.  People remember how the Old World worked, but it sure doesn't work that way now.

  That's over a hundred thousand years of Realmstime to play in, and just one FR setting out of countless Alternate FR Settings (for example, one in which the Chosen of Mystra are less powerful and influencial than they are in the Canon, as is desired by some people.  Or perhaps one in which the Red Wizards of Thay are intelligent, organized, united, and a real threat to everyone else.)
  You can pick and choose your timeline, and in FR, the timeline determines the rules!  (If you allow it to.)  Don't like the 2nd edition rules?  Go to the 1st edition timeline and the Grey Box.  Don't like 3rd edition?  Stick with 2nd.  Like 4th?  Go straight there.

  Alter the timeline to suit yourself.  Maybe the Arcane Age rules never existed, and people could NEVER throw around 10th and 11th level spells.  Maybe 3rd Edition was always the way of Toril, with all the new and neat PrCs running around.  Or maybe the Spellplague never happens, or if it does it does not change the rules ... or change them much.

  You are in control, you and your group.  You have all that FR material out there - more published FR material than has ever been out in history, enough material you could literally spend years reading it all (go to Candlekeep and see for yourself, and consider the numerous FR novels.)
  You have an INCREDIBLE wealth of material to pick and choose from.  A banquet laid out for you and your players.  Why not enjoy it?

  As for one player wanting this, and another player wanting that, we have all been at those tables.  And we all know the meaning of the word Compromise.  For that is what we must do, in order to make things work.

  Don't give up on FR because it's been changed in 4E.
  Consider that a whole new world (maybe desirable, maybe not) has been created, and you can have it, or stick with your own FR.  You can have your cake and eat it too.  It's your party, and you are in charge.

  That's how I see things.  

  Cheers to my fellow Hobbyists.  

  Sincerely Yours
  Edena_of_Neith (who is a longtime Realms Fan)


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Why make it worse?




Stating subjective things as if they were absolutes does not make them so. Even if you believe really hard.

Your "worse" is my "better," and your "awesome Grey Box Realms" is my "get that crap away from me Realms."


----------



## Fenes (Jan 23, 2008)

I do not see the rules having that much of an impact. I can play in any age using 3.0 rules, with just slight modifications - I don't really sweat the "but you can't be an assassin in 2E" stuff, since assassin for me is not a set of rules, but a function.

But for those who say WotC is not repeating the NGE of SWG: The biggest problem SWG faces is not the fact so many veterans left with the NGE, it's the fact that so many of those who left are so bitter about their treatment that they continue to spread their views all over the MMOG scene.

That could happen to FR as well.

Personally, I don't see any need for drastic changes at all - the canon "weight" is still there for those who care about it, in every ruin the adventurers may explore there can be something that an oldtimer takes offense with for violating past realmslore. Just about every of the long-lived NPCs can still be around. Most of the "core" settings were not changed enough to ditch all the lore either.

It looks to me like this was just some people forcing their own home brew on the realms by adding stuff they think is cool.

I would have vastly preferred a 4E FR that was less "sledgehammer", and more "Actually, we almost have it already, look..." 

Tieflings? They were already there, no need to change anything, one can simply add "Many of those come from relams and ages where devils/demons were influential".

Dragonborn? Lizardfolk are common. Reptilian creator races were around as well. A few more scaly folks are not going to trouble anyone, especially if by lore they do not have an empire of their own.

Magic mechanical changes? Ignore them. A wizard is a wizard. No need to justify rules tweaks with fluff changes. Most of the novels never followed D&D rules anyway.

Points of Light? Again, many parts of the old realms qualify, pick one and make it a starter location.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> But for those who say WotC is not repeating the NGE of SWG: The biggest problem SWG faces is not the fact so many veterans left with the NGE, it's the fact that so many of those who left are so bitter about their treatment that they continue to spread their views all over the MMOG scene.




The reason this analogy doesn't work is because SWG completely changed *it's own gameplay after release*, not because it had differences from a *previous edition of the game*. If they had managed to somehow ruin 1e/2e/3e halfway through it's lifespan, it would apply... but that's frankly impossible.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 23, 2008)

You could also see the earlier SWG versions (pre-CU, and CU) as "editions". Semantics, nothing more.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> You could also see the earlier SWG versions (pre-CU, and CU) as "editions". Semantics, nothing more.




No, because they were still the same product, except altered. You can't go pre-CU, or pre-NGE, but you can play any edition of D&D prior.

The only way it would be applicable is if the release of 4th edition suddenly changes all your 1e/2e/3e books to not work like they used to, and never let you go back to playing them, making the money you have already spent a waste.


----------



## rounser (Jan 23, 2008)

> your "awesome Grey Box Realms" is my "get that crap away from me Realms."



What, exactly, is the part of the Realms you like then Mourn, or are you just taking a rhetorical contrarian angle?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> What, exactly, is the part of the Realms you like then Mourn, or are you just taking a rhetorical contrarian angle?




What part do I like?

The part that got me interested in the Realms as a setting to run, as opposed to just a novel line to read (which is all it was to me before): the big changes coming from the Spellplague. I intend to run a Realms game for the first time in history.

Do you have a problem with me pointing out that tastes are subjective to someone who is asserting their opinion as if it were fact? Or was it just because you share his opinion?


----------



## rounser (Jan 23, 2008)

> What part do I like?
> 
> The part that got me interested in the Realms as a setting to run, as opposed to just a novel line to read (which is all it was to me before): the big changes coming from the Spellplague. I intend to run a Realms game for the first time in history.
> 
> Do you have a problem with me pointing out that tastes are subjective to someone who is asserting their opinion as if it were fact? Or was it just because you share his opinion?



No, no problem.  You've just confirmed where I suspected you were coming from.  I at least suspected you'd be at least a fan of part of the existing Realms before taking the position you have.  You've genuinely surprised me there - I assumed you'd say something like "Zakhara" or such.  Frankly I'm a little disappointed.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> No, no problem.  You've just confirmed where I suspected you were coming from.  I at least suspected you'd be at least a fan of part of the existing Realms before taking the position you have. You've genuinely surprised me there - I assumed you'd say something like "Zakhara" or such.  Frankly I'm a little disappointed.




I've been reading FR novels for over 10 years now, but I never had interest in the setting as a place to play. My friend ran a couple "sorta FR" games, but never really got into it (usually just grabbed stuff from FR books to throw into games). It just never interested me as a place to tell my stories until now, to the point where I picked up Grand History of the Realms to have access to historical stuff in my 4e games.


----------



## rounser (Jan 23, 2008)

> I've been reading FR novels for over 10 years now, but I never had interest in the setting as a place to play. My friend ran a couple "sorta FR" games, but never really got into it (usually just grabbed stuff from FR books to throw into games). It just never interested me as a place to tell my stories until now, to the point where I picked up Grand History of the Realms to have access to historical stuff in my 4e games.



You don't see the irony in this?  The Grey Box was pre-novels, pre-supplement avalanche, pre-grafted on settings.  The novels you're talking about are partially responsible for getting the realms into the mess it currently requires a reset for.  And yet you're railing against the Grey Box?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> You don't see the irony in this?




I do. I live my life with a great deal of irony. Makes it more interesting.



> And yet you're railing against the Grey Box?




Railing, no.

Not liking to play in, yes.

I'm strange like that. Sometimes, I desire knowledge about something to the point of becoming encyclopedic about it... but sometimes, when the information is so huge (like the Realms), the scope of trying to absorb it all makes me less interested. I dunno. All I know is that despite owning the 3rd Edition FRCS, I never felt a desire to run a game there, and just by reading some of the changes I've seen for 4th, I'm already thinking about what to do. I've had an opportunity to play Grey Box stuff (my FR lore-nerd friend has everything, including every Dragon article by Greenwood), but it never really appealed to me. Who knows, maybe that'll change after I get my "roleplaying-feet" wet with the new Realms, and I'll be interested in going back and seeing the setting's origin.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 23, 2008)

rounser said:
			
		

> the Grey Box?




The grey box did rock (I still have an extra sealed one), but by the time the 2nd Ed box hit, it was becoming a bit polluted for my tastes.

I also for the first time since about 1992 I am actually interested in the Realms again.

Though I have my ongoing Realms campaigns that have definitely deviated form some of the tripe theses "authors" have spewed out over the years.

I also feel Dragonlance lost its vibe and became a turd of a setting after the War of the Lance.


----------



## Najo (Jan 23, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Try this as a way of looking at the Grand History of the Realms:
> 
> - The Arcane Age Setting (all Arcane Age rules in effect) - Covers all the time from -100,000 DR (the end of the Age of Thunder and the Time of the Creator Races) to the Fall of Netheril
> - The Fall of Myth Drannor Setting (modified Arcane Age rules in effect) - Covers the time from the Fall of Netheril to the Fall of Myth Drannor, a time in which the use of High Magic was truly deadly
> ...





Those are some good suggestions. I think Forgotten Realms could benefit from Eras to focus on. They would likely need to boil it down (Arcane Age, Fall of the Empires, Time of Troubles, 3.5 era and After the Spellplague). If 4e does well, and there is interest in historical setting supplements, those supplements could be a way to provide 4e game material and Realmslore on those eras and still keep true to the vision and direction of 4e FR. Anyrate, I like your idea.


----------



## IanB (Jan 23, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Those are some good suggestions. I think Forgotten Realms could benefit from Eras to focus on. They would likely need to boil it down (Arcane Age, Fall of the Empires, Time of Troubles, 3.5 era and After the Spellplague). If 4e does well, and there is interest in historical setting supplements, those supplements could be a way to provide 4e game material and Realmslore on those eras and still keep true to the vision and direction of 4e FR. Anyrate, I like your idea.




I have my doubts WotC would ever go down a path like that; it sounds too similar in terms of dividing up the customer base to what TSR went through with their product glut. Their goal is to make 5 books that everyone will buy, not 10 books that only 10% of the customers will want any one of, or whatever. Slicing up a customer block with books that may only appeal to small corner case groups sounds like TSR all over again to me.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 23, 2008)

Thanks much, Najo.

  Think of this, folks.  Officially - by the canon - the entire Realmspace setting (that is, Forgotten Realms, AL-QADIM, Kara-Tur, Maztica, and Hordelands) is subject to the Arcane Age ruleset from the end of the Age of Thunder (-100,000 DR) until the Fall of Netheril (around -2,000 DR.)
  So, why is that relevant?  Because under those rules, wizards have 10th, 11th, and even 12th level spells, and elves have High Magic.  (and all the other classes get ... nothing.)  I'd call that relevant.

  Want to play canon ancient Imaskari?  You're stuck with the Arcane Age rules.
  Want to play ancient ancient Damara?    You're stuck with the Arcane Age rules.
  Ancient Calimshan?    You're stuck with the Arcane Age rules.
  The ancient elven empires (pick an empire, any empire) ...  You're stuck with the Arcane Age rules.

  By now, you're probably ready to say:  Edena_of_Neith, I'm not *stuck* with anything.  I'll do what I want to do, thank you very much.

  Well, exactly.  Want to play those ancient realms with the 1E rules?  You can do it.  2E rules?  You can do it.  3.0?  Yes.  3.5?  Yes.

  So, it's your Realms.  Regardless of what the canon says, you can do as you please.

  WOTC will only support the canon, apparently.  If you play in official games, you're stuck with the canon.  If you buy the books, they will be canon books.
  That's fine.  If you buy the books, you have a new setting to play in.  Or new elements to add to your existing setting.  

  But it's your game.

  -

  This is the difference between FR and, say, Tolkien's Middle Earth.
  If Christopher Tolkien suddenly decided to REWRITE all of Tolkien's works, and redefine Middle Earth, and then told all the Tolkien Fans that it was his way or the highway, then that would be disastrous.  It might even be apocalyptic.  

  But we, as gamers, are not required to accept FR canon in the sense that we accept book canon.  It is irritating in the extreme that they keep changing what the FR canon is, for a lot of people - as responses to various boards have shown - but we don't have to accept it.  (Otherwise, I don't think anyone would still be playing FR.  Do you?)

  Now, if they changed the canon and announced that the Simbul was a 161st level wizard, then perhaps the result amongst gamers might be cataclysmic ...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> If Christopher Tolkien suddenly decided to REWRITE all of Tolkien's works, and redefine Middle Earth, and then told all the Tolkien Fans that it was his way or the highway, then that would be disastrous.  It might even be apocalyptic.




This isn't an accurate analogy for what's happening with the Realms, since they're not rewriting the Realms, they're making a sequel.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This isn't an accurate analogy for what's happening with the Realms, since they're not rewriting the Realms, they're making a sequel.




Maybe not, but, it's close enough to get the point.

Look at Dune.  They've rewritten a fair bit of canon with the new Dune series.  We're forced to accept that, because we aren't the authors.  We can buy or not buy, but, therein lies the extent of our power.

RPG's, as Edena so rightly points out, are entirely different animals.  WOTC has no choice but to put out canon books.  Between the novel lines, CRPG's, and the RPG books themselves, that's a massive amount of canon.  We're talking Trek level canon.  

But, you're entirely free to ignore any of it when you sit down to play.  And that's a good thing.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 24, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> We're talking Trek level canon.



Or Galactica level canon.

Ohhhhhh. Never mind.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Maybe not, but, it's close enough to get the point.




I disagree. Rewriting Tolkein means you have a chance that Frodo will not destroy the ring, and other things will happen instead. Writing a sequel to Tolkein doesn't change Frodo's adventure, it merely brings up the idea of "The New Shadow" (a canceled, theoretic sequel) taking place later.

It doesn't change Lord of the Rings one iota.



> Look at Dune.  They've rewritten a fair bit of canon with the new Dune series.  We're forced to accept that, because we aren't the authors.  We can buy or not buy, but, therein lies the extent of our power.




And again, if they're *rewriting previous canon*, that's wholly different from *moving canon forward* and having new events occur that change the world.

In 1372, Khelben was the most badass mage in Waterdeep, which is canon. In 1479, he's not, because he's dead. Now, this doesn't change him being that back in 1372, it just means the metaplot has moved forward and that's no longer the case. It doesn't invalidate it, it makes it different in a different time period.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Or Galactica level canon.




Galactica doesn't even come close to the amount of Trek canon.

And if we're talking about the old Galactica, then I must suppress a giggle. I could never take that show seriously in any way.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 24, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Or Galactica level canon.
> 
> Ohhhhhh. Never mind.




You're not helping.   

Mourn, it's a talking point, just work with it.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 24, 2008)

Well, I can draw an analogy here.  And then I'm out of this thread, since there's nothing more for me to say.

  We're stuck with 4th Edition, like it or not.  Just like we were stuck with whatever they wrote for the old Battlestar Galactica.
  Was some of that old show entertaining?  Yes.  I liked Apollo and Starbuck.
  Was some of that old show annoying?  Yes.  After the destruction of the Colonies, it was not appropriate for everyone to go enjoy themselves at the Party Planet (and if the planet was that unstable, it would have never have formed as a planet anyways.)

  Is some of 4th Edition entertaining?  Yes.  IMO.
  Is some of 4th Edition annoying?  Yes.  IMO.
  But 4th Edition or the old Battlestar Galactica, we're stuck with it!  

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith

  EDIT:  And we're stuck with Frodo and Sam going alone to Mordor, because Merry and Pippin saw fit to go running pell mell into the wilderness looking for Frodo and being captured, because Tolkien decreed this.  And we're stuck with Arwen replacing Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Ringwraiths, because Peter Jackson decreed that!


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 24, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Mourn, it's a talking point, just work with it.




I try, but then a daggit comes rolling in and my world turns upside down!


----------



## Najo (Jan 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I try, but then a daggit comes rolling in and my world turns upside down!




Then the new Battlestar Galactica came along and completely erased athe old show, and all was good. Near perfect show


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 24, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Then the new Battlestar Galactica came along and completely erased athe old show, and all was good. Near perfect show



Exactly. 4e is the Ron Moore edition of the D&D.

And yeah, I'm really curious to see what they come up with.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 24, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Read my post above on barriers to entry. That is why WOTC is doing much of this as it let's new blood into the hobby easier. If new blood doesn;t come in, then our beloved hobby dies overtime through attrition.
> 
> As for 4e D&D, from everything I've seen so far in the preview books, heard from inside the industry and the tidbits online, they are heading the right direction. Only complaint people might have is the Fluff named game mechanics (see debates from before about Golden Wyvern Adept). Over a third of the mechanics is named like this now. Some DMs will find this frustrating potentially. Otherwise, everything I've heard makes 4e sound incredible to run and play. Read the worlds and monsters book for a 4e DM perspective.
> 
> ...




So they may be removing some perceived (and I believe entirely fictional) barriers to entry.  How does that make a 13 year old WOW addict (apparently their target audience for 4E) 1) even know that D&D exists or has a brand new edition aimed at him 2 )want to play D&D instead of WOW 3) know of the Forgotten Realms and 4) realize that any "barriers" to him playing Forgotten Realms are now gone.  Like I said.  They are nuking the Realms and alienating existing customers to cater to people that don't know of or care about their product.  What are they doing get these kids to even know what D&D is?


----------



## Rel (Jan 24, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> So they may be removing some perceived (and I believe entirely fictional) barriers to entry.  How does that make a *13 year old WOW addict (apparently their target audience for 4E*) 1) even know that D&D exists or has a brand new edition aimed at him 2 )want to play D&D instead of WOW 3) know of the Forgotten Realms and 4) realize that any "barriers" to him playing Forgotten Realms are now gone.  Like I said.  They are nuking the Realms and alienating existing customers to cater to people that don't know of or care about their product.  What are they doing get these kids to even know what D&D is?




Bolding mine.

I wonder if the folks here will eventually get that making such statements pretty much ends all productive discourse on the topic at hand.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> So they may be removing some perceived (and I believe entirely fictional) barriers to entry.  How does that make a 13 year old WOW addict (apparently their target audience for 4E) 1) even know that D&D exists or has a brand new edition aimed at him 2 )want to play D&D instead of WOW 3) know of the Forgotten Realms and 4) realize that any "barriers" to him playing Forgotten Realms are now gone.  Like I said.  They are nuking the Realms and alienating existing customers to cater to people that don't know of or care about their product.  What are they doing get these kids to even know what D&D is?



Commercials? 

And you know, personally, I don't care about 13 year old WoW addicts, but like 4E and suddenly feel interested in actually running a FR game. And I also like 4E. So I think the target audience is a little bit broader than you like us to insult... believe. 

PS: 
For determining the possible target audience: 
I am not 13 years old. I am 28. I have studied computer sciences are now working as a software developer. I started role-playing back in the year 2000, playing Shadowrun 3rd edition. Switching to D&D was heard as first, but in the end, I grew to love it (or at least 3rd edition. I don't think I'd ever play AD&D or older editions). I also liked playing Torg and Warhammer. 
I enjoyed compuer games like Zack McCracken, LHX, TFX, Diablo 2, Jagged Alliance 2, Trackmania Sunrise, Temple of Elemental Evil, Neverwinter Nights and Command & Conquer. I didn't enjoy WoW. It was only a test account, but 1-2 hours of play convinced that I just don't have the time for the slow advancement WoW provides...


----------



## Shazman (Jan 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Commercials?
> 
> And you know, personally, I don't care about 13 year old WoW addicts, but like 4E and suddenly feel interested in actually running a FR game. And I also like 4E. So I think the target audience is a little bit broader than you like us to insult... believe.
> 
> ...




What commercials?  The only commercials I have seen even mentioning D&D or roleplaying games in general do not portray it in a positive light.


----------



## Najo (Jan 24, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> So they may be removing some perceived (and I believe entirely fictional) barriers to entry.  How does that make a 13 year old WOW addict (apparently their target audience for 4E) 1) even know that D&D exists or has a brand new edition aimed at him 2 )want to play D&D instead of WOW 3) know of the Forgotten Realms and 4) realize that any "barriers" to him playing Forgotten Realms are now gone.  Like I said.  They are nuking the Realms and alienating existing customers to cater to people that don't know of or care about their product.  What are they doing get these kids to even know what D&D is?




Ok, lets take that one step of a time and paint the big picture.

1) The first barrier to entry is awareness of the potential players of what D&D is, this spreads best through word of mouth and actually playing.

2) To get those people to play, you have to simplfy complicated areas of the game (grappling, choosing spells, prestige classes and planning character builds, ECL, templates, pricing magic items, pages of rules to get started). Many gamers think this is what adds depth to a game, and they don't understand why that stuff isn't easy for casual players. Simplfying and streamline doesn't have to me dumbing it down. It just means you present the stuff to get started as easy to do, then allow the game to become more and more complicated as you play and master it. Still allow advanced players to make fun builds, complicated choices and have lots of tactical options. But, new players should be able to look at their character sheet, build a character with out help and then get the basic mechanics after being told once.

3) The game has to become viral. This means it spreads naturally and contasgiously. So D&D needs to be something that a friend hears about and then they can hop in to a session and get it, and go play on their own. The DDI, the new rules, and any marketing plans for 4e will head this direction. I even bet we will see free trial DDI accounts with a free player's handbook that gives you 15 days or a month free. The worldwide online tables and quickplay rules in Keep on the Shadowfell are examples of this too. 

4) The game needs many kinds of fun for all player types! It needs to also have strengths over the video games that only good roleplaying experiences can provide, and that stuff needs to come out naturally. Social game play, backgrounds and storylines attached to characters, roleplaying quests having rules, social encounters, the story attached to rules and DMs being able to easily set up games and play are all places that video games can not touch easily. Roleplaying excels here. 

5) It needs to easily allow younger players in without alienating current players. This is something killing RPGS. Established groups rarely let the kid brother, or some teen who wants to play join. That is why the RPG demographic is aging. Pre-teen and teens are not being exposed to the game like the 30 somethings were. They have other distractions, like WOW. This is causing attrition and inbreeding to the roleplaying market. Every market needs new blood to keep it healthy and flushed with cash. The online aspects of 4e and its quick and fun play style is trying to correct that. 

6) As for the Realms, the Realms gets the position as the new RPGA official world and it is going to the first campaign launched for 4e. That means it is the first official world (with history, maps, points of interest) to explore. The Realms already has issues for established players getting into, let alone new players, yet the novels make the New York Times bestseller list. Why don't the novels pull people back into D&D? One of the reasons is the barriers to entry. 

So this leads to those "fictional" barriers to entry. Doing all of these things above, the channels for new players being delievered into D&D 4e and up to Forgotten Realms doorstep are much more open. You will have new people looking at the Realms. In the current state, DMs and players have stated they don't play it because it is to hard to find a place to start and to take in all of the history and lore. So, how are those barrier ficitional then? They might not be to you, but they are for a very large number of established D&D players and for all of the yet discovered ones too. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Najo (Jan 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Commercials?
> 
> And you know, personally, I don't care about 13 year old WoW addicts, but like 4E and suddenly feel interested in actually running a FR game. And I also like 4E. So I think the target audience is a little bit broader than you like us to insult... believe.




D&D needs 13 year WOW players as much as it needs 28 year old DMs. The 13 yearold players grow up into 28 year old DMs and give D&D a broader market and a future as a product, instead of it going the way of the buggy whip.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 24, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> Ok, lets take that one step of a time and paint the big picture.
> 
> 1) The first barrier to entry is awareness of the potential players of what D&D is, this spreads best through word of mouth and actually playing.
> 
> ...




Those are good points.  I really think that they are failing to not alienate current fans.  That's a big mistake.  That can really dampen the word of mouth advertising they are relying on.  The changes are so drastic, that they might as well make a new campaign setting and quit supporting the Realms.  The only reason they don't is because the Forgotten Realms logo is popular, and it sells products.  Thats the bottom line.  Who else deliberatley tries to get older customers to not buy and use their products? I just don't see nuking the Realms as a viable way to give it new life.  The way they are treating long time customers and fans of the Realms, I almost wish it backfires on them just on principle.  Either way, the Realms are dead to me.


----------



## Zarithar (Jan 24, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> D&D needs 13 year WOW players as much as it needs 28 year old DMs. The 13 yearold players grow up into 28 year old DMs and give D&D a broader market and a future as a product, instead of it going the way of the buggy whip.




What about 37 year old WoW players...?


----------



## danbuter1 (Jan 25, 2008)

Zarithar said:
			
		

> What about 37 year old WoW players...?




Now that's just silly.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> So they may be removing some perceived (and I believe entirely fictional) barriers to entry.  How does that make a 13 year old WOW addict (apparently their target audience for 4E) /snip




It always makes me laugh when this gets trotted out.  If D&D had the demographics of an MMORPG, we'd be 25-30 years old, and half of us would be female.  

D&D should be whole heartedly EMBRACING the demographic that plays MMORPG's.


----------



## Najo (Jan 25, 2008)

Zarithar said:
			
		

> What about 37 year old WoW players...?




They probably play D&D then already, or stopped because all of their friends no longer play. 13 year olds goto school, meet friends and have free time to play D&D. They need them more.


----------



## Najo (Jan 25, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Those are good points.  I really think that they are failing to not alienate current fans.  That's a big mistake.  That can really dampen the word of mouth advertising they are relying on.  The changes are so drastic, that they might as well make a new campaign setting and quit supporting the Realms.  The only reason they don't is because the Forgotten Realms logo is popular, and it sells products.  Thats the bottom line.  Who else deliberatley tries to get older customers to not buy and use their products? I just don't see nuking the Realms as a viable way to give it new life.  The way they are treating long time customers and fans of the Realms, I almost wish it backfires on them just on principle.  Either way, the Realms are dead to me.




I understand the way you feel as how they've portrayed the 4e realms so far. Wait until they put the book out and then flip through it. Judge it fully then. It is still possible it will look and feel like the realms. I think they can still pull it off if they tribute the current setting, its heroes and points of interest, giving us a feel of the realms we know now haunting the realms after the spellplague through stories, legendary heroes, ruins, cultures and so on.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 25, 2008)

Looking at the 4E Realms Campaign Setting would be the same thing as rubbernecking on the interstate when you see a bad accident.  Morbid curosity to see just how bad it is would be the only reason to look at it.  Then I'd probably put it away in disgust.  I do most of my shopping online, so I think I will spare myself from this heartache. 4E Realms is dead to me.


----------



## Primal (Feb 27, 2008)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Looking at the 4E Realms Campaign Setting would be the same thing as rubbernecking on the interstate when you see a bad accident.  Morbid curosity to see just how bad it is would be the only reason to look at it.  Then I'd probably put it away in disgust.  I do most of my shopping online, so I think I will spare myself from this heartache. 4E Realms is dead to me.




My thoughts exactly... I might take a peek at it at my FLGS, though, but unless all they've revealed so far turns out to be a silly joke, I can't imagine playing in 4E FR.


----------



## apiratto (Feb 27, 2008)

[i realize the thread has mostly diverged from directly addressing the poll question, and that moreover my opinion is not only marginal but also coming from the mouth of a enworld forum noob, but all the same


where's the option for those of us who don't give a rat's hemorrhoid about the realms but read a drizzt novel or two back in middleschool?    

and may i ask: what does it say about us and our game when we must reassure each other that, yes, you, as a d&d player, are free to acknowledge or dispense with new campaign setting developments or elements of canon as you see fit?


----------

