D&D 5E 5th edition Forgotten Realms: Why can't you just ignore the lore?

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

The purpose of the Spellplague was to "free" the game designers and novel writers from the mass of canon Realmslore. They seemed to view it as an obstacle, not a resource.

I have been told privately that another reason was to separate the Realms from Ed Greenwood, to diminish his influence and put the setting firmly under WotC's control.

 

[Parmandur]

The purpose of the Spellplague was to "free" the game designers and novel writers from the mass of canon Realmslore. They seemed to view it as an obstacle, not a resource.



I have been told privately that another reason was to separate the Realms from Ed Greenwood, to diminish his influence and put the setting firmly under WotC's control.

Yes, exactly, and it's understandable that they would work towards all of these goals; and equally understandable that these would cause other, new problems.

 

[Parmandur]

And while I'm digging it, for many people such as GMforPowerGamers, it really is an obstacle to use. It is a major dilemma when a setting becomes so well supported: older players have soooo much material, they become less likely to buy new stuff: it seems a lot of people stopped with the Grey Box. On the other hand, new players might become increasingly intimidated. Diminishing returns, all around, but wiping the slate runs the risk of alienating people, and if you go back to basics the new players may as well go and find an old book for cheap (which I have).

Very hard to win, which makes seeing the next play very interesting.

 

[Staffan]

The questions to ask would be really

1) "What are people doing with the Realms today, as in what is popular?"
2) "What characters and events should I know about as DM?"
3) "How can I make my idea more consistent for my players who know a lot of the canon?"

TSR had a support line. That would be great because you get to talk to someone. Besides this, they should try to publish an annual online document that answers the first two questions for everyone every year. They should have statistics for every NPC you can reach by clicking a link under their name. This is what I would recommend, anyway. I don't know about the cost of creating these resources, but it would be in their interest because the more DM's are able to do this, the more popularity they will bring through word of mouth to the setting and all of its publications.

I often wish that the D&D people at Wizards would take more of a queue from the way the Magic people interact with the public, particularly Mark Rosewater (who's head designer of Magic - essentially the same position as Mike Mearls). MaRo has a weekly column on the website where he talks about all sorts of things, usually with at least a tangential relationship to Magic. He is also very active on Twitter and Tumblr, interacting with fans and explaining where Wizards are going with the game. Also, Magic tends to have their products announced at least half a year into the future, and their schedule is rather predictable (going forward, big sets in spring and fall with smaller expansions in summer and winter, plus a few smaller releases like Duel Decks and From the Vault).

I don't get the same kind of outreach at all from D&D. Sure, Mearls posts a bit on Twitter, but nowhere near MaRo's volume. The top article on the D&D website is over a month old - ironically, outlining the articles that are supposed to come in 2015. By contrast, the Magic website posts at least two proper articles a day, plus assorted small announcements and stuff. I mean, I get that Magic outsells D&D by a lot, so of course they get more resources for marketing. But even so, it feels very thin.

 

[pemerton]

I'm saying if you know your players are like that and you are not well then unrestrained FR is a bad fit for your group.

<snip>

I just don't agree that because I or you or someone else can't handle that level of detail (which is fully under the DM's control) that it's a reason to limit canon for all...

Your posts on this issue are presented as criticisms of [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], but I don't see why - his approach is exactly the one you are telling him to take, namely, he refuses to run the Realms even though his players would like him to.

But I think the bigger pictures - which may be part of GMforPowergamers' point, and is definitely part of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point - is that this is not a very healthy commercial situation for a gaming setting to be in, namely, so burdened with canon that new GMs can't realistically set about picking it up and running it.

If WotC make most of their Realms money from novel sales than perhaps this isn't a commercial problem for them - it may not be important to grow RPG engagement with the Realms if selling novels is where the action is. But from WotC's point of view, it also means that they have no huge incentive to faithfully maintain canon in their Realms gaming material, if the commercial viability of that material is dependant upon selling it to enough GMs and players that Realms canon purists will not be a major part of that market.

I make it very clear what book/books are canon... but that doesn't mean those who do enjoy it and like it at that level (DM's and players) shouldn't have it because you or I aren't willing to invest that much in it.

I don't understand what force "shouldn't" has here. We are not discussing a question of morality. We are discussing a question of commercial publishing.

WotC should (and will, assuming they have the evidence to ground rational decision-making) do whatever is going to let them make D&D a commercially viable proposition. If that means sticking to canon, fine. If that means departing from canon, fine.

 

[Joddy37]

I think the best explanation (at least for me) for the future of the Forgotten Realms trademark is to treat the Spellplague as a global cataclysm where due to Midnight's death magic was gone so awry that time itself has slowed to a stop and nothing, really nothing happened after 1385 DR. A few hours of global blackout where all the mortals lived a common illusion of a paralel universe lasting a fake 100 years into the future and then that blackout ended abrubtly with an unknown reason, putting the world where it was before, to 1385 DR. Famous NPCs should be downgraded to reasonable levels like 14th-18th. So few mortals should experience the last two levels, giving the actual player characters the chance to catch in power the famous figures and be their equals or even better than them. A player of 19th level should have the chance to be successful in a quest where Elminster himself failed. They should have the chance to rescue Drizzt from a deadly trap. Powerful PCs should be able to form their faction that rival Harpers, Lords Alliance or even Zhentarim etc...

What about the gods?

Having bended time and reality of a century, Ao sacrificed himself and will be gone forever. Gods will be reinstated to their former posts and now they will be extremely limited to interfere with the mortal world, only able to contact a handful of mortals and that contact is via cryptic messages in dreams, nightmares, anomalies and phenomena in the world. The struggle will be among religions and worshippers not deities themselves. There are absolutely no means for a deity to kill or destroy another one. No avatars to walk the world. Gods use the collective power of the pantheon to grant spells to their worshippers. So weakening a god to a point should result in weakening of the whole pantheon, thus weakening of all the gods. Therefore gaining more portfolios, fighting to gain power in the planes will mean nothing, only a futile attempt.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

Thing is, for the Realms WOTC has a lot of restrictions: there is not a lot of money in going back to Grey Box, and the novel fans would riot. They can and did blow up the setting to separate the novels from the RPG, but the novel fans did and would again riot. Moving forwards to keep the novels in tact is their only financially sound decision.

I don't believe that WoTC blew up the realms to "separate the novels and the RPG" at all. The novels and RPG are still set in the same timeline. The new novels are set in the 4E timeline, just like the RPG products.

The realms were nuked because the powers that be at WoTC at the time thought it was the best way to "fix" the realms - to clear out the craziness of the 1370s and start afresh for both players and novelists.

It was also to bring it in line with WoTC's 4E "points of light" philosophy. It turns out that that was a terrible idea - in my view a symptom of 4E's one-true-way-ism. What they really meant by "points of light" was "places to adventure", and they seemed to think that "places to adventure" is the same as "blank spaces on the map". Which is completely wrong - when we buy a campaign setting, we're looking for inspiration, not a blank slate.

 

[Prism]

I think the best explanation (at least for me) for the future of the Forgotten Realms trademark is to treat the Spellplague as a global cataclysm where due to Midnight's death magic was gone so awry that time itself has slowed to a stop and nothing, really nothing happened after 1385 DR. A few hours of global blackout where all the mortals lived a common illusion of a paralel universe lasting a fake 100 years into the future and then that blackout ended abrubtly with an unknown reason, putting the world where it was before, to 1385 DR.

The trouble is that that invalidates the novels that did continue through the 100 years - in particular the Drizzt ones - which means they really can't do that and keep everyone happy. It also invalidates everything good that did come out of the sundering like the Neverwinter story line and any 4e home campaigns. So I think we have to face that it did all happen but the world is very much like it used to be but with some of the older NPCs now dead. Many of the authors NPCs have actually survived but then so did our own PCs so I can't blame them too much.

Famous NPCs should be downgraded to reasonable levels like 14th-18th. So few mortals should experience the last two levels, giving the actual player characters the chance to catch in power the famous figures and be their equals or even better than them. A player of 19th level should have the chance to be successful in a quest where Elminster himself failed. They should have the chance to rescue Drizzt from a deadly trap. Powerful PCs should be able to form their faction that rival Harpers, Lords Alliance or even Zhentarim etc...

They certainly couldn't be higher than 20th but I honestly don't think you need to drop them lower due to 5e and the mechanics. Being 20th level isn't all that and there are many situations that a 20th level Elminster would struggle with that a group of lets say 14th level characters could succeed at. A individual 16th level wizard could be more powerful on their day than a 20th level wizard - given items, conditions, DMG rewards, wealth etc

What about the gods?

Having bended time and reality of a century, Ao sacrificed himself and will be gone forever. Gods will be reinstated to their former posts and now they will be extremely limited to interfere with the mortal world, only able to contact a handful of mortals and that contact is via cryptic messages in dreams, nightmares, anomalies and phenomena in the world. The struggle will be among religions and worshippers not deities themselves. There are absolutely no means for a deity to kill or destroy another one. No avatars to walk the world. Gods use the collective power of the pantheon to grant spells to their worshippers. So weakening a god to a point should result in weakening of the whole pantheon, thus weakening of all the gods. Therefore gaining more portfolios, fighting to gain power in the planes will mean nothing, only a futile attempt.

I totally agree. What this tells me is that the two current adventure paths don't fit this model. Although we haven't been given dates (I don't think) I am assuming that they are slap bang in the middle of the Sundering/ end of Spellplague where the Gods in fact are still tinkering and haven't got much time left. I truly hope that after these two we go back to more mundane mortal threats if what WOTC have said about divine involvement is true

 

[Sailor Moon]

High level NPC's do not even need stats to begin with unless you intend to fight them. I think certain NPC's should be beyond stats to the point where they are a plot device and nothing more.

 

[Imaro]

Your posts on this issue are presented as criticisms of [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], but I don't see why - his approach is exactly the one you are telling him to take, namely, he refuses to run the Realms even though his players would like him to.

I'm not "criticizing" anyone just stating my opinion on the presented situation... that's what forums are for, to discuss.

But I think the bigger pictures - which may be part of GMforPowergamers' point, and is definitely part of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point - is that this is not a very healthy commercial situation for a gaming setting to be in, namely, so burdened with canon that new GMs can't realistically set about picking it up and running it.

What proof do you have of this? The only example we have of the FR doing this is the 4e FR books and I would love to see if they pulled in a significantly larger set of new DM's than any other FR campaign setting book...Or are most players and DM's unconcerned with details and canon at the level [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] players are and instead stick to a subset of the canon that they can manage or afford (in the same way that most groups only ever buy the three core books). I don't have real data either way but I would bet most new DM's buy the main campaign setting book (in any edition) and for the most part use only that... so I don't think the FR has so much canon that a GM can't realistically set about picking it up and running it... it's just on him or her how much is incorporated into his/her game.

If WotC make most of their Realms money from novel sales than perhaps this isn't a commercial problem for them - it may not be important to grow RPG engagement with the Realms if selling novels is where the action is. But from WotC's point of view, it also means that they have no huge incentive to faithfully maintain canon in their Realms gaming material, if the commercial viability of that material is dependant upon selling it to enough GMs and players that Realms canon purists will not be a major part of that market.

Well again, the only example we have of this is the 4e FR's books (which I honestly don't think sold well)... and the only way we will have even an inkling of whether this worked or not is if they do or don't revert the FR campaign setting for 5e back to a more classical/canonical version and even then it's still only guesses that can be drawn unless someone from WotC speaks out about it. Another question would be do those who read the novels also purchase the FR gamebooks (in the same way fans of other settings buy world or sourcebooks), if so that could account for a huge part of the FR gaming revenue and would definitely be a pretty big incentive (depending on the percentage of FR gamebook sales attributed to this) for WotC to keep the canon of books and game in line. Personally I was greatly dissapointed in the FR 4e books vs. the 3e campaign setting main book... but perhaps I am an outlier here.

I don't understand what force "shouldn't" has here. We are not discussing a question of morality. We are discussing a question of commercial publishing.

I don't even understand what you are saying here... I'm well aware it isn't a question of morality (not even sure how you drew that conclusion from my statement). I think it's pretty clear what my statement meant in the context of the discussion...

But, since you're unclear on my meaning let me state it simply for you... some in this thread are claiming that there is too much canon for the FR's and that they can't choose to scale it back in their games because of their players... and thus WotC should scale it back for them. If this were to happen those who do enjoy the canon would loose it for future editions... My opinion is that they should not loose it because some can't limit it in their own personal campaigns... is that more clear?

WotC should (and will, assuming they have the evidence to ground rational decision-making) do whatever is going to let them make D&D a commercially viable proposition. If that means sticking to canon, fine. If that means departing from canon, fine.

Yeah I think that's a given... and above I am expressing my own thoughts on what they should do (since nothing has been set in stone, though there are rumors of them moving back towards a more classical FR setting)... I'm still failing to see how I made it a question of morality??