another WotC article: How to add (X) to Forgotten Realms

[MadMaxim]

I think it's great that Wizards try to add some possible explanations to how certain creatures or classes could appear in established campaign settings. It takes a load of the DM and provides him/her with inspiration for an explanation as to how the new player's class came about in Faerûn or Eberron. I sure don't mind those articles, but then again I like both Forgotten Realms and Eberron a whole lot. I don't see any of these articles as a bad thing.

 

[SteveC]

The Realms adaptation articles have had some pretty interesting (generic) stuff as well - especially the Factotum article.

I just wanted to comment on this one, because I heard about this article on ENWorld and checked it out as a result. To my mind, burying extra class abilities in campaign specific articles is a real problem, unless the class abilities are actually campaign specific. Fluff is fluff and crunch is crunch, and never the two shall meet, or something like that.

Fortunately, with ENWorld here, I don't miss anything. There are still a lot of Realms fans out there who'll talk about the good stuff.

--Steve

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

The only future 3.5 FR products I'd like to see are Kara-Tur, and Al-Qadim.

It's strange, only a tiny bit of the main setting of Eberron (the continent of Khorvaire) has been detailed, and they've already gone off on wild tangents like the Sarlona and Xen'dix books. While for the Forgotten Realms, they doggedly refuse to cover anything outside the northwest corner of Faerûn with any sort of depth. If they want me to be interested in the Realms again, they need to stop retreading the same ground. I'm tired of Elminster and his ghetto.

 

[BlackMoria]

I love listening to the conspiracy theories and speculations but it is nothing so dire.

Most of the web articles are done by Ed Greenwood, Sean K Reynolds and Eric Boyd.

The issue is that Ed is completely snowed under with other projects and hasn't had time to submit Realms articles. Apparently, the same for Sean and Eric.

At least, that is the answer given on the Realms-L list serve and on Candlekeep when FR fans have asked why the lack of updates on the website a number of months ago.

I don't know if that is the current reality still but that was the answer a number of months ago.

Edit: As to the question of adding X to the Realms, the place to go is to Candlekeep.com where they are taking submissions. Ed is known to lurk there as well as Eric and Sean. Candlekeep puts out PDFs so the best of the submissions will probably find print there.

 

[Nepenthe]

All I know on the FR web material is that there was a web enhancement for Mysteries of the Moonsea that hasn't appeared on the website - considering the time frame, not sure that it ever will :/

I disagree. The simple evidence is that the novel schedule is filled. I think there are plenty of stories to tell. They've just exhausted the standard books to do over the years and the fans are rejecting the experiements.

Plenty of stories to be told at the expense of having a gaming world, yes

 

[Glyfair]

Wow...are the Realms really not selling well? Or is this another online rumor, like the inevitability of 4th edition coming next year (even though it didn't come this year, or last year, or the year before that)?

Speculation, based on the dwindling game support for the campaign world (at least the perception of that). Of course, there are the FR fans that feel that "WotC is abandoning FR to support Eberron. They are abandoning a vibrant game word." I think lackluster sales is more likely than that.

Not that nearly every game product for FR this year was an adventure.

I just wanted to comment on this one, because I heard about this article on ENWorld and checked it out as a result. To my mind, burying extra class abilities in campaign specific articles is a real problem, unless the class abilities are actually campaign specific. Fluff is fluff and crunch is crunch, and never the two shall meet, or something like that.

Funny, I think the opinion of most is that a good product or article is a good mix of crunch and fluff. Yes, you can get away with either, but the best ones are usually mixes.

 

[Faraer]

Speculation, based on the dwindling game support for the campaign world (at least the perception of that). Of course, there are the FR fans that feel that "WotC is abandoning FR to support Eberron. They are abandoning a vibrant game word." I think lackluster sales is more likely than that.

For 2007 there are five Realms-branded game products plus Expedition to Undermountain, compared to three or four for each year through 2001–6. Neither is there any reason to suppose low sales. The causes of speculation are the preponderance of adventures over sourcebooks this year, which Rich Baker has explained is a temporary experiment, and the apparent absence of Realms game products in the first catalogue for 2008.

While for the Forgotten Realms, they doggedly refuse to cover anything outside the northwest corner of Faerûn with any sort of depth. If they want me to be interested in the Realms again, they need to stop retreading the same ground. I'm tired of Elminster and his ghetto.

On the contrary, of about six regional sourcebooks pubished for 3E, not one covers any part of the Heartlands, the subject of most of Ed's massive lore backlog. The Inner Sea lands, which are the core setting of Faerûn, have not been described in any detail since the mid-1990s or, in the case of Sembia and the Dragon Coast, ever.

 

[Nepenthe]

On the contrary, of about six regional sourcebooks pubished for 3E, not one covers any part of the Heartlands, the subject of most of Ed's massive lore backlog. The Inner Sea lands, which are the core setting of Faerûn, have not been described in any detail since the mid-1990s or, in the case of Sembia and the Dragon Coast, ever.

Indeed. And even Moonsea just got that not-quite-sourcebook :\

 

[Henry]

That entirely misses the point. WotC has limited resources and staff to write their web content, and they put up a lot of great stuff. They also do a lot of things like this, that have, shall we say, limited appeal. More generic content is good, and less content aimed at any particular campaign world. As the bard might say, more matter, less art.

--Steve

However, I still see people on the web who say things like, "Shadowcasters? There aren't any shadowcasters in the FR, why would I use them?" and not devote an ounce of thought to how there CAN be such in the Realms (or Psionics, or Incarnum-users, or Swordsages, or what have you). It's nice to remind people that ANY concept can be ported, and showing those who don't want to devote the resources just HOW one can do this. While I may not want paladins my my Dark Sun, I respect someone from trying to show me how to do so and keep the existing flavor of that world.

Also, I wouldn't exactly count out the Realms. Eberron's cool, but people still need their ktichen-sink D&D with the norsemen fighting alongside their Egyptian soldiers against their Turkish Mamluks and Mongol Hordes.

 

[Faraer]

Indeed. And even Moonsea just got that not-quite-sourcebook :\

I wouldn't even call it that -- early publicity suggested it was going to be a sourcebook/adventure hybrid, but it's actually an adventure anthology with some incidental source material.

Eberron's cool, but people still need their ktichen-sink D&D with the norsemen fighting alongside their Egyptian soldiers against their Turkish Mamluks and Mongol Hordes.

They would better find it in Mystara, since the Earth analogues are appendages bolted on to the Realms by TSR.