WotC's Chris Perkins Talks Realms & Sundering

Den of Geek has a lengthy interview with Chris Perkins about the Forgotten Realms and The Sundering. He also very briefly touches on other settings, indicating that WotC hopes that other worlds will be covered in the future if the right story comes along. On past controversial changes to settings, he says "Our guiding principle is to embrace the past and not pass judgment or rewrite history. We’d rather let the fans tell us what they like about the Realms and focus on those elements going forward." (thanks to MerricB for the scoop!)

 

[Irennan]

Yeah, I wouldn't have been turned away by the removal of the uber NPCs (but -considering this line of action- they have been somewhat hypocritical in leaving Elminster, Drizzt and Storm, the holiest among the holy cows. They had to keep milking them, I guess). I don't mind their presence and like some of them (Laeral and Qilué for the Seven Sisters, for example) but could have lived with them being gone. However the various nukings, deities being removed, organizations smashed and time going fast-forward really ruined everything. But then, this has already been discussed ad nauseam...

 

[Parmandur]

I prefer the older realms, but is there solid reason to believe that the 4E version was a commercial failure?

 

[Irennan]

No one but WotC has solid and concrete data. However the fact that WotC has announced their intention (at least in words) to bring back a lot of the familiar faces of the old Realms, the old feel and so on, is a strong hint that 4e FR didn't do as they expected. All the authors talk about the Sundering restoring various stuff, and the sense of optimism/hope is also another hint.

 

[Ahrimon]

Whether it did better or worse, considered a financial success or not, or even whether it was a good thing for the game or not is all speculation outside of WotC. Personally I think they are reacting to more fans saying that they liked things the way they were vs more fans saying they like the new realms. Squeaky wheel and all that.

 

[Uchawi]

I still believe it would have been better to establish a pre-realm in 5E, ala knights of the old republic. Then everyone could maintain their timeline of choice, while still learning something new. But it is too easy to blame everything on 4E, and you are no longer the enemy (even if you work for WOTC), just a victim of circumstance.

 

[aramis erak]

And it's just as easy for a friend to reply, "No thanks. Give me the Realms as written or I walk." ...which leaves the game short a player, people disappointed and the DM left in a bind.

I've had that happen more than once. First with the Realms, then with Krynn. I've had it happen several times with WFRP, and once with Traveller.

A lot of players get invested in particular settings. Deeply so.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) Oh well, 4E Realms served its purpose. Those who like the idea of the Realms but hate the canon can start with 4E version, those who didn't can ignore it. (snip)

And then there are groups like mine where we like the canon but find we have more room, in a sense, in the 4E version of FR.

 

[Selvarin]

Then it's an issue of mindset, by the sound of it.

In previous editions, the way things were published, one could almost be forgiven for thinking the Elminsters, Seven Sisters, et al, were completely running the show and your characters--at best--were low level nobodies who, at best, might get an 'attaboy' from them. Not good.

Another point is that in previous editions the publishing schedule more regular/profuse than with 4th Edition. When you know there will be a game supplement detailing X/Y region, you may be more encouraged to wait for the Official Word to show up in print. Perhaps that's a factor?


Irennan, about deities--the funny thing is that there really are way too many gods, but A) WotC went overboard in clearing house for 4E and B) it's pretty subjective.

As I was redoing my D&D Condensed cheat sheets, etc., I came upon a separate list I made. While I have one list that essentially includes the full roster from 3E, this other one had notes for certain deities, such as:

• Gaerdal Ironhelm (a LG gnome god) was actually Helm
• Arvoreen (LG halfling god) was an aspect (or servant) of Torm
• Aedrie Faenya was Akadi (that was one change from 4E I didn't mind as much)
• Yurtrus (CE orc god of death, disease, etc.) was an alias for Talona...who was an alias for Zehir (seriousl,y Zehir is more interesting to me than that hag Talona, but that is just MHO)

I think at the time I was looking at consolidating the non-human deities (goblins, kobolds, etc.) as well as a few others. WotC may have succeeded if they worked more towards the edges than the center, in a manner of speaking. Evolution vs. Revolution. A little here, a little there, instead of 'BOOM!'.

 

[Irennan]

Yeah, the matter about the number of deities is pretty subjective. Thing is that the Realms are polytheistic like that, it's one of their characteristics. The good thing is that deities deemed superfluous can easily be ignored without WotC having to remove them from the published setting (therefore ruining the thing for people who like them). As I previously said, IMO it's all in the presentation and about who gets the spotlight (for example they could give info on the most prominent/iconic deities in the FRCS, maybe only list the other ones, and leave them to an online supplement or to a deities-focused product). However -as you pointed out- WotC not only opted for the destructive design, but they went way overboard and removed even deties who still are iconic/influent/relevant (Mystra -this has become a trope, lol-, Helm, Sehanine, Eilistraee&Vhaeraun, Yondalla -the chief of an entire pantheon and creator of a whole race...- and so on); perhaps if they didn't go so far with the ''kill the holy cows and take their stuff'' attitude the changes would have been received more positively.