How is FR changing with 4E?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

They actually had Living FR games in recent memory? I thought Living Raven's Bluff or whatever it was imploded spectacularly years ago?

Anywho, if the 'win' for WotC is making sure that passionate customers who loved their product don't buy every single product they pump out obsessively any longer, then they are entitled to that victory. Mattel, with their Hot Wheels diehards, might let them know that there's still money to be gotten from 'that guy.'

I suppose 'that guy' is not enough for WotC. Creating a book takes time and money, and if it only appeals to 'that guy', and not to a majority of those that buy the core setting books in the first place, then they might as well go without him and ensure that the core setting book appeal to a broader group.

 

[Scribble]

But, "that guy" won't be playing in Living FR RPGA games, because "that guy" will be too pissed off about the changes. That's the win.

Let's ask, "that guy". Hey Professor Cirno, are you up for a Living RPGA game?

Hey Hussar, a bit off topic but-

I know you've been talking about the changes being driven by the RPGS, but I think you're only partially right... I think it's a change being driven to support RPGA "style" play, but not nessesarily the RPGA.

The thing about the RPGA is that you know what you get. Campaigns are always going to be similar. (Rules wise.) That's what they're after, because they want anyone to be able to hop onto the game table and jump into a game without having to know the DM's style, or the player's styles...

Not only do they want people to be able to get into the game easily, but ten they want them to be able to start playing as quickly as possible and as much as they want to.

 

[Hussar]

They actually had Living FR games in recent memory? I thought Living Raven's Bluff or whatever it was imploded spectacularly years ago?

Anywho, if the 'win' for WotC is making sure that passionate customers who loved their product don't buy every single product they pump out obsessively any longer, then they are entitled to that victory. Mattel, with their Hot Wheels diehards, might let them know that there's still money to be gotten from 'that guy.'

The next Living campaign for the RPGA is set in Forgotten Realms.

Hey Hussar, a bit off topic but-

I know you've been talking about the changes being driven by the RPGS, but I think you're only partially right... I think it's a change being driven to support RPGA "style" play, but not nessesarily the RPGA.

The thing about the RPGA is that you know what you get. Campaigns are always going to be similar. (Rules wise.) That's what they're after, because they want anyone to be able to hop onto the game table and jump into a game without having to know the DM's style, or the player's styles...

Not only do they want people to be able to get into the game easily, but ten they want them to be able to start playing as quickly as possible and as much as they want to.

Quite possibly. I think with the VTT play in place, it certainly could shape up that way.

The whole 4e is the RPGA edition is my own little tin foil hat idea, so, I'm not sure how much water it holds. It just seems that WOTC is tying the game very tightly with the RPGA so that the RPGA becomes the money making vehicle for the WOTC. I could be totally off base with this.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I suppose 'that guy' is not enough for WotC. Creating a book takes time and money, and if it only appeals to 'that guy', and not to a majority of those that buy the core setting books in the first place, then they might as well go without him and ensure that the core setting book appeal to a broader group.

I think the ideal is to make a book BOTH sides like. However, with the completely arbitrary and poorly written changes, it looks like their aiming for none of the above.

 

[Fenes]

The irony is that in a game as based on "ancient empires, whose ruins we pilfer for loot" aka "dungeons with treasures", "that guy" is still in his elements.

None of the backstory was changed, so anytime the DM uses something that's older than 100 years, "that guy" can pipe up again.

Not to mention that, as we all know, "that guy" will absorb the new crunch and fluff as well, and if the DM is not eading any and all new novels (still canon, you know), and any and all new book, and any and all new Dragon article, "that guy" will still know more than the DM.

Of course, I personally don't see any problem with a DM making the Realms his own Realms. I think those problems with know it alls are greatly exagerated and do not crop up much in actual play.

 

[vagabundo]

I'm hoping the do a DDI round up a few times a year of the major events in FR. I found it hard to get this information when I DMin' FR and it would have helped me with idea's and major plots.

The major events should be mummeries of stuff from adventures, novels and RPGA stuff.

 

[The Little Raven]

I think the ideal is to make a book BOTH sides like. However, with the completely arbitrary and poorly written changes, it looks like their aiming for none of the above.

Nothing they can ever do will please Forgotten Realms fans. After the Grey Box every single supplement ever released has had FR fans complaining about it.

If they put out a book with updated mechanics and no setting changes, they'll get accused of being lazy for just putting out a reprint of existing material. "I have all this already, there's no point to releasing a new one!" and some silly comment featuring "Wizards of the Cash" or something.

If they make any changes whatsoever, ElmnstrBlkStff420 and his friends will complain for a year and a day about how his favorite pet small town in Cormyr was completely ruined by it.

 

[tchristensen81]

I always had a hard time understanding this type argument.

By the logic used above, FR GM's have been forced to learn and use all the gods in their games, and according to some claims I've read, all the FR lore that has been published as well. And that this mandatory content is keeping players away.

A GM has control over where his campaign is based and what races, classes, gods and storylines are included in his game. This is a core paradigm of any campaign. Basic table-top gaming 101. So given that, I really don't understand how a large amount of optional Gods, NPC's and history that is already in the GM's hands to keep or toss, is such a problem that it requires deleting that very same content.

Dedekind, I know you were only referring to the number of deities in FR. I added the additional examples about lore and overall content as the same logic you brought up is also being used by some 4E-FR fans as the reason why FR content needed to be pruned.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Because it's intimdating, say that you are a new GM, and you show an interest in the Forgotten Realms setting, you buy the book, sit down with it, and realize that it's too much to all take in. Let alone explain to your players, yes you have the option of modifying it, but that's not why you bought it, you want to run a game that is true to established FR, not one that you have to go "oh and in my version this is this way". Say one of your players is a big FR fan, what do you think he'll be expecting?

I'm not saying they didn't go too far, I'm not saying they didn't do too much, because they probably did (though I didn't like the Realms as it was written before, I tried it in both 2nd and 3rd editions, anyway). But I get the reasoning behind what they were trying to do, to make it more accessable, and less NPC based.

That said, I don't see a reason to make it into a points of light campaign if they have, as they already have that. If someone wants to do that with FR cities and dieties far in the future there was nothing to stop them, develop this one in a different direction, one the fans would like and be used to, don't change so much about the setting AND the setting feel entirely.

They shouldn't be trying to shoehorn all of their settings into this formula, and if they do this to Eberron (a setting I like) I'm going to have issue.

I've said my peace.

 

[Fenes]

For me, it's far more work to relarn a campaign than to add more to my existing. I'd think most current FR DMs also are in the same boat, and are rather comfortable running their own realms.

In my case, I've been running campaigns in my version of the FRs since about 15 years, so there's no way I'd drop all the NPCs I created my own, all the history, and all the places I detailed just for the latest WoTC reams. I have long ago become bored with the Dales and the Sword Coast, never had a problem with strong NPCs, and WotC just nuked my favorite spots of the realms, so I won't be playing in the new realms.

 

[Scribble]

Quite possibly. I think with the VTT play in place, it certainly could shape up that way.

The whole 4e is the RPGA edition is my own little tin foil hat idea, so, I'm not sure how much water it holds. It just seems that WOTC is tying the game very tightly with the RPGA so that the RPGA becomes the money making vehicle for the WOTC. I could be totally off base with this.

Well, I think you're essentially right, but as I said, I don't think it's that they want the RPGA to be the big money maker... They just want everyone to be a bit more RPGA like...

With a game like magic if I show up at your house, we know essentially that we can both pull out our decks and play.

You know pretty much that when you log onto something like WoW that the other players are all using the same rules as well.

For soemthing like the VTT to really be a draw people need to know that when they log on, they can play the game without having to go through a learning process each time.

Making the rules easier not only helps people get into the game, but also heklps people play more often...