New Forgotten Realms designed by FR haters?

[Fenes]

It is the same old realms, just 100 years into the future. And slimming down the setting in order to somewhat resemble the Grey Box again in scope gets a big thumbs up from me. Sketches, some NPCs, some info about current events... THAT is the realms. Not 100 supplements detailing everything. YMMV.

You could chuck that setting into another setting, just change the names and vary the time jump. What makes the realms is the lore - if you're digging in old skuld, what will you find? The skuld from 3E, the one from "Old Empires"? Or something you made up since you didn't want to read up?

That's the question the writers will have to answer: If you write whatever for the new realms, will you ignore their history? Or will you read up anyway, to describe their past?

 

[Ariosto]

My preference in an RPG setting is to get a snapshot of one point in time. I don't see how (or why) one would keep events in one's campaign in synchrony with whatever pops into (perhaps even non-playing) heads at a game company; my guess is that Ed Greenwood does not!

Continuity is more significant in a fiction series, but the FR novel line seems to me too many volumes, by too many hands, to expect thorough consistency. A reasonable standard, I think, might lie somewhere between Burroughs' Tarzan novels and the Perry Rhodan or Marvel Comics magazine lines.

 

[Primal]

You said:

...which I read as saying that writers should only look at the "quality" lore and ignore the rest.

No, not ignore the rest... update, change, correct and improve it, using the "quality" lore (such as written by the authors I mentioned) as a source of inspiration. As an example, I wish they had "corrected" Halaster's appearance (which was unfortunately "reimagined" in 'Escape from Undermountain') to match Ed's more sinister vision in the Undermountain Boxed Set. Of course, if the information is already updated in another source, and there's no logical reason to "mess" with that, you could ignore the original source.

With over 20 years of published material (including novel lines and Dragon articles), I don't think it's so simple. Also, information about topics tends to get spread around; it's not enough to simply look at the stuff that is supposed to be focusing on the subject. I see this a lot in Eberron, where information on the structure of the Church of the Silver Flame can be found in the ECS, the Eberron Player's Guide, Sharn: City of Towers, Five Nations, and Faiths of Eberron (some of it contradictory). And there's probably other details added in other books that I don't own, as well... It's not as simple as saying, "Oh, Silver Flame, I'll grab the ECS and Faiths of Eberron and I'm good."

Which was kind of my point, i.e. that it's not much easier to research Eberron lore than FR lore. Now, as I admit below, I was wrong about the number of Eberron supplements, which makes it easier than I claimed, but in time I'll have no doubt that Eberron will be just as much "burdened" by lore as FR was perceived to be. I hope to be wrong, but I have a hunch that in a couple of years FR will become a setting for novels without any DDi support anymore.

Information seeking is not that hard; bibliographies and indexes (such as the Dragondex for all the FR articles) help there a lot. Of course, in some cases small details (such as about religions) may be included in books that do not seem relevant, but then again, it may not always be absolutely necessary to read all the "tidbits". For example, if I'm not dealing with the "deepest" layer of details with the Church of the Silver Flame, the newest sources may be enough for my project.

And, as I have already said, newest FR material "trumps" older lore (such as, sadly, with Halaster's appearance); I suspect that this also the case with Eberron, too, so if ECS and Faiths of Eberron have contradictory details, you go with what's in FoE.

No argument there. I think they could have achieved much of the same results, with less outcry, simply by advancing the timeline far enough and retconning the edition differences (in much the same way as sorcerers were retconned in and specialty priests retconned out with 3e).

Many specialty priests actually were later published as prestige classes, such as they're now being published as paragon paths -- both working solutions, in my opinion.

I don't think advancing the timeline or the Spellplague were obligatory for implementing 4E changes; it could have been done in other ways. If Mystra and her Chosen really, *really* absolutely had to be taken out of the picture, this, too, could have been in ways that make sense. For example, Shar's "decline" hinted at in 3E lore and the events of the last adventure trilogy could have resulted in "corruption" of the Weave and Mystra's descent into madness. As her final, desperate act, she and the other deities of Magic would have sacrificed themselves, to "fix"/rebuild the Weave in a new form (i.e. to confirm to the 4E mechanics); the backlash of the deaths of these deities would have driven the Chosen mad, and diminished Shar's power as the Shadow Weave would have been affected, too. AO, not Shar, would have then decreed that no new deity shall hold power over the "New Weave", thus leaving the pantheon without a deity of magic. I don't know about you, but that would make more sense to me than the current "story", and yet accomplished the same (sans destroying the Weave, naturally).

Unless I've simply missed a ton of WotC's marketing, that number looks to be at least two times too large.

Actually, it seems that you're correct; my bad. I didn't check the number of Eberron titles before posting, which was unprofessional of me. I guess I just trusted on my memory, i.e. reading/hearing about "50+ Eberron books", but didn't realize it included novels as well. Sorry about that.

 

[Spatula]

No, not ignore the rest... update, change, correct and improve it, using the "quality" lore (such as written by the authors I mentioned) as a source of inspiration.

But who gets to decide which lore is quality? That's what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned valid research. The lore that you think is trash is another fan's treasure. No matter what you do, some longtime collector is going to be upset.

Which was kind of my point, i.e. that it's not much easier to research Eberron lore than FR lore. Now, as I admit below, I was wrong about the number of Eberron supplements, which makes it easier than I claimed, but in time I'll have no doubt that Eberron will be just as much "burdened" by lore as FR was perceived to be.

Well, Eberron has a built-in limit in that its timeline has not, is not, and ideally will not ever advance. Once something is detailed in the "snapshot" of the setting, there's not much point in revisiting it, barring edition revisions like we'll soon be seeing in the 4e book (dragonmarks available to all races, etc.).

 

[JoeGKushner]

Must be what happened to Spider Man. Too much history and backstory for the new writers to keep track of and since they're not paid to read that backlog, it's better to make it irrelevant and make up new stuff.

I hope historians don't start doing this! I mean, there's way too much backstory there! It's not their job when writing papers to keep up with al lthat. It's not feasible!

Just to be clear... No, we don't.

We get paid by the word. Period. Any outside research or reading that we have to do is just that--outside.

I get paid the same whether I'm writing for core D&D or for Forgotten Realms, and if the former requires I know material from four books, and the latter from twenty-four... Well, it's more cost-effective for me and for WotC to keep me on the former. And there comes a point where the ratio of effort to payment simply makes further research non-viable for the amount of income.

If that becomes the case for the bulk of freelancers, Forgotten Realms becomes unsustainable. Now, that specific point of no return differs from freelancer to freelancer, and some begin with a greater knowledge of FR than others. But that doesn't change the fact that, as people move on and new people become writers, the settings that require heavy research beyond a certain point simply cease attracting skilled writers.

Is that what happened with FR? I have no idea. But claiming that we "get paid" to keep up with this degree of material is simply false.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I found my old "grey box" FR books last weekend, and have been reading them again. It's remarkable how sparse the world they describe actually is, even though the books imply a lot of history and background. 4e FR seems to me like a step back towards this, and as much as I like the 3e FRCS, I think it's probably a wise decision overall.

I also don't quite get the complaints about FR lore being ditched: the new gamers coming to D&D and FR are frankly better off without having to digest all the information from the start, and the older ones already have all that. The past hasn't been significantly retconned (as far as I noticed), so if you're someone who loves the background stuff, you can use it all. In fact, if you hate the spellplague and the time jump, you can use the old fluff and new crunch without all that much effort.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Must be what happened to Spider Man. Too much history and backstory for the new writers to keep track of and since they're not paid to read that backlog, it's better to make it irrelevant and make up new stuff.

Actually, what my Marvel-reading friends have been complaining is that first they make the old stuff irrelevant, and then repeat the old stuff again.

 

[Wormwood]

Actually, what my Marvel-reading friends have been complaining is that first they make the old stuff irrelevant, and then repeat the old stuff again.

Which is why I prefer Ultimate Spider-Man, and probably why I prefer 4e Realms as well.

Although as I implied upthread, I'd probably be happiest playing just Grey Box with 4e.

 

[Imaro]

...

I also don't quite get the complaints about FR lore being ditched: the new gamers coming to D&D and FR are frankly better off without having to digest all the information from the start, and the older ones already have all that. The past hasn't been significantly retconned (as far as I noticed), so if you're someone who loves the background stuff, you can use it all. In fact, if you hate the spellplague and the time jump, you can use the old fluff and new crunch without all that much effort.

This logic assumes that the whole point of the FRPG and FRCS is to sell to a new audience and/or those who didn't like or were unconcerned with the Forgotten Realms before 4e, of course then I wonder (if one was unable to do this without potientially alienating a large part of the established fanbase) why not just create a new setting for new players and or those who didn't like FR? I also think anyone who doesn't want to be involved deeply in lore has a simple solution... ignore it. It's easier and less time consuming for one to ignore the canon they don't want than it is for someone to research, find, and fill in what is left out.

Also I don't need tons of "lite" settings, at a certain point it defeats the purpose of a setting. I think Greyhawk would have been a good setting to publish as a "lite" setting since it was kept very bare bones during the 3e era... Eberron is another semi-lite setting I just don't see why every setting should be dealt with in this manner... and if you want to make lite settings and aren't just trying to herd people toward DDI by skimping on info, then create 2 products like the 3e Greyhawk Gazetteer and the Living Greyhawk sourcebook and let the fans decide and sales speak for what they want.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

This logic assumes that the whole point of the FRPG and FRCS is to sell to a new audience and/or those who didn't like or were unconcerned with the Forgotten Realms before 4e, of course then I wonder (if one was unable to do this without potientially alienating a large part of the established fanbase) why not just create a new setting for new players and or those who didn't like FR?

Because FR is a well-known brand?

Or because the WotC designers and developers felt that they could trim off a lot of the detailed lore and still keep the "core identity" of FR? (Whether you think they succeeded or failed, I think this is a reasonable assumption.)

I also think anyone who doesn't want to be involved deeply in lore has a simple solution... ignore it. It's easier and less time consuming for one to ignore the canon they don't want than it is for someone to research, find, and fill in what is left out.

Surprisingly enough, it's not that easy. People have a tendency to adhere to a perceived canon, because it's official. I've seen this with Star Wars, Traveller, WoD and Exalted, and others. (The evidence for this are the continuous arguments about what is and isn't canonic in the settings...)

Also I don't need tons of "lite" settings, at a certain point it defeats the purpose of a setting.

Of course, but I think FR in 4e isn't anywhere near light enough for that.

I think Greyhawk would have been a good setting to publish as a "lite" setting since it was kept very bare bones during the 3e era...

Greyhawk's problem, in my opinion, is that it has laid fallow for so long that the remaining fans have fractured - some like pre-Wars GH, others like the post-Wars version, some like the 3e version as seen in RPGA, and most of them (especially the ones staying with the older takes) have developed the setting into their preferred directions. I'm convinced that even if Gygax were to rise from the dead and write 4e Greyhawk, more than half of the fans wouldn't be satisfied.