The New Forgotten Realms - (About) A Year Later

[ferratus]

You mean the authors of the setting? The 5th Age stuff all comes about as a direct result of the Dragons of Summer Flame book. Still have no idea why they tried switching to the SAGA card system, but not all experiments work. They probably were trying to accomplish something that did less to take the player out of the story, remember that Vampire and the rest of the Storyteller system from White Wolf was trouncing D&D at that point.

While "Dragons of Summer Flame" was a mistake too, the 5th Age designers went above and beyond it. DoSF removed the gods and WoHS from the setting, because there was basically plans to wrap the setting up and discontinue it. So without gods and magic, you basically had no more stories to tell.

Someone else then decided they wanted to turn around and use Dragonlance as the setting for the new SAGA game. The 5th Age designers decided to keep DoSF as canon and then move the setting forward. To move it forward they turned 3/4 of the map into desolate wastelands ruled by omnipotent dragon overlords of colossal size which were never to be directly challenged. The design goal was that players of the setting were to live beneath their unstoppable tyranny and fight the small battles. This is why the 4e FR reboot reminds Dragonlance fans of the 5th Age.

FR fans got an better deal out of their setting nuking though. While Akanul replaced Chessenta and Returned Abeir replaced Maztica with viable adventuring locations for all levels, the desolated realms of the dragon overlords was... desolation.

 

[jdrakeh]

So without gods and magic, you basically had no more stories to tell.

That's a dangerously narrow view of fiction.

 

[ferratus]

That's a dangerously narrow view of fiction.

I'm of course speaking of Dragonlance specifically, which had its struggle for balance between the gods and magic as the cornerstone of the setting.

 

[Henry]

I'm of course speaking of Dragonlance specifically, which had its struggle for balance between the gods and magic as the cornerstone of the setting.

I disagree -- the struggle of Dragonlance was never between gods and magic, it was between good, evil, and neutrality -- remember the whole "elves, ogres, and men" thing? The gods and magic were inseparable in DL, but I'll agree that 5th age ripped the heart out of the setting for me.

 

[ferratus]

I disagree -- the struggle of Dragonlance was never between gods and magic, it was between good, evil, and neutrality -- remember the whole "elves, ogres, and men" thing? The gods and magic were inseparable in DL, but I'll agree that 5th age ripped the heart out of the setting for me.

I'm sorry I should have been clearer. I meant the balance between the three pantheons of gods (good, evil and neutrality), and the balance between the three orders of magic (black, white and red). I didn't mean the balance between the gods and magic as opposing forces.

Not a good day for expressing myself apparently.

 

[Hussar]

Note that your tone with "If I need to read more than hundreds of pages, FR needs to be pruned back" type of phrase is just as condescending as you claim mine was; it implies that your way is superior to

Oh, I'm not implying that. I'm pretty boldly stating it. There's no subtlety to be found here.

I would point out that saying one way is better is not the same as being condescending. You're claiming that the only way someone is qualified to run the Realms "properly" is if they follow canon and become deeply immersed in the setting. That if so much as a single player asks for it, the DM should supply it.

I'm saying that if you want to go that much into the details, go for it. Fill your boots. But, no DM should be expected to go into that much detail before running a game. If a setting has so much background that I am actually obligated to use hundreds and hundreds of pages of background material, before I even begin to start creating a campaign, then yes, that background material needs to go.

Now, as you say, so long as the group is groovy with it, I don't need that much material. This is where we part company. I think that there should never even be a question on the table of who gets to decide how much canon is enough. It's the DM's choice. A setting doesn't need that much material

Heck, take Star Wars as an example again. If I wanted to run an Episode IV period SW game, I accept that I should probably watch A New Hope. Fair enough. However, I should not be expected to know Greedo's history in SW canon before I run the game. Greedo does actually have a canonical history in the novels, but that is never explored in the movies.

If I decide that Greedo is actually working for the Rebels, that should be my decision and no one should be able to say, "No, you're doing it wrong."

My problem is with the expectation. If I choose to follow canon, that should be 100% my choice as the DM. When it comes to your character, I'm all about player power. But when it comes to creating my campaign? Sorry, that's mine. That's the one place I gotta sit in the daddy chair because there is absolutely no way I'm going to fact check with my players before I make an adventure.

 

[Primal]

Oh, I'm not implying that. I'm pretty boldly stating it. There's no subtlety to be found here.

I would point out that saying one way is better is not the same as being condescending. You're claiming that the only way someone is qualified to run the Realms "properly" is if they follow canon and become deeply immersed in the setting. That if so much as a single player asks for it, the DM should supply it.

I'm saying that if you want to go that much into the details, go for it. Fill your boots. But, no DM should be expected to go into that much detail before running a game. If a setting has so much background that I am actually obligated to use hundreds and hundreds of pages of background material, before I even begin to start creating a campaign, then yes, that background material needs to go.

Now, as you say, so long as the group is groovy with it, I don't need that much material. This is where we part company. I think that there should never even be a question on the table of who gets to decide how much canon is enough. It's the DM's choice. A setting doesn't need that much material

Heck, take Star Wars as an example again. If I wanted to run an Episode IV period SW game, I accept that I should probably watch A New Hope. Fair enough. However, I should not be expected to know Greedo's history in SW canon before I run the game. Greedo does actually have a canonical history in the novels, but that is never explored in the movies.

If I decide that Greedo is actually working for the Rebels, that should be my decision and no one should be able to say, "No, you're doing it wrong."

My problem is with the expectation. If I choose to follow canon, that should be 100% my choice as the DM. When it comes to your character, I'm all about player power. But when it comes to creating my campaign? Sorry, that's mine. That's the one place I gotta sit in the daddy chair because there is absolutely no way I'm going to fact check with my players before I make an adventure.

Well, and I can claim that Golarion is superior to all the other settings and that we all know it for a fact (even if nobody else would admit it aloud)... but that would be just *my* opinion, right? Just as you claiming your way of DMing is superior to mine is just *your* opinion.

BTW, if you're claiming I have said the only way to , I'd like to see you quoting me for that. Because I really don't think that's what I've said or implied; I'm of the mind that whatever suits you and your group is fine. IMO it's about preferences; what do you want out of the game and what do your players want out of the game?

What I *have* said is that whenever you decide to run a game in a new setting, discuss it with your players before you start writing. Maybe someone absolutely hates FR , or maybe someone is already running a Cormyr campaign in another group or maybe all the guys would want you to stick with Eberron; it doesn't mean you need a green light from everyone to run a FR campaign, but this sort of issues *may* result in disruptive behavior during play or even (sooner or later) someone might decide to sit out sessions (or even walk out). I don't think it can hurt, if you have a polite discussion about it with the players (the last time I did this was when I bought Pathfinder CS; I wasn't sure how the guys felt about Golarion, so I asked them directly whether they want to play in it or not).

The thing is, despite the DM's authority it's kind of hard to run games if you don't listen to what sort of games, campaigns and adventures your players want to experience. If you always force your own vision and preferences down their throats, it's a miracle if they don't all eventually walk out. It may be your "daddy chair", but I would walk out if you, for example, continously ran combat-heavy sessions even though everyone had said that they don't want third "on-the-frontlines-in-a-worldwide-war" type of campaign (and this is just a quick example; I think you get my drift here).

As far as canon goes, I'm not talking about checking facts or canon bits with players; as I said above, whatever suits the group is enough. But saying that a setting does not *need* that amount of lore is just voicing your *own* preferences; you, as DM, perhaps do not need that lore, but I do. And that should be fine, too, right?

 

[M.L. Martin]

Someone else then decided they wanted to turn around and use Dragonlance as the setting for the new SAGA game.

Not quite; the decision to revive Dragonlance was made first, the designers started with a streamlined AD&D, and management told them "non-AD&D, diceless, please."

The 5th Age designers decided to keep DoSF as canon and then move the setting forward.

Keeping DoSF canon was also a management decision, I believe; at least one member of the design team proposed ignoring it.

To move it forward they turned 3/4 of the map into desolate wastelands ruled by omnipotent dragon overlords of colossal size which were never to be directly challenged. The design goal was that players of the setting were to live beneath their unstoppable tyranny and fight the small battles. This is why the 4e FR reboot reminds Dragonlance fans of the 5th Age.

Actually, it was closer to 1/4th to 1/2th of the map (with another 1/4th to 1/3rd being ruled by draconic tyrants but not 'desolate wasteland')--and the game was conceived as a freedom-fighting game, although the "really big, mean dragons" were also a management decision (DRAGON #231).
Part of the problem was that the line was overly metaplotted (something DL has long struggled with) and that only the first third or so made it out before WotC decided to hand the setting back to Weis & Hickman.

 

[Hussar]

As far as canon goes, I'm not talking about checking facts or canon bits with players; as I said above, whatever suits the group is enough. But saying that a setting does not *need* that amount of lore is just voicing your *own* preferences; you, as DM, perhaps do not need that lore, but I do. And that should be fine, too, right?

Hang on a second. Weren't you the one who earlier talked about following cannon as a requirement for running a consistent campaign?

But, you are absolutely right, it's a personal choice. But, we're not really talking about my game or your game, we're talking about what works from a business standpoint. At least, that's the POV I have been taking all along.

Having this mountain of canon scares away players. Yes, there is a segment of fans that want this mountain, but, I'm sorry, just like any hardcore fan group, there's simply not enough of you to make money from. At least, not enough money anyway.

So, the company has two choices. Keep chasing the hardcore fans with diminishing returns as products are considered "too niche" for a continuously shrinking audience; or, prune back the setting and bring in fresh blood.

As I said before, its all about the expectations and perceptions. The perception is (rightly or wrongly) that playing the FR carries the expectation that you will have this metric butt load of canon to absorb before you can play there. And, as a side issue, there is almost no module or adventure support in that canon meaning that even if I do absorb all that canon, I'm still at square one when it comes to creating a campaign.

You mention Golarion. I think Paizo has done a fantastic thing here. Half the campaign support is modules. Fantastic. I could play in Golarion for the next couple of years with a bare minimum of work.

THAT'S what sells books. The hardcore guys that spend hours and hours poring over tomes are great and all, but, it's the lazy bastards like me that vastly outnumber the hardcore guy that sells books.

 

[Primal]

Hang on a second. Weren't you the one who earlier talked about following cannon as a requirement for running a consistent campaign?

But, you are absolutely right, it's a personal choice. But, we're not really talking about my game or your game, we're talking about what works from a business standpoint. At least, that's the POV I have been taking all along.

Having this mountain of canon scares away players. Yes, there is a segment of fans that want this mountain, but, I'm sorry, just like any hardcore fan group, there's simply not enough of you to make money from. At least, not enough money anyway.

So, the company has two choices. Keep chasing the hardcore fans with diminishing returns as products are considered "too niche" for a continuously shrinking audience; or, prune back the setting and bring in fresh blood.

As I said before, its all about the expectations and perceptions. The perception is (rightly or wrongly) that playing the FR carries the expectation that you will have this metric butt load of canon to absorb before you can play there. And, as a side issue, there is almost no module or adventure support in that canon meaning that even if I do absorb all that canon, I'm still at square one when it comes to creating a campaign.

You mention Golarion. I think Paizo has done a fantastic thing here. Half the campaign support is modules. Fantastic. I could play in Golarion for the next couple of years with a bare minimum of work.

THAT'S what sells books. The hardcore guys that spend hours and hours poring over tomes are great and all, but, it's the lazy bastards like me that vastly outnumber the hardcore guy that sells books.

No, I don't think I ever said that reading all the canon sources is a requirement for running the Realms; I did say that I expect the DM to know the basic facts about the region (from the campaign setting book), and coming up with plausible reasons for any major changes (such as replacing King Azoun and Vangerdahast with his own NPCs). And that's just my own personal expectation; whatever goes for your group is just fine by me. I generally keep my campaigns 80-90% faithful to canon, but in my current campaign I rewrote a well-known noble family's history and replaced the local ruler simply because I thought the canon NPC was boring and uninteresting (and I'm about to hit the PCs with the 'Age of Worms', which has made me rewrite large parts of local history as well).

I don't think you're a "lazy bastard" by my standards; IMO a lazy DM is someone who doesn't read any books, doesn't pay any attention to character and NPC backgrounds or motivations, and doesn't bother to convert material at all but drops it "as is" into the setting (and often doesn't even bother to tell you why City of Greyhawk appears in the middle of the Dalelands or why clerics of Hextor co-exist peacefully with Banites). On top of it all, in my experience this type of DMs don't even bother about campaign consistency or storyline, and think that randomly rolling for encounters in a series of caves/rooms constitutes to a real adventure (and I've played under such a DM, believe it or not).

In general I agree with your post above, although I would argue that 4E FR failed miserably in its goals; I don't know exact sales numbers or how well LFR is doing in comparison to Pathfinder Society and its predecessor, LGR. The fact that WoTC has (apparently) deemed the sales were not good enough for follow-up books RB talked about as a possibility and the number of active posters on Candlekeep and WoTC FR forums (the number of posters have dropped dramatically on both boards). Maybe FR *has* gained boatloads of new fans who just don't participate in online discussions -- I don't know. But all this says to me that the existing fan base has moved on to other settings or using the 2E/3E Realms. 4E Eberron is another story; regardless of the fact that there are 15+ (flavour-heavy) canon accessories published during the 3E era, they still didn't prune it back. And I'm fairly sure the Eberron books will outsell FR by a mile.

Golarion and Paizo APs absolutely rock, because not only is the art, writing and maps all top notch in my eyes; the world is also pretty well-designed, "sandbox-y" and represents the "shades of grey" morality rather than "black-and-white". The difference to FR canon is that Paizo products generally detail only a couple of locations within each area, concentrating on "what is the stuff most useful to most DMs" instead of minutiae (and since I've already got FR for this, I don't need it here -- and if I occasionally *do* need precise details, I can apply my FR lore to Golarion). What I also love is their online support for their stuff -- I can actually tell my players to download the Player's Guide and say that it's what their PCs know without having to "infodump" them myself (whether they read it or not is up to them). All in all it's a beautifully executed concept that appeals to hard core FR fans like myself (there's enough lore to fulfill my needs most of the time) and those do not care about minutiae (the canon lore does not seek to encompass everything).