D&D 5E 5th edition Forgotten Realms: Why can't you just ignore the lore?

[Irennan]

On the matter of novel sales, I don't know whether they as a whole are the bulk of their D&D income or not. It's more likely that Drizzt alone gets WotC more than the rest of FR. I say this because they drastically cut down the number of yearly novel releases to 3 books, and 2 of them are always going to be Drizzt ones. Furthermore they reduced the number of authors working for them to 3-4 persons: Ed Greenwood, RAS, Erin Evans and perhaps Troy Denning. Really, the situation of FR fiction looks as grim as that of the setting material.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not "criticizing" anyone just stating my opinion on the presented situation... that's what forums are for, to discuss.







What proof do you have of this? The only example we have of the FR doing this is the 4e FR books and I would love to see if they pulled in a significantly larger set of new DM's than any other FR campaign setting book...Or are most players and DM's unconcerned with details and canon at the level [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] players are and instead stick to a subset of the canon that they can manage or afford (in the same way that most groups only ever buy the three core books). I don't have real data either way but I would bet most new DM's buy the main campaign setting book (in any edition) and for the most part use only that... so I don't think the FR has so much canon that a GM can't realistically set about picking it up and running it... it's just on him or her how much is incorporated into his/her game.







Well again, the only example we have of this is the 4e FR's books (which I honestly don't think sold well)... and the only way we will have even an inkling of whether this worked or not is if they do or don't revert the FR campaign setting for 5e back to a more classical/canonical version and even then it's still only guesses that can be drawn unless someone from WotC speaks out about it. Another question would be do those who read the novels also purchase the FR gamebooks (in the same way fans of other settings buy world or sourcebooks), if so that could account for a huge part of the FR gaming revenue and would definitely be a pretty big incentive (depending on the percentage of FR gamebook sales attributed to this) for WotC to keep the canon of books and game in line. Personally I was greatly dissapointed in the FR 4e books vs. the 3e campaign setting main book... but perhaps I am an outlier here.







I don't even understand what you are saying here... I'm well aware it isn't a question of morality (not even sure how you drew that conclusion from my statement). I think it's pretty clear what my statement meant in the context of the discussion...



But, since you're unclear on my meaning let me state it simply for you... some in this thread are claiming that there is too much canon for the FR's and that they can't choose to scale it back in their games because of their players... and thus WotC should scale it back for them. If this were to happen those who do enjoy the canon would loose it for future editions... My opinion is that they should not loose it because some can't limit it in their own personal campaigns... is that more clear?







Yeah I think that's a given... and above I am expressing my own thoughts on what they should do (since nothing has been set in stone, though there are rumors of them moving back towards a more classical FR setting)... I'm still failing to see how I made it a question of morality??

"Should is a behavioral imperative. Morality is the systematic investigation of ideal behavior. Ergo, any "should" statement is a moral opinion.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't believe that WoTC blew up the realms to "separate the novels and the RPG" at all. The novels and RPG are still set in the same timeline. The new novels are set in the 4E timeline, just like the RPG products.



The realms were nuked because the powers that be at WoTC at the time thought it was the best way to "fix" the realms - to clear out the craziness of the 1370s and start afresh for both players and novelists.



It was also to bring it in line with WoTC's 4E "points of light" philosophy. It turns out that that was a terrible idea - in my view a symptom of 4E's one-true-way-ism. What they really meant by "points of light" was "places to adventure", and they seemed to think that "places to adventure" is the same as "blank spaces on the map". Which is completely wrong - when we buy a campaign setting, we're looking for inspiration, not a blank slate.

No, to clear the ground. Sure, they definitely continued with novels, but how many legacy characters were kept around? As I understand ot, precious few. This also meant that the newer novels would be less inside baseball.

 

[Imaro]

"Should is a behavioral imperative. Morality is the systematic investigation of ideal behavior. Ergo, any "should" statement is a moral opinion.

auxiliary verb
1.
simple past tense of shall.
2.
(used to express condition):
Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3.
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):
You should not do that.
4.
would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt):
I should think you would apologize.

EDIT: Are we seriously at this level of pedantry... I mean did most people in this thread really think I was saying it was a moral imperative??

EDIT 2... Also since it is the past tense of shall...

Shall

1.plan to, intend to, or expect to:I shall go later.


2.will have to, is determined to, or definitely will:You shall do it. He shall do it.


3.(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to:The meetings of the council shall be public.


4.(used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations):Shall we go?

 

[Mirtek]

No, to clear the ground. Sure, they definitely continued with novels, but how many legacy characters were kept around?

Better question would be who they did not keep around (demihuman life span, made immortal or longlived through some magical mcguffin just in time for the time jump, brought back from dead in the 1480s by some strange shenanigans, etc.)

The only major characters gone seem to be Elaine's, but she had not written a FR novel for years at this point. Other than hers it only hit new characters who didn't have more than one book to their story and due to the spellplague never the chance get more.

 

[pemerton]

The only example we have of the FR doing this is the 4e FR books

<snip>

the only example we have of this is the 4e FR's books (which I honestly don't think sold well)... and the only way we will have even an inkling of whether this worked or not is if they do or don't revert the FR campaign setting for 5e back to a more classical/canonical version

The only evidence I have as to sales of the 4e RPG books for FR is that swordmage seemed to be a fairly popular class. I have no idea on 4e novel sales.

But this thread was started by a poster complaining that the 5e modules depart from Realms canon, so I don't agree that the only relevant evience on the significance of canon to the market is 4e.

High level NPC's do not even need stats to begin with unless you intend to fight them. I think certain NPC's should be beyond stats to the point where they are a plot device and nothing more.

Why do you say this? In 5e, the non-combat capabilities of a character are determined by stats, proficiencies and spell load out, all of which are determined by "stats".

The only edition in which what you say is largely true is 4e.

 

[Parmandur]

auxiliary verb
1.
simple past tense of shall.
2.
(used to express condition):
Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3.
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):
You should not do that.
4.
would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt):
I should think you would apologize.

EDIT: Are we seriously at this level of pedantry... I mean did most people in this thread really think I was saying it was a moral imperative??

EDIT 2... Also since it is the past tense of shall...

Shall

1.plan to, intend to, or expect to:I shall go later.


2.will have to, is determined to, or definitely will:You shall do it. He shall do it.


3.(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to:The meetings of the council shall be public.


4.(used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations):Shall we go?

For both "should" and "shall" meaning three, the moral imperative "ought," is the only use of the verbs that fits your previous sentence structure in regards to WOTC. You can't speak to the first or second for them, and the fourth really wouldn't work.

And by the standard use of the term morality, what is being discussed is a moral question: the right behavior from Wizards to make their fans happy, and hence make money, being in turn happy.

This is the Internet, and a D&D forum at that. It started at that level of pedantry.

 

[Parmandur]

The only evidence I have as to sales of the 4e RPG books for FR is that swordmage seemed to be a fairly popular class. I have no idea on 4e novel sales.



But this thread was started by a poster complaining that the 5e modules depart from Realms canon, so I don't agree that the only relevant evience on the significance of canon to the market is 4e.



Why do you say this? In 5e, the non-combat capabilities of a character are determined by stats, proficiencies and spell load out, all of which are determined by "stats".



The only edition in which what you say is largely true is 4e.

Well, in 5E you can make those up for an NPC, precisely like 4E, without worrying about having a "legal" builds. So Eliminster can be an Archmage ala the MM, without being fully written out as a classed PC.

 

[Shasarak]

I like to see high level fleshed out NPCs.

In my opinion, the lack of high level NPCs was one of the failures of the Eberron setting.

 

[Imaro]

For both "should" and "shall" meaning three, the moral imperative "ought," is the only use of the verbs that fits your previous sentence structure in regards to WOTC. You can't speak to the first or second for them, and the fourth really wouldn't work.

And by the standard use of the term morality, what is being discussed is a moral question: the right behavior from Wizards to make their fans happy, and hence make money, being in turn happy.

This is the Internet, and a D&D forum at that. It started at that level of pedantry.

Dude fine whatever you win, not really interested in discussing this further since it seems everyone else understood my meaning whether it was the standard way shouldn't is used or not...

EDIT: And for the record I didn't make a comment about what WotC should or shouldn't do... but then you'd know that if you had actually read what I posted.

For reference...

I feel the same way about FR... So I don't run it for those people... or I make it very clear what book/books are canon... but that doesn't mean those who do enjoy it and like it at that level (DM's and players) shouldn't have it because you or I aren't willing to invest that much in it.

Where do I state anything about what WotC should do? I'm commenting on what should or shouldn't be available to others...