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

[Imaro]

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.

So your data is one poster starting a thread and the fact that the swordmage which was available through DDI separate from the actual FR setting booksseemed popular... that doesn't seem like much to any real data at all insofar as determining whether more canon or less canon will capture a wider market... or affects new DM's in any appreciable way.

 

[Hussar]

Something I really don't understand about this discussion is how any FR fan could possibly complain about changes to canon and retcons. Good grief, every D&D setting has been retconned extensively over the years. Every time we got a new edition, the entire setting got retconned.

Just off the top of my head. In 1e, all FR clerics were just that, clerics. Then, in 2e, you have specialty priests, which used a different xp table, different weapons and armour and completely different spell lists. My 2e Priest of Kossuth from Faiths and Avatars had access to all wizard fire spells as cleric spells, could use swords, and, by 5th level, could summon a fire elemental once a ten-day. 3e rolls around, and all that gets entirely retconned yet again as clerics are now shoe-horned into 3e's class structure. My Priest of Kossuth was now impossible to make in 3e - or at least extremely difficult and would take about double digit levels to re-create. 4e rolls around and redoes everything once again, and now 5e has restructured things for a fifth time.

How can you possibly complain about setting ret-cons in a setting that is so full of holes as FR? Tieflings and Genasi? Didn't exist until 1996 AT ALL. Yet are retconned into the setting in 3e as always being there AND being relatively common to find. Certainly not all that rare.

What's the problem with bringing, say, Tharizudun from Greyhawk in FR when we've already brought stuff like that from Planescape? A complete set of PC races is far, FAR more intrusive than a single big arsed boss monster that will only come into very high level games.

Heck, Sorcerers didn't exist in the setting until 3e because, well, there were no sorcs in D&D until 1999. Yet, suddenly, sorcerers everywhere in FR. Poof, instant retcon.

The problem, as I see it, for "why don't you just ignore the lore" is that those who are telling me to ignore the lore are pretty bloody picky and choosey about which lore to get uptight about. Never mind the fact that in order to ignore the lore, I still have to learn it in the first place. It's a lot more difficult to start rewriting canon if you have no idea what came before and, as is evidenced by this thread, people get uptight when you start doing that. So, I still have to absorb tens of thousands of pages of lore, scattered across hundreds of publications, spread across over thirty years in order to have a decent grasp on the setting that doesn't even maintain it's own continuity and never has.

 

[SirAntoine]

It's not about what you have to do, though, it's about what you'd like to do if only you could. The failings to maintain continuity, or canon, have unintended consequences.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

So, I still have to absorb tens of thousands of pages of lore, scattered across hundreds of publications, spread across over thirty years in order to have a decent grasp on the setting that doesn't even maintain it's own continuity and never has.

I wish more Realms fans that take to the internet to complain would keep what you say about edition changes in mind. Depending on which oily lens of D&D rules you look through, the Realms is going to look different. No getting around that.

It doesn't follow, however, that the setting hasn't maintained continuity. It has, however imperfectly, and work is being done even as we speak to shore up the wreck that 4E left it in.

I'll tell you something too: it's just not necessary to "absorb tens of thousands of pages of lore" to grasp the Realms. Just pick up a campaign guide and start from there.

What matters most is DM and player expectations. If you're a fan of the Realms and a reasonable person, it's not going to be an issue if your DM doesn't know the Realms as well as you do; you're there to play the game, run your character and have fun.

I think most people appreciate the mere fact that they're able to get into a game at all.

The message that WotC needs to get out to the masses with 5E is this: use what you like, discard the rest and have fun.

 

[SirAntoine]

That's a comp-out. "Taking to the Internet to complain" is also increasingly a rewarding one to have a discussion with other people. Some people can be really mean, but even when most people offer their criticisms they are not inconsiderate of other people's points of view. To say what matters most is DM and player expectations is right, and that is exactly why you may want to maintain continuity "better". It can be an issue for people without being unreasonable. Now I am not saying I would be upset if continuity wasn't maintained better, but I just want to see the best it can be. I am a perfectionist, but I think most people would feel the same way too because it's like when your favorite movie gets a sequel, and it's disappointing. It happens so frequently, it is often universally said of sequels. Just taking the time to try to get it better would make a difference every time, even though the Realms are so complicated you will always leave some people disappointed.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

By "taking to the Internet to complain" I mean those people who:

A) See something they think is a problem, then go online to complain, instead of bothering to do a little research first... or hells just taking the time to phrase what they have to say in the form of a question, as opposed to assuming that something is wrong and deciding the world needs to hear their gripe, in all its uninformed glory.

B) Complain about the same things, over and over and over and over and over and over, without bothering to acknowledge, at the very least, why something was done the way it was, or why a game design decision was made one way and not another, and letting it freaking go already.

I agree with you too: continuity ought to be the very best it can be. When it is, all games can benefit--including games that don't care one whit about canon, because if such a game decides to utilize some Realmslore somewhere down the line, it can be assured it's on sound footing with the game material being used.

But I've also seen people go batshit crazy over the least of errors. These folks tend to be in it for the pleasure of the gripe; rarely do they bother with figuring out why a mistake happened. And that pretty much tells any game designer reading the gripe that it's not worth cogitating over, because there's a difference between the people who gripe incessantly and the people who actually care.

(It's the later that are worth listening to, in my not so humble opinion.)

So yeah, keep it consistent. Just don't force your game designers and editors to obsess to the point where they're working overtime, staying up too late, getting up too early and otherwise running themselves ragged.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Something I really don't understand about this discussion is how any FR fan could possibly complain about changes to canon and retcons. Good grief, every D&D setting has been retconned extensively over the years. Every time we got a new edition, the entire setting got retconned.

Just off the top of my head. In 1e, all FR clerics were just that, clerics. Then, in 2e, you have specialty priests, which used a different xp table, different weapons and armour and completely different spell lists. My 2e Priest of Kossuth from Faiths and Avatars had access to all wizard fire spells as cleric spells, could use swords, and, by 5th level, could summon a fire elemental once a ten-day. 3e rolls around, and all that gets entirely retconned yet again as clerics are now shoe-horned into 3e's class structure. My Priest of Kossuth was now impossible to make in 3e - or at least extremely difficult and would take about double digit levels to re-create. 4e rolls around and redoes everything once again, and now 5e has restructured things for a fifth time.

How can you possibly complain about setting ret-cons in a setting that is so full of holes as FR? Tieflings and Genasi? Didn't exist until 1996 AT ALL. Yet are retconned into the setting in 3e as always being there AND being relatively common to find. Certainly not all that rare.

What's the problem with bringing, say, Tharizudun from Greyhawk in FR when we've already brought stuff like that from Planescape? A complete set of PC races is far, FAR more intrusive than a single big arsed boss monster that will only come into very high level games.

Heck, Sorcerers didn't exist in the setting until 3e because, well, there were no sorcs in D&D until 1999. Yet, suddenly, sorcerers everywhere in FR. Poof, instant retcon.

The problem, as I see it, for "why don't you just ignore the lore" is that those who are telling me to ignore the lore are pretty bloody picky and choosey about which lore to get uptight about. Never mind the fact that in order to ignore the lore, I still have to learn it in the first place. It's a lot more difficult to start rewriting canon if you have no idea what came before and, as is evidenced by this thread, people get uptight when you start doing that. So, I still have to absorb tens of thousands of pages of lore, scattered across hundreds of publications, spread across over thirty years in order to have a decent grasp on the setting that doesn't even maintain it's own continuity and never has.

Continuing to screw up and pretend it's just because you've screwed up in the past is not a good justification.

Also, depends on the scale of what is introduced. Adding in a race isn't as bad as adding in "another" deity when the line up is already over crowded is a bit much.

Making changes for the sake of changes is also a problem that a lot people have, especially when it's extremely obvious *coughs* (dragonborn).

 

[pemerton]

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.

I agree with this: NPCs don't need to be full class builds. But they still need their stats to give their ability and proficiency bonuses, and spell load-out.

 

[Hussar]

I wish more Realms fans that take to the internet to complain would keep what you say about edition changes in mind. Depending on which oily lens of D&D rules you look through, the Realms is going to look different. No getting around that.

It doesn't follow, however, that the setting hasn't maintained continuity. It has, however imperfectly, and work is being done even as we speak to shore up the wreck that 4E left it in.

/snip

Actually, no, it really means that the setting has not maintained continuity. The setting has been changed, altered and retconned continuously for years. 4e's "wreck" is just another in a LONG list of changes.

You cannot point to one change and try to claim that everything that came before was somehow better handled. Not when you have a setting that has been rewritten as many times, by as many people, as FR.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Actually, no, it really means that the setting has not maintained continuity. The setting has been changed, altered and retconned continuously for years. 4e's "wreck" is just another in a LONG list of changes.

You cannot point to one change and try to claim that everything that came before was somehow better handled. Not when you have a setting that has been rewritten as many times, by as many people, as FR.

I'm sorry but the 4th edition changes to the Realm stand out compared to all others.