Are you excited about the Forgotten Realms setting changes?

[PeterWeller]

After all these years its a tough pill to swallow, but WotC has made it clear who 4E is being designed for, and its not FR's existing fan base.

I take issue with this statement and others like it. I'm a long time FR fan. I've been one since I purchased the Gray Box at some point in the late Eighties, I've continued to purchase, use and enjoy FR material in the intervening almost twenty years, and I like the changes. Also, I don't want to start another argument over the accuracy of the poll, but from this small sampling at least, there are more current Realms fans who are satisfied or happy with the choices than those who are not. It's incorrect, then, to say that the existing FR fanbase isn't part of the equation. Sure, they are taking the risk of alienating segments of the existing fanbase; something like that is inevitable when making changes, but there's no sense in outright trying to alienate a fanbase that has been so loyal. For all your anger and dismay over these changes, you can't honestly think that WotC was trying to "fire" you.

 

[Khairn]

You mean, exactly like real world plagues? How much did the Black Plague affect China?

I ask you again, do better. Come up with a way to acheive the following goals:

1. Lessen the canon requirement for playing in the Realms that turns off new players
2. Allow the new core mechanics of 4e to exist in the Realms.

The answer to #1 is very easy. Allow me to illustrate.

As a GM I decide that the only FR setting book I am using is Silver Marches. One softcover book that is 158 pages long. That, along with a few pages from the FRCS is all I will need. All characters need to fit within the concepts of the Sillver Marches. And voila ... very little canon to know. If and when my players want more detail, I can add another book and expand out my game.

Within a year of the launch of FR 4E there will be well over 20 supplements, adventures, FR monster manuals, and paperback books. Nevermind all the official content that will come via the DDI. What are you going to do with all this new canon? Ignore it if it causes a problem would be my guess. So why can't you do the same with 3E FR canon? Ultimately, the arrival of FR 4E, will not solve the "canon" question. Its just a temporary band-aid.

The extent to which we use FR Canon is completely in the hands of the players and GM's to determine. It is not something that is controlled by publishing a new edition. The problem is not that detailed canon exists. The problem is how we (GM's & players) use it.

As for #2, I wouldn't try to shoe horn 4E's gaming paradigm into a setting with such extensive history in the first place. I'd create a setting that would really showcase 4E's new rules and new style of play to the fullest. What I wouldn't do is alter an existing setting to the degree that a sizable part of your loyal and passionate customer-base is up in arms.

I'm glad there are folks who are excited about 4E FR. But for me, the changes to the setting are too dramatic. It just doesn't appear to have the same feeling as the "classic" FR. And since the only thing that is truly important to me is the fun my friends and I have at the gaming table, we'll just stick with the current version of the FR.

For all your anger and dismay over these changes, you can't honestly think that WotC was trying to "fire" you.

First off you are right. I stated that WotC was not developing 4E FR for their current fan base. I should have said that they are not designing it for their entire fan base. I clearly included "all" FR fans in my statement, and that was wrong. I know that there are clearly some FR fans who really like the changes, just as there are some who really don't.

I don't for the slightest moment think that WotC is trying to fire me. But I do think that they knew a portion of their player base would be outraged by the changes they were making, and calculated that potential loss of former players as acceptable. I don't hold it against them, as its a straight business decision, and not anything personal.

 

[Hussar]

Within a year of the launch of FR 4E there will be well over 20 supplements, adventures, FR monster manuals, and paperback books. Nevermind all the official content that will come via the DDI. What are you going to do with all this new canon? Ignore it if it causes a problem would be my guess. So why can't you do the same with 3E FR canon? Ultimately, the arrival of FR 4E, will not solve the "canon" question. Its just a temporary band-aid.

Because most of the 3e canon is written on the assumption that you have been following 2e canon as well. They reference, repeatedly, events that occured before the release of 3e. The entire reason the Realms looks like it does originates in 2e, not 3e. (okay, I'm ignoring bits here for simplicity, but, bear with me)

Even with books like PGtF, they reference numerous books and events outside of 3e. This is the base book that all FR players are probably assumed to have. You don't just start with "Silver Marches" and go from there, ignoring for the moment that you're talking about a book that's for 3e and not even for 3.5. At least, a new player wouldn't. A new player is going to start with the PGtF. A fairly reasonable place to start.

And, right in the introductory book, he gets slapped in the face with twentyish years of canon, much of it out of print. Why are the Elves coming back? Why did they leave in the first place? Myth Dranor and the Mythal. Harpers. Elminister. Kelben Blackstaff.

Right in the opening book, a new player is being whacked with a big stinky canon fish.

Now, hopefully, I can pick up the new PGtF, and it will begin historical references at the beginning of the Spellplague. I don't need to know what Unther was - it's gone. I don't need to know what happened in the Underdark beforehand - it's a big open pit now.

Fantastic. I no longer have to wade through pages of reprinted historical material because a major event has rendered most of it irrelevent.

 

[PeterWeller]

Thanks for the very reasoned response Devyn. I'm just getting tired of the sweeping generalizations being tossed about that only turn discussions into arguments and arguments into pissing matches.

Now for my question. A lot of you who are upset with the changes have argued that these changes disturb the essential characteristics of the Realms. Personally, I can't see why this is the case. To me, the Realms has always been the all you can eat fantasy buffet setting. If you have a group of players who want to play an eclectic assortment of characters inspired by an equally eclectic assortment of sources, the Realms is the setting for you. The Realms give you room to run high fantasy alongside gritty sword and sorcery alongside hard boiled investigations alongside comic farces and gripping dramas. The setting, in the hands of a decent and mildly knowledgeable DM, can be everything to everyone. None of the changes I've seen have caused me to believe this will no longer be the case. So what then (and now it's finally time for my question) about the changes has disrupted the essential core of the Realms to you? I understand that my idea about what makes the Realms THE REALMS may be totally different than yours, but so far, I've only seen arguments about the quality of the story events and some mention about how the perceived problems weren't problems at all, but nothing about how the changes upset the core assumptions and themes of the setting. As for the quality of the fluff, it's hokey, but the Realms has always been pretty hokey, and it seems to be hokey in the same vein as previous Realms story events. As for the perceived problems, I agree that a lot of them were problems of perception or player quality rather than inherent problems with the setting, but that's only because I believe one of the core tenets of good DMing is ignoring anything and everything that is detrimental to your group's enjoyment of the game. Stuff like the preponderance of high level spell casters was something we either ignored outright or worked around in some way, so why does it matter so much if it has been toned or cut down to appeal to the people who did perceive a problem with it? Does that really change the feeling of the setting, especially if it's part of the setting that you downplay at your table?

That's a little rambling and excessive and I apologize, so for the TL;DR crowd: I feel like the core of the Realms, geographically and thematically, hasn't changed in any really significant way. It's still a setting that can incorporate a huge variety of characters and play styles in one campaign, and that, to me, is what the Realms truly is. My question is: if you think the core character of the Realms has been changed, what do you consider that core character to be, and what changes upset that core character?

Also, I'm not saying my idea of what makes the Forgotten Realms forgotten realms is the one true way; it's just why I like the Realms.

 

[JeffB]

I need an " I think the changes are silly, and so were the 3.X changes and the TOT, and "The Horde", and I'll just stick with that old grey box and a few of the early FR# supplements" choice for the poll

Personally I liked the whole Xvim thing they were working with during C&D....I kinda went off my own tangent writing a vader-ish "Bane Returns and he and his son will rule the galaxy" type of backstory, "fixing" other things I did not like (Cyric,Kelemvor, etc) and ultimately realized it was alot of work for nothing. The original timeline works best and doesnt have ANY baggage. The OGB and FR1 and FR5 are pretty much all I'll ever need.

But hey WOTC has gotta sell some books, and although I may think the changes are "lame" for 4E, the baggage DEF needs stripping away, so I think the intentions are good. FR jumped the shark 15+ years ago.

 

[Khairn]

Even with books like PGtF, they reference numerous books and events outside of 3e. This is the base book that all FR players are probably assumed to have. You don't just start with "Silver Marches" and go from there, ignoring for the moment that you're talking about a book that's for 3e and not even for 3.5. At least, a new player wouldn't. A new player is going to start with the PGtF. A fairly reasonable place to start.

And, right in the introductory book, he gets slapped in the face with twentyish years of canon, much of it out of print. Why are the Elves coming back? Why did they leave in the first place? Myth Dranor and the Mythal. Harpers. Elminister. Kelben Blackstaff.

Right in the opening book, a new player is being whacked with a big stinky canon fish.

Now, hopefully, I can pick up the new PGtF, and it will begin historical references at the beginning of the Spellplague. I don't need to know what Unther was - it's gone. I don't need to know what happened in the Underdark beforehand - it's a big open pit now.

Fantastic. I no longer have to wade through pages of reprinted historical material because a major event has rendered most of it irrelevent.

I understand what you are saying, and for new players & new GM's to FR you have a point. Personally I never used the PGtF, and never felt I missed out on anything. But that's because I never tried to play a game using the entire FR line & history. I would certainly hope that any experienced players would also know that you don't have to use everything that is made available to you. But your example does not invalidate my 2 points.

The first being that the amount of canon you use is controlled by the players themselves not by the edition, and the 2nd being within a year of its launch the number of books and official FR articles will be back to the point where new GM's will feel daunted by what they feel they have to know in order to play FR.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

If I were DMing, I'd treat FR as two separate settings. One would be the 1st/2nd edition setting, and one would be the 4th edition setting (the alternate Toril.)
3.0 and 3.5? A subset of 1st/2nd edition.

I'd run campaigns set in both settings. The players I knew would ask for that.

I'd use the old maps from the FR Atlas for the one setting, and use the 3rd/4th edition maps for the alternate setting.

Edena_of_Neith

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

The 4e Realms are an Alt-Verse, in fact that would be pretty interesting. You could have your FR players use a well of worlds or a jaunt through the plane of shadows to find this deranged facsimili of the world they know.

 

[Hussar]

I understand what you are saying, and for new players & new GM's to FR you have a point. Personally I never used the PGtF, and never felt I missed out on anything. But that's because I never tried to play a game using the entire FR line & history. I would certainly hope that any experienced players would also know that you don't have to use everything that is made available to you. But your example does not invalidate my 2 points.

The first being that the amount of canon you use is controlled by the players themselves not by the edition, and the 2nd being within a year of its launch the number of books and official FR articles will be back to the point where new GM's will feel daunted by what they feel they have to know in order to play FR.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

Quite probably.

And I agree that the canon will eventually grow to the point where it turns off new gamers. However, I think your time frame is off. They usually crank out four or five new Realms books a year, not counting novels. Heck, maybe it's six or seven. But, you only really need the FRCS to get started. I know I said PGtF, but, that's my brain not working. If the new FRCS basically spends a page or two on what came before and then starts at the beginning of the Spell Plague, then all those thousands and thousands of pages of canon don't have to be referenced.

So, you get a few years anyway before you're right back to the same problem. Hopefully in that time you'll rope in enough new players to reinvigorate the line.

 

[William Ronald]

Quite probably.

And I agree that the canon will eventually grow to the point where it turns off new gamers. However, I think your time frame is off. They usually crank out four or five new Realms books a year, not counting novels. Heck, maybe it's six or seven. But, you only really need the FRCS to get started. I know I said PGtF, but, that's my brain not working. If the new FRCS basically spends a page or two on what came before and then starts at the beginning of the Spell Plague, then all those thousands and thousands of pages of canon don't have to be referenced.

So, you get a few years anyway before you're right back to the same problem. Hopefully in that time you'll rope in enough new players to reinvigorate the line.

Hussar, I think that you have suggested a good format for the new FRCS- a few pages on what came before and then starting up again. I thought that the FRCS was well done for 3rd edition, but some areas received very little attention. (Murghom and a few other places received a paragraph.) Possibly each entry on countries and regions will be detailed enough for DMs to use those areas - with some history (written up to give a DM a few good ideas) and information on the various regions.

I have been a homebrewer, but I do find the changes interesting - and no less dramatic than several of the events in the histroy of the Realms. (Indeed, with all the immigration from gates opening to the Realms, one has to ask if there is a single race - humans included - that it is truly native to the setting.)