FR Podcast is up

[TrainedMunkee]

Out of that thirty plus minute podcast, the naysayers couldn't find a single thing that you liked or are looking forward to?

It seems that individuals are determined to dislike the new FR setting.

I thought that it was very interesting how much Ed Greenwood had contributed to the setting.

It appears from the podcast that Aber-Toril is his baby.

It appears we now know which realm was forgotten.

I had always thought that Forgotten Realms referenced the fact that Faerun had at one time been connected to our world by gates and that we had forgotten about Faerun.

 

[PeterWeller]

In Realms-2008 the setting is being bent and selectively replaced without question to accommodate every rules element, when before TSR compromised, only sometimes using the Realms as a dumping ground, at others letting it be itself. There's a clear shift from the previous approaches, where the 2E and 3E rulesets were seen as imperfect lenses. That language has gone.

Thousands of murdered assassins would like to have a word with you.

We've been told that it isn't necessary now, without it being explained how it ever was, that the setting is being simplified to put newcomers on an even plane with veterans, and that past lore is still relevant. But not how all this will be done.

It hasn't been ret-conned out of existence. It's still the back-story. There is at least one functioning Time Portal in the world. Just because the 4E book will assume you don't have access to or knowledge of all this material doesn't mean you can't use it to your heart's content in your 4E campaign, nor does it mean that it will lose all relevance in the ongoing development of the setting.

Rich Baker explained months ago that the Realms was being piecemeal, not wholesale PoLized. Of course large regions of Faerûn are already that way.

And that's what they reiterated in the podcast.

 

[Kishin]

Really? So, turning Thay into Mordor and Szass Tam into Sauron is better than trying to explore a credible economic impact of magic items on the local economies? 3E changed Red Wizards into interesting villains and potential allies instead of "scary wizard guys in red" which they've always been in previous editions. What next? Will they bring Myrkul (the generic eeeeevil death god) back instead of the much more interesting Kelemvor/Velsharoon dychotomy?

Eberron explored the concept better, in all honesty, and Thay is in no way Mordor just because Szass Tam is in charge. He's a lot more multi-dimensional as a villian than Sauron, who was basically Tolkien's ultimate evil (Well, excluding Morgoth)/Lucifer figure.

The division between the native Thayans and the expats might play out interesting.

 

[Henry]

Really? So, turning Thay into Mordor and Szass Tam into Sauron is better than trying to explore a credible economic impact of magic items on the local economies? 3E changed Red Wizards into interesting villains and potential allies instead of "scary wizard guys in red" which they've always been in previous editions. What next? Will they bring Myrkul (the generic eeeeevil death god) back instead of the much more interesting Kelemvor/Velsharoon dychotomy?

I don't mean to denigrate your point (in fact, those same points I found pretty cool), but whenever one starts having to use the words "explore economic impact", and "dichotomy" to describe a D&D setting, the setting is probably going to not appeal to the majority of D&D gamers. The majority likely wants "scary wizards," "evil death gods", and "militant demons and dragon-men" over the former; when that happens, it's probably in the better interest to shake things up a bit.

In fact, the EXACT same thing happened in the release of 3E back in 2000. Do you remember what the catch-phrase was then over the convolution and stagnancy of both the Realms and Greyhawk of the time?

"Back to the dungeon"...

Thousands of murdered assassins would like to have a word with you.

Peter's right on this point: TSR fair-mutilated the realms with the Avatar Trilogy and the change to 2nd edition, and the only thing they left intact I think WAS the landmasses. It's the same song, just a different dance floor.

 

[med stud]

I don't mean to denigrate your point (in fact, those same points I found pretty cool), but whenever one starts having to use the words "explore economic impact", and "dichotomy" to describe a D&D setting, the setting is probably going to not appeal to the majority of D&D gamers. The majority likely wants "scary wizards," "evil death gods", and "militant demons and dragon-men" over the former; when that happens, it's probably in the better interest to shake things up a bit.

Amen to that. I can read the business pages in my newspaper if I want "complex" economics. When I play RPGs, I want swords, magic, blood and economies that it doesn't matter if they don't make sense

 

[drjones]

Well, after listening to the Podcast, I found myself thinking "Hmm...I may actually give the new Realms a look."

And this is from a guy who gave up on them ages ago. There are parts I like, and parts I hate. I loved the original grey box, but just about everything since has been kinda downhill (although the elves and dwarves no longer being in decline is kinda cool).

There were moments during the podcast where I actually thought I might end up running a Realms campaign, rather than just straight homebrewing. Because it sounds like the new FR might be the perfect mix of civilization and savagery that makes for good gaming.

But in reality, I'll probably just homebrew and mine the Realms for ideas. I was already planning to partially swipe the geography of the Sea of Fallen Stars for my planned seafaring campaign.

This was exactly my response, I DMd 1st and 2nd ed games in FR mostly because I loved the SSI games but it has not held any appeal for a while. It just seemed too cluttered.

Now I am looking forward to checking it out.

 

[Faraer]

Peter's right on this point: TSR fair-mutilated the realms with the Avatar Trilogy and the change to 2nd edition, and the only thing they left intact I think WAS the landmasses. It's the same song, just a different dance floor.

The designers would confirm my characterization. In a deliberate shift of policy, they're explicitly and consistently substituting new design principles for many of the Realms', as was never done before.

 

[TrainedMunkee]

I don't mean to denigrate your point (in fact, those same points I found pretty cool), but whenever one starts having to use the words "explore economic impact", and "dichotomy" to describe a D&D setting, the setting is probably going to not appeal to the majority of D&D gamers. The majority likely wants "scary wizards," "evil death gods", and "militant demons and dragon-men" over the former; when that happens, it's probably in the better interest to shake things up a bit.

In fact, the EXACT same thing happened in the release of 3E back in 2000. Do you remember what the catch-phrase was then over the convolution and stagnancy of both the Realms and Greyhawk of the time?

"Back to the dungeon"...



Peter's right on this point: TSR fair-mutilated the realms with the Avatar Trilogy and the change to 2nd edition, and the only thing they left intact I think WAS the landmasses. It's the same song, just a different dance floor.

There was much debate on the forerunner of these boards when the 3e FR setting was announced.

Wizards actually asked for suggestions on what they should include in the book.

One of the main fan suggestions was the economics of the realms. There was also a long debate over how to attach the map to the book.

I'm very happy with Wizard's decision not to go with fan suggestions this time.

I hated the Avatar books, they were just poorly written. The Time of Troubles was poorly conceived, but the 2e setting book was much better than the 3e setting book. I still have my Gray Box and have made a shrine to it.

It sounds like the Red Wizards will rock once more.

Space

 

[pukunui]

I was a big fan of the 2e FR. I even enjoyed the Avatars trilogy (hey, I was about 13 when I read them!). The changes 3e made to the Realms really turned me off. I didn't like it at all. But the 4e changes are starting to get me interested again. I may not actually play in the Realms but I will definitely be buying Realms products so I can at least plunder them for ideas and the like.

On a side note, I also really dig the new look for the kuo-toa. Making them look more like sinister, primeval fish-like creatures rather than comical floppy frog things was a wise design decision, if you ask me.

 

[The Little Raven]

So, turning Thay into Mordor and Szass Tam into Sauron is better than trying to explore a credible economic impact of magic items on the local economies?

Turning the Red Wizards into Microsoft (you hate us, but you need what we're selling) is yawn-worthy. Oh noes, evil capitalist wizards.

And when was Szass Tam anything but a prime threat evil lich necromancer, more powerful than his rivals in Thay? Never.

3E changed Red Wizards into interesting villains and potential allies instead of "scary wizard guys in red" which they've always been in previous editions.

Oh noes! Through sinister machinations, they might start undercutting your local magic item market and put your aunt out of business! Krunk, quickly, use your +3 Axe of Economic Repercussions to save the economy!

Will they bring Myrkul (the generic eeeeevil death god) back instead of the much more interesting Kelemvor/Velsharoon dychotomy?

Kelemvor's cool.

Velsharoon, the "Eeeeevil Lich God of Eeeevil Undead"... not so much.