FR Podcast is up

[JohnRTroy]

As a fan of FR and of Economics--I don't see the problem. The Red Wizards tried a different way, but you sort of knew it might have been a cultural phase. 3e'd take on Thay Enclaves was in my mind an attempt to set up embassies for an evil empire.

I have no problem with magic shops, guilds, or bazaars. Heck, I think players should have some more realistic fantasy structures. While I liked the LoTR movies, the one thing I hated about it was they didn't seem to understand how Middle Earth should have worked. Great cities of Men should have had the various farms and villages surrounding them--not wide open spaces on moorland! No matter how cool the battle scenes were that simple fact that any high school kid should know totally distracted me, much like how bad plots can get to you.

But the Red Wizards work best as evil cabals and a nation of slavers and dark elements. FR has a lot of other ways to get merchants involved, and even nations better suited for it.

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

Microsoft is not evil. (I expect better of you Mourn.)

 

[Khairn]

To be fair, this was always a design goal of the Forgotten Realms. It was very explicit during the 2E era that anything in D&D could be in or accessed from the Realms.

It wasn't ret-conned out of existence. There is at least one functioning Time Portal in the Realms circa 4E. Everything that happened in previous editions still happened and still laid the foundation for the 4E world. Therefor, all that stuff on your shelf is still pertinent.

In what way are my books detailing the worship of Mystra or the many other gods that were part of FR's cosmology pertinent in 4E FR? Aside from historical, its not in the least. WotC didn't ret-con the past, they just created a new future where the past has little to no relevance to what will become the present.

"Shoe horn" was my words, and the comment I was paraphrasing was in regards to FR. They said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that they didn't set out to force the Realms into a PoL dynamic. They noted how the Realms was characterized by a number of large, ancient, civilized and interconnected regions. They wanted to reduce this somewhat, but they didn't set out to totally clean the slate and make the setting PoL, just a little bit more PoL. From what we've heard, I feel that they were successful in this goal.

Take a listen again. Maybe I'm missing it, but I didn't hear them claim that they didn't set out to force the Realms int a POL dynamic. I hard them say that they were not going force every setting to be PoL. If tweaking the Realms to be a "bit more PoL" was indeed their goal, I think they need to take another look at what they've done. IMHO, they cleared away enough of the setting that it looks like a virtual clean slate to me.

Just as an aside, I actually love the PoL concept. Those 3E settings that already had a definite PoL theme (Midnight, Scarred Lands etc) are some of my favorites. I just happen to believe that the FR we had, was better than the FR we will be getting.

Of course all of this is pure conjecture on all our parts, since none of us know what the final outcome will be.

 

[PeterWeller]

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.

There has been no shift in policy. Everything in the PHB, DMG, and MM has always had to have a place in the Realms. It's more jarring this time because the stuff in the PHB, DMG, and MM has changed a lot more than it did the last two times. Thayan Enclaves, thousands of dead assassins, and the Simbul having been a sorcerer all along are just a few examples of how they have, with each new edition, deliberately altered the Realms to fit that new edition.

In what way are my books detailing the worship of Mystra or the many other gods that were part of FR's cosmology pertinent in 4E FR? Aside from historical, its not in the least. WotC didn't ret-con the past, they just created a new future where the past has little to no relevance to what will become the present.

How pertinent do you want them to be? I can think of a dozen ways in which the religious ceremonies of dead gods, for example, can still play a major part in my 4E campaign, if I wish. I'm planning on starting my 4E campaign with Cyricist cultists sacrificing a worshipper of Leira on Blackwater Bridge. There's an obscure religious ceremony involving a dead goddess, and I am sure of my ability to make it very pertinent to the story we are going to tell.

Also, is there need for hyperbole over the amount of gods that have been whacked? You make it sound like the entire cosmology was wiped out, instead of the pair of major players and handful of ancillary deities that are the only known casualties of the edition change.

Take a listen again. Maybe I'm missing it, but I didn't hear them claim that they didn't set out to force the Realms int a POL dynamic. I hard them say that they were not going force every setting to be PoL. If tweaking the Realms to be a "bit more PoL" was indeed their goal, I think they need to take another look at what they've done. IMHO, they cleared away enough of the setting that it looks like a virtual clean slate to me.

Again with the hyperbole. I think the part where they waxed about their respect for the setting as it existed and their stated goal to not go overboard altering the core of the setting is a pretty clear statement of their intent to not make FR a wholesale PoL. How can it be a virtual clean slate when virtually all the core regions and power groups have survived relatively unchanged? When there's still a Cormyr, a Savage Frontier, a Waterdeep, a Moonshaes, a Dalelands, a Western Heartlands, and a Moonsea still existing under relatively unchanged power structures and social dynamics, the slate has hardly been cleaned.

Honestly, I know we're not going to agree on this one, but I have to say that your observations about the changes seem pretty unfounded.

 

[Bishmon]

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

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!

It'd probably be a good idea to tone down the overt sarcasm when disagreeing with someone's opinion.

 

[Nymrohd]

As said above the core of the Realms remains unchanged. The Heartlands and the North are as they were in basis with a few changes made that will improve adventuring. Anauroch is far more interesting with the Shades in it and Cormanthor far more interesting with the elves. Plus I keep hearing about major players being killed, when exactly did that happen? Most NPCs who died, died in novels during 3e. The only absurd change to the Realms is what happened to Helm, but I trade it for the rest of the changes willingly.

 

[Khairn]

Honestly, I know we're not going to agree on this one, but I have to say that your observations about the changes seem pretty unfounded.

You're right in that we won't agree on this one. You believe my observations are unfounded and I believe you're wearing tinted glasses so you dont see what seems pretty damn clear to me. What can we do?

C'est la vie.

 

[PeterWeller]

You're right in that we won't agree on this one. You believe my observations are unfounded and I believe you're wearing tinted glasses so you dont see what seems pretty damn clear to me. What can we do?

C'est la vie.

I don't know what we can do, but you can pull your head out of the sand and realize that these sweeping, essentially slate-clearing changes aren't nearly as sweeping and slate-cleaning as you'd like them to be.

That's right; I went there. I'm sorry if you want to continue being purposefully obtuse in your observations, which I believe your posts illustrate very well. I'm not going to convince you that the 4E team didn't ruin the Realms, but it's not because we have a difference in opinion; it's because you are adamant in your view-point, and you're not going to let the evidence sway you. It's like trying to explain evolution to a YEC, except our discussion hasn't led me to believe you are retarded, merely you have a viewpoint and you're going to stick with come hell or high water.

I'm sorry, man. I'm really not trying to pick on you. The only reason why I've been posting a lot in this thread is because my original summary was put on the front page, and thus I feel it's my obligation to clarify any misconceptions about the content of the podcast that may have come about due to my phrasing and presentation. I've tried to present this clarification, but in doing so, I've realized there are people who just want to nit-pick. They don't want further explication of what was in the pod-cast. You may or may not be one of these posters. I'm not a name calling kind of person, so I'll leave that one up to you.

It's still the Realms. Big, crazy happenings and a hundred years have changed it in many ways, but you cannot look at the setting and honestly say that it isn't a development and continuation of what had come before because it is, and every new tidbit of information they give us further reinforces that it still is very recognizably FR.

Continue to tell me my glasses are rose tinted, and I'll continue to tell you to put yours on and take a good, damn look.

 

[Hussar]

On another note.

Anyone else pick up on this design change: The new source book will allow someone new to the setting to sit down and PLAY right from the book. Three (IIRC) linked mini-adventures right in the first chapter.

THAT'S the way it's done folks. If you want source books, don't go the history text-book way, give people books they can actually use.

I hope that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope that future source books will be about 50/50 split between setting information and adventures.

 

[Fobok]

THAT'S the way it's done folks. If you want source books, don't go the history text-book way, give people books they can actually use.

While I actually like that they do this in the core campaign setting, I wouldn't want to see it in any other books. To me, the 'history text-book' elements are of *far* more use than adventures I'll never play.

 

[Sammael]

I've never used a single FR adventure which was shoved printed in any 3.x regional supplement. On the other hand, I tried to incorporate a healthy amount of historical data in my campaigns, in the form of ruins, ancient texts, artifacts from kingdoms long past, strange and wondrous locations, and so on.

Eberron CS, to me, felt... forced. Like the authors were compelled to write every single sentence of the book as a plot hook or adventure location. Every time I read the book I felt like there were a thousand annoying voices behind me chanting "PLAY ME! PLAY ME!" I dislike that.

Looks like they are aiming for the same goal with The New Realms. I hope for their sake that they did a very thorough market research prior to making that decision.