Sylrae
First Post
Well. As this is the second time I'm writing this thread so hopefully I didnt forget anything from my first attampt when enworld timed out.
4e Fr has alot of previews. I'm going to share my insights, and then ask for yours. You may provide useful information I haven't read.
Here are my thoughts on existing FR
Advantages of FR:
1. If I want to run a game in an area and not have to make all the stats of the locals and the maps, theyre available.
2. Really detailed info is available on frequently used places.
3. I dont have to do the points of light thing if I don't want to, but If I want to I can easily run the game in somewhere like the western heartlands, or a number of other less populated areas where there is less published information.
4. The politics of a country are easy enough to find for any areas that see frequent use.
5. I'm not limitedto a very small set of options. There are more options than I have tried playing as. Before we played FR, I played a few just core games, and after we tried out 2 or 3 characters for a couple sessions, I got bored of them and started converting the monsters (3e didnt have player stats) so that I could use them as a player immediately. Then we basically used the Monster manual to create characters. After we picked up FR that didn't feel as Necessary because there was always new options we found interesting that we had not tried yet. Genasi, and dozens of new races or subraces.
furthermore I dont think the problems with FR are the same as what alot of people claim they are.
1. High level NPCs are not a real problem. they don't need to have anythign to do with your game. Just like Deus Ex machina isnt a good plot device, its essentially the same thing. Elminster has nothing to do with most campaigns, because he has his own problems to worry about. Could he do a better job than the PCs at dealing with whatever theyre dealing with? Likely. Does he have time to do so? No. Not every bilbo baggins should have a gandalf watching over them. interesting in a book yes, interesting in a game, not really.
2. The quantity of the details isnt that big of an issue. It's daunting if you don't know how to approach it. but You wouldn't try to memorize an encyclopedia to talk about elephants. You'd just look up elephants. The best part about FR is that if I want to play in a densely populated area I can find maps of the town, and stats for the high ranking officials. It's like a module, only I get to make up the plot.
The problems with FR are separate.
1. Not all informatoin that SHOULD be in the FRCS (Because its not just regional) is in there. Like how timetravel is really weird in FR. only works with a specific spell, and a handful of portals, directly monitored by mystra, etc (maybe not relevent in 4e, but it was in 3e) and has a crapload of limits on it,
- you cant go forward, only back
- you arrive at the beginning of the year (in whatever calendar youre going back to) and youre stuck there a full year
- you can't go back early
-if you change things too much that your timeline cant exist in a comparable state, then youre either stuck in the past, or history shifts itself to have the same outcomes accomodating your changes. (you save the king who should die, he's assinated a year later; that sort of thing)
You cant find that except in a 2e book that dealt with time travel. this type of stuff needs to be in the main book if it still applies, and if it doesn't, then it needs to be explained WHY its doesnt.
2. Not everythign that would be useful from previous editions is released in the current edition. Wizards still owns the copyrights though. So it wouldnt be hard to (for example) rerelease the myth drannor boxed set, in 4e as a book, and just pull out the plots from the old one, and restat any applicable monsters. NPCs? not necessarily the same, its been 100 years. That way, if someone wants to run a myth drannor game, they dont need to hunt down books from 2e or make everything up on the spot. It wouldnt be that hard. For example I ran a Myth drannor game in 3e, and I converted like half the box(all I needed for the game I was running, stat wise and tables) to 3e in like a week. I was 15, in highschool, and had no help; existing monsters and characters, and character design rules, made it easy. A team of game designers could pump out something like that in 3 days.
3. (This one is me specific): noticable gameplay changes (not somehting like a different system for rounds) need to be backed by fluff in the FRCS, not just in the novels. I used the drow magic rules from 2e (gone from sunlight) for the longest time because I couldnt find FR fluff to back the change. The fluff didnt exist in any of the FR books, it wasnt in the FRCS, the FRPG, the Underdark, or the Races book. I just recently read it in a novel. This meant that playing drow meant LA for abilities that were permanently lost if you spent too long on the surface, as well as gear. (The LA went away if you lowst it). I understood the balance reasons for the change, but without the fluff to back it, i felt compelled to ignore it - The players could have if they had chosen, (throughout a whole campaign or some such) effected the change themselves, and the change would be present in their future games. But I'm a pretty canon style fr gamer - I want setting evidence for any changes. the only things that are non canon at the beginning of a campaign that are MAJOR, are the actions of past campaigns (assuming the next campaign is set in the future). I'll insert dungeons and such, thats fine. I didnt use drow heatvision, because it wasnt really heatvision anyways. They couldnt track heat traces people left on things, they could see cold blooded animals, etc. The players wanted to play an underdark campaign as drow, hence the relevence.
The new gnomes are alot like an existing FR gnome race, so I cant see that being hard to make work; you make the 4e gnomes smaller, remove the horns/antlers, and youre done.
The abundance of teiflings is gonna need to be explained.
Dragonborn are comparable to dragonkin. Except I think FR dragonkin are all chromatic, and I think theyre closer to human size. And they aren't part mammal, so the females don't have boobs. And theyre incredibly uncommon, and only usually encountered when dealing with the cult of the dragon. Not too hard to adapt. But they seem to be explaining them as a 'new' race. So that makes me wonder. What do the dragonkin think of them?
Eladrin didnt used to see much use, but the fey eladrin have taken the place of the celestials from previous editions, and are completely unrelated/different. I'm gonna want an explanation as to why theyre all over the place. I'd want to know what happened to the celestials too, but I doubt they'll give an explanation.
I'll check out the new FR, and likely even buy it.
If it actually gets played we shall see.
Any of the above races that aren't explained, and don't belong, will be closed options.
4e Fr has alot of previews. I'm going to share my insights, and then ask for yours. You may provide useful information I haven't read.
Here are my thoughts on existing FR
Advantages of FR:
1. If I want to run a game in an area and not have to make all the stats of the locals and the maps, theyre available.
2. Really detailed info is available on frequently used places.
3. I dont have to do the points of light thing if I don't want to, but If I want to I can easily run the game in somewhere like the western heartlands, or a number of other less populated areas where there is less published information.
4. The politics of a country are easy enough to find for any areas that see frequent use.
5. I'm not limitedto a very small set of options. There are more options than I have tried playing as. Before we played FR, I played a few just core games, and after we tried out 2 or 3 characters for a couple sessions, I got bored of them and started converting the monsters (3e didnt have player stats) so that I could use them as a player immediately. Then we basically used the Monster manual to create characters. After we picked up FR that didn't feel as Necessary because there was always new options we found interesting that we had not tried yet. Genasi, and dozens of new races or subraces.
furthermore I dont think the problems with FR are the same as what alot of people claim they are.
1. High level NPCs are not a real problem. they don't need to have anythign to do with your game. Just like Deus Ex machina isnt a good plot device, its essentially the same thing. Elminster has nothing to do with most campaigns, because he has his own problems to worry about. Could he do a better job than the PCs at dealing with whatever theyre dealing with? Likely. Does he have time to do so? No. Not every bilbo baggins should have a gandalf watching over them. interesting in a book yes, interesting in a game, not really.
2. The quantity of the details isnt that big of an issue. It's daunting if you don't know how to approach it. but You wouldn't try to memorize an encyclopedia to talk about elephants. You'd just look up elephants. The best part about FR is that if I want to play in a densely populated area I can find maps of the town, and stats for the high ranking officials. It's like a module, only I get to make up the plot.
The problems with FR are separate.
1. Not all informatoin that SHOULD be in the FRCS (Because its not just regional) is in there. Like how timetravel is really weird in FR. only works with a specific spell, and a handful of portals, directly monitored by mystra, etc (maybe not relevent in 4e, but it was in 3e) and has a crapload of limits on it,
- you cant go forward, only back
- you arrive at the beginning of the year (in whatever calendar youre going back to) and youre stuck there a full year
- you can't go back early
-if you change things too much that your timeline cant exist in a comparable state, then youre either stuck in the past, or history shifts itself to have the same outcomes accomodating your changes. (you save the king who should die, he's assinated a year later; that sort of thing)
You cant find that except in a 2e book that dealt with time travel. this type of stuff needs to be in the main book if it still applies, and if it doesn't, then it needs to be explained WHY its doesnt.
2. Not everythign that would be useful from previous editions is released in the current edition. Wizards still owns the copyrights though. So it wouldnt be hard to (for example) rerelease the myth drannor boxed set, in 4e as a book, and just pull out the plots from the old one, and restat any applicable monsters. NPCs? not necessarily the same, its been 100 years. That way, if someone wants to run a myth drannor game, they dont need to hunt down books from 2e or make everything up on the spot. It wouldnt be that hard. For example I ran a Myth drannor game in 3e, and I converted like half the box(all I needed for the game I was running, stat wise and tables) to 3e in like a week. I was 15, in highschool, and had no help; existing monsters and characters, and character design rules, made it easy. A team of game designers could pump out something like that in 3 days.
3. (This one is me specific): noticable gameplay changes (not somehting like a different system for rounds) need to be backed by fluff in the FRCS, not just in the novels. I used the drow magic rules from 2e (gone from sunlight) for the longest time because I couldnt find FR fluff to back the change. The fluff didnt exist in any of the FR books, it wasnt in the FRCS, the FRPG, the Underdark, or the Races book. I just recently read it in a novel. This meant that playing drow meant LA for abilities that were permanently lost if you spent too long on the surface, as well as gear. (The LA went away if you lowst it). I understood the balance reasons for the change, but without the fluff to back it, i felt compelled to ignore it - The players could have if they had chosen, (throughout a whole campaign or some such) effected the change themselves, and the change would be present in their future games. But I'm a pretty canon style fr gamer - I want setting evidence for any changes. the only things that are non canon at the beginning of a campaign that are MAJOR, are the actions of past campaigns (assuming the next campaign is set in the future). I'll insert dungeons and such, thats fine. I didnt use drow heatvision, because it wasnt really heatvision anyways. They couldnt track heat traces people left on things, they could see cold blooded animals, etc. The players wanted to play an underdark campaign as drow, hence the relevence.
The new gnomes are alot like an existing FR gnome race, so I cant see that being hard to make work; you make the 4e gnomes smaller, remove the horns/antlers, and youre done.
The abundance of teiflings is gonna need to be explained.
Dragonborn are comparable to dragonkin. Except I think FR dragonkin are all chromatic, and I think theyre closer to human size. And they aren't part mammal, so the females don't have boobs. And theyre incredibly uncommon, and only usually encountered when dealing with the cult of the dragon. Not too hard to adapt. But they seem to be explaining them as a 'new' race. So that makes me wonder. What do the dragonkin think of them?
Eladrin didnt used to see much use, but the fey eladrin have taken the place of the celestials from previous editions, and are completely unrelated/different. I'm gonna want an explanation as to why theyre all over the place. I'd want to know what happened to the celestials too, but I doubt they'll give an explanation.
I'll check out the new FR, and likely even buy it.
If it actually gets played we shall see.
Any of the above races that aren't explained, and don't belong, will be closed options.
