Points of Light and the Forgotten Realms

[Ruin Explorer]

Now then, there is nothing more I can add to Paul S Kemp's post about the 'Concerns of the Mighty'. He summed it up perfectly. If you continue to stubbornly deny those truths due to your utter lack of knowledge about the Realms, then there's nothing I can do. I've tried explaining it, with sources, yet you continue to repost the same nonsense as before. As such, I'll leave this thread.

I have to confess, I didn't realize the FR had a direct equivalent of "religious zealots" irl, but The More You Know, eh? "Truths" - The only "truth" in this thread is that you believe with absolute blinding clarity that one short sidebar fixes a multitude of deep-rooted problems. By the way, you said there was a 10:1 UONPC bad guy: good guy ratio. Looks more like 1:1 or 2:1 at best, from the villains you've posted there, assuming they're Unecessarily Overpowered, and I bet not all of them are. Furthermore, the vast majority of them are as much, or more "locked in place" or "busy" than the "good" UONPCs.

In the end, the very fact that WotC are doing an FR reboot at all speaks volumes. If they didn't think there was a problem, they wouldn't be risking the future profitability of an entire line. They're not stupid. They're business-people. If things are going swimmingly, and likely to continue to do so, then nothing needs to be changed, just gradual refinements applied, indeed, change of this magnitude would be bad in such a situation.

However, we must infer from the fact (which is technically an assumption based on a chapter from a novel, but one you seem to regard as true also) that WotC are "rebooting" the Realms, that sales of FR products were not, in fact, all they could be.

I would think this is true. Everyone I know who used to run the FR gave up in the last 9 to 3 years (and that's about six DMs), most of them are now either running other RPGs, or Eberron (interesting, that). I know they're far from alone. WotC knows that in our hearts, even us "Realms-quitters" still kinda love the FR, we love the layer on layer of ruins, the multitude of gods (some of whom are quite unique by fantasy standards, yet believable, like Illmater), we love a lot of the locations (even changed), and so on. We just don't like the metaplot or the oversufficiency of high-level NPCs (not just UONPCs - this is an issue I've mentioned a couple of times, but you've ignored), large, complex extremely-detailed organisations, and so on.

Hell, even re-stat'ing the current FR for 4E would be an absolutely monumental task, and when you're having to do that due to vast and sweeping class and game design changes, so it seems only logical to take it as an opportunity to try and get back some of the "lost" FR players, as well as people who previously laughed at or rejected the Realms outright (often citing the NPCs/metaplot).

As I've said though, the main thing is that WotC do not take stupid risks. You seem certain that the new FR will be horrible failure - whilst there's always a chance of that, I don't see it as particularly likely.

 

[Athenon]

It kinda irks me that the two sides of this back and forth are either 1) "The Realms is BAD because of Elminster and every other NPC I can think of" and apparently should be like Eberron or 2) "The Realms is great and not a thing can be changed -- or else!"

I think I represent the majority of thought which goes like this: I love the Realms and I've spent the majority of my DMing and playing there. I intend to continue this because, even though there are parts which can be tiresome, it's still the best campaign setting that's ever been published.

Further, I'm not afraid of proposed changes to the setting. Anything that might update the setting and make it more fresh could be great. A new FRCS sure beats substandard products like Champions of Ruin/Valor or Mysteries of the Moonsea. Bring on the Realms 4E! Rich Baker and company are doing great work and desrve to be congratulated.

Will
PS: The Shadowdale adventure is fantastic!

 

[an_idol_mind]

It kinda irks me that the two sides of this back and forth are either 1) "The Realms is BAD because of Elminster and every other NPC I can think of" and apparently should be like Eberron or 2) "The Realms is great and not a thing can be changed -- or else!"

That's pretty reductive of both sides. Side 1 is not saying the Realms necessarily suck, but that they would be more interested if the high-level NPCs and a few other things got changed. Side 2 is not advocating no change at all, but is instead arguing that killing off almost all major characters, wrecking the civilizations, and jumping the timeline forward 100 years is overkill when it comes to changing the setting. That's a far cry from the two arguments you posted.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's pretty reductive of both sides. Side 1 is not saying the Realms necessarily suck, but that they would be more interested if the high-level NPCs and a few other things got changed. Side 2 is not advocating no change at all, but is instead arguing that killing off almost all major characters, wrecking the civilizations, and jumping the timeline forward 100 years is overkill when it comes to changing the setting. That's a far cry from the two arguments you posted.

I concur. The two sides aren't nearly that far apart.

Most (but not all) fans think that there are some changes that should be made to the setting and most (but not all) fans think that advancing the storyline forward somewhat (and thus shaking things up some) is a good thing. Really, it's a disagreement over degree, more than anything else.

 

[iwatt]

I concur. The two sides aren't nearly that far apart.

But this is the internet, home of sweeping generalizations.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But this is the internet, home of sweeping generalizations.

I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE! How can you possibly believe that?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It kinda irks me that the two sides of this back and forth are either 1) "The Realms is BAD because of Elminster and every other NPC I can think of" and apparently should be like Eberron or 2) "The Realms is great and not a thing can be changed -- or else!"

I think I represent the majority of thought which goes like this: I love the Realms and I've spent the majority of my DMing and playing there. I intend to continue this because, even though there are parts which can be tiresome, it's still the best campaign setting that's ever been published.

If you mean me as 1), that's a complete mischaracterization. I like the Realms as a setting a great deal. I don't think the 3E work has been stellar, to be honest, and I could really stand to see a lot of NPC vaporization (some of which seems to be under way!), but I would never say the Realms overall is "BAD", just that it contains a couple of horrible elements, which you can play around, but which should be removed when possible. I mean, if I didn't basically like the place, I would have dumped it long ago.

That's actually my main concern about 4E. I like Sembia, I like the North, I like all sorts of little wierd places in the Realms, and if they're all "Conquered by monsters, culture destroyed", as the damned dwarf seems to imply in the sample chapter of that book, I'll be sad. I tend to think overall, though, 4E changes have got to be a win, just for simpliying the setting and making it easier to get back to one's roots (and very far away from Champions of Valor-type trash).

So actually I don't think my viewpoint is dissimilar to yours. I just really really hate some of the NPCs and enjoy expressing it

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Hmm...

You know, speaking for myself only... This might be what it takes to get me into FR. I'm familiar with the basics of the setting, but not many of the details. And I've never written for it because, among other things, the notion of trying to catch up on all this history is daunting, to say the least.

But a major shake-up to go along with a jump forward in time might be enough to draw me in.

Now, I'm not saying that's the best way to go. I know FR has a lot of fans as it stands now, and I don't begrudge them that. If FR doesn't change to suit my tastes, well, there are plenty of settings that do. I'm just saying that if it happened this way (and I'm still not convinced it will), it'd be a good thing for me.

Me too. The main reason I don't run games in the FR, despite many of my players being fans, is that I don't want to have to read every FR supplement to make sure I'm not contradicting some important fact of life in the Realms every time I create a plot device. Before anyone jumps on me about it, I know I'm the DM and I have control over the way the world works, but if I say Bob the Expert is king of Shadowdale or something, it's just going to come across as weird to people who know the setting, even if they play along with it. I'd rather play in a less defined setting like Greyhawk or Eberron, where you can just throw entire regions in without disturbing the map or the continuity. Not that I run Eberron, either.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I concur. The two sides aren't nearly that far apart.

Most (but not all) fans think that there are some changes that should be made to the setting and most (but not all) fans think that advancing the storyline forward somewhat (and thus shaking things up some) is a good thing. Really, it's a disagreement over degree, more than anything else.

I, for example, like the Realms, and would like to see the following changes made:

1. Kill off all characters over 20th level.
2. Shake up the political situation to the point that a DM can say "okay, this part of Daggerdale has been turned into a new duchy under Duke Steve," and not fear contradiction or even doubt from his FR-fan players.
3. Make it easier to import new material, like Tome of Magic classes or Psionics. The proposed changes to the Weave might just accomplish that neatly. They seem to be designed to accommodate the 4E changes to spellcasting.
4. Less Drow. I'm so sick of them, and they're so everywhere in the Realms. Drow, half-drow, reformed Drow...too many Drow.
5. Cover a single region in detail in the FRCS, rather than trying to list every place on the continent in a passing manner. Save the other regions for later supplements. Give me a place to base a campaign, and some tools to do it with.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

5. Cover a single region in detail in the FRCS, rather than trying to list every place on the continent in a passing manner. Save the other regions for later supplements.

This inevitably leads back to the current situation with FR. So many sourcebooks covering everything in detail that makes running campaigns there overwhelming to many prospective DMs. I'd much rather have a single sourcebook that covers everything in broad strokes. Plus, one or two regions covered in detail. Then everywhere else receives coverage in adventures, which could give greater detail to regions or leave them generalized.