Rich Baker has just been making a few interesting posts on the Realms in 4e. You can find today's posts here.
Rich Baker - We're committed to the changes
We're pretty committed to the scope of the changes we're making at this point. We've got a number of projects underway (several novel series, the new FRCG, the FRPG), and we're just not going to seriously reverse course now. Adjusting the implementation of some things -- sure, that's still possible. Putting everything back? Sorry, we've got to see this through.
Viewed in isolation, no single change we're contemplating would really pass the "is this ABSOLUTELY necessary?" test. If we subject every change we're planning to that test, then nothing would change (which, no doubt, would please a segment of our audience). But we don't think we can stay exactly where we are forever.
In my opinion, there is a *minimum* amount of change that's desirable with a campaign update, and a *maximum* amount of change. Change too little, and you haven't provided that clear starting point needed to entice new fans... or reawaken the interest of old fans who have mastered everything we've shown them so far. Change too much, and it's not the same property anymore. Most of the arguments we're having are about where each of those marks really lies.
Rich Baker on Introducing New Players to the Realms, and related matters
1. a) My question is how does WotC plan to entice new gamers to Forgotten Realms if the proposed changes hamstring the network of Forgotten Realms enthusiasts - people who are crucial to selling Forgotten Realms to new players by word of mouth and by acting as repositories of knowledge about the Realms, excitedly passing it on to enquiring new souls seeking more knowledge about the game.
A couple of good questions, Roman -- I wanted to wait until I had a few minutes to try to respond with some thought.
1a. I have a pet theory I call the "elevator" theory. Each year, a certain number of people enter our demographic and become D&D players. We want to make sure that there's an elevator with an open door waiting on the "first floor" to take them up to the Realms. It's been a long time since we put an elevator on the first floor for the potential Realms fans. Without a regular influx of new fans, pure "life friction" and attrition will thin out the number of Realms games being played and books being read. If there's a proselytizing network out there as you suggest, they're not proselytizing enough to fill that elevator for us. We have to do some work too.
1. b) Making vast changes to the setting, you must have known you would alienate a large percentage of the existing Forgotten Realms fanbase. Apparently, the purpose of those changes is to open up Forgotten Realms to new gamers, but the design philosophy behind the setting seems to be moving towards the design philosophy underlying the Eberron campaign setting, which has ostensibly been more successful in enticing new gamers and generating sales than Forgotten Realms.
1b. We're not moving Realms toward Eberron. In what way do you think we are? (Other than something cosmetic like the number of deities?) There's nothing driving us to make Realms more like Eberron.
2) Is it really worth it to throw out the high-level characters? Apart from the emotional/story attachments many 'old' FR players have towards them, the absence of other high-level characters than the PCs, feels like it is not a living world, where things are happening in the background whatever the PCs decide, or don't decide to do.
2. When we ask gamers what turns them off of Forgotten Realms, one of the hits we keep getting back is "all those high-level NPCs steal the limelight." Whether the perception is an accurate reflection of how the setting really works is immaterial--it's a perception that stops gamers from trying out the Realms. We're not planning a campaign of wanton NPC slaughter, but I sure need to show the broader gaming audience that it's time to let go of that perception. Lecturing undecided purchasers about how NPCs *should* be used in the Realms doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. How else could we tackle this problem of perception without real change?
3) In some ways, the changes you are implementing seem like they make it feasible to minimize changes in the future. I don't really have a problem with changes in general so long as I like the resluts, but for the sake of those disgruntled by this, can you commit that there will be at least 3-year time periods (measured in RL) between any further major storywise upheavals in the Realms?
3. No, I can't guarantee no upheavals for three years. First off, it's not up to me. More to the point: I can tell you right now that we don't have any planned, and that we'd like to avoid Realms-shaking events for a while... but if a Bob Salvatore or Paul Kemp or Elaine Cunningham some other talented author drops a truly kick-butt story proposal in our laps that happens to shake the Realms, we'd be foolish to tell them that we can't accommodate that outstanding story. If it's the *right* story, it's the right story.
Rich Baker on Cormyr
With all the troubles we've seen popping up in the Dales and Cormyr throughout third edition, will we see these areas getting a breather?
Well... yes, they actually make out pretty well. Cormyr regains much of its strength, and the return of a strong elven realm in Myth Drannor definitely improves the situation around Cormanthor. I'll say more about that when I can.
Rich Baker on the existing History of the Realms
Will the history of the Realms be modified?
No, nothing that you know to be true will be substantially altered. (Every now and then we find reason to tweak something, of course.)
Now, sometimes we take events that are known and spin much larger stories out of them... so a timeline entry from a long time ago might just be the tip of an iceberg, really. In fact, there are a couple of real jaw-droppers in that regard coming up. But nothing we add in way of detail, explanation, and heretofore unexplored or unknown events will "undo" existing Realms history. Your Grand History of the Realms is going to be honored as written for the foreseeable future.
Rich Baker on non-Nuking of NPCs
That's wonderful to hear, but when Chris Perkins mentions in a podcast that high-level NPCs will be "nuked", doesn't that leave the impression that there's going to be a "wanton NPC slaughter"?
Yep, I would agree that nuked = wanton slaughter to most folks. I think Chris used a shortcut he didn't really mean to use.
Many high-level characters will be exiting the stage in 4e, but many others will still be around. No one's getting killed off specifically because they're high level. Now, there are some Chosen who are getting removed from the stage specifically because they're Chosen; the Chosen tend to be the "poster children" in the wider D&D audience for the perception that Realms games are about a set of uber-NPCs.
Cheers!
Rich Baker - We're committed to the changes
We're pretty committed to the scope of the changes we're making at this point. We've got a number of projects underway (several novel series, the new FRCG, the FRPG), and we're just not going to seriously reverse course now. Adjusting the implementation of some things -- sure, that's still possible. Putting everything back? Sorry, we've got to see this through.
Viewed in isolation, no single change we're contemplating would really pass the "is this ABSOLUTELY necessary?" test. If we subject every change we're planning to that test, then nothing would change (which, no doubt, would please a segment of our audience). But we don't think we can stay exactly where we are forever.
In my opinion, there is a *minimum* amount of change that's desirable with a campaign update, and a *maximum* amount of change. Change too little, and you haven't provided that clear starting point needed to entice new fans... or reawaken the interest of old fans who have mastered everything we've shown them so far. Change too much, and it's not the same property anymore. Most of the arguments we're having are about where each of those marks really lies.
Rich Baker on Introducing New Players to the Realms, and related matters
1. a) My question is how does WotC plan to entice new gamers to Forgotten Realms if the proposed changes hamstring the network of Forgotten Realms enthusiasts - people who are crucial to selling Forgotten Realms to new players by word of mouth and by acting as repositories of knowledge about the Realms, excitedly passing it on to enquiring new souls seeking more knowledge about the game.
A couple of good questions, Roman -- I wanted to wait until I had a few minutes to try to respond with some thought.
1a. I have a pet theory I call the "elevator" theory. Each year, a certain number of people enter our demographic and become D&D players. We want to make sure that there's an elevator with an open door waiting on the "first floor" to take them up to the Realms. It's been a long time since we put an elevator on the first floor for the potential Realms fans. Without a regular influx of new fans, pure "life friction" and attrition will thin out the number of Realms games being played and books being read. If there's a proselytizing network out there as you suggest, they're not proselytizing enough to fill that elevator for us. We have to do some work too.
1. b) Making vast changes to the setting, you must have known you would alienate a large percentage of the existing Forgotten Realms fanbase. Apparently, the purpose of those changes is to open up Forgotten Realms to new gamers, but the design philosophy behind the setting seems to be moving towards the design philosophy underlying the Eberron campaign setting, which has ostensibly been more successful in enticing new gamers and generating sales than Forgotten Realms.
1b. We're not moving Realms toward Eberron. In what way do you think we are? (Other than something cosmetic like the number of deities?) There's nothing driving us to make Realms more like Eberron.
2) Is it really worth it to throw out the high-level characters? Apart from the emotional/story attachments many 'old' FR players have towards them, the absence of other high-level characters than the PCs, feels like it is not a living world, where things are happening in the background whatever the PCs decide, or don't decide to do.
2. When we ask gamers what turns them off of Forgotten Realms, one of the hits we keep getting back is "all those high-level NPCs steal the limelight." Whether the perception is an accurate reflection of how the setting really works is immaterial--it's a perception that stops gamers from trying out the Realms. We're not planning a campaign of wanton NPC slaughter, but I sure need to show the broader gaming audience that it's time to let go of that perception. Lecturing undecided purchasers about how NPCs *should* be used in the Realms doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. How else could we tackle this problem of perception without real change?
3) In some ways, the changes you are implementing seem like they make it feasible to minimize changes in the future. I don't really have a problem with changes in general so long as I like the resluts, but for the sake of those disgruntled by this, can you commit that there will be at least 3-year time periods (measured in RL) between any further major storywise upheavals in the Realms?
3. No, I can't guarantee no upheavals for three years. First off, it's not up to me. More to the point: I can tell you right now that we don't have any planned, and that we'd like to avoid Realms-shaking events for a while... but if a Bob Salvatore or Paul Kemp or Elaine Cunningham some other talented author drops a truly kick-butt story proposal in our laps that happens to shake the Realms, we'd be foolish to tell them that we can't accommodate that outstanding story. If it's the *right* story, it's the right story.
Rich Baker on Cormyr
With all the troubles we've seen popping up in the Dales and Cormyr throughout third edition, will we see these areas getting a breather?
Well... yes, they actually make out pretty well. Cormyr regains much of its strength, and the return of a strong elven realm in Myth Drannor definitely improves the situation around Cormanthor. I'll say more about that when I can.
Rich Baker on the existing History of the Realms
Will the history of the Realms be modified?
No, nothing that you know to be true will be substantially altered. (Every now and then we find reason to tweak something, of course.)
Now, sometimes we take events that are known and spin much larger stories out of them... so a timeline entry from a long time ago might just be the tip of an iceberg, really. In fact, there are a couple of real jaw-droppers in that regard coming up. But nothing we add in way of detail, explanation, and heretofore unexplored or unknown events will "undo" existing Realms history. Your Grand History of the Realms is going to be honored as written for the foreseeable future.
Rich Baker on non-Nuking of NPCs
That's wonderful to hear, but when Chris Perkins mentions in a podcast that high-level NPCs will be "nuked", doesn't that leave the impression that there's going to be a "wanton NPC slaughter"?
Yep, I would agree that nuked = wanton slaughter to most folks. I think Chris used a shortcut he didn't really mean to use.
Many high-level characters will be exiting the stage in 4e, but many others will still be around. No one's getting killed off specifically because they're high level. Now, there are some Chosen who are getting removed from the stage specifically because they're Chosen; the Chosen tend to be the "poster children" in the wider D&D audience for the perception that Realms games are about a set of uber-NPCs.
Cheers!
