Rich Baker on the Spellplague and other stuff.

[Kraydak]

Kraydak, how does Spellplague B get rid of the super-wizards?

The TLA gets rid of any low-level NPC adventurers hanging around, but the super wizards are immortal. And this imortality is not linked to divine patronage, by the way. It's based on magic.

If the high level superwizards stick around, then you didn't solve the big problem, which is why the superwizards don't just do everything themselves.

Spellplague B would keep them away from areas where Spellplague B is still hanging around, but I wouldn't want to have to work Spellplague B into every plot for low level characters.

Well, Spellplague B is still poorly defined, my bad. But if we say that Spellplague B is the thing (or a consequence of the thing) that changed the way the world worked (3e rules -> 4e rules), then Spellplague B can change anything magic (just... not actively cataclysmically, if it were actively cataclysmic it would be A). Including magical immortality. Or not, if the character is commercially signficant, of course. Its nice to have an easy out there...

 

[The Little Raven]

Previous contradictions of new stuff were wrong, even without knowing the details.

Please provide page numbers and citations from published material that the Weave was necessary to sustain life on the planet. Not from any of Ed's posts on Candlekeep, from the books themselves. If it's not published, it's just Ed's campaign.

@John- of course, we're also being told that the super-wizards are the least likely to be permanently effected by the Spellplague. Kinda contradictory, isn't it?

Sounds like you should read that stuff again.

The only places spared by direct impact by the Spellplague were those with ancient wards, like mythals. However, powerful individuals were affected by the Spellplague outside of those warded areas, walked into them, and wreaked havoc.

 

[glass]

Well, Spellplague B is still poorly defined, my bad. But if we say that Spellplague B is the thing (or a consequence of the thing) that changed the way the world worked (3e rules -> 4e rules), then Spellplague B can change anything magic (just... not actively cataclysmically, if it were actively cataclysmic it would be A). Including magical immortality. Or not, if the character is commercially signficant, of course. Its nice to have an easy out there...

But, if Spellplague B is what changes the way magic works, then it is the RSE you are decrying.


glass.

 

[D_E]

@Kraydak:
Ah. In that case, all Spellplague A adds is a catastrophic event. Of course, the designers may have wanted a catastrophic event, for reasons of awsome*, but the fact is it's still just a catastrophic event.

It actually sounds like you've got three things:
Spellplague A: the catastrophic event
Spellplague B: the thing that changed the rules of magic, and broke immortality
Spellplague C: the thing that still lurks in forbiden corners of the world.

Of course, with Spellplague B you still have an event or series of events that changed the way the world worked. A firm dividing line which separates 3.x from 4th, if you will. And since I think the existance of the dividing line is what's causing most of the problems (i.e. anything set after year X is on the 4th ed side of the timeline, and follows rather different 4th ed fluff), it could be that the designers just decided to make the change dramatic.


*or of marketing, I suppose

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, Spellplague B is still poorly defined, my bad. But if we say that Spellplague B is the thing (or a consequence of the thing) that changed the way the world worked (3e rules -> 4e rules), then Spellplague B can change anything magic (just... not actively cataclysmically, if it were actively cataclysmic it would be A). Including magical immortality. Or not, if the character is commercially signficant, of course. Its nice to have an easy out there...

I guess I fail to see the distinction.

I question whether you'd make any Realms fans who are unhappy with this change "happy" by saying, "So, there was just this shift to magic that stripped all the super-powered wizards of their immortality, and now 100 years have passed. Welcome to the new Realms."

I'm saying I don't think they'd be ANY happier. And you'd still be stuck with all kinds of lame stuff in the Realms that reads like it was dreamt up by a muppet on crack. You'd need an extra "cause" to introduce Dragonborn into the setting. You'd need another one to explain why druids are less widespread. Or why the Feywild is now part of the cosmology, or...

Unless you're saying they'd be happier BECAUSE you left all the crappy legacy stuff intact. The only thing which I think would make those sorts of fans happy is "there was a shift in the way magic works. Now magic in FR follows the 4e rules. Other than that, the Realms is still the same. So basically, you don't have to buy any new books unless you want to. Please, pretty please, we're begging you - buy new books..."

But that doesn't do anything to make it more accessible to new fans. Which is, as I understand, part of the point of this particular RSE. They're not just making the Realms "Fourth Edition Compatible," but rather they're making the Forgotten Realms more "accessible" both to new gamers and those longtime gamers who dislike its excessive backstory.

 

[Kraydak]

@Kraydak:
Ah. In that case, all Spellplague A adds is a catastrophic event. Of course, the designers may have wanted a catastrophic event, for reasons of awsome*, but the fact is it's still just a catastrophic event.

It actually sounds like you've got three things:
Spellplague A: the catastrophic event
Spellplague B: the thing that changed the rules of magic, and broke immortality
Spellplague C: the thing that still lurks in forbiden corners of the world.

Of course, with Spellplague B you still have an event or series of events that changed the way the world worked. A firm dividing line which separates 3.x from 4th, if you will. And since I think the existance of the dividing line is what's causing most of the problems (i.e. anything set after year X is on the 4th ed side of the timeline, and follows rather different 4th ed fluff), it could be that the designers just decided to make the change dramatic.


*or of marketing, I suppose

Those definitions are close enough. I think a lot of the problems are coming because pieces of FR are getting hacked up. Even relatively unused portions of FR geography *have fans*. If you don't *need* to blow them up, why risk alienating those fans?

To satisfy those potential FR fans who as scared by the current canon-load, all you need is B (and that only if you think there is a true immortality problem)+TLA. My feeling is you only need a TLA, but hey, we need 4e rules *anyways*. Its a freebie. Note that if these people (likely!) don't want any *more* canon shoved down their throats, they can play before the end of the TLA. Doing is is, hwoever, made hard by a short TLA and Spellplague A, the current state of 4e FR affairs. Any campaign set in the current TLA is going to be utterly dominated by A, which nets you little as you have C turn into A even after the TLA.

To avoid angering fans of the current FR NPC cast/geography/political climate, all you need is to avoid A. (people who aren't willing to move to 4e rules aren't worth considering). This group can ignore the TLA.

We aren't going to draw in dedicated FR haters even if we include A, although they certainly won't complain.

So why is WotC including A? Besides them being dedicated FR haters, or them simply not having pondered how to both get new customers AND keep old ones, of course?

 

[IanB]

I think we're all looking at the grey box through lenses that are more than a little rose-colored here.

Let's remember, that while there was a lot of great stuff in that box, it was horribly organized, poorly edited, and had really ugly maps. It was more like a very large collection of interesting post-it notes than a coherent campaign setting.

What I find strange is that there's still never been a FR core setting book/box that is actually set up in a way that is easy to use! They could learn a lot from the Eberron CS book I think in terms of organization, and I hope they have.

 

[The Little Raven]

It actually sounds like you've got three things:
Spellplague A: the catastrophic event
Spellplague B: the thing that changed the rules of magic, and broke immortality
Spellplague C: the thing that still lurks in forbiden corners of the world.

A and C are one and the same. It's no different than the Bubonic Plague being a catastrophic event in our past, but still lurking in some corners of the world.

B was caused by Mystra's death and the resulting destruction of the Weave, not by the Spellplague itself.

 

[Vradna]

I think that this whole Spellplague business is terribly convoluted.

Moreso, I get the feeling that the deities in Forgotten Realms are being treated like they are a bunch of High-Level NPCs.

Deities are not High-Level NPCs: They are Deities.

I believe that I read somewhere that -right or wrong- the changes to FR are now set, so I would hope that future changes are not wrought in such a terrible fashion.

I am all for a new look, but I think that the current look for Forgotten Realms needs a lot of improvement.

 

[FourthBear]

Moreso, I get the feeling that the deities in Forgotten Realms are being treated like they are a bunch of High-Level NPCs.

Deities are not High-Level NPCs: They are Deities.

Deities in the Realms definitely behave like high-level NPCs. With a few exceptions here and there, they've done so ever since the Time of Troubles. The deities of the Realms have long been established as a bickering group of semi-competent powers. Heck, if the deities of the Realms started acting in a more grand and mythic fashion, it would be one of the least consistent parts of the whole Spellplague business. Your Honor, I would like introduce into evidence the Avatar Trilogy and sequels.