PDA

View Full Version : I Miss the Old Forgotten Realms



Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-07-12, 12:36 PM
With 5th Edition on the horizon, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.

The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy (http://basicfantasy.org/) or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.

They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.

I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.

erikun
2011-07-12, 02:04 PM
Why would they produce a 5th edition of D&D now? If sales are slumping when they still have a bunch of ideas to print, then it would be the worst time to pull out a new edition; if nobody wants to buy new books, then they certainly don't want to buy a new PHB/DMG/MM and invalidate everything they have.

As for Forgotten Realms, they left themselves a number of "outs" if they want to bring back some old, dead deities from 3rd edition. Based on history though, we are more likely to see new characters transcend into deityhood than older ones come back from the dead. And while they certainly have the option of reviving older character that were dead/imprisioned/lost of a timeless plane for several hundred years, this smacks of Marvelism and likely wouldn't fly far for many people. Much like the deities, we are more likely to see new characters in similar roles than old characters back from the dead.

They aren't going to go back to a pre-4th setting. If they do get some good writers, they would best be served by writing good characters having to deal with life after the Spellplague. It would be far better than trying to write for old characters from other authors, and having people complain because they aren't doing it right. (And if they get bad writers, then it doesn't much matter what they write.)

Plus, from what I've heard, 4th ed D&D is still outselling Pathfinder. Even with the slump in sales. Even with the "bad" settings. If that is accurate, then trying to make a "New and Improved 3rd edition D&D" system would be terrible, regardless of name. Not only would they knowingly lose sales, but they wouldn't even get the full customer base because they'd be competing with directly with Paizo!

Gavinfoxx
2011-07-12, 02:11 PM
With 5th Edition on the horizon

Citation Needed

JadedDM
2011-07-12, 02:48 PM
He didn't say now, he said 'on the horizon.' That means in the near future, at least.

Yora
2011-07-12, 03:16 PM
They certainly can't make a second reboot of 4th edition. If they want to try a new marketing strategy for the brand, they would have to come up with a new game.

But as I see wizards publications, they don't go back on things they previously published. There's certainly no turning back the dial for any oficially published settings.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-07-12, 04:12 PM
Citation Needed

The recent Legends & Lore articles hint towards a new edition by exploring the core mechanics of D&D and talking about how they could be expanded on and improved. They have also cancelled most of the books they planned to release more than a year or so in the future, as if they realized 5th Edition would be out by then.

I'm not saying that another edition would be a good move, I'm just saying quite a lot of fans think its going to happen, and for good reason.

SuperFerret
2011-07-12, 04:26 PM
Play the edition and the game you choose and use the setting. Fluff is mostly what the settings are made of anyway.

Yora
2011-07-12, 04:29 PM
Not too long ago, I decided to send out a short survey to the members of D&D R&D. I asked them to make a list of the most important mechanical elements of D&D. The basic idea was to make a list of mechanics that, if any one of them were missing, you’d feel like you weren’t playing D&D.
That's pretty much (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110621) the "rhetorical question" that starts every attempt to come up with a new rulesset for a game. Though it carries a much different weight when the head designer says it. You aren't talking about such things when your current game sells "okay".

Edit: Now I looked at the follow up article and wow.

So what does the game look like if you strip everything away except for essential mechanics, and then orient them to support exploration, roleplay, and combat? What would D&D look like? We’ll start answering those questions next week.
I'm usually not a fan of wild theories that hang entirely on one small statement someone made, but that's basically an announcement.

Lord Raziere
2011-07-12, 04:37 PM
psh, saying 5e is coming out is being alarmist, and people jump to conclusions all the time.

and so what if it does? at this point, people are probably just going to ignore it, there is a limit on how many new releases like this you can make before people just don't care anymore and just go have fun. fans ignore new editions to play the ones they grew up in all the time, 5e comes and you probably won't even have Essentials people buying them.

and even if people make a big deal over it, its just a game, not as if your life will end over it. things change, sometimes change is screwed up change, deal with it, adapt.

point being, who cares.

Mark Hall
2011-07-12, 04:53 PM
Truthfully, Twilight Muse, I still PLAY the Old Realms. I play pre-Time of Trouble Realms, with a couple things I like from other editions thrown in (like Kelemvor as an actual god of the dead). I use C&C for the rules and find it works quite well.

As for what D&D looks like when you strip out all but the most essential rules... I think it looks a lot like C&C, which is a fairly solid ruleset, with attribute checks determining class abilities, skills, and saving throws, and lots of room for innovation.

Velaryon
2011-07-12, 05:02 PM
Regardless whether 5th edition is or is not going to come out in the next couple of years (I'm solidly in the "don't care" camp as I'm just fine with 3.5), I would like to see the Spellplague and everything related to it retconned out of existence. They should just pick up where they left the Realms timeline at the end of 3.5 and keep going with it, and say the Spellplague thing never happened.

Naturally, this is what I do in my own games. But I would like to see it done officially as well.

Acanous
2011-07-12, 05:12 PM
Well, for everything else, there's the Grand History of the Realms.

Play whenever you want to play, from the Giant Lords to the Sword Kingdoms and up to the time of troubles, or beyond.

Mando Knight
2011-07-12, 05:31 PM
but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.

Core world in 4 isn't the Realms. Plus, I thought making the Realms RUINED FOREVER (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER) was a part of WotC's tradition? RUINING FOREVER seems to be Hasbro's MO, anyway.

RPGuru1331
2011-07-12, 06:26 PM
Core world in 4 isn't the Realms. Plus, I thought making the Realms RUINED FOREVER (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER) was a part of WotC's tradition? RUINING FOREVER seems to be Hasbro's MO, anyway.

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Ruined_FOREVER

Yes, yes it is. They constantly destroy things that have history, making all fans forever hate them.


I'm usually not a fan of wild theories that hang entirely on one small statement someone made
Except when it lets you panic, apparently!

Gamer Girl
2011-07-12, 08:00 PM
I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.

I doubt that WotC would ever go ''back''. They like the new 4E Realms. The most you might hope for is a ''Classic Realms'' type setting, that simply takes place in the past, before the Spellplage.

After all, 4E does not support the Realms at all. No books, or such, other then a couple odd web articles. At least half of the old Realms players just ignored not only changes to the setting, but the whole 4E concept. And if a couple of new people joined and liked the Realms, was there any WotC support? Nope, they have ignored the setting for years now. So why would they even move it over to 5E? After all, there might be a couple people that will love the 'SpellQuack' where the 5E Realms get all turned upside down when the cosmic duck losses a feather of destiny, but mostly people won't notice or care.


I've ignored the whole 4E history, and even the slight Pre-4E history(like all the dwarf gods committing suicide and all the other god deaths to attempt to appease the Realms haters) and kept my Realms in the past.

Vemynal
2011-07-12, 08:23 PM
I donno, they came out with Windows 7 pretty fast didn't they?

It works with my saying that "4th edition is the windows vista of D&D"

Mark Hall
2011-07-12, 08:48 PM
On the whole "The Spellplague was necessary to introduce 4e", I don't believe that any more than I believe that the Time of Troubles was necessary to introduce 2nd edition.

Soon after 4e came out, I was reading some of Ed Greenwood's novels... specifically, his stuff about the Knights of Myth Drannor before they were the Knights of Myth Drannor. Reading those, it occurred to me how easily you could set them in 4e mechanics. There was no problem, to me, running those together in my mind.

navar100
2011-07-12, 08:54 PM
psh, saying 5e is coming out is being alarmist, and people jump to conclusions all the time.

and so what if it does? at this point, people are probably just going to ignore it, there is a limit on how many new releases like this you can make before people just don't care anymore and just go have fun. fans ignore new editions to play the ones they grew up in all the time, 5e comes and you probably won't even have Essentials people buying them.

and even if people make a big deal over it, its just a game, not as if your life will end over it. things change, sometimes change is screwed up change, deal with it, adapt.

point being, who cares.

They may have fired 3E fans as customers without care, but they do know the rage they caused. They could treat 4E fans the same way by adopting another completely new system looking for new customers who are just toddlers today. They may risk annoying but not completely alienating 4E fans by trying to win back 3E fans using a hybrid of the two systems, i.e. using the powers system for warriors but returning spellcasters to 3E magic. To avoid the wrath of the Tier 1 Haters they could use the psionics point system, calling it mana, as that was deemed "balanced". The powers system for warriors need to scale in line with spells, perhaps allowing a power to be used more than once in an encounter using some "recovery" method.

It's only coincidence that's Tome of Battle + 3.5 Psionics, not any bias on my part. :smallwink:

Alleran
2011-07-12, 10:56 PM
After all, 4E does not support the Realms at all. No books, or such, other then a couple odd web articles.
One of the stipulations in the contract Ed Greenwood had with TSR (and which carried over to WotC) was that if they did not publish a minimum number of books per year (or the equivalent in article size/sourcebook length, per a verbal agreement with TSR that WotC also inherited) that were written by him specifically (though TSR/Wizards can choose the subject matter of the books), then they lose the setting as a gameworld entirely (it reverts back to Greenwood).

Really, as long as they meet the minimum requirements of that contract, then they can just about do what they like.

In either case, the 4E Realms has a number of big red reset buttons that they can use. The time portals that can bring player characters forward to avoid the hundred-year time skip? They can just as easily be used to go back in time, and since nobody's watching the time portfolio now the ability to change the past has been introduced. Similarly, it takes a lot more to kill a god (or goddess) than anybody might think. Mystra still lives on as a vestige, there's still silver fire out there, Azuth and Mystra tied themselves to certain of the Nether Scrolls in order that they could potentially be resurrected in the event of their death, Tyr may not be entirely gone, something funky happened with the Illusion portfolio and Mask's (supposed) death... there's a lot of things that they could do to change events around, resurrect entire pantheons, and so on and so forth.

I ignored the 4E changes, myself. The longest-running campaign I have in FR started in 1355 DR, and it is now 1365 DR after years of play. It won't affect me in the slightest for a long time.

Yora
2011-07-13, 01:23 AM
On the whole "The Spellplague was necessary to introduce 4e", I don't believe that any more than I believe that the Time of Troubles was necessary to introduce 2nd edition.
I think they planned the same thing for Eberron, but it was probably Keith Baker who said "No, let's not." and miraculously, the transition went smoothly without any big event.

Alleran
2011-07-13, 01:34 AM
I think they planned the same thing for Eberron, but it was probably Keith Baker who said "No, let's not." and miraculously, the transition went smoothly without any big event.
Does Baker have creative control of Eberron? I seem to recall that he surrendered it when WotC adopted Eberron as a new setting. Maybe they saw the FR backlash and decided to listen to him.

Yora
2011-07-13, 01:36 AM
I guess he was just convincing enough. They did keep him around as the main writer, I think.

Othniel Edden
2011-07-13, 02:27 AM
That's pretty much (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110621) the "rhetorical question" that starts every attempt to come up with a new rulesset for a game. Though it carries a much different weight when the head designer says it. You aren't talking about such things when your current game sells "okay".

Edit: Now I looked at the follow up article and wow.

I'm usually not a fan of wild theories that hang entirely on one small statement someone made, but that's basically an announcement.

Actually reading through to this weeks article seems to make it clear that he's talking about Essentials and 4e working side by side. While I still wish 4e was more customizable *shrugs*

Kurald Galain
2011-07-13, 07:19 AM
They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason.
Well, they had a similar near-apocalyptic event when Forgotten Realms was upgraded to third edition, and also when the FR was modified to fit second edition. IIRC all of them involve Mystra dying, too. So it begs the question, which "old" FR do you want to get back to?

Alleran
2011-07-13, 07:46 AM
Well, they had a similar near-apocalyptic event when Forgotten Realms was upgraded to third edition
No they didn't. Which event are you thinking of?

Kurald Galain
2011-07-13, 08:22 AM
No they didn't. Which event are you thinking of?
Either Die Vecna Die or the Apocalypse Stone, IIRC. I wasn't there though :smalltongue:

hamlet
2011-07-13, 09:23 AM
Either Die Vecna Die or the Apocalypse Stone, IIRC. I wasn't there though :smalltongue:

I believe it was Die Vecna Die. Which was just terrible.


Seriously, if you liked the old FR, then use them. Hell, I kind of have a hankering to play Realms out of the old, ORIGINAL Grey Box with just a few of the 2ed items (specialty priests and specialist mages for example) thrown in and the original FR series of expansions. Specifically, set in the North.

Winter_Wolf
2011-07-13, 10:14 AM
The Apocalypse Stone and Die Vecna, Die were generic/Greyhawk "wipe the slate" adventures weren't they? Darn it, what was the third of that trio? I remember there were three, because there were ads for them all way back when I still read Dragon magazine.

I'm still okay with 2nd ed. FR, but I really just stopped getting new setting stuff when they came out with 3E. Especially when most of the material in box sets is fluff, and that's really the important part for me.

Mark Hall
2011-07-13, 10:57 AM
Either Die Vecna Die or the Apocalypse Stone, IIRC. I wasn't there though :smalltongue:

I actually played in a series of PBP (that all petered out, unfortunately) that took place on around those modules. It was called "The Pendulum Halts" and... holy monkey, the website still exists! (http://www.mindspring.com/~roberton/ThePendulumHalts/)

I should add... I like a lot of the setting material produced for 3e. Most of it is pretty good quality, and the FRCS is my go-to book for a lot of material, simply because it is so comprehensive and well organized. Even running C&C and set before the Time of Troubles, I use the FRCS as a ready reference.

CapnVan
2011-07-13, 11:50 AM
Either Die Vecna Die or the Apocalypse Stone, IIRC. I wasn't there though :smalltongue:

Neither were set in the Realms. There was no RSE for the intro of 3E.

Of course, in part that was because by then RSEs were occurring nearly daily in the novel line.

CapnVan
2011-07-13, 11:53 AM
One of the stipulations in the contract Ed Greenwood had with TSR (and which carried over to WotC) was that if they did not publish a minimum number of books per year (or the equivalent in article size/sourcebook length, per a verbal agreement with TSR that WotC also inherited) that were written by him specifically (though TSR/Wizards can choose the subject matter of the books), then they lose the setting as a gameworld entirely (it reverts back to Greenwood).

Really, as long as they meet the minimum requirements of that contract, then they can just about do what they like.

This is incorrect. The contract does stipulate that the rights holder must publish material for the setting. It says nothing about Greenwood. They publish him because he sells to the fans — in short, he's profitable for them.

hamlet
2011-07-13, 11:54 AM
Neither were set in the Realms. There was no RSE for the intro of 3E.

Of course, in part that was because by then RSEs were occurring nearly daily in the novel line.

Technically, Apocalypse was not set in any specific setting, and DVD was set in three. It's not unreasonable to assert that the one is set in the FR and the other might have echos/ramifications for it.

Personally, though, I hate with an all consuming passion the penchant for huge cataclysmic modules that usher in new editions and especially dislike advancing timelines.

CapnVan
2011-07-13, 12:08 PM
After all, 4E does not support the Realms at all. No books, or such, other then a couple odd web articles.

Neverwinter's being released in a month.

CapnVan
2011-07-13, 12:11 PM
Personally, though, I hate with an all consuming passion the penchant for huge cataclysmic modules that usher in new editions and especially dislike advancing timelines.

Where's the infinity keystroke? You know, so I can "+ infinity" this.
:smalltongue:

Arcane_Secrets
2011-07-13, 12:15 PM
With 5th Edition on the horizon, WotC needs to ask themselves some serious questions. Including how they will handle the Forgotten Realms.

The Realms are one of the things that have kept me playing D&D instead of Basic Fantasy (http://basicfantasy.org/) or Pathfinder, but 4th Edition screwed them up to the point of barley being better than the core world. This makes me mad.

They really had no reason to introduce the Spellplegue other than to justify the 4e system, which really isn't a good reason. They have killed off interesting characters, removed deities for no reason, castrated the cosmology, and squeezed the last bit of interesting-ness of the characters they decided to keep alive. The only thing I like better about the 4e realms to the extra fluff they gave to Menzoberranzan, which to me is the best part of the setting.

I think it would be best if they went back to the pre-Spellplegue Realms. They could fix some mistakes they made and perhaps shift emphasis on some things, but the core concept would be very close to what they had in 3e. This would make the GOOD content relevant again, and reverse most of the damage they did to the beloved setting.

While I agree with you emphatically, they're really considering 5e? This soon? Is there anywhere else I can read about this?

Talakeal
2011-07-13, 12:18 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if we got a fifth edition announced within the next year or two. 3.5 had been out less than four years when they announced 4.0 after all, and up until the announcement WoTC had been denying they were even planning to have a fourth edition.

Honestly, I can't wait for fifth edition just so I can watch the giant three way edition wars tear the forum to pieces :)


As for the old forgotten realms, I will say I really liked it, although I was not a fan of the cosmology (everyone has to worship a god and it doesn't mesh with the great wheel), and I think it is pretty dumb that they needed to remove a bunch of the old content to make room for new stuff when half the map was blank to begin with.

Lord Raziere
2011-07-13, 12:30 PM
Personally, though, I hate with an all consuming passion the penchant for huge cataclysmic modules that usher in new editions and especially dislike advancing timelines.

...then I assume your not a fan of comic books either.

and here is the thing about all this: people keep complaining they want better quality and story and such, with settings with lots of detail and go find these things with lots of continuity, but then complain about the changes and such when they move on to the next age. you wanted a living breathing world, you got it. in a living breathing world, guess what: things like this happen, because otherwise you are just playing a static MMO without the graphics, in exchange for things changing around you unexpectedly, you get to change things back, make them better.
so you hate all the problems in the new Realms? well guess what: your supposed to! They are problems! You are supposed to fix them! That is why we call them problems! You don't like it? adapt and fix them, deal with it, tough luck, life ain't fair, why should the game world be any different?

Starbuck_II
2011-07-13, 12:30 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if we got a fifth edition announced within the next year or two. 3.5 had been out less than four years when they announced 4.0 after all, and up until the announcement WoTC had been denying they were even planning to have a fourth edition.


3.5 is a mini edition between 3 and 4, so no you can't seriously say that till we get 4.5 (do we have 4.5?).
3.0 was 2000 (3.5 was 2003)
4th was 2008

So we have till 2016 for 5th edition.

hamlet
2011-07-13, 12:38 PM
...then I assume your not a fan of comic books either.


Actually, not terribly, but not for the reasons you think.

It's not because the setting continues. It is, after all, a freakin' story book.

But because there's essentially no reasonable entry point except for volume 1 and then 50+ years of story that is important to know if you are to understand everything, plus the fetish that the major comic book labels have with crossing books (i.e., Superman v. Green Lantern not to mention the universe wide events) so that you essentially have to be up on ALL the books, not just the ones you're actually interested in, to understand what the hell is going on at any one time.

Kurald Galain
2011-07-13, 12:57 PM
Where's the infinity keystroke? You know, so I can "+ infinity" this.
:smalltongue:

∞ The Computer Is Your Friend.

Talakeal
2011-07-13, 01:01 PM
3.5 is a mini edition between 3 and 4, so no you can't seriously say that till we get 4.5 (do we have 4.5?).
3.0 was 2000 (3.5 was 2003)
4th was 2008

So we have till 2016 for 5th edition.

Seriously, I don't think using the past schedule to try and find a mathematical model predicting new releases it hardly reliable. We have 4 years from 3.5-4, and 4 years from 3.0-4, so 8 years there. Then we have 11 years from 2-3, and 12 years from 1-2, so they only trend I can make out of this is each edition is slightly shorter than the previous.

That said, it would not surprise me if they came out with a new edition in the next few years. Gaming companies, as well as everything else that has new versions like text books and software, are getting increasingly desperate to make a profit and are putting out new editions faster and faster.

onthetown
2011-07-13, 01:06 PM
If you like 4e but not 4e Realms, there's no reason why you can't play 3.5 Realms with 4e rules.

Personally, we were playing 3.5 Realms with 3.5 rules, then we got bored so we switched it up and went to 4e Realms with 3.5/PF rules.

It's just a campaign setting, which is mostly fluff. The only thing you would have to convert or avoid are the setting-specific classes, feats, etc. I'm not sure how 4e plays so I don't know if they can be converted or not, but if it's just the setting you love... well... nothing's stopping you from playing with different rules or using an earlier edition of it.

Akal Saris
2011-07-13, 01:19 PM
Call me crazy, but I'm not even that enamored of the 3.0/3.5 Forgotten Realms. I started playing in 2E, so I got hooked on D&D when the storyline was directly after the Time of Troubles, and the events since that in the 3E timeline just didn't interest me that much. And barely anything happened between 3.0 and 3.5, except for Bane's rebirth... which annoyed me, since I actually liked Iyachtu Xvim =P

I don't have a huge opinion on the 4E forgotten realms since there isn't a whole lot of content on it. I'm fine with the basic idea of "house-cleaning" the Realms, but really, it didn't seem to me that the world had changed that much in the end. Cormyr is still a land of good and happiness, Maztica rarely had any effect on most campaigns, Drizzt and the Ten-Towns are still around, etc.

JadedDM
2011-07-13, 01:42 PM
3.5 is a mini edition between 3 and 4, so no you can't seriously say that till we get 4.5 (do we have 4.5?).
3.0 was 2000 (3.5 was 2003)
4th was 2008

So we have till 2016 for 5th edition.

Many people considered Essentials a sort of 4.5, did they not?

Talakeal
2011-07-13, 01:44 PM
Many people considered Essentials a sort of 4.5, did they not?

If so that would mean it only took them 2 years between 4.0 and 4.5, i.e. half the time between 3.0 and 3.5, so we can expect 5.0 next year.

Wait, now that I think about it 3.5 was 03 not 04, so not quite half.

oxybe
2011-07-13, 01:47 PM
While I agree with you emphatically, they're really considering 5e? This soon? Is there anywhere else I can read about this?

{{scrubbed}}

like i said in the copy-pasted thread in another forum: the change might not have been needed, but it's a welcomed one.

{{scrubbed}}

to me, honestly, the old realms were kinda boring. lots of "ooohhh... big scary NPCs doing big scary things!" and most of the time it always felt as though the PCs had no place in the world outside of playing 2nd ringer or go-fer to the bigger names. when "big fancy named NPC" has the time to hunt down a group of low-level nobodies and give them a quest, then reply with "i'm too busy to do it myself" it's funny to see the look on their faces when you quip "you could've saved time by doing it instead of hunting for us, you know?"

while i'm not a fan of FR as a setting, the changes were enough to draw my interest and i do find the reworked FR more palatable as a player. i'd far rather play in the new FR then the old one at the least. it's still not my preferred cup of tea, but removing the majority pre-existing named NPCs who were the real movers and shakers to focusing more on letting the PCs become the next "named" characters was a good move IMO.

outside of that, i've always found the realms to be rather generic and boring... merging alongside grayhawk and dragonlance into one big "fantasy" setting, that while i knew and understood the basic differences, it was far too same-y on a smaller player-viewed scale... i've played in a lot of FR games that if it weren't for the fact that i knew it was FR, i could've sworn it was grayhawk or just "homebrew fantasy world #00543-5423"

i've bought the 4th ed FR PHB, which is more then what i bought during the 3rd ed version of it and i've had a used 2nd ed FR boxset for quite a while (the one with the yellow-gold cover and the samurai guy on it)

gbprime
2011-07-13, 02:05 PM
Honestly, I can't wait for fifth edition just so I can watch the giant three way edition wars tear the forum to pieces :)

Might not be as bad as all that. Ever play Champions? The Hero System 4.0 rules were published in what... 1989? For some, they're STILL the definitive superhero rules, despite 3 subsequent editions by the publisher.

There's a distinct possibility that 3.5 will maintain that much of a pull despite new editions from WotC and alternative ones like Pathfinder.

...

If WotC was smart about it, they could release the occasional 3.5 product to profit off that...


compilation of all the 3.5 spells from all books
compilation of all base classes and feats including Dragon Magazine Compendium
compilation of all prestige classes from all books
compilation of all playable races ordered by level adjustment

Mark Hall
2011-07-13, 03:38 PM
Might not be as bad as all that. Ever play Champions? The Hero System 4.0 rules were published in what... 1989? For some, they're STILL the definitive superhero rules, despite 3 subsequent editions by the publisher.

How different are the editions, though? In some cases, you have editions that are revisions and recompilations... in many ways, 3e Shadowrun was like that. There were a few other changes (the big one being the additional Knowledge skills), but, for the most part, it was a straight port.

Alleran
2011-07-13, 10:38 PM
This is incorrect. The contract does stipulate that the rights holder must publish material for the setting. It says nothing about Greenwood. They publish him because he sells to the fans — in short, he's profitable for them.
The first is from Greenwood, the second and third from one of his original players (one of the Knights of Myth Drannor; they and the Company of Crazed Venturers had to sign all their characters and backstories over to TSR back when the company bought the Realms from Greenwood), who sends queries to Ed from players. The third is of the most import to your assertion:
3. I am not now, and have never been, an employee of either TSR or WotC (freelancer, yes, consultant, yes, but not on staff, various magazine editor titles notwithstanding), so although the original Realms agreement means I’m SUPPOSED to be kept fully informed about all forthcoming Realms products, licenses, and plans, in practise it doesn’t always reliably happen. I do work with the Realms book team whenever and however possible, on the understanding, of course, that I keep silent about what I know.
When TSR bought the Realms, the original agreement (which I know about because, as one of his players, I had to sign legal release forms for my characters) included two things that touch on your question: Ed was supposed to receive a copy of everything published about the Realms (by TSR, not necessarily those by outside licenses like computer games), and be consulted and fully informed about forthcoming Realms products (so he wouldn’t contradict or spoil surprises or anything like that by saying the wrong thing in public out of ignorance).
Over the years, this has sometimes been honoured very well . . . and sometimes not. WotC is far more secretive when dealing with non-employees, and I know that Ed buys his own copies of game products (not sure about novels), and often, because there are no local hobby shops anymore and he has to order through bookstores, waits a long time for them. I also know that a lot of WotC staffers and freelance authors working in the Realms keep in close touch with Ed, so I assume they are consulting with him about forthcoming Realms stuff.
Theophilus, there's only one agreement between Ed and TSR re. the Realms, so far as I know. We always refer to it as "the original Realms agreement" to distinguish it from the many, many legal agreements TSR and Wizards have made with licensors, freelancers, distributors, and other third parties regarding the Realms. And to remind the current WotC folks that there IS an agreement, that they can't change without NEGOTIATING with Ed.

One of the clauses in the agreement is that if a year (twelve consecutive months) ever passes without TSR (now WotC, but only because they now own TSR and TSR legally still exists) publishing an original (that is, never before published) novel-length work of Realms fiction by Ed (not just with Ed's name on it, but by Ed), all rights to the Realms revert to Ed, if he wants to claim them. Long ago, by mutual unwritten agreement (and so, now, by customary practise), Ed agreed that book-length game sourcebooks could qualify for the novel-length fiction.

There are many other clauses in the agreement (not discussing its details, byt the way, is NOT one of them), and Ed generally has cordial relationships with TSR/WotC, but the point is that the Realms aren't a property of Wizards that they can do anything they like with, ignoring the agreement. Doing so loses them the Realms, and under NAFTA, that includes all of its licenses, trademarks, and copyrights. The whole thing. (I have heard that Mattel regularly contacts Ed to see if Hasbro has slipped up, and if he wants to move it. Thus far, obviously, that hasn't happened.)
So no. If they don't publish one novel (or book-length sourcebook) from him every twelve months, they can very well lose the rights to FR. And that's everything FR-related. Including any trademarks, copyrights and licenses based on it.

Gamer Girl
2011-07-13, 11:22 PM
Well, they had a similar near-apocalyptic event when Forgotten Realms was upgraded to third edition, and also when the FR was modified to fit second edition. IIRC all of them involve Mystra dying, too. So it begs the question, which "old" FR do you want to get back to?

No they did not. The 1E to 2E bump(The Time of Troubles, had nothing to do with Mystra dying, though she did die during it) and the 2E to 3E bump(just happened, no Mystra here either) added to the Realms as a whole. Most importantly they did not destroy much of anything. The Spellplague destroyed huge parts of the world. If your place was not popular enough by WotC standards it got destroyed. Waterdeep, for example, I think a rock fell over there. But all the places in the South were just obliterated.

Worse, the whole 4E time line jump kills 99% of all the NPCs of the Realms. So characters that have been around for years are now just gone, dead and forgotten.

I'd say 'old' FR is anything before they went off the deep end after 1375 DR and all the crazy stuff started to happen.

Alleran
2011-07-13, 11:38 PM
If your place was not popular enough by WotC standards it got destroyed. Waterdeep, for example, I think a rock fell over there. But all the places in the South were just obliterated.
To be more precise, Waterdeep had its harbour ruined, and apparently a hundred years on they hadn't gotten it fully cleared (for a sea-going power, that's disgraceful). The Sellplague flowed "around" places of great magic, which Waterdeep supposedly was. But then Halruaa, a nation of wizards and absolutely jam-packed with magic, was blown off the face of Toril.

CapnVan
2011-07-14, 06:00 AM
∞ The Computer Is Your Friend.

Thank you, Friend Computer. Clearly, it was hidden from me by Commie mutant traitors. If you were to raise my security clearance, I feel certain I could find the Commie mutant traitors and summarily execute them.

CapnVan
2011-07-14, 06:29 AM
So no. If they don't publish one novel (or book-length sourcebook) from him every twelve months, they can very well lose the rights to FR. And that's everything FR-related. Including any trademarks, copyrights and licenses based on it.

I believe you're going to want to go back to THO for clarification. I'm pretty confident that you'll find she either misspoke or misremembered.