Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Thoughts (and objections) on stopping the timeline
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  09:21:51  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Okay, so... I've been behaving like a rabid grognard in various people's threads off and on for a while, and the first order of business should probably be to apologize for that.

I'm also going to ignore the conventional wisdom that people don't read long posts, and punch out a mini-novel. I'm assuming that if you care about this topic then you'll have the attention span to follow along. Maybe that deserves an apology too, but I've reached my quota on that for the day.

TL;DR - pick a year, and it stays that year forever, for game sourcebooks... this does not affect novels... this fixes problems and has no drawbacks. Rabid Grognard for President.


For now, I'm thinking of a campaign setting as a snapshot, or many snapshots taken at the same time. By this definition, when the timestamps are different, it could be a travelogue but it's not a setting. Alongside that metaphor is the following: the setting's "job" is to be a stable foundation on which (potentially infinite) campaigns can be built; an unstable foundation is obviously bad.

I have a couple of objections to advancing the timeline.

1. It removes the ability to continue enjoying the Realms as they're originally written. By this I mean that things are overwritten/replaced, and as readers/DMs we never know when this is going to occur, and that makes it less enjoyable. Azoun IV dies. Well, that sucks, though (more generally speaking) the desperation of the next regime to pick up the pieces and "fill the shoes" of the previous one adds something to campaigns as well as stories. And it's fine for people to die in novels; like in movies, we expect it. The problem, from a gaming perspective, is that the era is now past/lost. We won't see more current adventures written during the reign of Azoun IV. It happened, but we're not there anymore. And yea, that's life, but when we sit at the table and pour out the dice, we're not playing life. We're playing a game, which in some ways simulates life but sometimes simulating life too closely kills the enjoyment of the game, and that shouldn't happen.

Another way to put it is that advancing the timeline creates instability in the setting, at least as far as gaming is concerned. And that is the antithesis of the setting's job. Again, we expect time to march on in novels. We also expect time to proceed in an orderly manner within each individual campaign. But something different has been happening in the Realms, and it should stop.

It's one thing if I deliberately choose to place my campaign in -5000 DR. I don't expect WotC to produce modules and sourcebooks for me when I put the game in the past. That makes it more convenient for me to place the campaign in the present, because I can realistically expect to see supporting sourcebooks which are relevant to the present. But... crap... the present keeps moving... now my game has to either match the pace, or I have to wing it. As soon as I have to wing it, there's less advantage in placing the campaign in the present. Ultimately, if I have to wing it there's no real advantage to buying FR products.

You're pulling the rug out from under me, and --predictably-- it's pissing me off. Stop it.

It bears specifically pointing out that time can do whatever it wants to in novels without the rpg product lines being attached. Even if (as I'm saying it should be) it's 1357 forever in game products, it can be (and is) simultaneously 1372, 1479, and -20,000 in novels. Novels and sourcebooks are different things, and they don't have to follow all the same rules.

2. It's an excuse to stop development and repeat/redo/screwup previous work.

1e started in 1357. A few sourcebooks were written, but iirc we were already kinda close to 2e. I was in jr high school then, and years kinda melted together for a while. My point is that it was decided (for whatever reason) that the move to 2e rules was also going to reboot the Realms.

2e started in 1365, following the Time of Troubles. A bunch of stuff was rewritten --er, expanded-- until 3e came out, at which point it started again. There was new stuff in 2e that wasn't released in 1e; I'm not saying there was nothing new. I'm saying there was a lot of unnecessary rehash. Well... it was necessary given the "need" to redo everybody's stat blocks, but unnecessary in terms of illuminating the world.

And the places we didn't see until 2e (Old Empires for example) were part of the product line that started in 1e so if 2e hadn't come around we would have gotten those sources anyway. That's (part of) what I'm getting at... we would have gotten the new stuff anyway, without wasting time redoing the 1e stuff. So why not just stop redoing old stuff? "Greed" is one obvious answer, but I'd like a less-sleezy motive to assume.

I'm not looking at a chronological listing of products and matching up anything. I'm not saying that we got things in any exact order. I'm saying that we got a whole bunch of "newold" info with each edition, mixed in with the actual new stuff.

Each new edition slows development of new places and starts us over again in the "center" of the Realms. This wasted time results in never getting past Faerun before the next edition looms on the horizon and creative efforts are siphoned off to that. I'm saying this is neither necessary (once you ignore stat blocks) nor good.

I get that some players like the rehash, because it updates the familiar places. I dislike that those places are so familiar due to being the places that get the majority of authors' time and energy. There are thousands of places in the Realms, each of which could be just as interesting and just as playworthy and just as Heartlandsish as Waterdeep, Cormyr, and the Dales... but as long as we keep starting over again every few years, we will never hear about them.

Well, that's a bit untrue. We will hear about them, but not from WotC. We'll hear about them, eventually, from DMs and players who got fed up and created the material themselves.

And that's cool; I'm all in favor of anyone and everyone developing new Realms material. I just dislike seeing the Heartlands over and over again, when there are entire continents out there and all we know about them is that they're there. On the one hand, it's cool that they're open to individual campaign development. But if that's the attitude we're going to have, then why bother publishing anything at all? Why not leave everything open? Just make a map, and say "okay, these places are out there... have fun." And then later "Here's a mutilation of the map. Most/some of those places are still there but they look different. Have fun." That would be a stupid attitude for a company to have... but the current one isn't really all that different. We have a whole world to explore, and we're kinda just walkin the dog around the block repeatedly.

Instead... why not outline the entire planet, without restarting at each new edition? 5e will be a great opportunity to say a few new things.

1. Changes in the rules system no longer induce reboots of the Realms. RSEs will no longer accompany rules changes. In fact, we're no longer going to make RSEs part of canon at all. Instead, we'll occasionally suggest things like Ragnarok, plagues, and other catastrophes, but we'll present them as campaign options. These events will come complete with omens/portents/foreshadowing which you can dole out to PCs in the years before the event, the course of events that compose the "big boom", their immediate visible effects on important areas and NPCs of the Realms, some not-so-visible effects too, and suggested aftermath for how the event will shape the future of the world. However, they're not canon; the official product line will not assume that these events have transpired, so you retain complete freedom to use them or not use them in your individual campaign, without the hassle of disentangling unwanted RSEs from future sourcebooks. Importantly, no specific date will be attached to the possible RSEs, so with minor modification you can place these events wherever you want in the timeline. It is, after all, your campaign.

2. There are several continents on Toril. Here are their names, at least as far as Faerunian sages are concerned. Going forward, we're going to have several new product lines. F products will describe Faerun (including the Hordelands), K products will describe Kara-Tur, Z products will describe Zakhara, T products will describe That-continent-over-there, and so forth.

3. We're no longer going to advance the timeline. This will be a positive change in several ways. First and most noticeably, all non-novel products in most (see #4 below for the exception) lines will have the same in-game date regardless of when they're published; this means that everything jives and you can easily reference all new Realmslore in your campaigns because it all has the same date. Another change, subtle perhaps but important, is that novels can be set anywhere on the timeline... that's always been true, but it's more true now. In the past, it's been difficult for stories to be placed in the right-now or recent past, because authors are never 100% certain of what's coming next, and their stories might be invalidated by things that are already planned. Now, you can write anything, as long as it's consistent with current lore, and it will mesh fine. Behind the scenes, this will make our job of keeping things consistent much easier; on the outside, we're hoping that authors will enjoy the fact that we can now accept a lot more story ideas than we could before. Far-reaching series, such as the Drizzt and Elminster and Harpers novels, can freely proceed into the future as far as they'd like to.

4. Along with our new continental product lines, we're introducing the Portholes line. This series of sourcebooks will describe the Realms as it may appear in the past and the future. We've already looked at Netheril and Cormanthyr, in the Arcane Age line... the Portholes line is essentially broadening Arcane Age to include everything. The Spellscarred Realms will be our first Portholes product series; we will continue to publish post-1479 sourcebooks and novels under this label. We'll also be looking at the Age of Aryvandaar, which will spotlight what was simultaneously the highest pinnacle and the deepest abyss of elven civilization in the known history of the Realms. In addition, we're already thinking about the next portholes, which may explore the empires of the various Creator Races and the future of Luruar, aka the Silver Marches. Understandably, our immediate schedule is filled mostly with kingdoms of the past, but we encourage writers to develop the future of the Realms as well.

5. 4e brought Abeir somewhat to light, but there are of course many more stories to tell there as well. We hope to showcase this "new" world in the near future... all we need is writers, hint hint! Abeir has a different, more primal nature than Toril, and we're as excited as you are to explore it.

Okay, so I started getting a little... something there at the end. My point is that things could be done very differently, very well, and everybody could be happy with the results.

Answers to possible questions/concerns.

1a: What about when the rules change or remove classes? For example, 1e had an assassin class, and 2e didn't. Something needed to happen to all the assassins in the Realms.
A: Write up the revised statblocks for a few representative NPCs using the new ruleset, and suggested conversion methods for assassin PCs, and put them in a .pdf on the website. Done. No RSE necessary or justified, and a lot less money down the drain.

2a: Nobody cares about those other continents.
A: Nobody, eh? Then who put them there and why are they there, smartypants?

2b: People place their games in the Heartlands because it's the most popular place to game.
A: False. People place their games in the Heartlands because they don't have other options which they judge to be both viable and interesting. When this happens it means (imo) that there was a failure to communicate, somewhere. Find and fix the communication errors, and stop limiting the Realms to a handful of regions.

3a: What if someone writes an awesome series of novels set in 1600 DR, and the halflings have taken over, while R. A. Salvatore writes a story about the "normal" Realms with Drizzt in 1600 DR and halflings are definitely not in control?
A: The answer is it doesn't matter. The only time it would matter is if the official timeline reached 1600 DR and we had to choose: Salvatore's Realms, the halfling Realms, or something completely different that invalidates both? But when the current year doesn't move, we don't have to choose. Salvatore can write his Realms, and the halfling Realms doesn't have to coexist because --and I know WotC gets this, because they've used it-- they're different Realms. Alternate paths. It might cross my mind, while I'm reading about halflings having elf slaves in 1600 DR, to chuckle and think about Drizzt kicking halfling butt. But I *often* ponder someone else's characters while reading a novel or story, regardless of the setting. I think about Blade getting popped into the Twilight Saga... don't we all? Drizzt is R. A. Salvatore's character, and the halfling author can't write with complete freedom about him anyway, so it's not important to resolve this issue. They're different stories, and it's okay for them to have different visions of the future. In the end, they're daydreams anyway. The point of writing novels is to tell a story... and in the case of D&D novels, to paint a picture that might inspire campaign development. If someone wants to have a halfling-dominated Realms, go for it! If someone wants to have Drizzt around in 1600, do it! The timeline isn't going to force them to coexist, and that's a big chunk of the beauty in stopping the advancement.

4a: There is no Luruar. It went poof.
A: It was an example. Also, given the mindset described in the 1600 DR answer above, it is completely possible to have a Silver Marches kingdom in one future Porthole and a Spellplague in another. They're independent stories.

4b: What the heck do portholes have to do with anything?
A: I thought of "Timestreams" first but the stream image isn't consistent with the main idea here. Portholes was the next metaphor that came to mind... looking through a window, in this case into the past or future.

4c: Nobody cares that much about the past.
A: ...

4d: If the Portholes line really provides full support (ie, a whole campaign world) for the post-Spellplague Realms, then what's the difference between setting the "official" date at 1357 and setting it at 1479? Would you be equally happy if the current date was 1479 and the 1357 Realms was one of the portholes?
A: If the Portholes line really provides full support, then there's no difference, and I would be equally happy. This is what I want... I want this line to be good enough that it doesn't matter what the official date is because both Post-1479 and Pre-1358 players are equally supported and equally happy. I think this sort of line would be a huge asset to WotC... I just hope they see it too.

5a: Are you on drugs?
A: No, I'm actually this way, every day, without them.

/endgrog

Raise points, objections, whatever. I won't flame you if you don't flame me... and probably not even if you do, because (believe it or not) I'd kinda like folks to like me a little bit. But poke holes in anything/everything I've said with whatever you can find, with one exception. I'm not interested in what you don't think WotC will/can do from a business angle. Not even if you're a Harvard MBA. They have plenty of experience deciding for themselves what can't be done, and ...respectfully... they're probably better at it than you are. Where they need help is in seeing what they can do.

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  12:15:21  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
To be perfectly honest one of the main thing i like about series such as FR or star wars etc is that they DO advance and change. Thats what makes it interesting. I want to see the Solo kids grow up, i want to know what happens to the Weave. Perhaps gaming would not be affected that much by a static timeline but the novels would be ruined. If there was no consistency, no canon and no evolution then even the official novels are little better than fan fiction and while I might be interested in reading about the Halfing realms on the net I am not going to purchase it when I am on a college students budget.
Even the games would get boring eventually , we are all fans here but a causal gamer probably likes to mix things up once in a while.
Does advancing the timeline cause problems, sure plenty of them ,but overall its the better option. At least thats what i feel.
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3802 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  13:38:44  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm going to give some short replies:

1-You're assuming that advancing the timeline=RSEs/godwars/characters die a plenty. That is what whoever is in charge has done up to now, but there's nothing that forced them to do so.

My impression is that most RSEs that hit the FR had as main purpose selling out novels, not actually enriching the setting (the only RSE that added a new element was the return of Netheril, which I liked until the Shades became super powerful and unmatched in anything they did), and that is the reason why they usually worsen the situation instead of improving it. Destroying parts of the setting (nations, or deities, or organizations etc...) is in most of the cases a bad idea because: people who use those parts in their campaign will usually ignore such events, the ones who don't will have no reason to bother with them, and the ones who like to read about the removed elements will be pissed because they won't get novels/sourcebooks to continue their story (which has a definite and stagnant ending anyway). So, that kind of events is kinda pointless and good for nothing but dishing out books.

If the people who decide the direction the Realms have to go acknowledged this, advancing the timeline wouldn't bring problems anymore. Yes, some characters are going to die, but that's not an issue if their end comes with a fulfillment of their goal in life, i.e. is meaningful and not some random plot device to get rid of them for no apparent reason. Besides, removing a personality usually doesn't decree the start of a ''new era'', as you say, (unless the character is a kind of leader for his/her people, like Azoun IV, as you pointed out) and when it does there's no reason for not having the past era supported (after all, if you expect WotC to be able to use your portholes approach, why not this one?).

2-This is also an error made by the people who decide what gets detailed and what doesn't. It isn't directly related to advancing the timeline, assuming no RSE and no time jumps.

So, what I'm saying is that timeline can be advanced and the setting can evolve without destroying or drastically changing its flavor. And without focusing exclusively on some areas.
That said, I'm all for supporting multiple time frames, as long as the Realms advance while keeping their flavorful and distinguishing elements intact (which, in the present case involves bringing some of them back rather than just keeping them...).


About the novels happening in a non defined time frame and being independent from each other: I have no particular argument against this point. Your approach is definitely modular: make nothing canon and allow everyone to choose their own set of events (i.e. some kind of multiple timelines, or no timelines at all) and has the potential of making many people happy. It is about the same as supporting many eras, but more flexible.
However, personally, I would find the quantity of contradicting lore and the lack of definition and coherency that this could bring into the Realms baffling and kinda unappealing.

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Edited by - Irennan on 30 Jun 2012 14:26:27
Go to Top of Page

Eldacar
Senior Scribe

438 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  14:32:54  Show Profile Send Eldacar a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil

To be perfectly honest one of the main thing i like about series such as FR or star wars etc is that they DO advance and change. Thats what makes it interesting.

I agree with this. At the same time, however, I think it is not necessarily advancement, but that it advances too fast, and with a consistently-increasing number of RSEs every single time. Keep stories small and contained instead. Some of those Mage-centric books (Frostfell, etc.) are strong examples of this. They have interesting things happening, but not only could it really be set in almost any relatively recent year (i.e. somewhere between 1345 and 1375) with a few adjustments, they're largely self-contained to a particular area.

"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  14:37:04  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I've already voice my objection: if the setting is not moving forward, with time passing, then it is stagnating. I've already walked away from one TSR setting because -- at the time -- they were not moving the timeline forward, and were instead focusing on the recent past or the distant past.

Sure, it's one thing to say novels can move forward but the game setting won't... But some of us enjoy seeing how novels affect the setting, and not having the two linked can cause a disconnect. What if there's a Hidden Lord in Waterdeep named Frehd, and Frehd's machinations against an enemy wind up seeing a couple city blocks destroyed, and new protections put in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening again? If I'm reading a later supplement about Waterdeep, I want to see how the novel about Frehd affected the city, and what the full-on ramifications of the events were. That's not something that can be explored in a novel, outside of a sequel -- but even so, I want to see it reflected in my game material.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  14:40:26  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar

quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil

To be perfectly honest one of the main thing i like about series such as FR or star wars etc is that they DO advance and change. Thats what makes it interesting.

I agree with this. At the same time, however, I think it is not necessarily advancement, but that it advances too fast, and with a consistently-increasing number of RSEs every single time. Keep stories small and contained instead. Some of those Mage-centric books (Frostfell, etc.) are strong examples of this. They have interesting things happening, but not only could it really be set in almost any relatively recent year (i.e. somewhere between 1345 and 1375) with a few adjustments, they're largely self-contained to a particular area.



Agreed. Some of my fave Realms novels are those by Elaine and those by Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb -- and none of them affected more than a localized region, like Tethyr, Halruaa, or Westgate, if they even had that much impact.

We don't need to keep imitating Hollywood and seeking ever-increasing amounts of BOOM to sell a story.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  15:31:16  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am only against advancing the timeline in a destructive manner. The rate at which FR used to move forward was perfect, IMHO.

The century time-jump in 4e was the single most destructive thing ever done to the setting (also IMHO).

I don't want a static setting - I want a setting that moves forward at a steady, logical place. I want to go for point 'A' to point 'B', not from point 'A' to point 'Z', with nothing in-between. Its jarring and Disingenuous to the fanbase.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 30 Jun 2012 15:32:03
Go to Top of Page

Derulbaskul
Senior Scribe

Singapore
408 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  16:51:16  Show Profile Send Derulbaskul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
TL;DR version: Games and novels are separate until it is time to reboot.

I would prefer the game products to all site at date 0 and the novels to advance the timeline together with any adventures that WotC may publish. But the supplements should be set at year 0.

Then, after the 3-5 years that will be the next D&D edition's lifespan, reboot the Realms, including the timeline, but have a review by Ed and various author/designer-fans (you can be either or both of author and designer but you must be a fan) based on their assessment of which events worked with the fanbase and which didn't before including them.

That way stagnation is avoided but so is including the events that most people don't like. It also means any RPG DM can safely pick up a FR supplement after the campaign setting is published and not feel like he needs to spend a month on Google catching all the references he may have missed.

Cheers
D

NB: Please remember: A cannon is a big gun. Canon is what we discuss here.
Go to Top of Page

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2131 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  17:05:54  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What I would personally like to see at the start of the 5e/D&DNext Realms is to initially stop the timeline where the end of 4e left it go back and fix many of the continuity errors (not just from 4e) as well as fill in the 100 year gap between 3.5 and 4e. Then, after (most) everything has been "fixed," go back and restart the timeline where it left off at the end of 4e. I think that this would be infinitely more helpful than freezing it in one place.

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  18:35:16  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I agree with the statement that new things need to be happening in the Realms. The Solo kids is a good example, imo.

My contention is that the novels are the place to accomplish that change, partly because novels aren't as tightly bound by rules and that leaves room to tell a better story. Also, giving DMs the choice of whether those changes will be canon in each campaign is a key to pleasing more of the people more of the time.

It's my observation that in the past, changes introduced in the novels have been incorporated into the setting forcibly --ie, by WotC, without giving us any choice-- and this pisses people off. Me, obviously, but certainly not just me. Some of us agree that the return of Shade was handled poorly, for example. Some of us disliked the Spellplague. I'm not arguing against changes... just against the lack of choices. Choices don't upset anyone. Or, at least, there's no legitimate basis for objecting to them.

So if you want the novels to affect the setting, that's fine. But surely you can allow them to do that in your games, without demanding that I do the same? And isn't there a single novel, somewhere, that you don't want incorporated into your game?

Having a choice is always better than not having a choice.

It's true that DMs who lack time and/or motivation to make these choices may become overwhelmed if they choose to game in a world where every single novel is incorporated into the game. But the % of people who like every novel has to be pretty low, and I'm banking on those who have enough time to read and enjoy every novel coming out also have a few minutes to look at how to iron out the rough edges between them.

Edited by - xaeyruudh on 03 Jul 2012 06:05:54
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  18:49:24  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil

If there was no consistency, no canon and no evolution then even the official novels are little better than fan fiction


Not all fanfic is terrible. I'll agree that it's not all great, and I don't usually go looking for it. However... before their stories were published, every established writer was essentially a fanfic writer. R. A. Salvatore, before the first Drizzt novel was published, was just writing stuff... it wasn't consistent with anything. Someone decided that it was awesome, and now his stories inspire mountains of fanfic. My point here is that the quality of writing, and the awesomeness of the story, should be the deciding factor of what becomes canon and what doesn't... and we should all be allowed to make that determination for ourselves, because (1) each of us have different ideas of what's awesome and (2) our campaigns are our campaigns, and taking away the right of a DM to structure his/her own campaign turns our games into bad fanfic. Imo.
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  19:39:12  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

I'm going to give some short replies:

1-You're assuming that advancing the timeline=RSEs/godwars/characters die a plenty. That is what whoever is in charge has done up to now, but there's nothing that forced them to do so.


You're right about the assumption, and I agree with your statement of the purpose of RSEs. I feel justified making that assumption because, as you say, that's what's happened up until now. Based on the track record, I assume that WotC is going to going to do bad things with an advancing timeline. It remains a good assumption as long as the same people remain in charge of the future of the Realms, and voice no interest in changing their ways.

quote:
If the people who decide the direction the Realms have to go acknowledged this, advancing the timeline wouldn't bring problems anymore.


I agree with this...

quote:
Yes, some characters are going to die, but that's not an issue if their end comes with a fulfillment of their goal in life, i.e. is meaningful and not some random plot device to get rid of them for no apparent reason.


...but I have mixed feelings about this. It's not an issue as long as their death had meaning and is given the proper respect... in the novels. In gaming products it's a bigger deal when somebody dies. And yes, it's really only a big deal when it's someone who is tied to the identity of a realm, but a death will often have a bigger effect in a campaign than it will within the pages of a novel... because the campaign has more future ahead of it than the finite pages of a novel.

On a related note, it also bothers me a lot when characters are removed before being developed... like Myrkul, who was only developed in the ToT adventures, or Leira who was never developed at all. Their ending was premature, and was bad both from a gaming perspective and a story perspective. Add to that a complete lack of positive outcomes, and you have something that was just a bad idea from start to finish.

quote:
there's no reason for not having the past era supported (after all, if you expect WotC to be able to use your portholes approach, why not this one?).


This is a good point. However, I'm not advocating a Porthole on each nation in the Realms for each ruler they have. I was thinking of it as an in-depth look at a particular country within a particular time frame (the golden age of Oghrann, for instance) combined with a birds-eye view across the rest of the Realms at that time. The ideas are compatible but I doubt they would want to publish a Cormyr sourcebook for the reign of Azoun IV and then another one for the regency of Alusair.

quote:
2-This is also an error made by the people who decide what gets detailed and what doesn't. It isn't directly related to advancing the timeline, assuming no RSE and no time jumps.


I agree...

quote:
So, what I'm saying is that timeline can be advanced and the setting can evolve without destroying or drastically changing its flavor.


...and I disagree.

No, it doesn't destroy the flavor of the whole setting. But... and I acknowledge that this is a psychological and subjective point, but if it's not going to change something in a significant way, then what's the point of doing it? Yea, obviously Azoun's lifespan is going to be finite... but there was a reason for him dying when he did. A change was intended. In other cases too... changes aren't (usually?) going to be made for no reason.

Again, I'm not trying to say that change is always a bad thing. I'm just saying that it's fine in novels and not so fine in an RPG setting when it's removed from the DM's control.

I'd also really like to see the in-game date remain the same for each sourcebook that comes out. For example, let's say that 1360 was the official date of 5e, just to pick a year I don't like for a change. I want the Cormyr sourcebook to be dated 1360, and I want the Lapaliiya sourcebook to also be dated 1360 even if it doesn't get published for another 5 years after the Cormyr book. It's vital (in my opinion) for books to have the same date, for the sake of being able to reference things back and forth. That helps the stability of the foundation that we're all building on. Cormyr dated 1360 and Lapaliiya dated 1365 may not be hugely different, but by definition it's inferior to having both books dated the same and there's no rational reason for not giving them the same dates.

quote:
That said, I'm all for supporting multiple time frames, as long as the Realms advance while keeping their flavorful and distinguishing elements intact (which, in the present case involves bringing some of them back rather than just keeping them...).


Awesome! And I completely agree with the preservation of flavor and distinction... distinction is another thing that WotC has major problems with. Case in point: making the god-kings of Mulhorand standard powers and shipping them out to the Outer Planes. Pathetic.

quote:
About the novels happening in a non defined time frame and being independent from each other: I have no particular argument against this point. Your approach is definitely modular: make nothing canon and allow everyone to choose their own set of events (i.e. some kind of multiple timelines, or no timelines at all) and has the potential of making many people happy. It is about the same as supporting many eras, but more flexible.


Exactly. The Drizzt novels, for example, would basically have their own alternate reality, which gives Salvatore a lot of latitude for writing in the future, and the past, without having to worry about affecting future gaming products because DMs will have the choice of whether or not to incorporate any/all of his work. He can develop his own rulers for various cities, etc. Other series would have their own parallel Realms as well, which leads to your next point...

quote:
However, personally, I would find the quantity of contradicting lore and the lack of definition and coherency that this could bring into the Realms baffling and kinda unappealing.



I hear ya. I do. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a Realms where every author had complete artistic license, and all of it was going to be canon. But that's the beauty of the flexibility... if I want to, I can declare "only Ed's novels are canon for this campaign" and only Ed's novels will be canon in that campaign. Next time, I can build a drow campaign utilizing Salvatore's work, without having to reference everything that's ever been written about Silverymoon, and the whole Sword Coast really. Next time, maybe I do an Impiltur campaign, I dunno.

This is not an ideal solution for those who want to just let everything anybody writes be canon. But we shouldn't be required to use everything anybody writes in every game. Particularly since WotC hasn't been all that great at ensuring consistency. We should have the right to pick and choose. Having the right doesn't weaken the game, but not having a choice does.
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  20:00:54  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

What if there's a Hidden Lord in Waterdeep named Frehd, and Frehd's machinations against an enemy wind up seeing a couple city blocks destroyed, and new protections put in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening again? If I'm reading a later supplement about Waterdeep, I want to see how the novel about Frehd affected the city, and what the full-on ramifications of the events were. That's not something that can be explored in a novel, outside of a sequel -- but even so, I want to see it reflected in my game material.



If I were in charge, I'd handle it thus:

Foundation: The destruction of part of the city isn't canon, since it happened in a novel.

Flexibility: Each DM has the right to incorporate that event, or not.

Support: Frehd's creator (in conjunction with a Waterdeep expert if that's deemed prudent) writes up a description of the affected area in game terms. Exactly which buildings are demolished, gutted but still erect, mostly livable, or unaffected. The lingering effects of the destructive spell, if any (it still smells like a red dragon farted, in spite of multiple efforts to cleanse the air). The effects of the protective wards (+2 to saves versus fire, and unattended items automatically save? I dunno). This wouldn't take a lot of time or effort... the author should already have these things in mind anyway before the book hits the shelves. The headache (and the fun) might come from figuring out replacement businesses... if one of the destroyed businesses was the only place in the ward that sells breeches, then where are breeches found now, and who's running around with no pants on?

This document is then pasted on DDI or whatever. The author will of course get a scroll here on Candlekeep if one doesn't already exist, and they may also have a presence on the WotC forums; I dunno how things work over there. DMs/players/readers will then be able to ask for more details and clarification as needed.

Ideally, the write-up of the aftermath of this event makes it interesting and entertaining, and draws more people to pick up the book.

I strongly feel that this is a superior approach, over making the destruction of part of Waterdeep an element of canon going forward which all future descriptions of Waterdeep have to incorporate.
Go to Top of Page

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  20:22:13  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil

If there was no consistency, no canon and no evolution then even the official novels are little better than fan fiction


Not all fanfic is terrible. I'll agree that it's not all great, and I don't usually go looking for it. However... before their stories were published, every established writer was essentially a fanfic writer. R. A. Salvatore, before the first Drizzt novel was published, was just writing stuff... it wasn't consistent with anything. Someone decided that it was awesome, and now his stories inspire mountains of fanfic. My point here is that the quality of writing, and the awesomeness of the story, should be the deciding factor of what becomes canon and what doesn't... and we should all be allowed to make that determination for ourselves, because (1) each of us have different ideas of what's awesome and (2) our campaigns are our campaigns, and taking away the right of a DM to structure his/her own campaign turns our games into bad fanfic. Imo.



I am not saying that all fanfic is bad, just that its not something I look for when i decide to start following a new series. for example there may a lot of great fanfic on Games of Thrones but if a didn't like the books I wouldn't care one bit about the fanfic.
Thus without the events in novels advancing the realms in new directions and being canon I would lose interest in them.
Also regarding your point that characters sometimes are killed off pointlessly or prematurely ... This is something that happens in real life as well as the realms. Not everybody can die heroically saving their homeland from a rampaging dragon and if they did these deaths would lose their meaning and emotional impact. Most people end up being deadbeat guards after taking an arrow to the knee.
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  21:23:54  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil

Most people end up being deadbeat guards after taking an arrow to the knee.


That may be true, but in a game based on heroic fantasy, I claim the right to contradict, in the interest of a more enjoyable game, authors/designers/publishers who kill off useful/entertaining characters or plotlines. This, for me, is one area where the game should not imitate real life.

We can't pick up a pen and change Earth... (well yea, but I'm not going there) but we can shape the Realms in a way to create and enhance an enjoyable environment. It makes no sense to me, to add aspects of real life which are going to lessen the enjoyment of the game, purely in the interest of resembling the real world.

So if killing off a minor character here and there serves someone's story, fine. If it's a major character then I'd like to see some valid reasoning behind it, as well as a constructive impact overall, or else I'm not going to give it any dignity or validity in my campaign. I weigh the setting with the character versus without it, and the weightier side wins. I need the ability to do that, because without that ability it's not my campaign... I'm just the guy who picks monsters out of the MM and tallies up the XP at the end of the night. I find that to be an unfilling experience.

I can agree to disagree. It seems we both have strong feelings about novels being canon, and won't change each other's minds.

It would be nice to find something that works for both of us, though...
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3802 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  21:31:08  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

I'm going to give some short replies:

1-You're assuming that advancing the timeline=RSEs/godwars/characters die a plenty. That is what whoever is in charge has done up to now, but there's nothing that forced them to do so.


You're right about the assumption, and I agree with your statement of the purpose of RSEs. I feel justified making that assumption because, as you say, that's what's happened up until now. Based on the track record, I assume that WotC is going to going to do bad things with an advancing timeline. It remains a good assumption as long as the same people remain in charge of the future of the Realms, and voice no interest in changing their ways.


I see your point here. But if they were going to change their take and stop the timeline, they could do the same to advance it in a constructive way.


quote:
quote:
Yes, some characters are going to die, but that's not an issue if their end comes with a fulfillment of their goal in life, i.e. is meaningful and not some random plot device to get rid of them for no apparent reason.


...but I have mixed feelings about this. It's not an issue as long as their death had meaning and is given the proper respect... in the novels. In gaming products it's a bigger deal when somebody dies. And yes, it's really only a big deal when it's someone who is tied to the identity of a realm, but a death will often have a bigger effect in a campaign than it will within the pages of a novel... because the campaign has more future ahead of it than the finite pages of a novel.

On a related note, it also bothers me a lot when characters are removed before being developed... like Myrkul, who was only developed in the ToT adventures, or Leira who was never developed at all. Their ending was premature, and was bad both from a gaming perspective and a story perspective. Add to that a complete lack of positive outcomes, and you have something that was just a bad idea from start to finish.


Just a detail here: when I said ''characters'' I meant mortal ones. I deem godly dramas harmful for the setting because A)they can easily lead to a misinterpretation of a deity's ''personality'' and what he/she stands for, or to gods doing stupid and unfitting things (as it has already happened) B)they simply remove players' options, and that's bad.

However, mortal characters' life coming to an end (or having them simply retired from their career after a particular event) can add depth to them, if it is done properly and fits what they stood for.

quote:
quote:
there's no reason for not having the past era supported (after all, if you expect WotC to be able to use your portholes approach, why not this one?).


This is a good point. However, I'm not advocating a Porthole on each nation in the Realms for each ruler they have. I was thinking of it as an in-depth look at a particular country within a particular time frame (the golden age of Oghrann, for instance) combined with a birds-eye view across the rest of the Realms at that time. The ideas are compatible but I doubt they would want to publish a Cormyr sourcebook for the reign of Azoun IV and then another one for the regency of Alusair.


No, but they would publish a book which covers both the reign of Azoun and Alusair. That is basically your portholes approach, if I understood correctly, which is equivalent to a localized ''support multiple eras'' (sourcebooks which cover each area, detailing it in various time frames).


quote:
quote:
So, what I'm saying is that timeline can be advanced and the setting can evolve without destroying or drastically changing its flavor.


...and I disagree.

No, it doesn't destroy the flavor of the whole setting. But... and I acknowledge that this is a psychological and subjective point, but if it's not going to change something in a significant way, then what's the point of doing it? Yea, obviously Azoun's lifespan is going to be finite... but there was a reason for him dying when he did. A change was intended. In other cases too... changes aren't (usually?) going to be made for no reason.

Again, I'm not trying to say that change is always a bad thing. I'm just saying that it's fine in novels and not so fine in an RPG setting when it's removed from the DM's control.


Well, changes don't need to be drastic and destructive in order to be significant. They can add new elements, plot hooks, options (etc...) through novels, and once added (as someone else pointed out here) it is a good thing to support them in sourcebooks.

The risk here is that it isn't rare (but that does not happen all the times, ofc) that changes are used to sell novels and not to make the setting grow (what was the purpose of the ToT, aside from replacing some deities, or the purpose of the Silence of Lolth, for example?). This is what needs to go in order to make a timeline advancement non destructive and actually positive.


quote:
quote:
However, personally, I would find the quantity of contradicting lore and the lack of definition and coherency that this could bring into the Realms baffling and kinda unappealing.



I hear ya. I do. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a Realms where every author had complete artistic license, and all of it was going to be canon. But that's the beauty of the flexibility... if I want to, I can declare "only Ed's novels are canon for this campaign" and only Ed's novels will be canon in that campaign. Next time, I can build a drow campaign utilizing Salvatore's work, without having to reference everything that's ever been written about Silverymoon, and the whole Sword Coast really. Next time, maybe I do an Impiltur campaign, I dunno.

This is not an ideal solution for those who want to just let everything anybody writes be canon. But we shouldn't be required to use everything anybody writes in every game. Particularly since WotC hasn't been all that great at ensuring consistency. We should have the right to pick and choose. Having the right doesn't weaken the game, but not having a choice does.



Yeah, as I said your approach canon has its merits (great flexibility, namely), plus it could possibly end the ''era wars'' by making nothing canon. Its downside is that it would be more difficult to develop the good elements introduced in stories via sourcebooks (beside lack of coherency, even tho this would be only an apparent issue, from a player PoV that is, since there would be no actual canon).


***


EDIT:

quote:
quote:
Most people end up being deadbeat guards after taking an arrow to the knee.



That may be true, but in a game based on heroic fantasy, I claim the right to contradict, in the interest of a more enjoyable game, authors/designers/publishers who kill off useful/entertaining characters or plotlines. This, for me, is one area where the game should not imitate real life.

We can't pick up a pen and change Earth... (well yea, but I'm not going there) but we can shape the Realms in a way to create and enhance an enjoyable environment. It makes no sense to me, to add aspects of real life which are going to lessen the enjoyment of the game, purely in the interest of resembling the real world.

So if killing off a minor character here and there serves someone's story, fine. If it's a major character then I'd like to see some valid reasoning behind it, as well as a constructive impact overall, or else I'm not going to give it any dignity or validity in my campaign. I weigh the setting with the character versus without it, and the weightier side wins. I need the ability to do that, because without that ability it's not my campaign... I'm just the guy who picks monsters out of the MM and tallies up the XP at the end of the night. I find that to be an unfilling experience.

I can agree to disagree. It seems we both have strong feelings about novels being canon, and won't change each other's minds.

It would be nice to find something that works for both of us, though...


I totally agree here. Who cares about what happens in RL, major characters demise or retirement should only happen when it is fitting and meaningful and adds something to the setting. Randomly killing them just to sell books sounds off to me.
If I wanted to know about pointless deaths, I'd go read a newspaper.

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Edited by - Irennan on 30 Jun 2012 22:02:08
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  22:47:58  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

What if there's a Hidden Lord in Waterdeep named Frehd, and Frehd's machinations against an enemy wind up seeing a couple city blocks destroyed, and new protections put in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening again? If I'm reading a later supplement about Waterdeep, I want to see how the novel about Frehd affected the city, and what the full-on ramifications of the events were. That's not something that can be explored in a novel, outside of a sequel -- but even so, I want to see it reflected in my game material.



If I were in charge, I'd handle it thus:

Foundation: The destruction of part of the city isn't canon, since it happened in a novel.

Flexibility: Each DM has the right to incorporate that event, or not.

Support: Frehd's creator (in conjunction with a Waterdeep expert if that's deemed prudent) writes up a description of the affected area in game terms. Exactly which buildings are demolished, gutted but still erect, mostly livable, or unaffected. The lingering effects of the destructive spell, if any (it still smells like a red dragon farted, in spite of multiple efforts to cleanse the air). The effects of the protective wards (+2 to saves versus fire, and unattended items automatically save? I dunno). This wouldn't take a lot of time or effort... the author should already have these things in mind anyway before the book hits the shelves. The headache (and the fun) might come from figuring out replacement businesses... if one of the destroyed businesses was the only place in the ward that sells breeches, then where are breeches found now, and who's running around with no pants on?

This document is then pasted on DDI or whatever. The author will of course get a scroll here on Candlekeep if one doesn't already exist, and they may also have a presence on the WotC forums; I dunno how things work over there. DMs/players/readers will then be able to ask for more details and clarification as needed.

Ideally, the write-up of the aftermath of this event makes it interesting and entertaining, and draws more people to pick up the book.

I strongly feel that this is a superior approach, over making the destruction of part of Waterdeep an element of canon going forward which all future descriptions of Waterdeep have to incorporate.



Yeah, but under this approach, what does the next author writing in Waterdeep do? And then the one after that? And the one after that?

At some point, something's got to happen, officially.

If it's so important to be able to choose everything that happens in a world, and to not have anything official, then why bother playing in a published setting? As soon as you commit to a published setting, you're committing to the choices made by every person involved in bringing that setting to your door. Those are choices you don't have any say in; what makes those different from later ones?

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 30 Jun 2012 :  23:58:57  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

Just a detail here: when I said ''characters'' I meant mortal ones. I deem godly dramas harmful for the setting because A)they can easily lead to a misinterpretation of a deity's ''personality'' and what he/she stands for, or to gods doing stupid and unfitting things (as it has already happened) B)they simply remove players' options, and that's bad.

However, mortal characters' life coming to an end (or having them simply retired from their career after a particular event) can add depth to them, if it is done properly and fits what they stood for.


Yea, I just tossed the Leira-rant in as an aside. But now that I think about it, I guess I don't really draw much distinction between mortal and deific characters... except that I wish more care was taken when writing about Powers. There's some appeal to the gods being just as petty and vindictive as the worst of people, but not when the gods are outright stupid or shortsighted. Divine power has certain perks, after all, and inflated Int/Wis scores is one of them. They can be drama queens if you want, but they cannot be morons. Even Cyric isn't an idiot.

Regarding mortal death/retirement being part of character development, sure I can see that. I won't argue that part of the point. My argument is that we all have different ideas of what "done properly" means, and (from my own perspective) WotC's ideas of a good ending frequently don't line up with mine. Halaster blowing himself up in a spell-gone-wrong, because he's too nuts to do it right? No. I shouldn't really go there since I haven't read the story (and I don't even know where it's written) but that doesn't have the right feel. Then again, he's closer to being a god than the average shmuck in a tavern.

I think we're in agreement here; endings need to be done properly (and so far, they frequently haven't been).


quote:
That is basically your portholes approach, if I understood correctly, which is equivalent to a localized ''support multiple eras'' (sourcebooks which cover each area, detailing it in various time frames).


Okay, I see. I should probably develop the idea more before talking much about it. But the thing that catches my eye here is support of multiple (distinct?) eras.

I'm envisioning Portholes as a separate product line from the continental product lines, and I don't see it following all the same rules. In particular, the continental products should all have the same in-game date... a panorama of the entire planet, with the same timestamp. The Portholes books, in contrast, will have dates all over the place, and they'll focus on one empire/nation/whatever, ideally during its "golden age" but in any case most likely limiting it to one range of years. These products should also include at least brief glimpses of the neighboring lands, as they'll be either allies or foes and therefore relevant to a campaign set in that place, in that era. Things like little descriptions of prominent heroes, with a note about where they're from and what they've done. Several designers/authors have gotten very good at introducing new Realmslore in this way, and I'd like to see more, more, more!

If "multiple eras" is done in the continental product line, it should (in my opinion) be the same eras for all places. All these sourcebooks have to have the same date(s), or the setting isn't a good foundation for campaigns. Portholes, on the other hand, would be just one time frame for each sovereignty, but they'll be scattered all over the timeline, from -30,000 up through 1480 and possibly further into the future.

Just outlining what I'd like to see... obviously everyone else may likely have different opinions.


quote:
Well, changes don't need to be drastic and destructive in order to be significant. They can add new elements, plot hooks, options (etc...) through novels, and once added (as someone else pointed out here) it is a good thing to support them in sourcebooks.


I agree that changes can add to the story, but I disagree that they have to be recapped, acknowledged, or developed in future sourcebooks. Sourcebooks comprise the campaign setting. Novels and magazine articles/columns are the vehicles for expanding/continuing development of the world. Publishing another Cormyr sourcebook after we already have one turns sourcebooks into novel sequels. Nothing wrong with novels, but if we're going to blur the lines then why have different types of books? I guess sourcebooks could put the people and events of novels into game terms, but that can be just as easily accomplished through columns and magazine articles which we already have available for doing that. Or one product like Hall of Heroes or whatever it was, that could contain game write-ups for a bunch of characters from novels. However, I don't want a second Cormyr book that's just updated stat blocks, or the next generation of Obarskyrs. I'm fine with there being a next generation, but there shouldn't be another sourcebook. Put those updates/developments in a Dragon article, or develop them into a continuation of the story and write another novel.

Having one sourcebook for a country/state/whatever, and Dragon/novel updates, means that we have canon (sourcebook) and optional development (novels, articles). It's simple, elegant, and effective. Those who want the Realms to progress get what they want. Those who want to campaign in a particular place can do so with the support of a fully usable sourcebook *plus* the sourcebooks for the rest of the Realms, without having to place the campaign in whatever the current year is or doing a whole bunch of parsing through all those books for what the original lore was and what happened after that, and when.

quote:
The risk here is that it isn't rare (but that does not happen all the times, ofc) that changes are used to sell novels and not to make the setting grow (what was the purpose of the ToT, aside from replacing some deities, or the purpose of the Silence of Lolth, for example?). This is what needs to go in order to make a timeline advancement non destructive and actually positive.


Unfortunately there is no indication that WotC is even considering stopping this practice. Even if they were to say they're not using RSEs as special effects in a bizarre attempt to lure players... or that they were but they're going to stop... where's the basis for assuming that they'll know the difference between constructive/destructive? Their most recent RSE was the Spellplague, which gets both very-positive and very-negative feedback. We're screwed if we depend on them to make the choices we want them to make.

Solution: as suggested above, RSEs should be presented as options, with plenty of details contained within the presentation of the event regarding leadup and aftermath. Novels are free to follow up on these events, and somebody probably should write about the post-RSE Realms in the interest of supporting the few who like it, but absolutely zero future sourcebooks assume the RSE to be canon. If the Time of Troubles had been done this way, there would be no complaints about it. If the Spellplague had been done this way, there would be no/few complaints about that, which is really saying something.

And just to muddy the waters... we may have some different ideas about what constitutes an RSE. The big ones are obvious, but the return of Shade didn't qualify as an RSE for me because my campaign was centered in Mulhorand. On the other hand, if I was running a game in Waterdeep, I might call the demise of Khelben an RSE.


quote:
plus it could possibly end the ''era wars'' by making nothing canon.


Just a point of clarity. It's not that there's no canon... the sourcebooks are canon. At least the continental lines. The Portholes line idea needs some more thought in this area. The rest... magazine articles/columns, novels, Candlekeep material... each DM has the option of making any collection of these things canon for their individual campaign. Since sourcebooks are only printed once in this system, nothing will be contradicted.


quote:
Its downside is that it would be more difficult to develop the good elements introduced in stories via sourcebooks (beside lack of coherency, even tho this would be only an apparent issue, from a player PoV that is, since there would be no actual canon).


Worded differently, I don't see this as a downside.

In my opinion, a better way to look at it is that each campaign has the ability to choose what happens and what gets developed. Sourcebooks aren't the right place for plot development anyway; they're the place to describe how things are. All just my opinion, of course.


quote:
If I wanted to know about pointless deaths, I'd go read a newspaper.


Well said.
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3802 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  00:40:00  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So, basically you're suggesting to make novels non canonical, but to support additions introduced by them through (optional, ofc) various articles or similar material. Sourcebooks will stay at a given date and will be the only canon out there (which will continue to be detailed and expanded, I assume). In addition to that, some supplements will give details about singular areas across small time frames (including changes brought by events described in the novels, that is).

This looks like a more flexible version of detailing multiple eras (well, only to an extent because both approaches allow people to cherry pick the events to include in their campaign, by continuing to detail the setting before and after various happenings. Yours emphasize this aspect, tho), and -personally- I could easily live with this, but only when looking at the Realms as a place to set my game in.


The problem I can see is that the setting will lack focus, if novels and events are allowed to be independent from each other (and the same goes for their related supplements). I'd like it, if the timeline was developed organically and coherently, tho. From this PoV your approach would easily create way too confusion, and at the end of the day the Realms as a world wouldn't go in any direction and would fall apart in this sense.

Besides, an evolving timeline is one of the things that I like about the FR, and while I don't care about it being canonical or not (as long as the new elements introduced this way get supported through articles or other tools), I would definitely care (and be disappointed) if it didn't exist at all or if it wasn't well defined. When looking at the Realms in this sense, what I want to see is a unique setting, with its own coherent story.

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Edited by - Irennan on 01 Jul 2012 00:51:50
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  01:50:06  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

So, basically you're suggesting to make novels non canonical, but to support additions introduced by them through (optional, ofc) various articles or similar material. Sourcebooks will stay at a given date and will be the only canon out there (which will continue to be detailed and expanded, I assume). In addition to that, some supplements will give details about singular areas across small time frames (including changes brought by events described in the novels, that is).


Yup. Except that Portholes products don't assume novels to be canon either. Sourcebooks are canon, novels plus the dragon articles/columns written to expand/update both the sourcebooks and novels are a big buffet of options.


quote:
When looking at the Realms in this sense, what I want to see is a unique setting, with its own coherent story.


I'm not completely sure that I'm clear on what you mean by this, so I apologize if this doesn't address what you meant, but in that case I think this is something that needs to be said too.

My response is that if the Realms was supposed to be one story, then it was a big mistake to open it up to dozens of authors and thousands of gamers. Ed should have written the whole thing. After his story was done, other authors could pick characters and write stories about those characters, as long as they didn't conflict with the overall story. Maybe like authors have developed the Star Wars and Star Trek universes. But as soon as Ed sold the setting to TSR (arguably as soon as he started sharing it with players and developing their characters and ideas into features of the Realms) it stopped being that kind of work.

It certainly could have gone that route. The Roll of Years would make a great table-of-contents.

But while there are big events (ToT, Spellplague, etc) there is no overall story. It's not Lord of the Rings... you could argue for Elminster as Gandalf, but there's no ring and there's no Frodo. There's no big overarching plot. It's not one man's vision. It's a different sort of beast. There are thousands if not millions of stories. It doesn't have a distinct beginning, middle, or end. For that matter, it doesn't even have a comprehensive list of characters... more keep getting added.

And this is awesome because it means your characters, and mine, could be more than just dust brushed away in the blink of an eye... they could, in theory, have whole chapters written about them. If it's just one big story, then it's told at some point and then there's nothing left to do except retell it. But if there's no end... no, I'll stop before the Titanic theme becomes relevant.
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  01:52:04  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's because of all of this --no single author, no controlling vision, no closed doors really-- that we need the ability to selectively include some stuff and exclude other stuff. Because the Realms isn't defined by the novels. Not solely by the novels. It's also defined, for those who play in it, by events in each campaign. Thousands of campaigns coexisting simultaneously.

Your elf killed some orcs tonight; my dwarf killed some duergar tonight; other people had other games doing other stuff. It's very compatible with the idea of "parallel Realms" where things that happen in one story don't necessarily happen in all the others.

So why not officially adopt that understanding? Each campaign is writing a story, and the only real difference between your stories and mine, and a published novel is that someone wrote the novel, and someone at WotC thought it was a cool (and sellable) story, and the novel got published.

Novels can be independent of each other. Separate, parallel, Realms. They can build on each other, without being forced to... without being made to serve as beams supporting the setting. Arguably, it's unfair to expect a novel to perform that role.

It's also unfair, after inviting everyone to participate, to expect all of us to choose the same vision of the Realms.

Edited by - xaeyruudh on 01 Jul 2012 01:59:08
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4598 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  02:14:24  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I wonder if we're not overstating the effect of novels on the setting a little bit. I've seen some rhetoric about how people are "forced" to accept the events of novels or they get steam-rolled into the setting.

There are two things I want to say about this:

1) The sourcebooks ignore a lot of novels: Sure, the hallmark novels of the Realms end up referenced in the sourcebooks (the Avatar series, some of the Drizzt stuff, etc), but there are a lot of novels that the sourcebooks either ignore entirely or just don't mention. I've written now FIVE novels in the Realms, and only in ONE instance is one of my characters even MENTIONED in a Realms sourcebook (that being the Grand History of the Realms, which has a one-sentence blurb about her), and only twice do my characters show up in DDI articles (which I wrote anyway). I'm very comfortable saying that my characters and my stories are strictly modular options you can add to your Realms if you want.

2) The sourcebooks gloss over the novels quite a bit: Sure, when RSEs happen, the sourcebooks incorporate the outcome, but they are extremely sparing on the details of what happened and how it happened. Look at how they handled the return of the Shades, the year of Rogue Dragons, or the War of the Spider Queen. Those three "RSEs" made minor changes to the sourcebook setting (minor at best), and we just kinda moved on with business as usual. The sourcebooks purposefully leave you with the choice to incorporate the novels whole-cloth, alter the events, or run through them with your own characters. That the novels are "canon" is only really significant to other game designers or novelists, who then have to take those events into account in their future work (if relevant).

Anyway, that's just my perspective as a novelist working in the Realms. I don't think novels are ever shoved down anyone's throats--and if you as a player or DM feel that way, you should maybe put a little less "MUST BE PERFECTLY CANONICALLY ACCURATE YAAHH!" pressure on yourself.

Take it from me: you have the power to do things your way in your Realms. Gods and Goddesses know that I do.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3802 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  02:24:41  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

quote:
When looking at the Realms in this sense, what I want to see is a unique setting, with its own coherent story.


I'm not completely sure that I'm clear on what you mean by this, so I apologize if this doesn't address what you meant, but in that case I think this is something that needs to be said too.

My response is that if the Realms was supposed to be one story, then it was a big mistake to open it up to dozens of authors and thousands of gamers. Ed should have written the whole thing. After his story was done, other authors could pick characters and write stories about those characters, as long as they didn't conflict with the overall story. Maybe like authors have developed the Star Wars and Star Trek universes. But as soon as Ed sold the setting to TSR (arguably as soon as he started sharing it with players and developing their characters and ideas into features of the Realms) it stopped being that kind of work.

It certainly could have gone that route. The Roll of Years would make a great table-of-contents.

But while there are big events (ToT, Spellplague, etc) there is no overall story. It's not Lord of the Rings... you could argue for Elminster as Gandalf, but there's no ring and there's no Frodo. There's no big overarching plot. It's not one man's vision. It's a different sort of beast. There are thousands if not millions of stories. It doesn't have a distinct beginning, middle, or end. For that matter, it doesn't even have a comprehensive list of characters... more keep getting added.

And this is awesome because it means your characters, and mine, could be more than just dust brushed away in the blink of an eye... they could, in theory, have whole chapters written about them. If it's just one big story, then it's told at some point and then there's nothing left to do except retell it. But if there's no end... no, I'll stop before the Titanic theme becomes relevant.



What I meant there is that I don't have issues with having an advancing timeline that is not canonical, as long as it exists and is defined.

My problem is this. While the Realms have no ''main plot'' going on, they have multiple storylines happening and evolving. Making novels independent from each other would lead to a lack of focus and definition in developing them, and even possibly contradictions. The setting wouldn't go in any direction in this sense.

So the timeline can be separated from canon, sure, but I think that its events have to be coherently developed, otherwise you'd have tons of inconsistent possible futures (which is totally right and good in-game, but not what I want to see when I pick some Realms story and read it).

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Edited by - Irennan on 01 Jul 2012 02:40:24
Go to Top of Page

Patrakis
Learned Scribe

Canada
256 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  04:41:23  Show Profile Send Patrakis a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am definitively in favor of a static setting because i'm using the realm only in a gaming perspective. Choose a date and stop developing gaming material beyond that date. I'll take care of the future, just give me the past, the present and some idea of what the events of today might shape the future. That's all i need. It's the only way we can hope of one day, having a complete Toril, described in details. THAT is something i really want. Not 5 version of Waterdeep over the last 25 years.

A campaign world does not have to evolve in real time to be successful. The Realms are not a soap opera to me. If the only interest one has in the realms is reading about it, then novels should be enough. Personally, i don't have any problems with novels driving the realms in the future but leave the gaming material alone. This just leads to writing about the same thing over and over again.

The bottom line is this. I just want the realms to come back to a gaming setting for gamers of pen and paper role-players. You want to write novels about it? Go ahead and write novels about it. Write novels about things that happened in the gaming material and stop writing gaming material about things that happened in novels.

But who am i hey? I stopped using anything after the time of troubles so i'm certainly not a target customer and i'm pretty sure my opinion is not the majority. But to be perfectly honest and from a gaming only perspective, that would be the perfect setting for me. From a DM perspective, in using a published setting, only the past, the present and plans for the future interest me. I'll take the evolution of the world on my shoulder from that point. Give me history, give me political climate, give me economics, give me feuds and interesting plots and twists in the making. Give me geography, give NPCs and governments, give me culture and religions, give me the day to day life. Give me all this stuff that make the setting alive and i'll know what to do with it. Inspire me and give the stories of what happened and what shaped the world to be as it is today and leave the future to me. If the publisher does a great job at this, i won't need them to tell me what will happens next.
With a recipe like that, i guaranty you that a setting can be successful commercially. I don't call this stagnating by the way. Just like Middle-Earth is not a dead world, even if it didn't have a novel a month to described what happened next.

Those are my thoughts on the subject and i know my English is not really good, i'm sorry about that. But that subject has always ignited a passion in me and i wanted to try and make my sentiments known.

Thanks

Pat

Dancing is like standing still, but faster.
My site: http://www.patoumonde.com
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  05:02:40  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

It's also unfair, after inviting everyone to participate, to expect all of us to choose the same vision of the Realms.



You mean like the published version, in the Old Grey Box? That's one vision. You don't want to participate in it, don't buy it.

I'm going to repeat myself from earlier, since my previous comment appears to have been ignored...

If it's so important to be able to choose everything that happens in a world, and to not have anything official, then why bother playing in a published setting? As soon as you commit to a published setting, you're committing to the choices made by every person involved in bringing that setting to your door. Those are choices you don't have any say in; what makes those different from later ones?

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Jorkens
Great Reader

Norway
2950 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  07:31:26  Show Profile Send Jorkens a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

It's also unfair, after inviting everyone to participate, to expect all of us to choose the same vision of the Realms.



You mean like the published version, in the Old Grey Box? That's one vision. You don't want to participate in it, don't buy it.

I'm going to repeat myself from earlier, since my previous comment appears to have been ignored...

If it's so important to be able to choose everything that happens in a world, and to not have anything official, then why bother playing in a published setting? As soon as you commit to a published setting, you're committing to the choices made by every person involved in bringing that setting to your door. Those are choices you don't have any say in; what makes those different from later ones?



Sorry if it seems like I was ignoring the comment; its more a case of me not having any interest in defending my own opinion or asking others to do the same.

The Grey box is the original vision, it (or any other version of this or another campaign setting. I actually prefer the 2nd. ed. box as a product although I prefer the feel of OGB) was given for everyone to use; what came after is one version, shown and developed by various authors. Now, I was given that box to use as I wanted to and no ones alternative view will ever override this. That doesn't change that i want to se more about what the story around and behind that original was or (to a far lesser degree) other "what if's" that could have happened.

I have not committed myself to do use anything written by others, I bought a product for my own use and will happily use ideas from other authors if I like them. And that is as much a part of the "deal" as going along with what is published.

As for the novels being non-canon. That wont work.

No Canon, more stories, more Realms.

Edited by - Jorkens on 01 Jul 2012 07:44:35
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  14:39:56  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Actually, Jorkens, that wasn't directed at you.

I guess what I'm not understanding is the idea that someone else's vision of the Realms is being pushed on us, but what we all bought for the first time -- whether the FRCG or the OGB -- is someone else's vision of the Realms. I'm not understanding the attitude of "I'll pay for someone else's vision, but I don't want someone else's vision."

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  17:04:31  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sorry for giving that impression Wooly. I didn't ignore your post; I just hadn't quite gotten to it yet.

I have responses; I'm just taking a breather to make sure I'm staying organized and cool under the collar.

A tangent of Erik's post is making me rethink my stance on novels. I still think they should not automatically be canon, but there's a question of presentation. It's not that "novels don't matter" but rather that main line sourcebooks shouldn't (ever) take them into account. The reason being consistency.

It's confusing to say some things are canon (sourcebooks obviously) but others aren't (the Baldur's Gate games for instance)... and then we get Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate that blurs the lines. It's even more confusing to say that some novels are canon, and others aren't. Predictably, whichever novels the speaker likes are the ones that should be canon.

Maybe that's too trivial for some folks... maybe there are better examples, maybe not. I'll stick to consistency being a good thing rather than a frivolous thing. Either all novels should be canon, or none of them should be.

And all I'm really saying here, with "novels shouldn't be canon" is that WotC should default to the understanding that they're not (I think a lot of players already do) and leave us the option to make them canon for individual campaigns. It just means we're not stuck with future sourcebooks that build on events we don't like. Insert footnote here saying that the Avatar trilogy, acknowledged by Erik as something that cannot be ignored, is probably the biggest support for my argument. The quality of the writing was fine; the event behind it should not be canon, and therefore the novels shouldn't be either.

But --laying aside the disgust for the way the ToT was done-- I'm realizing that most of my argument that novels should not be canon rests on their independence from each other, and their increased importance in filling out the history of the Realms, in the system I'm proposing.

I'm advocating each novel being set in its own parallel universe. I realize that this doesn't work for some folks; I understand that. But if we let Salvatore write his own Silverymoon (for example) then it should be obvious that novels can't be canon in the same way that sourcebooks are. Because there will be places, here and there, where the parallel universes conflict with each other.

In the current scheme of things, where novels are expected to be consistent with existing (and "known" upcoming) Realmslore then yea novels should probably have the dignity of being canon. They're not, for a lot of readers, and I would argue that that attitude snubs and dishonors the authors' work.

That's essentially the tangent to Erik's post that I've been pondering. I started a reply to say that that it wasn't my goal to attack novels, and then I realized that he probably wasn't offended as much as maybe annoyed, but there was still something I needed to say about it. I needed to acknowledge that openly/universally declaring novels to be non-canon potentially reduces the readership of novels. And that's an attack on authors no matter how it's turned or squinted at.

And that's not my goal, but I still believe strongly in giving authors freedom to write without being tied down to every minute detail that's ever been written in the past about anything their novel touches. Because the longer the Realms goes on, the harder it becomes to tell a good story... there's just so much stinking research that has to happen, and so many of your own ideas that get squelched by someone else's just because they got published first. And then you get raked over the coals if you miss anything, nevermind that it's technically the editor's job to catch those things. So that's something for me to figure out.

And Erik: it's not that I put so much "MUST BE PERFECTLY CANONICALLY ACCURATE YAAHH!" pressure on myself. It's that I'd still kinda like to write in the Realms. Given that, the need to know the canon, and to be "okay" with that canon, is not imaginary. Actually I should phrase that as a question: is it?

To everyone: I have two goals, with the ideas presented in this thread.

1. Make the Realms more enjoyable to play/explore/daydream in.

2. Make the Realms more enjoyable to write/DM/develop in.

That's pretty much it. You can wonder about my sanity; that's totally fair and I'll wonder with you sometimes. You can wonder how I got here from these motives. But those are my goals.

Back to breathing. I haven't ignored or run away from anyone. If you have more to say, bring it.

Edited by - xaeyruudh on 01 Jul 2012 17:07:23
Go to Top of Page

Jorkens
Great Reader

Norway
2950 Posts

Posted - 01 Jul 2012 :  17:28:09  Show Profile Send Jorkens a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Actually, Jorkens, that wasn't directed at you.

I guess what I'm not understanding is the idea that someone else's vision of the Realms is being pushed on us, but what we all bought for the first time -- whether the FRCG or the OGB -- is someone else's vision of the Realms. I'm not understanding the attitude of "I'll pay for someone else's vision, but I don't want someone else's vision."



Well, my position is simply that I have gotten all that I want out of the canon timeline, so I have little interest in products tied to it any more. I just want to see Ed's version and as WotC seems to be getting me that I am very happy and thankful for that.

But if they in some way do reset the setting, for a single product or a whole line, I see no advantage in just repeating, for better or for worse, what they already have done. Why reset at all if nothing is changed? A reset might be a bad idea, but a reset without change is even worse as there is then no reason at all for any one with old products to buy it. I simple prefer "what if's" to repetitions. A Realms where Gondegal might win where Lashan defeated the knights, the king of Tethyr survived, the Seventh Sister as a threat, where Chondath invades Cormyr etc. I would probably buy a product showing such variations if it was written with respect to the original sources (not necessarily Ed)and setting, so I am not completely blocked to seeing other peoples ideas. I just have weird preferences.

No Canon, more stories, more Realms.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 02 Jul 2012 :  04:27:37  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Actually, Jorkens, that wasn't directed at you.

I guess what I'm not understanding is the idea that someone else's vision of the Realms is being pushed on us, but what we all bought for the first time -- whether the FRCG or the OGB -- is someone else's vision of the Realms. I'm not understanding the attitude of "I'll pay for someone else's vision, but I don't want someone else's vision."



Well, my position is simply that I have gotten all that I want out of the canon timeline, so I have little interest in products tied to it any more. I just want to see Ed's version and as WotC seems to be getting me that I am very happy and thankful for that.


On this, you and I concur. I've bought most of the 4E Realms source material, but I got it on the cheap. I've gotten a couple of the novels, too. And it's just not for me.

quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens

But if they in some way do reset the setting, for a single product or a whole line, I see no advantage in just repeating, for better or for worse, what they already have done. Why reset at all if nothing is changed? A reset might be a bad idea, but a reset without change is even worse as there is then no reason at all for any one with old products to buy it. I simple prefer "what if's" to repetitions. A Realms where Gondegal might win where Lashan defeated the knights, the king of Tethyr survived, the Seventh Sister as a threat, where Chondath invades Cormyr etc. I would probably buy a product showing such variations if it was written with respect to the original sources (not necessarily Ed)and setting, so I am not completely blocked to seeing other peoples ideas. I just have weird preferences.



I will also agree with this. That's why my preferred reset point goes back and tweaks or drops some of the later events. Not all of them get tweaked or dropped, but some of them do.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4598 Posts

Posted - 02 Jul 2012 :  16:26:23  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Oh no, I didn't see any "attacking novels" discussion, and rest assured, I am difficult to offend. We're all good here!

I think the greater emphasis on "canon" that we got with the 3e and 4e Realms is not great for the setting. Canon should not be something that players of the game worry about--it's just a tool to keep up internal consistency in the setting.

Canon works like this:

The game designers and novelists need a set framework in which to operate. What countries/spells/gods exist? What are divine worshippers called? What are the major events that have transpired? What are some place names that can be used? What's the tone/feel of the setting? Everyone writing in the Realms needs the same data--we can't all have our own individual versions of the Realms, because then they don't line up. All of our stuff has to take place in the same Realms.

Why? Because if it doesn't, then the audience will reject it. Reviews and discussion of our work will all become about how it's inconsistent with someone else's work in the Realms. It has to line up: that's just the nature of working in an IP, and that's why designers and writers research exhaustively to match up their vision/work into the ever-expanding Realms.

So novels and sourcebooks go through this extensive process where they are researched, edited, picked over, looked over again, run past Realms gurus and lore wonks, etc, etc, until they are deemed canonically-matching, then printed. That's the product that gets put out in conjunction with the Forgotten Realms.

When that product gets to your table, however, there are no rules about how to use it. You are free to ignore, incorporate, tweak, borrow, reinterpret, whatever you want to do to the story and design presented. Your Realms may look rather a lot like the published Realms, or it may be radically different. Your campaign may happen in any year you want--maybe the "current year" that the last 5 sourcebooks have explored, or maybe a year in the past that has 10-12 sourcebooks about it. Any event can happen in any way you want it. Any novel can be incorporated or ignored.

All the "canon" does is present an internally consistent baseline, one which (at least ostensibly) lines up and makes sense, from which you make your own game your own way.

Viewed in this light, the very concept of "throwing out" canon or publishing "non-canon" kind of becomes counter productive. The goals of canon are just to give you a suggestion and to give you the framework to tweak it your own way. Sure you can CHOOSE to run a "canon" Realms game (which keeps as closely as possible to the Realms canon presented), but that's still a choice. Canon is never forced on you--you CHOOSE to embrace what you want and ignore what you don't.

I think going forward, the Realms of 5e has to incorporate this philosophy: that this is YOUR WORLD, and that the sourcebooks and novels are just SUGGESTIONS that you can use or ignore at your leisure. Game design is a service industry--what WotC is providing to you is a box of crayons, not a color-by-numbers book.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000