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
 After "Elminster's Forgotten Realms" comes out

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Eltheron Posted - 12 Mar 2012 : 05:46:42
So I've been thinking, after WotC publishes "Elminster's Forgotten Realms" with Greenwood's version of the Realms, what will be the long-term effects on the IP?

No doubt about it, it WILL be an alternate reality from the current canon Realms. If people embrace it, will it effectively replace the current canon world?

Think about this, really think about it. Once it's out, it means that there will effectively be two canon Realms. Which will be the "right" one, if either? The "canon-1" world, with flaws aplenty? Or the "canon-2" world with "everything as intended" by the creator?

Generally, customers like to know what, how, and if future products fit with a given "line" or setting. Is this a well-intentioned idea that they haven't fully thought through? Will they label future products as generic, canon-1 and canon-2?

30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Kris the Grey Posted - 16 Mar 2012 : 03:44:05
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
Elminster visiting Ed Greenwood and handing over manuscripts depicting and detailing Realmspace, not so much.

LK,

Actually, all those articles back in the dim past in Dragon are what gave me the idea to use Earth/Realms crossover elements in the first place (that and certain OGB disclosures). I'll agree one could very easily take that concept and use it to pour a bit of cheese about (how Dragon expanded it to include Greyhawk and Krynn and made them 'three world summit meetings' or how it got used to apply to things like Spelljammer as you suggest), but you can come up with a rationale for such disclosures that makes great sense (and is quite gritty) if you want to put your mind to it.

For example, in creating the backstory for one's game one could approach such disclosures from the standpoint that it truly does make rational sense that individuals as powerful (and experienced in keeping secrets) as Elminster and the Seven Sisters would NEVER disclose that sort of sensitive information to an Earther unless:

1) they knew most people on Earth reading it would simply treat it as nothing more than the equivalent of a 'fairy tale' - and no one from the Realms would be likely to ever see it

2) the only effective way to arm the people who NEEDED that information to survive (people who might unexpectedly wind up in the Realms without any reason to think the Realms ever even existed, but might have an important role to play in said Realms) without tapping them on the shoulder and forewarning them directly (something they might be forbidden to do by much higher powers/codes of conduct) would be to disseminate it amongst people of our world naturally drawn to fantasy and magic - i.e. gamers

3) they would only take the risk of spreading that knowledge if directed to do so in service to their own higher power (the main reason they do most things they do when it comes right down to it) for reasons that said power might ultimately keep secret - even from them

All of a sudden those seemingly campy afternoons Elminster spent raiding the cola from Ed's fridge transform into something no more campy than Merlin instructing a certain boy king in the 'Things He Needs to Know About the True Nature of the World'. (Just as an aside, for what I think is an outstanding example of this sort of Arthurian tale by the way, see the short story, "The Queen and the Cambion" by Richard Bowes - printed in the March/April 2012 edition of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction - it is a truly moving tale).

All I'm saying is, every story telling trick can be abused, but given a little squint of the eye, the core concept of an Elminster/Ed info dump can make perfect sense. Hey, even all the campy disclosures you don't like can be simply rationalized thusly...what better way to hide those true details than to provide them with a 'bodyguard of lies' (as a certain cigar chomping Brit might say) designed to further enhance the entire exercise as just one big fairy tale...

;)



Lord Karsus Posted - 15 Mar 2012 : 22:01:15
quote:
Originally posted by Kris the Grey

I'll not dwell too long here on the 'Earth/Realms' connections (as I do so at length on a thread by that name that I posted at the close of last year), I'll just say that it is QUITE possible to have such connections as a central tenet of a campaign world WITHOUT it getting corny IN THE LEAST. You just have to proceed with good taste and keep a 'gritty/real' feel to those connections. 'Monty-Haul-ism' can infect any game, it doesn't have to have crossover elements to fall prey. Respect your world and crossover elements are no threat to it. You don't have to turn things into a farce or some fairy tale 'Enchanted' adventure.

-Absolutely. The Imaskari abducting slaves from other words, including possibly Mesopotamia and Egypt, for example. Elminster visiting Ed Greenwood and handing over manuscripts depicting and detailing Realmspace, not so much.

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Narnia, World of Tiers, Chronicles of Amber, Elric (and other Moorcock) novels, etc, etc, etc...

Don't know why you hate the idea so much LK... its a corner-stone of fantasy.

While I understand your distaste myself, I also have to accept it is a very common trope, and also a major part of FR's backdrop. If it makes you feel any better, do what I do - the 'Earth' that connects with FR is the D&D Earth (which is canon), and I use the Gothic Earth (RL/MotRD-spinoff) for the basis of that.

-The concept itself, beings traveling across planes/planets, I have no problem with; I'm a big Planescape fan, and I like the concept of Spelljammer (the execution is a bit too much campy for me). It's the execution of the 'crosspollenization' and the details that cause me to either like something or dislike something. Timing, also. I don't have problems with interactions that happen in antiquity. When the interaction is taking place in the relative present tense, it becomes a lot more iffy, and that's where the details and execution really matter to me.
sleyvas Posted - 15 Mar 2012 : 18:14:47
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Narnia, World of Tiers, Chronicles of Amber, Elric (and other Moorcock) novels, etc, etc, etc...

Don't know why you hate the idea so much LK... its a corner-stone of fantasy.

While I understand your distaste myself, I also have to accept it is a very common trope, and also a major part of FR's backdrop. If it makes you feel any better, do what I do - the 'Earth' that connects with FR is the D&D Earth (which is canon), and I use the Gothic Earth (RL/MotRD-spinoff) for the basis of that.

IF (and thats a VERY big 'IF') my players ever interacted with Earth (or Earthmen), thats the world they would encounter (albeit, perhaps a future-version from the one presented in Gothic Earth - a 20th century fantasy Earth (where every conspiracy theory, paranormal event, cryptid, clandestine group, etc... are all very real.)

Now that I think about it, maybe I'd have them go through Elminster's portal and wind-up in the 1890's, or perhaps Tesla's experiments opened up a portal, and the PCs have to close it somehow, before both worlds are destroyed (the portal is growing, or smaller portals are opening everywhere).

Now I'm dipping into Fringe....



Yeah, when I was more into developing the history of the bounty hunter, Sleyvas of Thay, I actually had introduced him in Ravenloft to my PC's (back in 2nd edition). He was a dual-class fighter/mage. He "escaped" Ravenloft only to end up in the Masque of the Red Death campaign out in the wild west.... which I only did because I wanted to explain him having six-shooters. Of course, if that were the case that that was the world where "Ed Greenwood" was from, there would be some serious time discrepancies.
The Hooded One Posted - 15 Mar 2012 : 17:38:54
Kris the Grey has the right of it. From its beginnings, Ed's Realms have had this crossover/multiverse element as an integral part of it. In the home campaign, the Knights have (briefly) visited other worlds (parallel Prime Material Planes) as well as other planes of existence, and battled individuals and groups fromother planes and who wished to control the gates accessing planes . . . and none of it has been in the least "corny."
The Pages From The Mages and other crossover writing Ed did for DRAGON and the website (the infamous interview with Princess Alusair) have the flavour editors wanted them to.
The worst mistake any fan (or pundit) can make is that their personal tastes and preferences are "right" and "good," and others are "wrong" or "bad." The Realms is different things to a lot of different people, and its very diversity is a great strength.
Ed wrote an entire sourcebook, years ago, on planewalking high-level Realms campaigns, but it was nixed in favour of establishing a new line of products (Planescape). Now, all that "berk" and "cutter" lingo wasn't to MY taste, but a lot of people enjoyed it.
love to all,
THO
Markustay Posted - 15 Mar 2012 : 14:43:36
Narnia, World of Tiers, Chronicles of Amber, Elric (and other Moorcock) novels, etc, etc, etc...

Don't know why you hate the idea so much LK... its a corner-stone of fantasy.

While I understand your distaste myself, I also have to accept it is a very common trope, and also a major part of FR's backdrop. If it makes you feel any better, do what I do - the 'Earth' that connects with FR is the D&D Earth (which is canon), and I use the Gothic Earth (RL/MotRD-spinoff) for the basis of that.

IF (and thats a VERY big 'IF') my players ever interacted with Earth (or Earthmen), thats the world they would encounter (albeit, perhaps a future-version from the one presented in Gothic Earth - a 20th century fantasy Earth (where every conspiracy theory, paranormal event, cryptid, clandestine group, etc... are all very real.)

Now that I think about it, maybe I'd have them go through Elminster's portal and wind-up in the 1890's, or perhaps Tesla's experiments opened up a portal, and the PCs have to close it somehow, before both worlds are destroyed (the portal is growing, or smaller portals are opening everywhere).

Now I'm dipping into Fringe....
Kris the Grey Posted - 15 Mar 2012 : 04:25:23
I'll not dwell too long here on the 'Earth/Realms' connections (as I do so at length on a thread by that name that I posted at the close of last year), I'll just say that it is QUITE possible to have such connections as a central tenet of a campaign world WITHOUT it getting corny IN THE LEAST. You just have to proceed with good taste and keep a 'gritty/real' feel to those connections. 'Monty-Haul-ism' can infect any game, it doesn't have to have crossover elements to fall prey. Respect your world and crossover elements are no threat to it. You don't have to turn things into a farce or some fairy tale 'Enchanted' adventure.

I've been running 'Earth to Realms' crossover games for decades at this point, and I do my level best to keep them VERY Realms 'realistic'. I don't hold to the conceit that my core gamers are the only Earth transplants, I make them a tool of the native struggles between the gods and factions of the Realms, I use Ed's brilliant OGB rules to keep technology and overly 'Earth Flavored' elements from overwhelming the Realms, and I treat my Earther groups as if they are acting profoundly stupid for walking up to the locals and tipping they are from Earth. That gets you sold, used, dissected by curious wizards, or worst of all, hunted and killed by other less kindly Earthers, who want the glories and mysteries of the Realms to be theirs and theirs alone.

Harumph! Lol. Anyway, I'm just saying, don't assume everyone who does crossovers does them as slapstick. I'd also be prepared for such elements to be in the very product release we are discussing, as I'm given to understand they are a part of Ed's Realms.

Okay, powering down on the righteous indignation. Lol.
Faraer Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 20:45:25
Secondary worlds with a definite continuity contrast with myth, which features variant stories clustering around certain nodes, and even apparently unrelated stories that are inverted or distorted versions of each other. There's something sterile and limiting about a neat-freakishly rigid 'canon', something at odds with people's experiences of stories and life generally. This is part of why Ed has always stressed the unreliability of published lore; and I think it's why I don't mind the existence of relatively concordant derivative and variant Faerûns like the ones we've got from 1987 on except to the degree that they've lost us the original. I don't think the variation with the published setting will be a central aspect of this new book -- and a lot of the differences aren't things with much effect on the 'business end' of the Realms, as it's experienced in play, which clearly is a central aspect -- but generally I find the thought of such diversity positive rather than bothersome.
Jorkens Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 18:56:51
I actually like the ties to other worlds, including Earth. The Elminster and Ed parts in Dragon might be a bit silly, but I like the idea of people, beings and elements from multiple worlds mixing. It fits nicely with more pulpish S&S. Just let the various people from Giants of the Earth run loose all over the Realms and let Mirt get teleported into Persia along with Kugel.

As for Once Around the Realms...
Lord Karsus Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 16:33:43
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Heh, not to mention a continuity nightmare.

Cheers


-Yeah, Ed Greenwood is technically dead in the Forgotten Realms now, or some such. Ask Mark all about it; I'm sure he has some "fond" memories about that.
The Sage Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 15:10:48
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin

The number of real world references in Once Around the Realms ...

I'm usually in the accepted minority here at Candlekeep, but I liked Once Around the Realms for exactly this reason.

It kind of reminded me of the old "Ed and Elminster" tales in DRAGON.
Erik Scott de Bie Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 15:05:39
This is more or less the response I expected, but I thought I'd toss out the random question anyway.

Cheers
Seravin Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 15:01:28
The number of real world references in Once Around the Realms was kinda awful. I groaned a lot while reading that book. Not the good way.
Erik Scott de Bie Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 14:55:38
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Complete tangent following the above tangents:
I wonder . . . if the Realms "collided" with our world, would that make for an appealing story or no?
-Just speaking for myself, but that stuff turns me off very much. I believe I am in the minority here, but crossovers between the Forgotten Realms and Earth are corny.
Heh, not to mention a continuity nightmare.

Cheers
Lord Karsus Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 04:37:29
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

Complete tangent following the above tangents:

I wonder . . . if the Realms "collided" with our world, would that make for an appealing story or no? Campaign ideas, they are a blooming . . .

(Oh BTW: Vote Elminster/Khelben 2012!)

Cheers


-Just speaking for myself, but that stuff turns me off very much. I believe I am in the minority here, but crossovers between the Forgotten Realms and Earth are corny. Yes, the concept behind so much of the setting is that the Forgotten Realms contain that which has been 'forgotten' on Earth, but seeing that "in action" is not my thing. The stories about Elminster visiting Yellowstone Park, or having tea with Ed Greenwood, I could do without- and, that's more or less passive, in-the-background stuff. If we had actual in-progress stories about Forgotten Realms characters coming to Earth, or vice-versa, bleh. That reminds me of that movie Enchanted, where the Disney princess left the cartoon world and came to New York.
Erik Scott de Bie Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 03:33:42
Complete tangent following the above tangents:

I wonder . . . if the Realms "collided" with our world, would that make for an appealing story or no? Campaign ideas, they are a blooming . . .

(Oh BTW: Vote Elminster/Khelben 2012!)

Cheers
Markustay Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 02:00:54
So I have a strange thought, and it opens up a new line of discussion (which doesn't bare discussing, since we all seem very aware of the story behind the names)?

I don't really think Abeir will be the 'home' of Ed's Realms - it just tickled me that its been hiding, safe and secure, all along.

I both like and dislike what they did with the names in 4e; while I feel it (and the Spellplague in-general) was brilliant (for making major changes whenever they want, and have one catch-all explanation), the 'other planet' aspect of it makes it feel too scify to me. The whole scenario had too much of a 'when worlds collide' feel to it (IMHO).

At the same time, despite how I feel, it does 'play well' with Ed's established theme - FR's inter-connectivity to other worlds. It could just be what it was used for - to change the Realms - that it gets under my skin.
The Sage Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 01:07:27
We know Jeff added the prefix "Abeir" to the world name of "Toril" in order to bump up the entry for the planet to the start of the alphabetical listings in the Ol' Grey Box.

So while that isn't necessarily "the" explanation for the name, it is "a" possible reasoning for why the prefix was added so long ago.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 23:29:14
I'm not sure we can say that the word Abeir was added without explanation, or that it was loosely inserted into the setting...

Keep in mind, that goes back to the OGB -- the first published FR source material, outside of Dragon. The world was unnamed before that. And in the OGB, one of the many new facts shared about the setting was the name of the planet. With that in mind, how is adding a name done loosely? And why is an explanation needed for saying "Oh, and this is the name of the world"?
Erik Scott de Bie Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 22:50:39
Indeed, though by throwing in the term Abeir without explanation, Jeff left a door open--an opportunity to be seized by later designers. I rather think the 4e Abeir is a neat concept, with which a lot of cool things can be done.

Cheers
Lord Karsus Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 21:57:04
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens

Now if it where to be a huge success, there might be further volumes, but in some ways I hope this doesn't happen. This would lead to the multiple timeline and never ending arguments.

-I doubt that WotC would actively produce a line that is an 'alternative universe'.

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Edit: I just had a strange train of thought - Ed never named his world Abeir-Toril. Now, we have always assumed that Toril was Ed's original... but what if Abeir was? Toril was the name of Jeff Grubb's home-campaign world - what if EVERYTHING created by other designers (not Ed) for FR was set on Toril, but Ed's world remains (nearly) pristine in some pocket dimension - the world of Abeir?

That means the 'primordials' were really TSR/WotC designers, and in his infinite wisdom, Ao hid the real world from them.

(And if you think this was a weird side-tangent, you don't know the half of it - in a matter of seconds I developed an entire cosmology around this concept!)


-The 'official story' is that Jeff Grubb added 'Abeir' to make sure that 'Abeir-Toril' was the first entry in whatever sourcebook he was working on that contained the entry in question. Seems more likely that he pulled the term out of his ass more than anything, especially because of the loosy-goosy manner that it was inserted into the setting.
Jeremy Grenemyer Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 15:31:12
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens

But then the problem starts. Should the Moonshaes be thrown out; Kara-tur removed? Both of these are OGB-era, but not from Ed's original Realms. What do we do with the Seven Sisters, are there seven, is one a drow? A lot of information has been added since the OGB, what direction should be taken if they start developing the setting anew?
I can see where you're coming from. I agree the danger—if that’s the right word—is there. If this book sells like hotcakes you can bet your last dollar WotC will print another one.

…with that will probably come the inevitable arguments but hey, at least people still care, right?

(Side note: my guess is it won’t sell that well to the general gaming public, but it will sell enough for WotC to realize they have a small audience of older gamers that’s willing to pay for a second book just because they enjoy reading Realmslore. From this I hope they decide to print a second, omnibus-style sort of book; something thick as a phone book and priced around $100-$150US.)

However, the book will still be what it is: a look at Ed’s campaign. I’ve no doubt Ed’s drawn from his home game heavily for his official Realms work down the years, but this book isn’t a canon (sorry, Jorkens) sourcebook so much as it is a peek behind the (oil tanker-wide and tall as a skyscraper) curtain.
Markustay Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 15:22:14
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin

Couldn't disagree with you more if I tried Jorkens. I hope this is a roaring success and they release Ed's entire basement. I'd buy every volume.
Agreed.

If they follow the Volo's guide format (leaving the rules out, or tiny and self-contained), and this is done directly from Ed's home campaigns (which took place in the 'recent past' of the published realms), then this needn't be a 'separate timeline' at all - the lore would apply to all versions (and I think most of us have very different ideas about the 'correct' version).

As I said in my post above - the Moonshaes and Vassa & Damara are all reconcilable - Toril has undergone numerous 'little iceages', which freezes the 'top of the world' solid every so often, and at other times leaves it passable. The published Realms were just coming out of one of those cold periods (releasing Vassa & Damara from under the ice). In times past, the polar caps were large enough to expose large landmasses that are normally beneath sea-level (this is psuedo-canon - it is canon that many, MANY islands and peninsulas no longer exist 'today' that once existed, a mere century or so ago - see PftM and PotF - and a good deal of them disappeared as a result of severe oceanic activity). With the current 'melting' (as of the OGB), the Moonshaes should slowly revert back to their 'numerous small islands' status (as Ed had them).

Ergo, Ed's Realms and the OGB Realms are completely compatible, even if some of the things in the OGB weren't in Ed's version.

The ToT was the first real point-of-divergence.

Edit: I just had a strange train of thought - Ed never named his world Abeir-Toril. Now, we have always assumed that Toril was Ed's original... but what if Abeir was? Toril was the name of Jeff Grubb's home-campaign world - what if EVERYTHING created by other designers (not Ed) for FR was set on Toril, but Ed's world remains (nearly) pristine in some pocket dimension - the world of Abeir?

That means the 'primordials' were really TSR/WotC designers, and in his infinite wisdom, Ao hid the real world from them.

(And if you think this was a weird side-tangent, you don't know the half of it - in a matter of seconds I developed an entire cosmology around this concept!)
Markustay Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 15:03:35
I am going to agree 100% with Jeremy here (on this topic). I don't think they will even say whether this is 'official canon' or not - I think they plan to divest themselves of the entire notion of canon (IMO). FR is going to fall under the "canon is what YOU make it" approach.

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

My guess is that since this material will be from Ed’s home notes, we’re going to get Realmslore that was designed for the era his campaign is set in.

But much like the Volo’s Guides and most of Ed’s Eye on the Realms articles, I think this latest book will contain information that’s usable by DMs in any era of the Realms.

I’m really excited to see the information on churches, mercenaries and merchant cabals. That seems like it will be the kind of stuff that you can insert into a Realms game and have it fit pretty seamlessly.
Agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

I recall Ed mentioning somewhere that his group voted not to play through the Time of Troubles. Going to go out on a limb here and say they probably haven’t played through the return of Shade either.
Which is why I think every RSE could be a 'point of divergence' - Ed's realms split NOT so much when TSR published The Realms, but rather, when the ToT occurred (although one could argue that Vassa & Damara, and The Moonshaes, began the divergence, but I don't see that so much as a 'divergence' as it is just things changing over the course of time).

In fact, by 4e, the Moonshaes should have been reduced to its 'clusters of small islands' past-incarnation due to the continued melting of the glaciers. WotC offset this by dumping the access water into the Underdark (but the Glacier should still have been greatly reduced by 1479 DR - they really need to hire someone with a scientific background over there).

Anyhow, I still agree with you completely - Ed's Realms will be the Realms we see in the Volo's guides. RSE's don't "bring the Realms to life", its the 'small things' that do. Ed knows this - "the Devil's in the details."

EDIT: On Topic...
What will happen? The same thing that always happens - people will buy what they like. If we like this product, and it sells well, we will see more like it (and hopefully less 'cthulhuesque' clap-trap).
Jorkens Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 14:36:34
quote:
Originally posted by Apex

quote:
by Jorkens

And the more they publish the more people will come with the GD'ned word canon again. And that is the last thing that should happen. Another problem is that if it becomes a product line in itself it will most likely become a shared project again and by that a parallel (or dominating) Realms with new editions, various contributes, rule changes and the whole thing all over again. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel; I don't like the way the timeline has been developed through the years, but I don't think it will miraculously work the second time around. And I do believe that the arguments will get even worse in such a case.



Which is why the year is very important to me. I don't care so much if it is canon, as long as it is set in the 1350's (because that gives me the info I need to add to my OGB campaigns).

On a side note, this is why I advocate for a reset to the OGB and a more stagnant timeline with supplements released that detail areas as they were say 15 years or so prior to the OGB, like the original Moonshae supplement (one of the best and most useful IMHO), as this provides a DM with lots of detail but doesn't "force" new canon or campaign changes.



But then the problem starts. Should the Moonshaes be thrown out; Kara-tur removed? Both of these are OGB-era, but not from Ed's original Realms. What do we do with the Seven Sisters, are there seven, is one a drow? A lot of information has been added since the OGB, what direction should be taken if they start developing the setting anew?
Jorkens Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 14:32:36
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin

Couldn't disagree with you more if I tried Jorkens. I hope this is a roaring success and they release Ed's entire basement. I'd buy every volume.



Which is what I said above that I wish too. But I don't want a middle road which is what I fear it will be if it becomes a product line of its own.
Icelander Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 14:23:17
Comics timelines are so tangled and snarled that a psychadelic chicken on acid string couldn't make sense of it.

Yet there are comics fans and they are able to discuss their shared interest. Yes, there are arguments, of course. Being on the Internet, some of them are even gutnumbingly idiotic and heart-rendingly vicious. But that's more due to most people being slimy dingleberries than some quality inherent in a particular IP having more than one interpretation, even if some of them happen to be mutually exclusive.

There are even people with a passion for alternate history and they manage to have fascinating discussions despite the entire point of their hobby being that every counterfactual is mutually incompatible with both 'canon'* and the scenarios posited by other enthusiasts.

As I noted somewhere else, every roleplaying game ever played happens in an Alternate version of the setting used. Play a normal Realms-game, sticking to everything ever named as canon? Well, you're still playing in a Realms + the PCs (+ probably, whatever the PCs accomlish or cause to happen through their entertaining failures).

My players are determined to provide sufficient military and economic assistance to Free Unther to see it throw out the Mulhorandi and force them to sign a treaty ensuring an independent, secular government for the people of former Unther, guaranteeing them, among other things, freedom of religion and an end to slavery within their borders. Succeed or fail, my campaign will be different than the published one.

And that's what happens in every RPG. They players are playing characters that are not published by the IP owners and they are going to change things by their actions. Even if they are the world's least proactive and driven adventuring group, the Realms they play in will still have NPCs created by the DM and events resulting from perhaps desultory adventures. And a group determined to seize the world by the short hairs will change a great deal more.

I don't see how moving from one (or more) Alternate Realms per gaming group to the same state of affairs + notes from Ed Greenwood's home Alternate Realms will change much about being a Realmsfan or having conversations about the Realms. Except, you know, everything feeling hunky-dory all the time if it's as good as it could be.

*Known in this case by his pre-solo career state name, 'reality'.
Seravin Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 13:56:44
Couldn't disagree with you more if I tried Jorkens. I hope this is a roaring success and they release Ed's entire basement. I'd buy every volume.
Apex Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 13:54:15
quote:
by Jorkens

And the more they publish the more people will come with the GD'ned word canon again. And that is the last thing that should happen. Another problem is that if it becomes a product line in itself it will most likely become a shared project again and by that a parallel (or dominating) Realms with new editions, various contributes, rule changes and the whole thing all over again. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel; I don't like the way the timeline has been developed through the years, but I don't think it will miraculously work the second time around. And I do believe that the arguments will get even worse in such a case.



Which is why the year is very important to me. I don't care so much if it is canon, as long as it is set in the 1350's (because that gives me the info I need to add to my OGB campaigns).

On a side note, this is why I advocate for a reset to the OGB and a more stagnant timeline with supplements released that detail areas as they were say 15 years or so prior to the OGB, like the original Moonshae supplement (one of the best and most useful IMHO), as this provides a DM with lots of detail but doesn't "force" new canon or campaign changes.
Jorkens Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 13:49:19
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers

quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Now if it where to be a huge success, there might be further volumes, but in some ways I hope this doesn't happen. This would lead to the multiple timeline and never ending arguments. And would it then be possible to keep wholly to the old Greenwood Realms?


Sorry mind going haywire, can't comprehend, starting to shut down.......

You don't want any more volumes from the pen of Ed detailing the Realms, even though they will be edition neutral and chock full of lore?

Multiple timelines? arguments? hmmm I think we already have that, I'll gladly take the whole 750 volume set from Ed thanks and ignore all the snipping and "thats not in my realms" etc because at the end of the day no one runs a completely canon realms game, because as soon as you introduce one new NPC it is no longer canon and the timeline diverges from the static point of what ever year you are starting from.

This is a must but book for me, sight unseen, pre-ordered and am wanting it NOW

Cheers

Damian



What I want and what I think is a good idea are two different things. I have rambled about a project like this for years for the simple reason that I want to see the original Realms as they were before other people (for better and for worse) started to get involved. I would gladly read every note Ed has in his basement, but that is also all I want.

And the more they publish the more people will come with the GD'ned word canon again. And that is the last thing that should happen. Another problem is that if it becomes a product line in itself it will most likely become a shared project again and by that a parallel (or dominating) Realms with new editions, various contributes, rule changes and the whole thing all over again. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel; I don't like the way the timeline has been developed through the years, but I don't think it will miraculously work the second time around. And I do believe that the arguments will get even worse in such a case.
crazedventurers Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 13:35:04
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Now if it where to be a huge success, there might be further volumes, but in some ways I hope this doesn't happen. This would lead to the multiple timeline and never ending arguments. And would it then be possible to keep wholly to the old Greenwood Realms?


Sorry mind going haywire, can't comprehend, starting to shut down.......

You don't want any more volumes from the pen of Ed detailing the Realms, even though they will be edition neutral and chock full of lore?

Multiple timelines? arguments? hmmm I think we already have that, I'll gladly take the whole 750 volume set from Ed thanks and ignore all the snipping and "thats not in my realms" etc because at the end of the day no one runs a completely canon realms game, because as soon as you introduce one new NPC it is no longer canon and the timeline diverges from the static point of what ever year you are starting from.

This is a must but book for me, sight unseen, pre-ordered and am wanting it NOW

Cheers

Damian

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000