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
 Everyone owning Forgotten Realms

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
EltonJ Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 05:39:16
Guys,

How would you feel if Forgotten Realms(TM) was owned by the fans instead of a publishing company, and that publishing company only existed to publish the creme of the crop on physical hardback, of your creations of the realms?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
EltonJ Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 05:44:04
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James

If it was open to the public and owned by all, do you see the problem being solved? How would the product be managed? On the next step, if it is owned by a smaller private company, does that make it a superior product? What about fans of the existing product? Are their own tastes to be ignored? It's not as black and white as some believe and having the grass greener on the other side of the fence is something that will always be around.



It will be managed like Shakespeare's works and sonnets are handled. Those works that are really good will stand the test of time. Those that are terrible will pass into obscurity.

Never underestimate the distribution power of the Commons. Time will separate the wheat from the chaff.
EltonJ Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 05:32:52
quote:
Originally posted by dennis

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert



I'll freely admit I've not been happy with the direction of the setting for a long time. But I'm not convinced that moving away from a company-owned setup is the direction to go. Changing how the company does something accomplishes much of the same goal, without introducing all of the problems of a shared setting with no central guidance.



Fans owning the Realms will create more problems than solve the existing ones, mostly due to lack of a prime guidance. Not to mention, I personally think of it as definitely unsavory and ch**p, making all novels and short work of fiction as nothing but fanfic.




But, the Realms core will be passed down to your grandchildren's hearts and minds, and your great-grandchildren's hearts and minds. It will last forever. Forget the stupid fan stuff. Time and the public will take care of that.

Masterpieces last forever, dennis. That's what I Desire for Ed Greenwood's work on the Realms. That is why it's better that the public owns it and WotC reliquishes it's printing monopoly on the realms. So it can last FOREVER.

Dennis Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 04:54:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert



I'll freely admit I've not been happy with the direction of the setting for a long time. But I'm not convinced that moving away from a company-owned setup is the direction to go. Changing how the company does something accomplishes much of the same goal, without introducing all of the problems of a shared setting with no central guidance.



Fans owning the Realms will create more problems than solve the existing ones, mostly due to lack of a prime guidance. Not to mention, I personally think of it as definitely unsavory and ch**p, making all novels and short work of fiction as nothing but fanfic.
Caolin Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 03:10:47
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James

If it was open to the public and owned by all, do you see the problem being solved? How would the product be managed? On the next step, if it is owned by a smaller private company, does that make it a superior product? What about fans of the existing product? Are their own tastes to be ignored? It's not as black and white as some believe and having the grass greener on the other side of the fence is something that will always be around.



Well, I'm not that naive that I believe that simply handing it to some small private company will make it a better product. But what needs to happen is that the focus needs to be on making a consistently good product rather than chasing profits. When you make a consistently good product the profits will come. But when you constantly are changing things in hopes of finding that special profit spot, well the product suffers. This is especially true with an artistic IP. I feel that WoTC did not have to so dramatically change DnD and the Realms when they moved to 4E. It was done for all of the wrong reasons.....profit. But lets not venture back into that debate.

But I will say that I don't think there is any going back with DnD and the Realms. Rebooting would be disastrous and confusing for any new fan. I am encouraged by the work you, your brother and Erik...among the many other talented designers of the Realms...are doing. I like the direction that things are going and it shows that you guys love the product. I just hope the trend continues.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 02:04:04
In my ideal world, I'd own WotC. I'd let the other worlds alone, but for the Realms, I'd bring back some of the creators/authors I liked, shuffle elsewhere the ones I don't like, and then make a point of soliciting fan input. Some like picking a small group of fans, letting them toss out some ideas, and then run with the coolest ones.

I'll freely admit I've not been happy with the direction of the setting for a long time. But I'm not convinced that moving away from a company-owned setup is the direction to go. Changing how the company does something accomplishes much of the same goal, without introducing all of the problems of a shared setting with no central guidance.
Markustay Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 01:07:23
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James

<snip> On the next step, if it is owned by a smaller private company, does that make it a superior product?
One Word....

Paizo
Matt James Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 00:31:46
If it was open to the public and owned by all, do you see the problem being solved? How would the product be managed? On the next step, if it is owned by a smaller private company, does that make it a superior product? What about fans of the existing product? Are their own tastes to be ignored? It's not as black and white as some believe and having the grass greener on the other side of the fence is something that will always be around.
Caolin Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 00:22:18
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James

Wait, if someone owns something, who is it for anyone to snatch it away to produce it as they feel? I would hate to think someone would do that to me.

I love canon and I like the stories that have been introduced into the Realms. If it was a wild west land grab for anyone to contribute to, I would quickly lose interest and move on to something else.



I mentioned earlier in this thread my objections to a corporation that is publicly owned having the rights to the Forgotten Realms and DnD in general. I think the product over the years has suffered for it. Too many times major changes have been made to the detriment of the Forgotten Realms all in the name of "reaching a new audience" which is business speak for "trying to make more money". The term, "don't try to fix what isn't broken" comes to mind. I personally would like to see the rights go to at least a smaller company if not a privately owned company.
Matt James Posted - 09 Sep 2010 : 16:09:48
Wait, if someone owns something, who is it for anyone to snatch it away to produce it as they feel? I would hate to think someone would do that to me.

I love canon and I like the stories that have been introduced into the Realms. If it was a wild west land grab for anyone to contribute to, I would quickly lose interest and move on to something else.
Thauramarth Posted - 09 Sep 2010 : 14:06:55
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin

quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth

The fiction, at the time, was limited in scope: Spellfire, The Crystal Shard, and Curse of the Azure Bonds were basically just tales of adventurers having an adventure, that did not change much to the setting. Pool of Radiance and the Moonshae were set in the past. That's a model where I think the interests of both gamers and fiction fans are best served, and which should be the basic framework for publication (be it by a company or by a collectivity).



I totally agree. Those novels were fun and captured the spirit of the Realms. But I also enjoyed the Time of Troubles trilogy and I don't want to see stuff like this disappear from the novels. But I'll be completely honest here. I care about the game part of the Realms only when it affects the fiction side. I have no control over how the novels are written. DMs however, have total and complete control over the stories they tell in their campaigns. Take a look at the Neverwinter Nights games. None of those stories are canon, but that didn't stop any of us from enjoying those games. So what is stopping you from enjoying your campaign when WoTC decides to blow the world up in one of their novels? I'd be more upset as a DM over the edition changes.



Don't get me wrong: as an individual DM, I fully agree, and I basically do what you do, ignore the fiction that I don't like. I was just thinking out loud on how I thought the published line should be set up, and I was trying to address what I saw as one of the main drivers (or what I think people think is one of the main drivers) behind the edition changes, namely the influence that fiction has on the gaming canon.
Caolin Posted - 09 Sep 2010 : 09:35:41
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth



The fiction, at the time, was limited in scope: Spellfire, The Crystal Shard, and Curse of the Azure Bonds were basically just tales of adventurers having an adventure, that did not change much to the setting. Pool of Radiance and the Moonshae were set in the past. That's a model where I think the interests of both gamers and fiction fans are best served, and which should be the basic framework for publication (be it by a company or by a collectivity).



I totally agree. Those novels were fun and captured the spirit of the Realms. But I also enjoyed the Time of Troubles trilogy and I don't want to see stuff like this disappear from the novels. But I'll be completely honest here. I care about the game part of the Realms only when it affects the fiction side. I have no control over how the novels are written. DMs however, have total and complete control over the stories they tell in their campaigns. Take a look at the Neverwinter Nights games. None of those stories are canon, but that didn't stop any of us from enjoying those games. So what is stopping you from enjoying your campaign when WoTC decides to blow the world up in one of their novels? I'd be more upset as a DM over the edition changes.
EltonJ Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 13:19:53
At this day in time, its highly improbable, but not impossible. In the meantime, just enjoy doing what you do best.
Dennis Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 13:11:20

The idea presented by the OP begins and will end with one word: hypothetical. And if I may add one more, impossible. WotC already owns the rights...
Thauramarth Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 07:39:59
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin



Why exactly do DM's need setting continuity? I mean, all you really need is lore to frame your campaign around. You could write the whole Time of Troubles out of your campaign all together if you wanted. To me, setting continuity is more important in a novel or else you get the disaster that has become the Star Wars novel universe. How hard is it to tell players to ignore anything outside of your campaign?

I also would like to add that the Forgotten Realms was originally a literary world. TSR made it into a gaming world when they figured out what Ed had created.

P.S. out of respect that this is way off topic I'm gonna stop talking about canon and continuity in this thread.



As an individual DM, you don't, but it cannot be denied that there's a demand for a canon to be established, both with gamers, as well as with fans who only know the Realms through fiction or non-gaming products. I know that FR started out as a background for Big Ed's short stories, but was already adapted to be a gaming world before TSR published it. I'm just saying that, as a published setting, a world cannot excel both as a gaming setting and as a setting for fiction where world-changing events happen on a pretty regular basis.

But the idea behind a published setting is to establish a minimum of common ground for ALL gaming groups, not just an individual one. In my view, the ideal situation for a gaming setting is one where the published setting is always set at "year zero", but where further published products broaden and deepen the setting of "year zero", with fiction either depicting events that have a small (and, for individual DMs, easily ignored) impact on the setting, or which depict "big events" only if these happened in the past, but do not change the current setting.

This was basically how FR operated up until the advent of 2nd Edition AD&D: the OGB was expanded by FR1-Waterdeep and the North, FR3-Empires of the Sands, FR5-The Savage Frontier, and FR6-Dreams of the Red Wizards. (I left out FR2-Moonshae, as the timeframe for that supplement was set in the past.)

The fiction, at the time, was limited in scope: Spellfire, The Crystal Shard, and Curse of the Azure Bonds were basically just tales of adventurers having an adventure, that did not change much to the setting. Pool of Radiance and the Moonshae were set in the past. That's a model where I think the interests of both gamers and fiction fans are best served, and which should be the basic framework for publication (be it by a company or by a collectivity).
EltonJ Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 04:18:55
Yep. The people at "Pie Doe" are often smarter than the people at the other company.


Perhaps that should say: "The reason why the OGL failed for Wizards of the Coast . . ."
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 03:19:21
quote:
Originally posted by EltonJ

Nice to know that nobody is entirely ganging up on me for my Libertarianism.

As for the Open Game License and why it failed:

It failed because Wizards didn't "share all their toys" with the other children. They still held monopolies on what ever they produced that wasn't included in the SRD. It also failed because the other children were allowed to hold monopolies on the stuff they produced, so second teir and third tier publishing became nearly impossible. Thirdly, it failed because there was more people at WotC who wanted to maintain their printing monopoly than to continue the experiment (However, the World is more than ready for it, they weren't).

So, under this hypothetical situation: Wizards of the Coast relinquishes its Printing Monopoly on Dungeons and Dragons, the FR, and Eberron (just these 3) to you. But they will retain copyright on these three items so that they can protect themselves against:
* Other companies committing real plagiarism and reverse plagiarism (Reverse plagiarism is an entity printing a book claiming to be Endorsed or authored by another entity when that entity didn't actually endorse or author the book).
* Upstart people claiming copyright on a 3rd party Realms product. (the hypothetical WotC will hire Anti-Trust Lawyers for this purpose).
* And the new 'Hypothetical' WotC will use Ed's Endorsement to maintain a coherent FR timeline for most of the Fans. For as long as Ed Greenwood is alive.

I think that will please everyone here on their concerns. however, it doesn't stop d20 glut, but it will be YOUR responsibility to control the glut. This new hypothetical WotC will disavow any responsibility to control glut through it's copyright. You will be its main distribution point, it's your job to control it.


I know a certain company that starts with a Pai and ends with a Zo that would disagree that the OGL failed.
Caolin Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 01:38:39
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth

And I, in turn would have to disagree a bit with that one, on a couple of levels. Novels kept the Realms in existence as a published setting, but, in my long-held (and oft-repeated) view, the preponderance of the novels spoiled the Realms as a gaming setting. A setting cannot be equally good as an evolving universe for both fiction and games, one is always going to impose on the other.

A policy whereby novels are mostly set in the same timeframe as the gaming setting could work - provided that the novels are easy to ignore. This does not mean that the fiction has to be obscure - for a long time, the Drizzt series was a good example of that: probably the best-sellers, and yet very easy to ignore, as most of the action takes place in remote locales (Icewind Dale, Menzo, Mithril Hall) or has little lasting impact on the setting (one guildmaster being replaced by another in Calimport - who cares)? It's not so easy ignoring the return of Shade, the Time of Troubles, the retaking of Myth Drannor, etc.

Now, of course, the argument can be made that a GM can ignore any canon. True - but by working on that assumption, the viability of the Realms as a published setting is undermined. A published setting always needs some common core, something that not everyone may like, but that forms the common base for discussions and exchanges. Otherwise, why bother with a common setting - just go with a homebrewn setting. In addition, many people (including a lot of scribes over here) approach the Realms mostly or only as a setting for fiction, and they are looking for canon through the prism of the fiction.

Fiction can still have a place in a game setting, but I'd see it limited to low-impact stories (as in, low or no impact on the continuity of the setting) set in the same timeframe as the game setting, and high-impact stories set in the past and not making any changes to the current timeframe of the setting.



Why exactly do DM's need setting continuity? I mean, all you really need is lore to frame your campaign around. You could write the whole Time of Troubles out of your campaign all together if you wanted. To me, setting continuity is more important in a novel or else you get the disaster that has become the Star Wars novel universe. How hard is it to tell players to ignore anything outside of your campaign?

I also would like to add that the Forgotten Realms was originally a literary world. TSR made it into a gaming world when they figured out what Ed had created.


P.S. out of respect that this is way off topic I'm gonna stop talking about canon and continuity in this thread.
Markustay Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 01:02:00
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk

IMHO, Fluffy would starve to death in fairly short order.

Fluffy?

Take a look at ANY HMO - life-and-death decisions made by non-medical personal regarding our health issues, all based on 'the bottom line'.

Screw Fluffy - REAL PEOPLE are suffering and dying with corporations in charge!

When the quality of our lives - be it games, education, and even our well-being - is all decided by a bunch of 'invisible' billionaires who have completely lost touch with reality, something has got to give. The poor Realms isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

Now even the quality of our 'play' is decided for us.
EltonJ Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 00:58:51
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

Nice. All that for SPAM.

Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright of the Forgotten Realms Intellectual Property. And they will defend their rights with a team of corporate lawyers.

Go ahead, Elton. Publish away under Creative Commons. But I'd rather not have my name on a lawsuit.




I've already planned for the Contingency.
EltonJ Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 00:42:08
Nice to know that nobody is entirely ganging up on me for my Libertarianism.

As for the Open Game License and why it failed:

It failed because Wizards didn't "share all their toys" with the other children. They still held monopolies on what ever they produced that wasn't included in the SRD. It also failed because the other children were allowed to hold monopolies on the stuff they produced, so second teir and third tier publishing became nearly impossible. Thirdly, it failed because there was more people at WotC who wanted to maintain their printing monopoly than to continue the experiment (However, the World is more than ready for it, they weren't).

So, under this hypothetical situation: Wizards of the Coast relinquishes its Printing Monopoly on Dungeons and Dragons, the FR, and Eberron (just these 3) to you. But they will retain copyright on these three items so that they can protect themselves against:
* Other companies committing real plagiarism and reverse plagiarism (Reverse plagiarism is an entity printing a book claiming to be Endorsed or authored by another entity when that entity didn't actually endorse or author the book).
* Upstart people claiming copyright on a 3rd party Realms product. (the hypothetical WotC will hire Anti-Trust Lawyers for this purpose).
* And the new 'Hypothetical' WotC will use Ed's Endorsement to maintain a coherent FR timeline for most of the Fans. For as long as Ed Greenwood is alive.

I think that will please everyone here on their concerns. however, it doesn't stop d20 glut, but it will be YOUR responsibility to control the glut. This new hypothetical WotC will disavow any responsibility to control glut through it's copyright. You will be its main distribution point, it's your job to control it.
Jakk Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 00:36:57
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Some of the silliest lore produced for FR came out of the RPGA network. Not saying all of the Ravensbluff stuff was bad, but a good chunk of it was 'questionable'.

Which is what the Realms would look like if it went 'independent'. Some really good, some REALLY bad, and most of it just mediocre at best.

On the other hand, the Realms reverting to Ed Greenwood, with George Krashos assigned as official 'traffic cop' would be amazing, IMHO. Others definitely writing for it - both professional and new-comers alike - but with those two 'at the helm' steering the whole thing, I can see nothing but good coming out of it.

Consistency has been the biggest problem with the Realms, and not just with the advent of 4e, but throughout its history as a published setting. It needs both a captain and a navigator to get it past the 'rough spots', not a dozen individuals all going in different directions.

IMHO, of course.

Ohhhh... and detach fiction from the canon - some lore can be made canon retro-actively in splatbooks, but the novels themselves should be considered 'stories' told by bards for the most part, filled with embellishments and 'poetic license'. In that way, people can just ignore the 'bigger then life' antics of certain NPCs and just enjoy the damn game.



I love that last idea... the only problem I can see with it is, how (apart from splatbooks) does the publisher advance the timeline and evolve the setting? But then, we've never really had "evolution" with the Realms; it's been a state of "punctuated equilibrium" from one RSE to the next... mind you, I'd rather have a 200-page gaming supplement filled with generally-applicable lore and adventure hooks than a 1200-page novel trilogy any day, so I don't have a problem with using splatbooks to advance the timeline and evolve the setting. My biggest regret about the 3E Realms is that we never even got all of Faerun covered, let alone all of Toril. I would have loved a Cormyr sourcebook, a Lands of Intrigue sourcebook, and a Bloodstone Lands sourcebook... and now we'll never get them, at least not from the official publisher in a form that I will use, because my Realms has the same goddess of magic it has always had* and no Spellplague.

* - yes, that's right. I suspect that this may be closer to pre-Spellplague canon than NDAs will allow people to admit.

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

I do ignore them - I have never had that problem.

But the problem does exist, since it is always brought-up, and seems to be the primary reasoning behind the 4e Realms.

Just because a problem is 'foolish' doesn't make it non-existent.

That is why I offered a solution - not for myself, but for those who seem unable to make lemonade from lemons.



If people (admittedly, including myself, for some time) would stop planting and harvesting the lemon trees, maybe those of us making the lemonade would have a chance to keep up! But seriously, I love the business plan, and I agree entirely with Caolin; having creative IPs under corporate ownership is a bit like having a pet under corporate ownership... we create things like the Realms and develop them out of love, which is why we feed our pets and otherwise keep them healthy. How long do you think Fluffy would last if every last decision relevant to his well-being had to be voted on at eight different levels? IMHO, Fluffy would starve to death in fairly short order.

Anyway, that's my metaphor starved to death. Other thoughts?
Markustay Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 23:50:41
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin

I think having a publicly traded company owning creative material is always a recipe for disaster. Profits before quality.

Too true.

Not an insult to the Realms or WotC or even Hasbro, mind you, but to the obviously out-dated concept of 'free market'. Free Market today = 'the rich get richer', and the little guys get crushed like bugs.

What we need is some good old-fashioned despotism..... with me in charge, of course.

I've had a similar (lottery winning) dream, BTW, but I allowed in mine that I would have to continue to 'foot the bill' long after giving Ed back creative control. I've gone as far as figuring out how to organize it in such a way as to be a non-profit organization to avoid nasty things like 'taxes'. So long as at least 10% of all proceeds are used for charitable works you are good to go - the rest is used to maintain the company and charge the bare minimum for downloads.

I picture $1 'dungeon' downloads, $3 adventure-arcs, and $5 splats. Charge more then that on the internet and you will get piracy. At those prices people won't really bother to steal, especially if they know the minimum is being charged just to continue producing product. You will always have some theft, but not like what you have if you charge $35-40 for so-so products.

Also have a subscription similar to Paizo's model - those guys are a great group to emulate. They produce products and other material based on a common consensus - what a concept!

Have some 'specials' throw-in there, like limited-edition, giant poster-sized maps selling for decent money (you will always have the cash-heavy grognards) and perhaps a yearly hardbound 'Gazeteer', but keep the majority of the stuff inexpensive and accessible.

And keep the quality top-notch, including the art - don't cut any corners, even if it means taking a hit on profits. If a book could use another 30 pages, then include them! Don't let great material end up on the cutting-room floor because of sub-standard space-considerations. Especially if most of this is going online - why throw anything away?

You'll never get rich, but you'll stay afloat, and keep FR alive for many, many years that way. I've asked friends 'in the business' - store-owners and game company owners both - and they said if you want to get rich, go into anything BUT games. You do it for the love of the hobby.

Oh... and for the record, I'd build at least one storefront that looked just like a miniature version of the Colliseum (gaming in the round!), with the main store upstairs and a 'gaming pit' below that folks can look down into from all around (cut down on those pesky onlookers touching your minis!!!). Include a snackbar and a couple of hot chicks in skimpy outfits to work the place and its pure nerd-win. I figure the first one would have to be in California, and if it catches on build a chain. Have store-promoted games for your own product line (like Games Workshop does with Warhammer), but allow all other company's products as well. Eventually add-in a bookstore and video/computer games, just to pull in folks who hadn't considered table-top gaming before.




Thauramarth Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 23:32:49
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay



Ohhhh... and detach fiction from the canon - some lore can be made canon retro-actively in splatbooks, but the novels themselves should be considered 'stories' told by bards for the most part, filled with embellishments and 'poetic license'. In that way, people can just ignore the 'bigger then life' antics of certain NPCs and just enjoy the damn game.



Couldn't disagree with you more. Think what you want about fiction, but the novels are the only reason DnD (and the Realms) as a game exists. Writing the novels in the way you are suggesting would destroy the books and the Realms along with it. I would never be interested in generic stories that have no real bearing on the setting they exist in. Frankly, the only reason I read the game books is so that I can have a more enjoyable experience reading the novels.

This whole canon debate is a big non-issue. Seriously, if a DM can't work around the novels or just flat out ignore them then they shouldn't be DMing.



And I, in turn would have to disagree a bit with that one, on a couple of levels. Novels kept the Realms in existence as a published setting, but, in my long-held (and oft-repeated) view, the preponderance of the novels spoiled the Realms as a gaming setting. A setting cannot be equally good as an evolving universe for both fiction and games, one is always going to impose on the other.

A policy whereby novels are mostly set in the same timeframe as the gaming setting could work - provided that the novels are easy to ignore. This does not mean that the fiction has to be obscure - for a long time, the Drizzt series was a good example of that: probably the best-sellers, and yet very easy to ignore, as most of the action takes place in remote locales (Icewind Dale, Menzo, Mithril Hall) or has little lasting impact on the setting (one guildmaster being replaced by another in Calimport - who cares)? It's not so easy ignoring the return of Shade, the Time of Troubles, the retaking of Myth Drannor, etc.

Now, of course, the argument can be made that a GM can ignore any canon. True - but by working on that assumption, the viability of the Realms as a published setting is undermined. A published setting always needs some common core, something that not everyone may like, but that forms the common base for discussions and exchanges. Otherwise, why bother with a common setting - just go with a homebrewn setting. In addition, many people (including a lot of scribes over here) approach the Realms mostly or only as a setting for fiction, and they are looking for canon through the prism of the fiction.

Fiction can still have a place in a game setting, but I'd see it limited to low-impact stories (as in, low or no impact on the continuity of the setting) set in the same timeframe as the game setting, and high-impact stories set in the past and not making any changes to the current timeframe of the setting.
mensch Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 22:02:21
quote:
Originally posted by Varl

quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
Honestly? Not good. I'm not saying that I am happy with the way FR has been handled by WotC, but you know the joke, right? "What's a camel?" Answer: "A horse designed by committee." The Realms fandom is far too diversified to develop a coherent line of work.



I don't know. Open Source seems to be flourishing quite well on the idea of independent creators collaborating to arrive at some very nice work.

If nothing else, I think an Open Source Realms would broaden the horizons of choice, even if some of that choice wasn't particularly good. Even the worst products can spark the imagination in directions for improvement.

There are a lot of great open source projects. If it weren't for all those developers who create open source software in their spare time, many commercial manufacturers couldn't even create the products they make today, for example.
A lot of open source projects suffer from a lack of direction though. The reason why an open source operating system like Ubuntu is so popular is in part because an overall project lead (the people from Canonical) define the overall direction of development. Albeit with the direct and democratic input of their community, but Canonical is ultimately responsible. Ubuntu's bigger brother Debian, which aspires to be as open source and democratic as possible, has had problems in the past of reaching release deadlines, due to infighting among the community on policy issues.

But developing new FR lore with a larger body of people is absolutely feasible, I would say. As long as there is some overall guidance.

Releasing content under a version of the Creative Commons license would be a very big and frightening step for a publisher like Wizards of the Coast. They tried it with the Open Game License tied to the d20 system, coinciding with the release of 3e and 3.5e D&D. Which basically meant everybody could freely use the d20 System Reference Document and publish material based on the d20 rules, with proper attribution. A lot of extremely great third party content (adventures, alternate sourcebooks, etc.) has been generated because of it. But it clearly didn't majorly benefit WotC, because otherwise 4e would have been released under the OGL as well. Instead the company reverted to the earlier policy of copyrighting everything. Because the money isn't flowing like in the eighties and nineties WotC isn't as adventurous as a publishing company anymore. Which is a shame for the customers, of course.

As for the question of copyright. I could see a scenario where a fan developed cosmology extremely similar to the Forgotten Realms wouldn't be subject to litigation. If one uses the overall concepts of the Forgotten Realms, without referencing to it explicitly or use the names of famous NPCs, I don't think WotC would have a legal case against such a project. They may send "Cease and Desist" letters, but those are mostly to scare smalltime "copyright offenders". Also the legalities on copyright aren't as strict in other countries as they are in the United States. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is quite a bitch. They're working on a delightful European version though, so soon we can extuingish all creativity with endless lawsuits on the continent as well. Yay!
You can copyright names and very original concepts, but I don't think you can copyright a set of generic ideas. Otherwise the Tolkien Estate could retroactivly sue Ed Greenwood for creating the Realms in the first place. Not that the Forgotten Realms is a blatant copy of Tolkien's universe, but they could sue based on certain details. Not that they would win. At least not in a court with a relatively sane judge.

But in theory you could have a universe where a ages old wizard - smokes a pipe, talks with "Ye's" and "Thou's" and was born in a land with a lot of dales - goes about his business or a white-haired emo-Drow who was seduced to the Light Side and spends his time with a dwarf, halfling, barbarian and a girl named after French cheese. Similarly you could have an Aztec-themed continent and create polytheistic pantheons.
A gaming project does something similar to this by supplanting the lore of the original videogame Thief (which is an absolutely amazing series of games, by the way) with similar concepts to be used in a Doom 3 mod called "The Dark Mod". Which is basically a modern toolset to create new Thief missions. They explain a bit about the universe on their wiki. The project is still in its infancy, but actively developed and, more importantly, not in any legal danger from the copyright owners, who are actively developing a fourth game in the Thief series.

Some might call it lame and unoriginal. But a project like Wine started out as something similarly lame and unoriginal (also downright mad) more than ten years ago, but is now the saviour of anybody who wants to run Windows software on Linux or Mac OS X.
Caolin Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 20:43:54
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

I do ignore them - I have never had that problem.

But the problem does exist, since it is always brought-up, and seems to be the primary reasoning behind the 4e Realms.

Just because a problem is 'foolish' doesn't make it non-existent.

That is why I offered a solution - not for myself, but for those who seem unable to make lemonade from lemons.



Just for the record, that wasn't meant for you. I know you are very experienced and skilled DM and designer. I do however become very defensive over the novels. That is my ONLY avenue into the Realms because it is rare that I have the time or can even find people who want to game. From what I can tell, this is true for most people who read the novels. It also seems that a lot of those who do still game don't even read the novels. I can't tell you how many times I see posts from some of the vets on this forum say that they haven't read this novel or that. I soak them all up and wish there were more. But maybe I am different in that manner.

But any ways, back to the original posters topic. I have many times fantasized about winning the lotto and buying the Realms license back from Hasbro only to hand it back over to Ed. But the problem with that is that Ed doesn't want it back......or so I gather from some of his comments. As was made clear by Erik, producing material and distributing it is an expensive endeavor and Ed doesn't appear to be a multi-millionaire. So someone would have to foot the bill to keep the Realms going. I would like to see a privately owned company buy the rights. I think having a publicly traded company owning creative material is always a recipe for disaster. Profits before quality.
Markustay Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 20:12:03
I do ignore them - I have never had that problem.

But the problem does exist, since it is always brought-up, and seems to be the primary reasoning behind the 4e Realms.

Just because a problem is 'foolish' doesn't make it non-existent.

That is why I offered a solution - not for myself, but for those who seem unable to make lemonade from lemons.
Caolin Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 19:32:17
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay



Ohhhh... and detach fiction from the canon - some lore can be made canon retro-actively in splatbooks, but the novels themselves should be considered 'stories' told by bards for the most part, filled with embellishments and 'poetic license'. In that way, people can just ignore the 'bigger then life' antics of certain NPCs and just enjoy the damn game.



Couldn't disagree with you more. Think what you want about fiction, but the novels are the only reason DnD (and the Realms) as a game exists. Writing the novels in the way you are suggesting would destroy the books and the Realms along with it. I would never be interested in generic stories that have no real bearing on the setting they exist in. Frankly, the only reason I read the game books is so that I can have a more enjoyable experience reading the novels.

This whole canon debate is a big non-issue. Seriously, if a DM can't work around the novels or just flat out ignore them then they shouldn't be DMing.
Varl Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 19:22:22
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
Honestly? Not good. I'm not saying that I am happy with the way FR has been handled by WotC, but you know the joke, right? "What's a camel?" Answer: "A horse designed by committee." The Realms fandom is far too diversified to develop a coherent line of work.



I don't know. Open Source seems to be flourishing quite well on the idea of independent creators collaborating to arrive at some very nice work.

If nothing else, I think an Open Source Realms would broaden the horizons of choice, even if some of that choice wasn't particularly good. Even the worst products can spark the imagination in directions for improvement.
Alystra Illianniis Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 19:11:43
I actually like your idea, MT. That would be a dream come true for most FR fans....
Markustay Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 17:56:57
Some of the silliest lore produced for FR came out of the RPGA network. Not saying all of the Ravensbluff stuff was bad, but a good chunk of it was 'questionable'.

Which is what the Realms would look like if it went 'independent'. Some really good, some REALLY bad, and most of it just mediocre at best.

On the other hand, the Realms reverting to Ed Greenwood, with George Krashos assigned as official 'traffic cop' would be amazing, IMHO. Others definitely writing for it - both professional and new-comers alike - but with those two 'at the helm' steering the whole thing, I can see nothing but good coming out of it.

Consistency has been the biggest problem with the Realms, and not just with the advent of 4e, but throughout its history as a published setting. It needs both a captain and a navigator to get it past the 'rough spots', not a dozen individuals all going in different directions.

IMHO, of course.

Ohhhh... and detach fiction from the canon - some lore can be made canon retro-actively in splatbooks, but the novels themselves should be considered 'stories' told by bards for the most part, filled with embellishments and 'poetic license'. In that way, people can just ignore the 'bigger then life' antics of certain NPCs and just enjoy the damn game.

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