| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 04:50:38
Some folks may remember me from the Realms mailing list fromd days of yore. I've drifted into and out of candlekeep overthe years, for a long time my home computer didn't have the software to view the site properly, and when it did 3e had come around and my interest in the Realms declined dramatically and I saw little reason to hang out here for discussions of prestige classes and feats.
But I've recently started rereading my old FR novels, starting with Avatar series, now I am reading Elaine Cunningham's wonderful novels again.
That got me thinking about the realms, and how it has really had no stability over the years. And why.
It's easy to say bad designeers, but what does that mean? Myself, I judge a setting designer on respect for continuity, innovation, rules knowledge, and basic writing skills.
By my criteria the Realms has often had many excellent designers, but has suffered some pretty bad ones. Or at least, designers who had no respect for continuity even when they were innovative and good writers otherwise.
It's popular to point right away to 3e or I guess 4e today, maybe there is something to that. FR always had more than its sare of haters, after all. First it was the bitter mourners of Greyhawk, then it was those who resented Drizzt or Elminster. But we've all heard the mugs at conventions making fun of the Realms. Perhaps once 3e came around tyey just put those people in charge.
But nah, they weren't in charge when Zhentil Keep was destroyed, or when the Time of Troubles happened.
Many people have Forgotten that the Time of Troubles was actually Ed's idea. At least, he first came up with the idea as a means of transofrming a campaign setting, in a Dragon article he wrote concerning creating setting Pantheons. (Dragon #54, Oct 1981, suggested to help transform a campaign from the original D&D to AD&D rules...)
The problem was, IMO, a lack of focus that all the designers shared to a greater or lesser degree. It wasn't enough to explore fascinating human foes like Thay or the Zhents, instead we had to have maulagrym and phaerimm or however you spell those odd things. The city of Shade had to appear, and if you have one magical weave, why not create another?
The continuity mistakes are obvious (Shar goes from being Selune's foe in the old FR comics (and in F&A) to the arch foe of Mystra? Huh?) but they cannot be the sole cause of the problem.
Something about the Realms, perhaps the massive amount of material, made designers new to the setting want to set the past aside and start from scratch.
The result has been a glorious mess, but it is still a mess with no coherency and dozen of forgotten plot threads left abandoned in the detritus of older products.
It saddens me. I mean, I still run my own FR campaign, going since the grey boxed set came out, but now purely a PBEM game. But I don't have the sense of playing in a larger sandbox that I had in the heady 2e days when I believed the Time of Troubles was a one time glitch...
Anyway, I know folks around here are tired of the Edition Wars, and this hasn't been an attempt to restart them. But I do wonder why FR has been so prone to boiling over with these changes. What do you folks think? Why has stability been so elusive?
Or do you like the roiling boil of change? :)
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 06:53:28
I'm somehow convinced that Ed can "dictate" Realmslore far more than we can ... those of us who aren't privy to the Wizards' dark Realms conspiracies, of course.
I'd suspect that some disagreements must exist; but Ed, Wizards, and the other authors all compromise on the Realms for the betterment of all. I know the Realms are one of Ed's great loves, but no doubt there are times when he feels a little tired of them and wants to get away for a little while to explore other stories in other settings (as suggested by some of his non-D&D books). I notice that most FR authors are recognized for specific characters, groups, races, and regions in the Realms; they seem to maintain some "distance" from each other and avoid intrusions ... Ed's "turf" includes the entire Heartlands, especially Cormyr and the Dales, and countless characters, so (I think) he can exercise a lot more swag than the other authors when he chooses. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 06:10:17
He might still be a major contributor, but he still has to bow to their "vision" of what direction things should go. Unfortunately, he can't dictate Realmslore any more than we can. He can only try to subtly guide it whenever possible. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 05:51:25
Isn't that a blurry distinction when Ed is still perhaps the primary contributor of Realmslore? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 03:25:26
TSR was not the "evil, faceless corporation" some seem to think it was. For one thing, it started out as a very small company that was STARTED by gamers, and RUN by gamers. I don't think it was ever as disconnected as WotC has become. Sure, it might not have ben the same as Ed's Realms back then, but is SURE isn't now!! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 00:18:11
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I can't speak for Ed, but it's likely TSR, Wizards, and Hasbro have steered the Realms along paths that differ from his vision. I speculate that it's likely Ed carefully maintains a private portal to "his" Realms through which he and those close to him can sometimes visit the setting.
Pretty much. Check out Ed's April '06 replies for specific comparisons between what parts of his Realms are like, when compared to the same material published under the TSR brand. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Feb 2011 : 21:06:16
quote:
Alystra Illianniis
Hmm, the "other half" brought up his idea of the "biggest RSE" in the Realms- Ed selling the rights to TSR. Not saying that was a bad thing, but he might be right...
That's a double-edged blade.
I can't speak for Ed, but it's likely TSR, Wizards, and Hasbro have steered the Realms along paths that differ from his vision. I speculate that it's likely Ed carefully maintains a private portal to "his" Realms through which he and those close to him can sometimes visit the setting.
It's also likely that a lot fewer people would have ever learned of the setting if it wasn't boxed by an evil faceless corporation like TSR. The bottom line is that the company (by any name) needs to make money and publishing the Realms is a business, not a charity. There are certainly designers, authors, and other staff who can be counted as passionate fans of the setting, and they generally strive to accomodate the desires of the larger fanbase ... but they gotta eat and pay bills, too. Let's not forget that Ed also has to eat and pay his bills.
Finally, the Realm setting is just what it is, what we read, whatever each person creates in some small part of it. Ed may have an impossibly idealized Realms, we may have impossibly idealized expectations from him ... perhaps the setting could be "better" or "purer" but for the vast majority the Realms (as a whole) are more or less fine just as they are. It might even turn out that many people would prefer the published Realms to the Ed-Realms, to say otherwise belittles the "impure" contributions all of the non-Ed authors have made over three decades. Ed has always worked hard to present the Realms as a living setting, one that grows, evolves, even suffers wounds, but still manages to survive; the Realms are not diminished by some bad memories and scar tissue, they are (in terms of popularity) arguably healthier and stronger than ever before. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 14 Feb 2011 : 20:05:50
Hmm, the "other half" brought up his idea of the "biggest RSE" in the Realms- Ed selling the rights to TSR. Not saying that was a bad thing, but he might be right... |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 05 Feb 2011 : 02:33:17
quote:
Originally posted by Zireael
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
quote:
It's the image of the setting that changes, pre-3e the impression was that FR was about Waterdeep, the Harpers, Cormyr, Red Wizards, Zhentarim and merchant powers. In 3e, the world revolving around the Shades, drow, elves, dragons, divine conflicts and powerful wizards/liches. The world turned less human, people forget that everything from pre-3e is still in the background. 4e is about the Spellplague and the return of otherworldly beings and ancient civilizations.
That is probably the best arguement in favor of 4e realms I've ever heard.
I suppose that's in favor of 1st and 2nd edition, myself.
Yeah that arguement makes pre-3e sound prettyngood to me too. |
| Apex |
Posted - 04 Feb 2011 : 18:53:42
quote:
originally posted by Tyrant
If other people left, they are missing out. Nothing was stopping them from sticking with what they liked either. It is sad that people left, but you can't please everyone. That's not a "good riddance" or a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" kind of statement either. It is a loss. However, in some cases, if people left for these reasons, they were looking for a reason to leave or other factors came into play. Look at the folks on here who clearly dislike (probably too mild a word) the changes for 4e. If they stuck around for that with the clear level of dislike they have, I'm not sure anything will get them to leave. If people left because one area or another wasn't getting enough attention, there was probably no keeping them in the long run because the business model doesn't revolve around their interests and their interests alone. And again, I am not trying to say anything negative about them because they left. That was their choice that they made for their own reasons and they don't have to justify it to anyone and I am not trying to judge them because of it. I've left other hobbies for a lot less than logically airtight reasons myself, so I know how it goes.
My guess is that most of these people never left, they just stopped changing editions or adding new "canon" lore to their games (this is what I have done). The problem that WOTC is likely running into is that this group (pertaining only to game supplements, not novels) is likely growing (or at least grew tremendously with the advent of 4th), as not only were more recent changes dramatic and vast in scope, but they also established a very clear delineation between the two separate versions of the Forgotten Realms. As for me, I stopped at the advent of 3rd edition (gaming wise), but was still willing to use lore from non-RSE stuff up until the blow-up that lead to 4th. The rulesets themselves (from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th) likely lost a lot of gamers in the transition (as there was nothing wrong with the previous editions and it isn't tech so it doesn't need to be updated to stay functional), but the spellplague/timejump has taken this from the rulesets and into the novels/lore, which is what has created such a strong level of detachment. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 04 Feb 2011 : 16:21:06
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
quote:
It's the image of the setting that changes, pre-3e the impression was that FR was about Waterdeep, the Harpers, Cormyr, Red Wizards, Zhentarim and merchant powers. In 3e, the world revolving around the Shades, drow, elves, dragons, divine conflicts and powerful wizards/liches. The world turned less human, people forget that everything from pre-3e is still in the background. 4e is about the Spellplague and the return of otherworldly beings and ancient civilizations.
That is probably the best arguement in favor of 4e realms I've ever heard.
I suppose that's in favor of 1st and 2nd edition, myself. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 04 Feb 2011 : 13:27:24
quote:
It's the image of the setting that changes, pre-3e the impression was that FR was about Waterdeep, the Harpers, Cormyr, Red Wizards, Zhentarim and merchant powers. In 3e, the world revolving around the Shades, drow, elves, dragons, divine conflicts and powerful wizards/liches. The world turned less human, people forget that everything from pre-3e is still in the background. 4e is about the Spellplague and the return of otherworldly beings and ancient civilizations.
That is probably the best arguement in favor of 4e realms I've ever heard. |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 04 Feb 2011 : 04:22:16
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Just a friendly reminder: Candlekeep plays host to authors and game designers. We like having them here and we don't like driving them away from this website.
I realize you (Paul) have a beef with Denning, but it would be nice if we could move away from spreading memes like "Troy Denning: Killing the Realms Since After Dragonwall" to something a little more substantive and thoughtful.
You treat them differently then other posters? I didn't attack him as a person, I commented on his work, and not even entirely negatively.
Is this forum for FR fans or Justin Bieber fans? <chuckle> Look, I agree personal attacks are a bad idea, but if authors just want praise why bother having them around?
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Like, I can't blame Troy Denning for the Time of Troubles series any more than I can blame Lisa Smedman for the culling of the dark elf gods in the Lady Penitent. These things were internal committee decisions from the design team, and the authors in question were provided outlines to follow with some "must have" events.
<shrug> Committees don't make decisions, people do. A person or people with names and individual identies made these decisions. So who was on these legendary decision making committees?
All I know is, Denning seem to write a lot of the 2e and 3e stuff that did the most damage. I doubt he had no input into it.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Now, I know I'm hardly representative of all Realms fans. But it seems to me that telling a story in a novel -- whether or not there is an accompanying adventure -- moves the setting forward far more effectively than just an adventure.
Oh, I'm with you there. I love the idea of the FR novels, and i love most of the Fr novels, or don't mind them (I don't mind Salvatore's, for example). I don't think the novels are to blame for the problems solely. :)
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
It's the image of the setting that changes, pre-3e the impression was that FR was about Waterdeep, the Harpers, Cormyr, Red Wizards, Zhentarim and merchant powers. In 3e, the world revolving around the Shades, drow, elves, dragons, divine conflicts and powerful wizards/liches. The world turned less human, people forget that everything from pre-3e is still in the background. 4e is about the Spellplague and the return of otherworldly beings and ancient civilizations.
This seems accurate to me. AT least, it is the impression fo what the selling points have been for each incarnation.
The Realms has definitely become less and less human over the years, and that is one problem I've had with it. The Red Wizards and the Zhentarim mattered in the Grey Set, they were themysteries, dangerous big bads. By the time we reached 3e they were the Keystone cops of the badguys, bumbling fools with no idea what was really going on in the Realms.
I can't blame that on 3e or 4e or novelists. Two of my very favorite Realms authors, Greenwood and Schend, were two of the prime movers in that direction. They introduced, starting I think with FR13 Anauroch, what I've started calling the Cthulhu Realms. You know, the Realms of the grand magical tentacle and amboid creatures like Phaerim (sp?) or sharn or alhoonliches.
That's definitely a question of taste, not quality. I can't ay its been poorly done, just that it isn't to my taste. I prefer Zhents, Red Wizards, Shadow Thieves, ect as the foes in my games and in my FR fiction.  |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 03 Feb 2011 : 18:14:29
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
It's the image of the setting that changes, pre-3e the impression was that FR was about Waterdeep, the Harpers, Cormyr, Red Wizards, Zhentarim and merchant powers. In 3e, the world revolving around the Shades, drow, elves, dragons, divine conflicts and powerful wizards/liches. The world turned less human, people forget that everything from pre-3e is still in the background. 4e is about the Spellplague and the return of otherworldly beings and ancient civilizations.
3e was about Drow? Aren't most of Salvatore's stories set before 3e kicked in? Or are you trying to say they became popular entirely based on War of the Spider Queen? The Shades are powerful and shaking things up, of course attention will be on them. Powerful wizards/liches? You mean like the Red Wizards and the Zhentarim that you had no problem with pre 3e? The Elves? The ones who have been in the Realms from the get go and as I understand it Elaine focused a number of her novels on? And what focus are you talking about anyway? The Last Mythal trilogy? The one featuring Zhentarim and a human army from Sembia? And a side trip to Aglarond? Just because some of the background is now more represented doesn't mean everything else is moved to the background. This is a poor argument.
As for 4e, unless I am mistaken there was an entire 7 novel series devoted to Waterdeep. The Blades of the Moonsea trilogy focuses on a human dominated area with a human hero. The Brotherhood of the Griffon trilogy follows a mostly human band of mercenaries fighting on behalf of a mostly human nation. Drizzt is still doing what he always does. Elminster is still fighting for Cormyr, and still fighting old human (well, he was human) enemies. The Haunted Lands trilogy is all about the Red Wizards. If all you look for is the negative that is all you will find and if people forget Cormyr, the Red Wizards, the Zhentarim, and Waterdeep are still there when entire novels focus on them then there is no helping them. Yes, creatures other than humans now share the spotlight. Is that so horrible in a fantasy setting filled with demi humans and non humans?
quote:
Not speaking about myself, I've no problem using an idea from any era as long as it is good, or a world where nothing else about it will be published. It's the other people that left.
If other people left, they are missing out. Nothing was stopping them from sticking with what they liked either. It is sad that people left, but you can't please everyone. That's not a "good riddance" or a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" kind of statement either. It is a loss. However, in some cases, if people left for these reasons, they were looking for a reason to leave or other factors came into play. Look at the folks on here who clearly dislike (probably too mild a word) the changes for 4e. If they stuck around for that with the clear level of dislike they have, I'm not sure anything will get them to leave. If people left because one area or another wasn't getting enough attention, there was probably no keeping them in the long run because the business model doesn't revolve around their interests and their interests alone. And again, I am not trying to say anything negative about them because they left. That was their choice that they made for their own reasons and they don't have to justify it to anyone and I am not trying to judge them because of it. I've left other hobbies for a lot less than logically airtight reasons myself, so I know how it goes.
quote:
Depends on the quality they bring.
And who determines what is good and what is bad? That's the problem you will always face with this line of reasoning. There is absolutely nothing saying things will improve. Look at Star Wars. Some people absolutely hate the EU. I am sure a number of them hated it in the 90s. They stuck to the movies, possibly thinking Lucas was the only one to trust. I assume a number of them changed their tune when they saw Lucas' pure, untainted vision with the prequels. When you put people on a pedestal and pine for the "old days" you are setting yourself up for disappointment when you finally get your wish.
quote:
In my hypothetical the popularity won't be the criteria.
There's no reason that it wouldn't be. You expect a business to not be run like a business. Their goal is to sell product, not appease a section of the fanbase at the potential cost of another, larger section of the fanbase. Ideally a balance would be struck but this isn't an ideal world, and they would probably argue that they have a balance already.
quote:
Imagine if it's your world and then someone else writes a novel there that you don't believe could happen. You'd try to adapt the story and save what's worth of it. Still the novel would have influence on advancing the setting.
If I didn't want outside influence I wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. When you open the door you have to deal with what comes through it and kicking it back outside is usually not an option.
quote:
It is full or ruins, but imagine that the frequency of 1370s-RSEs on the whole history of FR. Maybe it's possible that with magic the needed periods of growth and renewal are shorter.
I have not read every Realms novel and sourcebook under the sun. So I have to ask because I am not really seeing it with what I have read, what exactly is getting obliterated every other day in the 1370s? I can see that destruction might be a little more widespread, but it is not constant as some choose to portray it. The interlocking alliances and interests that make up the Realms is a house of cards. Knock the right one (or ones) out and the whole thing begins to unravel as plans, contingency plans, and the occasional Xanatos Gambit or Roulette all spring into action and begin ramming into one another. That's what happens when one big event builds on another and another. I don't find it unusual that a number of big events can happen right on top of one another. Our history has had this happen more than a few times. So this era is a little more turbulent, is that so hard to believe?
quote:
The villains holding power in many places of the Realms proves that they often win.
But when did all these folks assume power? In the past. What notable gains has Manshoon made from the start of "current" era? The Zulkirs? The Drow? These people clearly can achieve great things (they have evil empires that didn't just build themselves), yet they are met with one defeat after another in the current era. How are they still any kind of threat when they always lose? How did they ever win in the first place when often enough it is incompetence that is their undoing? That's what I am getting at. Shade was allowed to win and make real gains, which I believe is a far more likely outcome than establishing yourself as an evil empire only to lose again and again. I will say though that by that same logic, some evil groups should probably lose enough to get wiped out. Status Quo Is God gets old and pushes believability eventually. Though I will concede that the D&D worlds do have an out because Good and Evil are actual cosmic forces so there is presumably some kind of balance.
quote:
I don't get why would just an appearance of Shade in the middle of nowhere upset people. But their meddling with everything like they are world cops. The problem is their too high stats in LoD.
Their stats should be high. Telamont is what, 1500-2000 years old? And a Netherese Archmage who knew/studied under/with Karsus. Szass Tam is level 29 and he's (I think) around 200 years old. By any realistic application of the D&D system Telamont should easily be several levels above Szass Tam. The Princes should be fairly close to that as well. They should be massively powerful. So, in addition to being quite powerful, they were also part of a very powerful empire. Now, they want to rebuild that empire and they believe they are surrounded by lesser states. Of course they are going to play empire builders and get involved in the affairs of everyone else they think they can. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with that chain of events. People that powerful don't reappear after millenia of exile to be nice nieghbors.
quote:
How is it not, the Drizzt novels outsell FR gaming products by far. Shows how the majority of customers cares about what's canon in them.
No, it doesn't show anything like that. You saying it does without any kind of real answer won't change that. Do you know how one sells in comparison to the other in terms of actual numbers? I'm guessing you don't. We know that Drizzt outsells RPG books, but we don't know by what kind of margin (though we have been lead to believe it is sizeable). What we absolutely do not know is what percentage of those people play the RPG or what percentage buy any other books. It doesn't take everyone at the gaming table buying product to be able to play the game, so it is quite possible a majority do play the game without buying RPG materials. That could quite easily account for a sizeable part of the difference in sales figures. The folks who buy the Drizzt books might not all buy any of the other books. Suppose the Drizzt sales account for 20% of novel sales. That would mean they are the largest block (I would imagine), but not the majority of overall sales. So, if a majority of those fans don't buy any other novels, then they are overall a minority of novel sales. Or I could be wrong and the majority of overall revenue for the FR is generated by Drizzt sales (though I find that highly unlikely). My point is that you have no clue what the majority of Drizzt fans think on any topic at all (nor anyway to prove that you do know), and you have no clue what percentage of novel readers they represent so your answer is based on baseless assumptions meaning it has no value at all and does absolutely nothing to prove your point. Simply saying "the majority of Drizzt fans" is not a worthwhile answer. I have no clue either (beyond the often stated fact that the novels as a whole outsell the RPG materials, and that Drizzt and RSE sales top the novel sales charts) which is why I am not claiming to "know" what the majority of fans want or care for. I am saying that for all we know disturbing the present balance could be a really bad idea. That also means it could be a really good idea, but in the absence of any real evidence that it will be better and with evidence of prior situations going badly when similar things were attempted with this company (and it's parent, Hasbro) I assume that it won't be a good idea. |
| Quale |
Posted - 03 Feb 2011 : 14:55:28
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
I still don't see how any of them have broken anything. I hear people saying that they have, but no one is forcing anyone to use that material. If I had a problem with the Spellplague, I wouldn't buy anything to do with it (and if I gamed I wouldn't use anything to do with it). Simple as that.
It's the image of the setting that changes, pre-3e the impression was that FR was about Waterdeep, the Harpers, Cormyr, Red Wizards, Zhentarim and merchant powers. In 3e, the world revolving around the Shades, drow, elves, dragons, divine conflicts and powerful wizards/liches. The world turned less human, people forget that everything from pre-3e is still in the background. 4e is about the Spellplague and the return of otherworldly beings and ancient civilizations.
quote:
So you want to go back to 1e? Is anything stopping you?
Not speaking about myself, I've no problem using an idea from any era as long as it is good, or a world where nothing else about it will be published. It's the other people that left.
quote:
And if he picks people you don't approve of and they take the setting in a fairly similar direction? Or some copletely different direction that you still don't approve of?
Depends on the quality they bring.
quote:
You don't get what I am saying. I am saying, in your hypothetical where only some material gets converted, there is nothing to say the criteria for what gets converted won't involve figuring out what is popular.
In my hypothetical the popularity won't be the criteria. Imagine if it's your world and then someone else writes a novel there that you don't believe could happen. You'd try to adapt the story and save what's worth of it. Still the novel would have influence on advancing the setting.
quote:
As for blowing some place up, isn't the Realms history full of empires falling and cities being abandoned or destroyed? Why is that something that only magically happens in the past? There is absolutely no reason to believe that won't continue to happen in the present.
It is full or ruins, but imagine that the frequency of 1370s-RSEs on the whole history of FR. Maybe it's possible that with magic the needed periods of growth and renewal are shorter.
quote:
It is unrealistic in the extreme to believe that the villains never win and that calamity is always avoided.
The villains holding power in many places of the Realms proves that they often win.
quote:
Then you get back to the game of what's in and what's out. Take the return of Shade. You kind of have to major element (Shade returning) for it to be meaningful. Well, right there you upset some people. Then time goes on and the novels involving the Shade take over of Sembia become popular and that event becomes canon. Now you just upset some more people.
I don't get why would just an appearance of Shade in the middle of nowhere upset people. But their meddling with everything like they are world cops. The problem is their too high stats in LoD.
quote:
That's not an answer, nor is there any way for you to know what the majority of them think about any topic so I can only assume you are making a very broad assumption ...
How is it not, the Drizzt novels outsell FR gaming products by far. Shows how the majority of customers cares about what's canon in them. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 02 Feb 2011 : 00:32:02
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
I never read them, but the word everywhere is that Dark Sun novels are not canon. [...] But even after TSR shifted to WotC my understanding is that all the DS novels were / are still not canon.
Well, it's worth noting that the 4e DS setting has canonised parts of the events from the "Prism Pentad" novels, now. I'd imagine some of the other past novels which support the line, may eventually be canonised through DDI articles, should developers require it to be so. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 02 Feb 2011 : 00:26:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Just a friendly reminder: Candlekeep plays host to authors and game designers. We like having them here and we don't like driving them away from this website.
I realize you (Paul) have a beef with Denning, but it would be nice if we could move away from spreading memes like "Troy Denning: Killing the Realms Since After Dragonwall" to something a little more substantive and thoughtful. I.e. leave the nerdrage to the WotC forums.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If we disconnect novels and game material, then the feeling that things are happening goes away -- and with it, a portion of the fanbase.
Is that likely, though? Eberron seems to do quite well with novels that are not Canon, but that also move things along. Not trying to say you're wrong here, Wooly, I'm just curious if you'd be willing to speculate on how the Realms would have grown if there'd been a policy in place that novels aren't Canon when the Realms first got under way as a game setting.
Well, I for one didn't bother with any of the Eber-whatsit novels, purely because they didn't move the gameworld forward. If I'm reading something set in a setting -- shared world, game, or otherwise -- I want to know that things happen in that setting, and that those happenings include what I'm reading.
Well, I'd have to argue against this, just slightly. There is a specific reason why the EB novels haven't moved the setting forward all that much. And, specifically, is due to the fallout of the Last War. Both designers and authors chose to deliberately focus the foundation years of the setting, on the devastating political, geographical, and environmental impact of the Last War, which slowed the progression of the setting somewhat.
Now, though, with that foundation firmly established, we're seeing events and characters encountering new and unusual situations as the novel-branch of the setting develops.
quote:
As I've said many times (and as Sage has disagreed with many times), it was the lack of anything happening in the setting that made me lose interest in Dragonlance. At the time I grew bored with it, there were five trilogies in the setting. Two trilogies moved the setting forward. One trilogy used those same characters, but earlier. Another trilogy was set further back in the past. And then the last trilogy was anthologies -- some of the stories dealt with the Heroes of the Lance (and at least one of those tales was problematic), some of the stories dealt with other characters and other times... But they didn't move things forward.
I'll just say that I've addressed this elsewhere, rather than ramble on about it again. 
|
| Therise |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 18:41:14
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
lol, Dark Sun is essentially what's left after every conceivable RSE has already happened.
Much of this thread seems to be an argument over what "canon" means. The definition for canon is here. The finer definition is more about individual decisions which determine which canon is the "true" authority; all other canons are false. Wizbro always has and always will assert strictly orthodox official canon. But major schisms exist and many people choose to study older or even foreign writings and follow nonorthodox canon. There are even proselytizers, inquisitors, champions, and crusaders.
It's easy to blame the authors and designers, and teams and committees, and the pinhead executive corpers. But without their continuing work the Realms would falter and diminish, if not perish altogether. I'm personally willing to overlook the body count and blast craters if most of the Realms remains intact, it's better than no Realms at all.
Dark Sun appeals to people who like the whole post-apocalyptic feel for their settings. I'm just not one of those people, at all.
That said, RSEs are not the only things from novels that can find their way into an ongoing canon timeline. In fact, there are about a TONLOAD of non-RSE events from novels that show up in the GHotR.
And I'm not sure I've seen any major arguments yet in this thread about what constitutes canon, just that some canon events (particularly some RSEs) are disliked greatly by some and liked by others.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 18:33:44
lol, Dark Sun is essentially what's left after every conceivable RSE has already happened.
Much of this thread seems to be an argument over what "canon" means. The definition for canon is here. The finer definition is more about individual decisions which determine which canon is the "true" authority; all other canons are false. Wizbro always has and always will assert strictly orthodox official canon. But major schisms exist and many people choose to study older or even foreign writings and follow nonorthodox canon. There are even proselytizers, inquisitors, champions, and crusaders.
It's easy to blame the authors and designers, and teams and committees, and the pinhead executive corpers. But without their continuing work the Realms would falter and diminish, if not perish altogether. I'm personally willing to overlook the body count and blast craters if most of the Realms remains intact, it's better than no Realms at all. |
| Therise |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 18:31:06
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
One of the things I like to remember is that it's rarely a single author's decision to make major changes to the Realms.
Like, I can't blame Troy Denning for the Time of Troubles series any more than I can blame Lisa Smedman for the culling of the dark elf gods in the Lady Penitent. These things were internal committee decisions from the design team, and the authors in question were provided outlines to follow with some "must have" events.
As awful as the death of Eilistraee was, the series was actually quite good. I can't say that I liked the ToT novels or even Crucible, but I do know that Denning has written some other things I've liked.
So IMO it's rarely the author. I blame the respective design teams.
If the Realms novels had never been canon, I imagine that the Realms would be faring about as well as Dark Sun (although a good portion of the problems also stem from LFR's tie to the Realms). Fewer RSEs would've been "needed" and there wouldn't have been the polarizing division in the fanbase that 4E Realms caused.
Oh come on. First, Dark Sun wasn't the creation of a gamer for his own home world with almost 20 years behind it before publication. Second, it is precisely making the Dark Sun novels canon that ruined the campaign world in Dark Sun and lead to its demise (ever heard of the Prism Pentad?).
I never read them, but the word everywhere is that Dark Sun novels are not canon. From discussions I've followed, the early TSR novels for DS used canon as a starting point (including Denning's novels) but not canon in and of themselves. The reasoning had something to do with the novelists being in entirely separate TSR departments that didn't communicate well on content (as they had wholly separate editors and deadlines). But even after TSR shifted to WotC my understanding is that all the DS novels were / are still not canon.
My view might be mistaken, of course. I don't play DS or follow it much at all, even the novels. Just stating the "what I hear all the time" status on DS canon, so it is what it is.
But regardless of DS, I firmly believe that the Realms would have been FAR better off without the noose of tying novel canon to it. Yes, you get a few small benefits from tying novel canon to game canon, but the costs have outweighed those benefits ever since the first novel was published.
You can have amazing novelists like Elaine Cunningham who write the Realms perfectly, even when under specific "make this event happen" sorts of outline rules handed down from the design committee, but those novelists have a rare gift.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 18:19:42
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Just a friendly reminder: Candlekeep plays host to authors and game designers. We like having them here and we don't like driving them away from this website.
I realize you (Paul) have a beef with Denning, but it would be nice if we could move away from spreading memes like "Troy Denning: Killing the Realms Since After Dragonwall" to something a little more substantive and thoughtful. I.e. leave the nerdrage to the WotC forums.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If we disconnect novels and game material, then the feeling that things are happening goes away -- and with it, a portion of the fanbase.
Is that likely, though? Eberron seems to do quite well with novels that are not Canon, but that also move things along. Not trying to say you're wrong here, Wooly, I'm just curious if you'd be willing to speculate on how the Realms would have grown if there'd been a policy in place that novels aren't Canon when the Realms first got under way as a game setting.
Well, I for one didn't bother with any of the Eber-whatsit novels, purely because they didn't move the gameworld forward. If I'm reading something set in a setting -- shared world, game, or otherwise -- I want to know that things happen in that setting, and that those happenings include what I'm reading.
As I've said many times (and as Sage has disagreed with many times), it was the lack of anything happening in the setting that made me lose interest in Dragonlance. At the time I grew bored with it, there were five trilogies in the setting. Two trilogies moved the setting forward. One trilogy used those same characters, but earlier. Another trilogy was set further back in the past. And then the last trilogy was anthologies -- some of the stories dealt with the Heroes of the Lance (and at least one of those tales was problematic), some of the stories dealt with other characters and other times... But they didn't move things forward.
So we had 15 books, of which only 40% advanced the timeline. And that killed my interest in the setting and made me happily jump into the Realms with both feet, embracing a setting that was moved forward in the novels.
Now, I know I'm hardly representative of all Realms fans. But it seems to me that telling a story in a novel -- whether or not there is an accompanying adventure -- moves the setting forward far more effectively than just an adventure.
Some Realms fans only read novels. Some read more source material than novels. Some read a lot of both. Keeping setting changes limited to just source material or adventures leaves out the novel readers, and will have less appeal to those that read both.
One of the things that drew me to the Realms was how so much was interconnected -- and that includes novel material and game material. Would we have ever had things like Code of the Harpers or multiple Waterdeep books/boxed sets if the novels didn't drive interest in such things?
Yes, I realize that novels can interfere with a DM's ideal version of canon. But that's going to happen with or without novels. In my opinion, linking everything provides for a richer, more detailed setting -- and that's exactly the kind of thing this fan wants. |
| Apex |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 18:17:30
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
One of the things I like to remember is that it's rarely a single author's decision to make major changes to the Realms.
Like, I can't blame Troy Denning for the Time of Troubles series any more than I can blame Lisa Smedman for the culling of the dark elf gods in the Lady Penitent. These things were internal committee decisions from the design team, and the authors in question were provided outlines to follow with some "must have" events.
As awful as the death of Eilistraee was, the series was actually quite good. I can't say that I liked the ToT novels or even Crucible, but I do know that Denning has written some other things I've liked.
So IMO it's rarely the author. I blame the respective design teams.
If the Realms novels had never been canon, I imagine that the Realms would be faring about as well as Dark Sun (although a good portion of the problems also stem from LFR's tie to the Realms). Fewer RSEs would've been "needed" and there wouldn't have been the polarizing division in the fanbase that 4E Realms caused.
Oh come on. First, Dark Sun wasn't the creation of a gamer for his own home world with almost 20 years behind it before publication. Second, it is precisely making the Dark Sun novels canon that ruined the campaign world in Dark Sun and lead to its demise (ever heard of the Prism Pentad?). |
| Therise |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 17:57:53
One of the things I like to remember is that it's rarely a single author's decision to make major changes to the Realms.
Like, I can't blame Troy Denning for the Time of Troubles series any more than I can blame Lisa Smedman for the culling of the dark elf gods in the Lady Penitent. These things were internal committee decisions from the design team, and the authors in question were provided outlines to follow with some "must have" events.
As awful as the death of Eilistraee was, the series was actually quite good. I can't say that I liked the ToT novels or even Crucible, but I do know that Denning has written some other things I've liked.
So IMO it's rarely the author. I blame the respective design teams.
If the Realms novels had never been canon, I imagine that the Realms would be faring about as well as Dark Sun (although a good portion of the problems also stem from LFR's tie to the Realms). Fewer RSEs would've been "needed" and there wouldn't have been the polarizing division in the fanbase that 4E Realms caused. |
| Apex |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 17:51:42
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Just a friendly reminder: Candlekeep plays host to authors and game designers. We like having them here and we don't like driving them away from this website.
I realize you (Paul) have a beef with Denning, but it would be nice if we could move away from spreading memes like "Troy Denning: Killing the Realms Since After Dragonwall" to something a little more substantive and thoughtful. I.e. leave the nerdrage to the WotC forums.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If we disconnect novels and game material, then the feeling that things are happening goes away -- and with it, a portion of the fanbase.
Is that likely, though? Eberron seems to do quite well with novels that are not Canon, but that also move things along. Not trying to say you're wrong here, Wooly, I'm just curious if you'd be willing to speculate on how the Realms would have grown if there'd been a policy in place that novels aren't Canon when the Realms first got under way as a game setting.
The Realms would have done fine, as the early supplements (that didn't take novels into account) have demonstrated. And if it is just fleshed out NPC's that you want, that could be accomplished through a "Realms of Valor" type book that doesn't really impact the setting. What the advancement of the timeline does most is limit DM's by having the things that took place in novels assumed as part of the world (through supplements) and thus make the removal of those events much more difficult (I still implore everyone to loof at FR2 vs the Moonshae Trilogy as an example of how this can be accomplished). |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 17:22:34
Just a friendly reminder: Candlekeep plays host to authors and game designers. We like having them here and we don't like driving them away from this website.
I realize you (Paul) have a beef with Denning, but it would be nice if we could move away from spreading memes like "Troy Denning: Killing the Realms Since After Dragonwall" to something a little more substantive and thoughtful.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If we disconnect novels and game material, then the feeling that things are happening goes away -- and with it, a portion of the fanbase.
Is that likely, though? Eberron seems to do quite well with novels that are not Canon, but that also move things along. Not trying to say you're wrong here, Wooly, I'm just curious if you'd be willing to speculate on how the Realms would have grown if there'd been a policy in place that novels aren't Canon when the Realms first got under way as a game setting.
|
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 07:04:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
To me, novels are the best way to advance the setting's timeline. If novels and the setting are independent of each other, I'm not going to feel as compelled to pay attention to either side of the setting.
What drew me into the Realms was that things were happening. If we disconnect novels and game material, then the feeling that things are happening goes away -- and with it, a portion of the fanbase.
I agree. Especially when the novels a firmly grounded in chronology so your PCs can hear about the events in them as they pursue their own adventures. It adds to the versimilitude mentioned earlier.
I think the real problem was how the novels are handled.
I'm not even sure the problem is purely the gods. maybe it's just Troy Denning. I liked Dragonwall but after that his work seemed dedicated to ripping the Realms to shreds. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 01:04:18
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
I agree with Apex. Alystra, indeed the iconic npcs are crucial to for the popularity of the world. I'm not saying that at all. Only if the novels are keeping the game alive I doubt the majority of the novel customers care e.g. that Obould's death is mentioned in a gaming product or that he still remains as a threat to the pcs. Cause if they cared about the game canon the sales of the sourcebooks be nearly as great as the sales of novels.
Yeah, except for the minor facts that novels are cheaper than sourcebooks, more portable, and appeal to gamers and non-gamers alike.
Right, but having all the novels incorporated into the gaming world (through supplements and what not) isn't necessarily required for the novels to be successful or meaningful. The example I gave of Moonshae (and the Moonshae trilogy) exemplifies this well. Supplements can provide the background info without having to incorporate the "canon" of the novels.
To me, novels are the best way to advance the setting's timeline. If novels and the setting are independent of each other, I'm not going to feel as compelled to pay attention to either side of the setting.
What drew me into the Realms was that things were happening. If we disconnect novels and game material, then the feeling that things are happening goes away -- and with it, a portion of the fanbase. |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 17:55:46
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
Right, but having all the novels incorporated into the gaming world (through supplements and what not) isn't necessarily required for the novels to be successful or meaningful.
The problem is neither you nor I (nor anyone) knows if altering the current set up will help or hinder sales. We can guess with relative certainty that a number of people read the books but do not play the RPG. I think that is a safe assumption. We do not know how many people we are talking about though. We also do not know how many people do both, or how many people only play the RPG and care nothing for the novels. We do not know if some players will stop reading the books if they are not canon, thus decreasing sales. We do not know if that will somehow increase sales elsewhere to compensate. It's a gamble that as far as we know is not built on any rational premise or hard numbers.
I have seen WotC make this mistake at least once before and I would prefer to not see it again. This is more or less what helped kill the D&D miniatures line. WotC stated, depending on who you asked, time of day, direction of the wind, etc, that between 75% and 90% of the miniatures sales were for RPG purposes. They had no realistic way of knowing this information. There were never any serious surveys, and if there were they were kept very close and were not nationwide. I know some of the folks who went on to try to keep the game alive through a fan effort, who were notable organizers of tournaments before that, who were never asked or contacted in any way and neither were the stores where they ran events (which would've been moving a noticeable amount of product). Beyond that, the apparent assumption was that there was no noticeable crossover in sales between RPG and Skirmish. I could've told them this was absolutely untrue. Asking any 20 players at GenCon could've told them the same thing. Somehow, they either never considered or didn't give enough consideration to the idea that their distribution format was not one that RPG players would embrace on it's own. Having a miniatures game helped sell the collectible format because people who play those games accept that as a format. Then they began a series of mistakes that finally caused them to stop supporting the skirmish game. Yet, they did not change the distribution format. They believed RPG players would continue to buy random boosters. Now, hopefully it is apparent that they do not know how to do some things and that they do not know how to interpret some numbers. They misunderstood their market and assumed one set of customers could carry them so they chose to favor that one set. I do not trust them to change a policy that to all outside viewers is apparently working (bringing in sales) to satisfy the desires of a relative handful. Just consider the number of acts by WotC that you consider mistakes. I am guessing it is a relatively large number. And now you want them to change the current set up to something that you want, despite all appearances that at least parts of the current are working (bringing in money). Do you honestly expect it to be done well?
Edit to add: Having said that, I don't see what the problem would be with releasing adventures that start at the onset of the events of a RSE and allow your players to play through it with the understanding that this is how it happened in "your" Realms. Obviously you might run into problems down the road when things you don't like keep accumulating, but for a while it could work and possibly keep more people staisfied. Just view the novel/RPG material Realms as Forgottern Realms Prime and your home Realms as an alternate universe where some things are the same and some things could be wildly different. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 16:52:55
Nor does that guarantee that the supplements would be more popular either, if based on the novels. What works for one group's campaign might not work for others. It's a matter of what the DMs and PALAYERS want- which seems to just be more consistency in the world, as opposed to which lore gets used. I think Apex had the right idea in how to combine the two. It's just that in recent years (let's face it, basically ever since they took over) WotC has lost sight of that crucial sense of continuity. Other venues are occasionally subject to the same problem, but seem to do more to TRY to fix it in-world. (Marvel, DC come to mind here...) |
| Apex |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 16:17:36
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
I agree with Apex. Alystra, indeed the iconic npcs are crucial to for the popularity of the world. I'm not saying that at all. Only if the novels are keeping the game alive I doubt the majority of the novel customers care e.g. that Obould's death is mentioned in a gaming product or that he still remains as a threat to the pcs. Cause if they cared about the game canon the sales of the sourcebooks be nearly as great as the sales of novels.
Yeah, except for the minor facts that novels are cheaper than sourcebooks, more portable, and appeal to gamers and non-gamers alike.
Right, but having all the novels incorporated into the gaming world (through supplements and what not) isn't necessarily required for the novels to be successful or meaningful. The example I gave of Moonshae (and the Moonshae trilogy) exemplifies this well. Supplements can provide the background info without having to incorporate the "canon" of the novels. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 15:24:01
That is a fairly common problem in fictional settings, especially fantasy, where the setting has a long backstory but a relatively short period of time during which the main story takes place. It was something I brought up on TV tropes as "Six A.M. on the cosmic alarm clock"; you'd have world threatening events in the past, sometimes several, but usually with a few hundred if not thousands of years between. And then when the story starts, in this case a little before the time of troubles, ancient evils start waking up, sealed threats are unsealed, and various other disasters happen wih remarkable freqency.
A prime example would be warcraft, where you have a few major things happening in the backstory, but in the span of the games you have two demonic invasions, great old ones waking up, a zombie apocalypse, and dragons trying to destroy time itself, all in the span of ten years. |
|
|
