| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 30 Jun 2012 : 09:21:51
Okay, so... I've been behaving like a rabid grognard in various people's threads off and on for a while, and the first order of business should probably be to apologize for that. 
I'm also going to ignore the conventional wisdom that people don't read long posts, and punch out a mini-novel. I'm assuming that if you care about this topic then you'll have the attention span to follow along. Maybe that deserves an apology too, but I've reached my quota on that for the day. 
TL;DR - pick a year, and it stays that year forever, for game sourcebooks... this does not affect novels... this fixes problems and has no drawbacks. Rabid Grognard for President.
For now, I'm thinking of a campaign setting as a snapshot, or many snapshots taken at the same time. By this definition, when the timestamps are different, it could be a travelogue but it's not a setting. Alongside that metaphor is the following: the setting's "job" is to be a stable foundation on which (potentially infinite) campaigns can be built; an unstable foundation is obviously bad.
I have a couple of objections to advancing the timeline.
1. It removes the ability to continue enjoying the Realms as they're originally written. By this I mean that things are overwritten/replaced, and as readers/DMs we never know when this is going to occur, and that makes it less enjoyable. Azoun IV dies. Well, that sucks, though (more generally speaking) the desperation of the next regime to pick up the pieces and "fill the shoes" of the previous one adds something to campaigns as well as stories. And it's fine for people to die in novels; like in movies, we expect it. The problem, from a gaming perspective, is that the era is now past/lost. We won't see more current adventures written during the reign of Azoun IV. It happened, but we're not there anymore. And yea, that's life, but when we sit at the table and pour out the dice, we're not playing life. We're playing a game, which in some ways simulates life but sometimes simulating life too closely kills the enjoyment of the game, and that shouldn't happen.
Another way to put it is that advancing the timeline creates instability in the setting, at least as far as gaming is concerned. And that is the antithesis of the setting's job. Again, we expect time to march on in novels. We also expect time to proceed in an orderly manner within each individual campaign. But something different has been happening in the Realms, and it should stop.
It's one thing if I deliberately choose to place my campaign in -5000 DR. I don't expect WotC to produce modules and sourcebooks for me when I put the game in the past. That makes it more convenient for me to place the campaign in the present, because I can realistically expect to see supporting sourcebooks which are relevant to the present. But... crap... the present keeps moving... now my game has to either match the pace, or I have to wing it. As soon as I have to wing it, there's less advantage in placing the campaign in the present. Ultimately, if I have to wing it there's no real advantage to buying FR products.
You're pulling the rug out from under me, and --predictably-- it's pissing me off. Stop it.
It bears specifically pointing out that time can do whatever it wants to in novels without the rpg product lines being attached. Even if (as I'm saying it should be) it's 1357 forever in game products, it can be (and is) simultaneously 1372, 1479, and -20,000 in novels. Novels and sourcebooks are different things, and they don't have to follow all the same rules.
2. It's an excuse to stop development and repeat/redo/screwup previous work.
1e started in 1357. A few sourcebooks were written, but iirc we were already kinda close to 2e. I was in jr high school then, and years kinda melted together for a while. My point is that it was decided (for whatever reason) that the move to 2e rules was also going to reboot the Realms.
2e started in 1365, following the Time of Troubles. A bunch of stuff was rewritten --er, expanded-- until 3e came out, at which point it started again. There was new stuff in 2e that wasn't released in 1e; I'm not saying there was nothing new. I'm saying there was a lot of unnecessary rehash. Well... it was necessary given the "need" to redo everybody's stat blocks, but unnecessary in terms of illuminating the world.
And the places we didn't see until 2e (Old Empires for example) were part of the product line that started in 1e so if 2e hadn't come around we would have gotten those sources anyway. That's (part of) what I'm getting at... we would have gotten the new stuff anyway, without wasting time redoing the 1e stuff. So why not just stop redoing old stuff? "Greed" is one obvious answer, but I'd like a less-sleezy motive to assume.
I'm not looking at a chronological listing of products and matching up anything. I'm not saying that we got things in any exact order. I'm saying that we got a whole bunch of "newold" info with each edition, mixed in with the actual new stuff.
Each new edition slows development of new places and starts us over again in the "center" of the Realms. This wasted time results in never getting past Faerun before the next edition looms on the horizon and creative efforts are siphoned off to that. I'm saying this is neither necessary (once you ignore stat blocks) nor good.
I get that some players like the rehash, because it updates the familiar places. I dislike that those places are so familiar due to being the places that get the majority of authors' time and energy. There are thousands of places in the Realms, each of which could be just as interesting and just as playworthy and just as Heartlandsish as Waterdeep, Cormyr, and the Dales... but as long as we keep starting over again every few years, we will never hear about them.
Well, that's a bit untrue. We will hear about them, but not from WotC. We'll hear about them, eventually, from DMs and players who got fed up and created the material themselves.
And that's cool; I'm all in favor of anyone and everyone developing new Realms material. I just dislike seeing the Heartlands over and over again, when there are entire continents out there and all we know about them is that they're there. On the one hand, it's cool that they're open to individual campaign development. But if that's the attitude we're going to have, then why bother publishing anything at all? Why not leave everything open? Just make a map, and say "okay, these places are out there... have fun." And then later "Here's a mutilation of the map. Most/some of those places are still there but they look different. Have fun." That would be a stupid attitude for a company to have... but the current one isn't really all that different. We have a whole world to explore, and we're kinda just walkin the dog around the block repeatedly.
Instead... why not outline the entire planet, without restarting at each new edition? 5e will be a great opportunity to say a few new things.
1. Changes in the rules system no longer induce reboots of the Realms. RSEs will no longer accompany rules changes. In fact, we're no longer going to make RSEs part of canon at all. Instead, we'll occasionally suggest things like Ragnarok, plagues, and other catastrophes, but we'll present them as campaign options. These events will come complete with omens/portents/foreshadowing which you can dole out to PCs in the years before the event, the course of events that compose the "big boom", their immediate visible effects on important areas and NPCs of the Realms, some not-so-visible effects too, and suggested aftermath for how the event will shape the future of the world. However, they're not canon; the official product line will not assume that these events have transpired, so you retain complete freedom to use them or not use them in your individual campaign, without the hassle of disentangling unwanted RSEs from future sourcebooks. Importantly, no specific date will be attached to the possible RSEs, so with minor modification you can place these events wherever you want in the timeline. It is, after all, your campaign.
2. There are several continents on Toril. Here are their names, at least as far as Faerunian sages are concerned. Going forward, we're going to have several new product lines. F products will describe Faerun (including the Hordelands), K products will describe Kara-Tur, Z products will describe Zakhara, T products will describe That-continent-over-there, and so forth.
3. We're no longer going to advance the timeline. This will be a positive change in several ways. First and most noticeably, all non-novel products in most (see #4 below for the exception) lines will have the same in-game date regardless of when they're published; this means that everything jives and you can easily reference all new Realmslore in your campaigns because it all has the same date. Another change, subtle perhaps but important, is that novels can be set anywhere on the timeline... that's always been true, but it's more true now. In the past, it's been difficult for stories to be placed in the right-now or recent past, because authors are never 100% certain of what's coming next, and their stories might be invalidated by things that are already planned. Now, you can write anything, as long as it's consistent with current lore, and it will mesh fine. Behind the scenes, this will make our job of keeping things consistent much easier; on the outside, we're hoping that authors will enjoy the fact that we can now accept a lot more story ideas than we could before. Far-reaching series, such as the Drizzt and Elminster and Harpers novels, can freely proceed into the future as far as they'd like to.
4. Along with our new continental product lines, we're introducing the Portholes line. This series of sourcebooks will describe the Realms as it may appear in the past and the future. We've already looked at Netheril and Cormanthyr, in the Arcane Age line... the Portholes line is essentially broadening Arcane Age to include everything. The Spellscarred Realms will be our first Portholes product series; we will continue to publish post-1479 sourcebooks and novels under this label. We'll also be looking at the Age of Aryvandaar, which will spotlight what was simultaneously the highest pinnacle and the deepest abyss of elven civilization in the known history of the Realms. In addition, we're already thinking about the next portholes, which may explore the empires of the various Creator Races and the future of Luruar, aka the Silver Marches. Understandably, our immediate schedule is filled mostly with kingdoms of the past, but we encourage writers to develop the future of the Realms as well.
5. 4e brought Abeir somewhat to light, but there are of course many more stories to tell there as well. We hope to showcase this "new" world in the near future... all we need is writers, hint hint! Abeir has a different, more primal nature than Toril, and we're as excited as you are to explore it.
Okay, so I started getting a little... something there at the end. My point is that things could be done very differently, very well, and everybody could be happy with the results.
Answers to possible questions/concerns.
1a: What about when the rules change or remove classes? For example, 1e had an assassin class, and 2e didn't. Something needed to happen to all the assassins in the Realms.
A: Write up the revised statblocks for a few representative NPCs using the new ruleset, and suggested conversion methods for assassin PCs, and put them in a .pdf on the website. Done. No RSE necessary or justified, and a lot less money down the drain.
2a: Nobody cares about those other continents.
A: Nobody, eh? Then who put them there and why are they there, smartypants?
2b: People place their games in the Heartlands because it's the most popular place to game.
A: False. People place their games in the Heartlands because they don't have other options which they judge to be both viable and interesting. When this happens it means (imo) that there was a failure to communicate, somewhere. Find and fix the communication errors, and stop limiting the Realms to a handful of regions.
3a: What if someone writes an awesome series of novels set in 1600 DR, and the halflings have taken over, while R. A. Salvatore writes a story about the "normal" Realms with Drizzt in 1600 DR and halflings are definitely not in control?
A: The answer is it doesn't matter. The only time it would matter is if the official timeline reached 1600 DR and we had to choose: Salvatore's Realms, the halfling Realms, or something completely different that invalidates both? But when the current year doesn't move, we don't have to choose. Salvatore can write his Realms, and the halfling Realms doesn't have to coexist because --and I know WotC gets this, because they've used it-- they're different Realms. Alternate paths. It might cross my mind, while I'm reading about halflings having elf slaves in 1600 DR, to chuckle and think about Drizzt kicking halfling butt. But I *often* ponder someone else's characters while reading a novel or story, regardless of the setting. I think about Blade getting popped into the Twilight Saga... don't we all? Drizzt is R. A. Salvatore's character, and the halfling author can't write with complete freedom about him anyway, so it's not important to resolve this issue. They're different stories, and it's okay for them to have different visions of the future. In the end, they're daydreams anyway. The point of writing novels is to tell a story... and in the case of D&D novels, to paint a picture that might inspire campaign development. If someone wants to have a halfling-dominated Realms, go for it! If someone wants to have Drizzt around in 1600, do it! The timeline isn't going to force them to coexist, and that's a big chunk of the beauty in stopping the advancement.
4a: There is no Luruar. It went poof.
A: It was an example. Also, given the mindset described in the 1600 DR answer above, it is completely possible to have a Silver Marches kingdom in one future Porthole and a Spellplague in another. They're independent stories.
4b: What the heck do portholes have to do with anything?
A: I thought of "Timestreams" first but the stream image isn't consistent with the main idea here. Portholes was the next metaphor that came to mind... looking through a window, in this case into the past or future.
4c: Nobody cares that much about the past.
A: ...
4d: If the Portholes line really provides full support (ie, a whole campaign world) for the post-Spellplague Realms, then what's the difference between setting the "official" date at 1357 and setting it at 1479? Would you be equally happy if the current date was 1479 and the 1357 Realms was one of the portholes?
A: If the Portholes line really provides full support, then there's no difference, and I would be equally happy. This is what I want... I want this line to be good enough that it doesn't matter what the official date is because both Post-1479 and Pre-1358 players are equally supported and equally happy. I think this sort of line would be a huge asset to WotC... I just hope they see it too.
5a: Are you on drugs?
A: No, I'm actually this way, every day, without them.
/endgrog
Raise points, objections, whatever. I won't flame you if you don't flame me... and probably not even if you do, because (believe it or not) I'd kinda like folks to like me a little bit. But poke holes in anything/everything I've said with whatever you can find, with one exception. I'm not interested in what you don't think WotC will/can do from a business angle. Not even if you're a Harvard MBA. They have plenty of experience deciding for themselves what can't be done, and ...respectfully... they're probably better at it than you are. Where they need help is in seeing what they can do. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 23 Jul 2012 : 01:58:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
How are there more stories to tell when you've locked the setting to a specific date and thus time is not moving forward to allow for those stories?
I'm not suggesting locking the setting to a specific date. I'm suggesting locking the main continental line sourcebooks to a specific date, which enables describing the whole world rather than remaining stuck in the same little cul-de-sac we've been in since the release of 2e. In no way are these sourcebooks the only way of developing the setting, however. There are novels, DDI articles, potentially adventures, and the Portholes sourcebook line with which to move forward. There is still a future, with my suggestions. The difference is that there's more of a present in addition, and that's why there will be more room for novels... because more places are being described. The rest of the continent that Maztica is on, with all the cultures located there. The other (two large and several small) continents about which we know nothing after 30 years because we've seen four versions of the Heartlands. Additionally, we now have the entire planet of Abeir to talk about too. I would take nothing away from the future of the Realms... I would merely shift things around in a rational way so that we can break out of the cycle we've been stuck in up until now.
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I think it was said in many post that writing novels in the future is not a bad thing.
Right. Novels should move into the future. In fact, I would set the task of scripting the future of the Realms squarely on the novel department's shoulders. Open the floodgates, and let the authors do what they do best.
quote:
Originally posted by Portella
100 years was stupid IMO.
Agreed, the 100 year jump was... unfortunate. The bizarre thing is that, in my opinion, the only way to move directly forward in the Realms, if they decide not to rewind to 1357 (or further), will be to make another big jump... because there's no way old fans are coming back if the Spellplague isn't erased, and the only way to effectively get rid of it without rewinding is to fast-forward so far that its effects have "worn off" - i.e., no flying earth motes, no scars, we have a decent pantheon again, etc. Getting rid of the Spellplague would alienate some/many 4e fans, and not getting rid of it will finally abandon the old gamers to other game systems. Which suggests that moving forward, with a unified timeline, is a bad idea. The solution is to either move backwards, or split up the timeline - "support multiple eras" is the new phrase, I guess.
I think supporting multiple specific eras is still like walking through a minefield (it's important to pick the eras carefully) and it's a logistical nightmare. If the beancounters are unsatisfied with the profit margin in producing products for one era, how is anyone going to justify supporting three or more? The easy answer is: one-third or fewer products for each of those eras. Which will make precisely nobody happy. That's my problem with multiple eras... it only works if WotC suddenly has 3x (or 5x, or whatever) as much money... which it doesn't. I'm guessing their budget is actually smaller than it was a few years ago, since (presumably) they've been producing less revenue.
This is all getting into way too much speculation and the truth isn't available to any of us.
My solution (as summed up by someone earlier in this thread) is to go beyond the idea of multiple eras, to infinite eras. Rather than commit to specific years like 1335 (23 yrs before the ToT), 1360 (25 yrs til the Spellplague), and 1480... instead have one line of sourcebooks, which finishes the job began in 1987, and another line of sourcebooks that looks at various places all over the timeline (each of which is a mini-setting on its own), and a zillion novels filling in the gaps in the past and also rolling into the future. Updating and expanding all this, we have DDI articles... so many articles that no grognard can utter the phrase "totally not worth the subscription fee" with a straight face. So many novels that we don't have time to read them all. Sourcebooks... well, we need a bunch of those too but they need to go way beyond what we've already seen.
There's no excuse for ever running out of things to write about. There's also no excuse for writing more sourcebooks about the dalelands (beyond the one 5e book that will need to be done for the sake of a complete tour of Toril). Novels, sure. DDI articles, definitely. Even adventures.
It's (past) time to see the rest of the Realms. |
| Portella |
Posted - 21 Jul 2012 : 18:20:09
We are going round in circles there wont be any consensus other then at least that needs to progress the question is by how much and 100 years was stupid IMO. |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 21 Jul 2012 : 04:12:29
I think it was said in many post that writing novels in the future is not a bad thing. I like them myself. I just don't want to see these changes in the gaming material. Keep them in the novel world. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Jul 2012 : 00:12:20
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I don't see a downside for any DM or player, past/present/future. More Realms, more places to go, more stories.
How are there more stories to tell when you've locked the setting to a specific date and thus time is not moving forward to allow for those stories?
Dragonlance did exactly what you proposed, at least for a while, many years back -- they didn't move forward at all, and only explored the present or the past. And it's because they did that that I dropped the setting and I'm now a Realms fan. And sometime after this, they decided it was time to move forward again, and made a lot more products. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 20 Jul 2012 : 23:55:23
My premise is that any advancement overwrites previous lore, by definition. Slower overwrites is a better situation than faster overwrites, but no overwrites at all is even better.
I'm not against advancement. I like seeing the past and future at least as much as everyone else does. I want there to be a past, and a future.
I'm against requiring advancement. I'm against publishing it as a fact rather than a possibility, thus cutting out all other possibilities to present one singular reality, warped from the previous reality, for all XYZ of us. Publishing it means the foundation on which all our campaigns are based has been changed. Patched. Or in 4e's case, jackhammered and sold as angel food cake.
I want to see a Realms setting that presents the whole world. I'll settle for significantly more than we've seen so far.
I want to see a set of product lines that illuminates the past, as well as outlining the present.
I want to see other game products, including novels and DDI, used to develop the future of the entire world... or at least what we're shown of it.
Thus, we continue to have a future, while also getting more of a present upon which to build that future. The big change I'm proposing is really just creating more of a market for novels and DDI material.
Well, that, and a shift in paradigm from 4e's "let's see how we can muck things up" to something more like "let's see how much we can expand the Realms."
I don't see a downside for any DM or player, past/present/future. More Realms, more places to go, more stories. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 20 Jul 2012 : 19:17:11
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I think that in a sense, the realms has been more static with the concept they chose. They always cover the same regions of Toril because time passes. Novels are being written and every edition of the game justifies the decision to rewrite and change the world over again. In the new setting, all they do is come back the same places and explain what this or that novel has done in game terms.
Yes. If each new sourcebook has to repeat the essential overview and then cover changed and replaced elements, it's left with little space to provide depth. When you zoom in like this from the overview to the level of the Volo's Guides and the FOR series, you find that the Realms is not simply how you'd supposed it, or how a typical DM would improvise it; it's better and richer, and much of its distinctiveness and life appears at this level. This is why I respect DMs who prefer to improvise from a minimal published summary but don't accept that it's a superior approach.
And when sourcebooks are like that, customers start expecting they'll be rehashes, whereas we know that the already existing lore on each of the Heartlands nations/regions could easily fill several such books.
Timeline advancement that invalidates already developed setting detail before it's even published is categorically too fast. |
| Quale |
Posted - 20 Jul 2012 : 11:19:53
The timeline did advance too quickly IMO, imagine how many useful details we would get if the timeline advanced 3 months for 1 Earth's year. There would be a lot less RSEs for sure. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 19 Jul 2012 : 01:01:39
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
Xaeryrudd, what are some events that have occurred in your campaign in 1381 DR?
This is perhaps more (or less) than you were looking for, but you asked. 
Background
The campaign I'm working on now starts in 1365 DR, in Mulhorand where it's 3500 MC. The Time of Troubles didn't happen, and the return of Shade and the Spellplague won't happen. I'm using 3.5 rules and the 1e/2e FR maps. I've expanded the original Mulhorandi and Untheric pantheons to 18 God-Kings each, although many of those perished in the Orcgate Wars or in the centuries since; the point is just that there are a few more of them in my game than appear in the official Realms. Although the Time of Troubles didn't happen in this campaign, Tiamat's defeat of Gilgeam did. Gilgeam had previously slain or exiled all of the other remaining Untheric God-Kings, so Tiamat (and Hoar, but he doesn't count) is all that's left of the Untheric pantheon, making her the goddess of absolutely everything as far as the people of Unther are concerned.
I don't yet have a plan for 1385 DR, and I'm not desperate to get one. The official Realms places the Spellplague here, and I will not be using that. My answer to the question of "well, what are you going to do then" is that not every entry on the Roll refers to a major Realms-wide event. The official Realms picks this year to make a big one; I will pick others. Blue fire could refer to a lot of different things, and if I get a cool idea I'll probably use it, but if not it's no big deal.
This campaign has three parts, each spanning a few decades, and separated by several centuries. From beginning to end, about 1000 years will elapse during the campaign. Each of the three parts will see PCs advancing from level 1 to probably 30 or so. So there will be a succession of characters, with followers etc. By the end of each part, the PCs will essentially be generals at the head of armies.
I'm planning to mess with perspective a bit… the players should see all sides of the conflict. For example, in one adventure they defend a citadel, playing any rank from civilians to commanders, issuing and following and defying orders as they see fit to best accomplish their ultimate objective: the slaughter of the disgusting invaders. Then, immediately or soon after that, they're fighting their way into a sarrukh stronghold… with a different floorplan, but just enough similarity that they realize that they were playing as their foes last week. I want to give them the chance to play as phaerimm, dragons, and other monsters that aren't typically considered PC races …without necessarily ever saying "hokay, you're all playing as hissing snakes this week, go eat some humans" …and with appropriate challenges of course, so there will be a place, near the end of each chapter, for CR 40 encounters due to the high levels the campaign will reach.
Part 1
I haven't mapped out exactly which years each event takes place in, yet. Part 1, tentatively titled First Blood, is going, so far, from 1365 until about 1420 or so, so by 1381 the party will be about 30% through the first chapter. Up until now, their most obvious recurring foe has been the cult of Set, but they will have recently become aware of a cult calling itself the Ankh of Dasanaru.
Dasanaru is a powerful fiend, made up for this campaign; an advanced ultroloth probably… I haven't decided yet because his precise stats aren't important; the PCs will never face him directly. In this campaign's version of history, Dasanaru was the last emperor of Imaskar, and like many powerful figures there was a cult devoted to the idea that he was a god. The events of the cataclysm (circa -2500 DR) which shattered the imperial kingdom of Raurin banished Dasanaru from the Realms until certain conditions were met. A few of his cultists were concealed among the followers of those who would become the God-Kings, and thus survived the cataclysm. (Note: the God-Kings were once mortal adventurers in this campaign; they battled and supplanted various deities and acquired divine power, but remained in the Realms rather than creating extraplanar homes. They're like demipowers, but they're not full-fledged powers, and they're not directly subject to Ao or any other power.) Rather than dissolve Dasanaru's following, his surviving cultists strove to preserve it. Some time soon after the founding of Mulhorand, they quietly began spreading rumors of prophesies foretelling their lord's return during the 22nd year of the 22nd reign of Mulhorand. It's impossible to know the how and why of Fate's hand, but more than 3000 years later in 1373 DR, the cultists of Dasanaru finally achieved one of their long-time goals: the opening of the vault in which an ancient neh-thalggu was sealed. It was said (again in prophesies spread by the early cultists) that this creature would be the key to resurrecting the rule of Dasanaru in Faerûn. The cultists who opened the vault were of course consumed, but the neh-thalggu emerged, wrought havoc in Semphar for a few weeks, and then vanished… presumably into the Raurin. The PCs are called to deal with this beast (way beyond their ability) but it's gone by the time they get there. Instead, they get recruited to help rebuild Semphar, which keeps them busy through the end of the year.
As 1374 DR dawns, the skies over the Raurin turn blood-red. Massive thunderstorms rock eastern and southern Faerûn. Great black clouds roll out of the desert, unleashing sheets of red lightning over lands from Kara Tur to the Lake of Steam. The entire city of Dhaztanar, capital of Semphar and often called the Waterdeep of the east, is vaporized in lightning strikes. All that's left is a glassy plain of melted sand. Up to 50% of the citizens of other cities in the vicinity of the desert are cooked by near-strikes, or die of ruptured organs. Hundreds of buildings collapse or are left structurally unfit for habitation. In Mulhorand and Unther, there are no lightning strikes, but many report seeing spectacular explosions of light and heat in the sky as great red bolts streaked toward them and then… it was like they struck an invisible shield. Some claim to have seen the manifestations of Thoth and Nephthys, flying above Skuld and Neldorild and working magic. Across the south, the cult of Dasanaru is elated, and indulges in a bloodbath of assassinations before disappearing into the desert to greet their returned master. 1374, the Year of Lightning Storms, is something like the 17th year of the 22nd Pharaoh's reign, so the prophecy's numbers were a little off, but too close to be dismissed as complete coincidence… in the minds of the cultists at least.
All of that means that it's likely the PCs will be facing the cult of Dasanaru in 1381… along with their (both the PCs' and the cultists') erstwhile allies, the cults of Set and …other God-Kings who may be unique to this campaign. While seeking more reliable support, the PCs will hear about and hopefully seek out the Lleidrrhath, who probably won't be equipped to help much against Dasanaru but may play a role in the salvation of Mulhorand later.
Banishing Dasanaru (or even insulting him and living to tell about it) is beyond the PCs' ability at this point, but they do manage to deal some setbacks to his cult. In order to reach the Lleidrrhath, they're going to have to clear out the tunnels leading down to them, which can only be reached from the necropolis of Zindalankh, and before they can clear out the undead they'll have to deal with the master, who goes by "Shadowlord" but is actually named Arkhnangauthseiyr and looks a whole lot like a phaerimm with a ridiculous number of spells and the ability to cast two of them at once, while also wielding wands and remotely invoking other defensive and offensive items. Fighting him is a fatal choice, so they'll negotiate, and in the course of running around performing favors for him, they're going to begin seeing undeniable clues of the main nemesis of the campaign: the sarrukh.
This brings us to the Year of the Blackened Moon (1406 DR) when spellcasters all over Faerûn suffer strange maladies and periodic crippling severance from the Weave. (Unlike the Spellplague, this doesn't have physical effects on the land; it's more like "moon madness" which generally only affects casters) Speaking of madness, the pathological priests of House Karanok seize power across most of Chessenta. The Nemiryth family of lycanthropes ushers a new aristocracy (werejaguars are now cool) into Murghôm and Semphar. Finally, the last remnant of ancient Unther falls into history as the armies of Mulhorand take control of Messemprar.
The end of Part 1 sees the PCs (somewhere around 1420 DR) defend Mulhorand (including what was previously known as Unther) against an invasion of surprising strength and organization, led by seemingly omnipotent spellcasters. If the PCs have been successful in their efforts up until now, they will have enlisted the aid of drow, giants, dragons, and other creatures even less inclined to help humans (such as the phaerimm) and will now coordinate all of these allies into a force with which they will preserve the independence of Mulhorand… though the realm is reduced to a collection of shielded cities linked by portals. Outside the walls, naga and yuan-ti roam the jungle which is growing to overshadow what were once the fields and plains of the Old Empires.
The PCs are hailed as heroes on par with the God-Kings themselves, but this honor pales in light of the realization that the armies they defeated were merely a regiment in a much larger force. Other lands, lacking heroes of the PCs' caliber and unaware of the events the PCs rightly saw as harbingers, were ill-equipped to defend themselves. Most of the rest of Faerûn has been overwhelmed, and the oppressors will regroup and rebuild their armies. That means the PCs didn't win the war... it was merely "first blood" and the battles may only end with the eventual death of the PCs, the fall of the God-Kings, and the enslavement of all humanoid races.
So… that's a bit of a downer.
The good news is that there's a Part 2 and a Part 3, in which they will have the opportunity to retake the Realms for the nonreptilian races. |
| The Hidden Lord |
Posted - 15 Jul 2012 : 18:53:40
Xaeryrudd, what are some events that have occurred in your campaign in 1381 DR? |
| Portella |
Posted - 15 Jul 2012 : 11:40:54
So 3 years in real life is 3 years in the realms makes it a lot more manageable and they can curate the content better as it will be more focused. |
| Portella |
Posted - 15 Jul 2012 : 09:50:31
Hmm my two pence, I wish they didn't reboot the realms so much instead advanced the time directly in correlation with our world ie if it was 3 years since the last big update campaign setting book. They should get what has happen in all canon novels and sources and put in the time line after a review process with fan/customers review.
I used to play in the realms did countless adventures we killed drizzt, slept with the seven sisters, started a war with thay, visited larloch etc. Main thing it happen in our realms and crazy poop happened in our realms. Faerun started with Ed and the knights, it wasn't a tsr baby they bought that baby, there was enough weight in the realms Ed could have been the terry prattchet of the genre or the jk rolling with several books and movies made for their creation. To be honest while I am happy for everything I am sad that he doesnt have the ownership of the rights to it as I know he could do a much better job at heading the setting then anyone else.... It was his creation.
What I am getting to is that I have dropped the idea of playing in the realms, for me all started with 3ed from the reboot but most annoying the several edition updates since then. I know the source books are still good and I could just disregard the new edition/ruleset but when you have invested hundrands of pounds on material and now you have or feel the need to go and buy all of it again for many reasons I won't go into it ...... I had enough.
I want to create my own setting, I am, and hopefully one day if it is worthy I can be a jk rolling or even terry/ed and have my setting published in some form.
But doesn't say I don't appreciate what has happen or what is being done to the realms... It is still my favourite setting.
Mod edit: Language, please.  |
| coach |
Posted - 11 Jul 2012 : 05:06:53
what about how Pathfinder is dealing with dates
seems seamless to me between novels and their other products
the dates are there (barely) but they are not in your face, and the novels are very localized in scope, it's excellent |
| coach |
Posted - 11 Jul 2012 : 05:02:36
well my 2 coppers
I don't think TSR or WotC ever sat back and said "we need RSE's and massive Time Changing events and time skips in the Forgotten Realms"
I think they made money making decisions to make a new edition of rules (well at least until this last iteration that was epic fail in rules and realms)
whether they needed a new ruleset or not wasn't the point, the point was that "new rulesets are the money makers and so we must make new ones ever 4-5 years"
when they decided to do that, they had to Shade Most High or Time o Trouble or Sellplague or whatever TO MAKE THE REALMS FIT THE NEW RULES
so THE KEY is to freeze THE RULESET, not the timeline if you want to stay away from what inspired the OP
but as we all know WotC will release 6ed before 2020, so any wishing on our parts for Realms stability from WotC is silly
WE are the stability of the Realms not the company |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 11 Jul 2012 : 04:13:33
That phrase, right there, is where, i think, we take complete opposite sides.
I want a sourcebook to give me a portrait of the world or more precisely, some part of the world, as it is now. Now being the date they chose to stop the timeline. In that sourcebook, i want to know as much as possible about the past, the present, the layout of the land. Whatever they can put in such a book. They can even come up later with another sourcebook covering in more details a smaller part of a region already covered in an earlier book. But never go beyond the agreed upon date where the timeline stops.
To me, there is so much information to write about even if the date is fixed, it's mind boggling.Every sourcebook that is coming out gives you information about something new OR more detailed information about something already covered. A new kingdom, a new city, a new dungeon, a new continent!
I think that in a sense, the realms has been more static with the concept they chose. They always cover the same regions of Toril because time passes. Novels are being written and every edition of the game justifies the decision to rewrite and change the world over again. In the new setting, all they do is come back the same places and explain what this or that novel has done in game terms.
Now THAT's a static world! They've been giving us Waterdeep and Cormyr for the last 30 years. I think it's time to move on and let the DMs decide what's happening in the world. I say give me Waterdeep once, or more than once with more and more details in each book. But never go beyond that fixed date.
As for novels ... Great, bring them on! I love reading about the realms. Put them in the future and reinvent the realms but don't give me a new sourcebook and incorporate that in the timeline of the game.
Let's go back to the Grey Box a minute, more than 30 years ago. Using the tapestry of a world that was presented to us so splendidly by Ed. I, for one, think that we could still be reading new information about the realms, even if they hadn't moved the timeline one minute into the future. More than that, we would have great details about Anchorome and more about Maztica and other continents and civilizations we've never seen yet. How great would that be? Not possible with an advancing timeline.
Modules? Please give me more! I'll buy them, use them and play with them. But i'll decide how and when it's inserted in my realm. There're just scenarios and will exist only when and if i decide to use them. Why would they have to be dated? Just make sure that the modules are not about things that are part of the history of the world before the fixed date. Who cares if it's dated? What is so hard about deciding ourselves when those events happen? They never happened before right?
Respectfully,
Pat
quote:
What I want is for every sourcebook I buy to give me something new and to remind me that the Realms is a world where things change and where time marches on.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Jul 2012 : 02:59:27
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
The Current Clack was always one of the first things I perused in older sourcebooks. I love chronologies. I think in terms of timelines with all my entertainment, both fiction/fantasy and nonfiction. It's hardwired into my brain.
The "Current Clack" has long been something I've hoped that Wizards would take up on their website -- maybe as part of the DDI, providing regularly weekly updates for events in the Realms.
We've tinkered with the idea of attempting such here at Candlekeep. And a few scribes have even put forth their own workings on a "Current Clack" for Candlekeep. But we have yet to reach any particular consensus on how the community should approach this, and the shifting of the timeline, as per 4e, only makes this discussion potentially more volatile. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 21:39:28
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
The Current Clack was always one of the first things I perused in older sourcebooks. I love chronologies. I think in terms of timelines with all my entertainment, both fiction/fantasy and nonfiction. It's hardwired into my brain.
Gods, yes. I loved the Current Clack, and any gaming material I buy that has a timeline, I read that first.  |
| BEAST |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 20:14:23
The Current Clack was always one of the first things I perused in older sourcebooks. I love chronologies. I think in terms of timelines with all my entertainment, both fiction/fantasy and nonfiction. It's hardwired into my brain. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 10:49:52
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Our disagreement comes, apparently, mostly with where those updates need to take place. It sounds like you want periodic updated sourcebooks about each country/city, while I want to see those updates everywhere except sourcebooks because I don't want to pay 30 bucks for a "new" Cormyr book every couple of years. Other than that, we seem to be on the same page.
That's not at all what I want. There are other ways to do it, like the periodic gazeteer idea that's been put forth more than once.
What I want is for every sourcebook I buy to give me something new and to remind me that the Realms is a world where things change and where time marches on. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 09:51:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
How can modules not have dates? Some events in modules will be clearly based on prior events -- so those events have to have happened.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes no. In the interest of consistency (which I admit I'm a total sucker for) I'm also inclined to keep adventures attached to the world. But it's a solid point that sometimes they don't need to be.
quote:
Telling us everything that happens on Day 1 is fine, but at some point, I need to know what happens on Day 2. If we never get to Day 2, the setting is static.
One of our differences... maybe the fundamental one... is that I don't think we should always limit ourselves to one person telling us about Day 2. Regarding certain events --say the return of Shade, in particular the phaerimm resistance to the return of Shade-- I'd like to hear a couple more versions of Day 2 because I don't like the way the phaerimm were portrayed in the books that got published. I'd like to see a version where the phaerimm turn out to be too smart and too powerful to be railroaded.
Sometimes I'm happier with my story about Day 2 than I am with any published version. What to do? Obviously, for my own campaign, history will probably reflect my version of events. I'm going to allow myself to get arrogant for a second. What if I shared my story here on Candlekeep, and what if there was a general agreement in the community that my story was better? Tough. Canon is what got published. According to the system you want to see, of updated sourcebooks coming out periodically reflecting the events in novels, it really doesn't matter who tells the best story. All that matters is what gets published. Whatever gets published, even if it's complete pigswill, becomes the basis for all future editions of the setting. Even if 100% of us were to adopt a different story for our own campaigns.
Comes with the territory; I understand that. But I think there's a way to have our cake and eat it too... in this case to have professional development of a shared setting, and also be able to use our own stories when we want to for whatever reason.
This is an alternative I would like to see. I know we don't see eye to eye on it, and I have no delusions that beating you over the head with my desire would be effective and that's not my intent. I'm just going for a new context or perspective.
I'd like to see the Realms, first. As they stood in 1357 would be my first choice, but I'm pretty open to any point before that too. A snapshot of the whole planet... not exhaustively detailed, because I like being able to fill in some of the blanks myself, and besides... look how much Waterdeep lore we have now and it still isn't exhaustively detailed... and that's only one city. So just enough relevant details to establish a flavor for campaigns set in each region around the world. And then we have novels. Truckloads of novels. Novels set on every continent, in every time frame. Places the elves can't even remember, and places the seers didn't live long enough to dream about.
Sourcebooks are for gaming. They're for showing us the world, as it is now. Stories... all stories, I think it could be argued... belong in novels. There will be plenty of Day 2, and as appealing as I find parallel Realms to be, I also like the idea of everything being consistent, so... that's something I can be happy with either way. The point I'm going for this time is that novels can drive the setting, for those that want them to, while also being ignorable for those who need them to be... as long as they're not built on in sourcebooks... and there's no reason why they should be built on in sourcebooks, so that works out.
I'm not advocating a loss of Day 2. I'm advocating moving on to other parts of the world after one sourcebook about a particular area... using other avenues to expand the lore regarding that first place, while simultaneously putting a second nation/city/region in our hands. Novels will be written, articles will be written, Candlekeepers will put up new stuff based on their own campaigns/thoughts... and every time a new sourcebook comes out, that place appears on the menu of places for us to develop and expand... instead of the way it has been up until now, which is each new sourcebook re-opens a place we already know about, and overwrites our campaigns instead of opening up new possibilities. The list of places in the Realms should, and could, continually grow... to become thousands of regions instead of a few dozen. Everything I'm describing is the absolute opposite of stagnation.
quote:
And if novels aren't canon, my interest in them is going to greatly diminish. I can enjoy a good story, but if that story is disconnected from anything else, then it lessens the impact, the tension, and the appeal. There have been TV shows like that -- every episode is disconnected from the other ones. And after a while, you lose interest in not seeing anything happen.
I agree here. It's hard for me to watch TV... it's not connected enough, there aren't enough subplots to keep things interesting, and the limited time available in a TV series or a movie means that in order to finish a story the scope has to be so limited that the story loses meaning. It's just frustrating to watch. And I don't want the Realms to be like that. It is kinda like that, in the sense that we're only seeing one little corner of the world. There are countries at the edge of the map, and I know they have to have dealings with the countries that aren't on the map, but... those parts of the world haven't been written. Great: I get to write them all. Not so great: I have to write them all.
quote:
That's why novels must drive the setting, and that's why the setting must be updated. It doesn't have to have RSEs and edition changes, but it does have to move forward.
I agree that the novels must drive the exploration of the past and future. And I agree that RSEs and new editions are unnecessary. And I would say it can move forward... I don't see it as necessary, but I don't have any issues with it. It's almost hard to see how we're not in agreement.
Our disagreement comes, apparently, mostly with where those updates need to take place. It sounds like you want periodic updated sourcebooks about each country/city, while I want to see those updates everywhere except sourcebooks because I don't want to pay 30 bucks for a "new" Cormyr book every couple of years. Other than that, we seem to be on the same page. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 08:46:27
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
But sourcebooks should not describe day 1 in a setting. They should described a local, a region or a city up until that point. It's kind of the opposite, it should describe the last day in history and give some hint of the future.
This is a great way of putting it. I'd like to see the game setting outlined as it is on one particular day. With the knowledge that there has been however many centuries/millennia of history leading up to that point, which is sketched in the sourcebook and delved into in greater depth in novels/articles/whatever.
quote:
After that, you take control.
Yahtzee. Going forward (and back too) DMs have the authority to do whatever they want, because the future isn't set in stone. Ideally (contentious issue, I know) novels set in the future and past are cast as possible rather than concrete.
The effects of those story lines can be built on, by the authors who conceived of them and others as well. But individual DMs must have the freedom to adopt or reject those stories, which means that future sourcebooks cannot be written around the events of novels. Otherwise it is guaranteed that we will have more things like the Time of Troubles and the Spellplague, which muck up the Realms and become non-negotiable foundations of the setting. Reference Erik's post above... the ToT happened, as far as all Realms work is concerned. Nobody gets to contradict it in anything that gets published by WotC. I still can't conceive of how anyone thought that was a great idea. Whatever. Making sure that doesn't happen again is a legitimate priority. Events in novels can, and should, and inevitably will be developed in subsequent novels, and in DDI articles, and by independent authors, and I'm totally in favor of all that... but they should never be canonized in sourcebooks because then the sourcebooks lose value for those of us who think the event was horristupidbad.
Going a bit beyond Patrakis' point there. Oops.
quote:
An adventure module shouldn't have a date, it should be a story that you read about. It will happen if your players make it happen OR if the DM decides some NPCs went through it in his setting and then it becomes history. The DM should decide when it happened.
This is an interesting theory. I can't fully support it, but it's interesting. I agree with this as far as RSEs go... things like the ToT and the Spellplague, which should have been written as optional derailments to throw into your game if/when you want to. Those shouldn't have dates attached, partly because they're not built on other events in the campaign. There's no particular reason to say the ToT occurred in 1358 as opposed to some other random year. It wasn't a response to anything else in the game world... it was just a stupid bomb going off. But adventures... I like those being attached to the world. You're probably right, though; sometimes they don't really need a year attached.
quote:
I think people are going a bit to far with this cannon business. An adventure scenario will become Cannon in a setting when the players go through it or NPCs. Until then, it's just a scenario.
Following the assumption that adventures don't happen in a particular year, this works. As it stands now, or rather up until now, this is only selectively true. Events in an adventure become "canon" in your campaign whenever they happen, and they're not "canon" up until that point... but I think of canon meaning what's going on in the official published version of the Realms. Under that definition, things become canon as soon as they're published. They even become canon retroactively, when things are published about the past.
quote:
Every novel or module should be a what if, not a what happened. Sourcebooks should describe the past and give hints of the future.
Yes, at least as far as novels. I'm still open regarding modules.
quote:
but i certainly don't want an updated campaign setting coming out saying that it's now part of the world as background because the time advanced and that's what happened. I'll see in-game effects when i decide it's in game, not when the new setting comes out ... again.
Completely agreed.
quote:
As I've said in another post, it's the only way we will ever get the whole darn world described.
Indeed.
|
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 08:11:48
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Because then you have a static setting, with nothing happening. If all of the sourcebooks happen on Day 1, and a novel or module happens on Day 2, even if it's not an RSE, we want to see the in-game effects of that.
No, having all the sourcebooks set in the same year doesn't give you a static setting. It would only be static if there were no novels, or if for some reason it was against the rules to set anything in the future. Neither of those will be true. You want the novels to drive the setting, and they can do that for you. I want the novels to be optional reading for extra detail, and they should be able to be that too.
It seems we're either unable or unwilling to find any common ground on this point. I think it's possible to give both of us what we want, but maybe I'm an optimist. May the best ideas win. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 19:31:25
io it would be very wise to consider what amd what not should be canon.
the novels imo should be canon, the adventure modules, no not necessarily |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 19:10:24
How can modules not have dates? Some events in modules will be clearly based on prior events -- so those events have to have happened. And some modules may, as part of the adventure, have date requirements -- maybe the PCs have to require a lost crown by Shieldmeet, for example.
Telling us everything that happens on Day 1 is fine, but at some point, I need to know what happens on Day 2. If we never get to Day 2, the setting is static.
And if novels aren't canon, my interest in them is going to greatly diminish. I can enjoy a good story, but if that story is disconnected from anything else, then it lessens the impact, the tension, and the appeal. There have been TV shows like that -- every episode is disconnected from the other ones. And after a while, you lose interest in not seeing anything happen.
That's why novels must drive the setting, and that's why the setting must be updated. It doesn't have to have RSEs and edition changes, but it does have to move forward. |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 17:48:32
But sourcebooks should not describe day 1 in a setting. They should described a local, a region or a city up until that point. It's kind of the opposite, it should describe the last day in history and give some hint of the future. It's not static, it's just what happened up to a point in time. After that, you take control. An adventure module shouldn't have a date, it should be a story that you read about. It will happen if your players make it happen OR if the DM decides some NPCs went through it in his setting and then it becomes history. The DM should decide when it happened.
I think people are going a bit to far with this cannon business. An adventure scenario will become Cannon in a setting when the players go through it or NPCs. Until then, it's just a scenario. That's why i don't like novels driving a game setting and that's why i think a fixed date would work. Every novel or module should be a what if, not a what happened. Sourcebooks should describe the past and give hints of the future.
As for seeing the effect of a module or novel in the world well, why would i want to have to live with the effects of other peoples experiences in my world, my Realms. It only screws up my vision. I'm glad the modules for the time of trouble exists. I'm glad the novel exists! If i want that change, I'll male my players go through it or I'll incorporate the story arch in my background but i certainly don't want an updated campaign setting coming out saying that it's now part of the world as background because the time advanced and that's what happened. I'll see in-game effects when i decide it's in game, not when the new setting comes out ... again.
We would have all of Toril described by now if that development philosophy would of been changed to a fixed date.
As I've said in another post, it's the only way we will ever get the whole darn world described.
Pat
quote:
Because then you have a atic setting, with nothing happening. If all of the sourcebooks happen on Day 1, and a novel or module happens on Day 2, even if it's not an RSE, we want to see the in-game effects of that.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 16:54:33
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
What's wrong with the in-game date being the same for the entire line of sourcebooks that describe the world in the "modern" time?
Because then you have a static setting, with nothing happening. If all of the sourcebooks happen on Day 1, and a novel or module happens on Day 2, even if it's not an RSE, we want to see the in-game effects of that. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 16:37:11
I should have done my homework regarding RAS's start; perhaps he's a poor example for my point, which was that each author started somewhere. Before being published by TSR/WotC, the author's work had the same qualities that it has after being published, but the stories they told (writing adventures for their own gaming groups, for instance) were not accepted as Realmslore regardless of how good their writing was. I picked Salvatore out of the air because I was using the Drizzt books to illustrate other points. The underlying point stands, even if other names should have been used in the example. But everything related to novels is merely a tangent to the point of the thread.
What's wrong with the in-game date being the same for the entire line of sourcebooks that describe the world in the "modern" time?
One advantage would be that collection of Realmslore, going forward at least, would all have the same date and therefore serve as a solid reference. The way it's been done up until now, with dates scattered like breadcrumbs across 1357-1375 or so, leaves gaps in lore. If we proceed forward from 4e, it will suddenly become much worse, with new lore being written in 1479 or even further from the original time. It's sloppy. It's also greedy, because it creates a "need" to continuously revisit previously described places with additional sourcebooks to update the lore. This stunts the development of the setting, by going over the same parts of the Realms over and over again. If, in contrast, every sourcebook had the same date, there would be no repetition. Past lore can be updated at will, and new sourcebooks have to explore somewhere new.
Making this change wouldn't cost us any lore, and this is where the tangents come in. Novels and Portholes-into-the-past/future products will be used (hopefully in better fashion than they have been up until now) to fill in the timeline both before and after the present time. We would still get updates on the "Heartlands" in DDI articles and novels, but each new sourcebook would describe a place we haven't seen developed in a sourcebook before. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 08 Jul 2012 : 23:03:00
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil xaeyruudh
R. A. Salvatore, before the first Drizzt novel was published, was just writing stuff... it wasn't consistent with anything.
A bit off topic, but for what it's worth, he was actually contacted by TSR to write a Forgotten Realms novel and was given pretty much every piece of FR lore and all the maps etc to work the novel out.
Before he wrote the first Drizzt novel, he responded to an open call for new writers by submitting a non-Realms sci-fi/-fantasy book (Echoes of the Fourth Magic) to TSR, and they liked it enough to ask him to write one of the first Realms novels. To help him to do that, they gave him lots of written copies of early Realmslore, and it's my understanding that there were also phone calls directly with Ed to supplement this. (I do believe that it was during these phone calls that Bob got the idea that Gauntlgrym was THE Delzoun homeland, for example.) |
| Thrasymachus |
Posted - 08 Jul 2012 : 03:22:25
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think going forward, the Realms of 5e has to incorporate this philosophy: that this is YOUR WORLD, and that the sourcebooks and novels are just SUGGESTIONS that you can use or ignore at your leisure. Game design is a service industry--what WotC is providing to you is a box of crayons, not a color-by-numbers book.
Cheers
and...
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
To be clear, I *do* see that as an "implied requirement," or at least I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of pressure in the Realms fandom to "do it right" by keeping your Realms as close to canon as possible. I would advocate that WotC make clear movements against this impulse.
Whenever you're playing a game in an IP, you are automatically not playing "the canon," unless you're just choreographing the steps you see in a movie or read in a novel through your own characters. For the Realms to endure, we have to be open to making them our own. That was the whole point in the first place.
We’re playing on top of a canon setting.
One of the selling points of the Realms is it’s rich and consistent history. If I wanted to write a campaign based on the kind of Davinci Code/National Treasure - let’s base this egg hunt on the nuances of history sort of adventure, or a time travel adventure where I want to depend on the lore I can do that. I know that the history matches up within the novels and sourcebooks, and I can depend on it. Sure, with this much material there will be an occasional unintended flaw, (which side of the river is Daggerford on?) but I am confidant that the best effort was made to not contradict previous products.
When customers deviate from published canon, then it’s on us to compensate for the Butterfly Effects we create. If our campaigns result in Waterdeep’s falling to the Shade then everything regarding Waterdeep, and the Shade is on us to fill in the creative gap we’ve created moving forward. Even the details of what happens to Waterdeeps Third Infantry stationed in Daggerford and so on.
SUGGESTIONS (as you put it) have a place. They are the products (sourcebooks & novels) that are produced that have the D&D logo, but DO NOT (as I put it) have the Forgotten Realms logo. If they have the Forgotten Realms logo, as a customer, I fully expect that the previous products are not contradicted by the new products.
To play on Erik’s crayon euphemism I don’t believe it’s that difficult for professionals writing in a setting to color within the lines.
Back to the thread: If you stop the timeline and Wizards keeps producing it seems as likely that you’ll have contradictions. They’ll just be in real time so to speak. And for FWIW xaeyruudh I wholeheartedly agree that every edition doesn’t have to be accompanied by a Pow-Super RSE. IMHO they’re a pain in the neck.
Edit: Slightly improved grammar. |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 04 Jul 2012 : 20:42:29
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
R. A. Salvatore, before the first Drizzt novel was published, was just writing stuff... it wasn't consistent with anything.
A bit off topic, but for what it's worth, he was actually contacted by TSR to write a Forgotten Realms novel and was given pretty much every piece of FR lore and all the maps etc to work the novel out. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 04 Jul 2012 : 18:22:17
I am all for freezing time in sourcebooks or making it move very slowly (in the way presented in the 3e FRCS, I forgot the RL/Realms time factor).
I am all for expanding ahead in novels.
Alternate timelines or past/future stuff also gets my love. |
|
|
