| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 02:19:29
Have any of you thought that it might be better to divorce the novels from the campaign setting? I mean in terms of continuity.
edit: I don't mean to imply that one or the other is bad just that what services a good story in the novels is not always condusive to a playable setting.
Any thoughts on this?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 18:20:41
As someone who primarily reads the novels (I'll buy some of the sourcebooks for references), sometimes it gets confusing to me when events mentioned in the novels have actually happened outside the novels, i.e. the game setting. I understand the novels are secondary to the game, but to me, they are the biggest draw. I personally don't feel FR would have the popularity or draw it does without the novels. |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 22:19:49
I'm going to bow out of this topic. I didn't mean my initial thread post as a source of contention.
I'm sorry if anyone got fired up during this discussion of the novels and canon.
I didn't think through the ramifications of throwing that idea out there.
Thanks to everyone that chimed in though. Good to read everyone's ideas. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 21:42:01
quote:
Originally posted by Krafus
It makes sense to me. I don't read only the novels, but the novels are the primary draw of FR for me, and for several other multimedia franchises. Even if a novel is good, or even great, if it's not canon I have little interest in reading it, and even less in paying for it.
Like Thauranil, I consider non-canon novels to basically be fanfiction, and if I feel like reading that, there's plenty of it freely available. I have limited disposable income, and I want to make sure I get maximum value for it. Material that isn't canon, that has no actual/lasting impact upon the universe it's set in, doesn't qualify.
That more or less sums up my point as well. If the novels were not canon, I would not be reading them
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
This is like saying that since there are many free stories around on the web, published books are not worthy of being bought...
Actually yes. To be worthy of being bought they must deliver something more than mere fanfiction (e.g. being canon part of a shared world much bigger than what fanfiction authors deliver)
If it's just a non-canon "what if" set in the FR it has no additional value to free fan fiction. If it's contributing it's small part to the canon greater whole it has |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 01 Jul 2014 : 11:50:05
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Making the novels non canon would ruin that, basically they would be reduced to the level of fan fic and while there is nothing wrong with fan fic, I sure as heck am not gonna pay WOTC good money to read it.
Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense IMO. It basically implies that a good book -and all the work behind it- is not worth paying for, unless a corporate tells you that those events 'canonically happened' in some made up world.
While i can understand the part about the feeling of reading a part of the 'great whole', this bit truly puzzles me.
Well its not quite like that. I am someone who has a limited allowance and so must make all my decisions with that in mind. In spite of that i purchase pretty much every realms book I can get my hands on, maybe not the fancy hardcover edition but I generally get them eventually. Now are all of them great,Nope and there might be many standalone novels out there that are significantly better. But since I want to know what has happened to my favorite characters and settings I still buy the realms one instead. Now if novels were non-canonical why should i bother?
Even the books that are great or are written by famous authors will pretty much be fan fic. For example: Oh Neverwinter got blown up by a volcano but not really or a author could just go nuts with no ramifications: Elminster is dead now hes alive and now hes dead. Also in the relams Elminster would be just a myth, a made up magician. Frankly I would much rather read about the adventures of the grand Old Mage of Shadowdale. Wouldn't you? |
| Krafus |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 23:17:47
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I mean, does the work of the publisher/author lose all the value just because it is not canon??
Does it lose all entertainment value? No. A great story is still a great story, even if it's no longer canon. However, my interest in reading it will greatly decline if it's no longer canon, though I might still do so if I'm in the mood for some good fanfiction.
Does it lose all monetary value? For me, the answer is definitely yes. I have no wish to pay for material that has the same canon status as fanfiction. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 20:54:20
I didn't say that non-canon fiction couldn't be successful. What I said is that shared setting fiction that isn't canon might as well not be in that shared setting. The point of a shared setting is that it is a collaborative undertaking, with everyone who participates adding to it and making it a richer tapestry. It's something that everyone adds ingredients to, not something that has people working side by side and yet in total isolation, potentially at cross-purposes.
The Paizo books are not a good counter-argument, because the Paizo novels have not had major setting upheavals that reshape the landscape every third book, like we had in the Realms for a while. And I have seen material and references from the novels in the sourcebooks, as well.
And I would think that if the Eber-whatsit fiction line was all that successful, it would still be going. For-profit companies don't abandon viable revenue streams. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 20:13:45
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If it's a shared setting story, yet is not canon, it might as well not be set in that shared setting.
That's ridiculous, of course there are reasons to set a story within a setting despite not affecting the canon of that setting. For one it's easier to concentrate on the story when you don't have to come up with the entire setting yourself. From a non-publishing standpoint, isn't it pretty much the definition of telling a non-canon story when a DM run adventures in the canon Forgotten Realms? We use the established setting for a backdrop as we go through an adventure, series of adventures, or epic campaign, and that's it. When we're done, the canon Realms remain the same despite whatever changes we've made.
Also, other settings seem to be just fine divorcing interesting stories from the canon of the setting. Paizo seems to have no problem selling their Adventure Paths, modules, or novels set in Golarion despite none of these adjusting the canon of the setting. Imagine if they had decided to have every Adventure Path alter the canon of the setting. Twice a year the setting would face massive upheaval (some more massive than others), deal with region or world shattering threats, and otherwise be bombarded with disasters and changes as epic threat after epic threat materializes and is dealt with. Huh, that's sounding a little familiar...
By deciding to divorce the novels and adventures from canon the setting of Golarion Paizo has free reign to make adventure paths that deal with various region or world threatening scenarios without having these scenarios become a ridiculous flow of "Golarion Shaking Events" the way the Realms novels turned Faerun into a never-ending stream of catastrophes. Eberron, if I remember right, is another setting that never forced it's novels to be canon. I remember a couple fun to read Eberron trilogies that managed to tell epic stories but didn't affect the canon setting. Assuming they didn't just keep printing Eberron books out of stubbornness (which may be accurate, I have no idea) I suppose they must have sold decently well.
I think at this point the Realms cannot go back. It's novels and adventures have affected canon for the lifetime of the setting and I can't imagine them changing it now. But the idea that a setting can't have successful (wildly so in Paizo's case) non-canon stories is not accurate. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 18:25:58
If it's a shared setting story, yet is not canon, it might as well not be set in that shared setting. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 18:09:34
That I get. What I don't get is why a good story that happen to be set in a shared setting is no longer considered worthy of its value in money/time as soon as the owner says that it is not canon (because that's what I'm getting from the recent posts). I mean, does the work of the publisher/author lose all the value just because it is not canon?? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 17:19:48
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Idk, it really puzzles me. If you consider a story good, then I guess that you could get a worthy value for your income out of it, since the purpose of a novel is entertainment. Considering that you said that even a great non canon story is not of interest to you, what make me curious is: would you prefer to spend your money on a bad or cheesy canon book, or on a good and enjoyable, but non canonical one?
Good or bad, part of the value of a story in a shared setting is that it is canon. It's what a shared setting is about.
A story can be good with or without being canon, but its value to a shared setting is negligible if the story is not canon. If it's not canon, it might as well be fanfiction. |
| Krafus |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 16:14:24
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Idk, it really puzzles me. If you consider a story good, then I guess that you could get a worthy value for your income out of it, since the purpose of a novel is entertainment. Considering that you said that even a great non canon story is not of interest to you, what make me curious is: would you prefer to spend your money on a bad or cheesy canon book, or on a good and enjoyable, but non canonical one?
I wouldn't spend a cent on a non-canon story, no matter how good it might be. I also used to buy FR novels simply if the blurb sounded interesting because I cared about the setting so much, and so ended up with number of novels I considered bad, sometimes quite bad, after reading them.
Nowadays, I'm a lot more careful with my money. I typically wait until a book has gotten a number of reviews on Amazon and/or at some literature forums before deciding whether to buy. The exceptions are books by authors I like/trust a lot, especially sequels in series I enjoy.
quote:
This is like saying that since there are many free stories around on the web, published books are not worthy of being bought...
Published books are certainly worthy of being bought, if they meet my standards for canonicity and likelyhood of being enjoyable reads. Since changing my buying habits, there's a lot of FR novels I've passed over because they didn't seem interesting enough, and/or because the reviews for them were really bad. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 14:35:52
Idk, it really puzzles me. If you consider a story good, then I guess that you could get a worthy value for your income out of it, since the purpose of a novel is entertainment. Considering that you said that even a great non canon story is not of interest to you, what make me curious is: would you prefer to spend your money on a bad or cheesy canon book, or on a good and enjoyable, but non canonical one?
quote:
Like Thauranil, I consider non-canon novels to basically be fanfiction, and if I feel like reading that, there's plenty of it freely available
This is like saying that since there are many free stories around on the web, published books are not worthy of being bought... |
| Krafus |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 14:25:02
It makes sense to me. I don't read only the novels, but the novels are the primary draw of FR for me, and for several other multimedia franchises. Even if a novel is good, or even great, if it's not canon I have little interest in reading it, and even less in paying for it.
Like Thauranil, I consider non-canon novels to basically be fanfiction, and if I feel like reading that, there's plenty of it freely available. I have limited disposable income, and I want to make sure I get maximum value for it. Material that isn't canon, that has no actual/lasting impact upon the universe it's set in, doesn't qualify. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 12:29:32
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Making the novels non canon would ruin that, basically they would be reduced to the level of fan fic and while there is nothing wrong with fan fic, I sure as heck am not gonna pay WOTC good money to read it.
Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense IMO. It basically implies that a good book -and all the work behind it- is not worth paying for, unless a corporate tells you that those events 'canonically happened' in some made up world.
While i can understand the part about the feeling of reading a part of the 'great whole', this bit truly puzzles me. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 12:17:40
As someone who mostly just reads novels let me just say that I think this is a terrible idea and would completely ruin FR for me. One of the biggest draws in reading a realms book is the feeling that what you are reading is part of a great whole, the history of some other faraway land.
Making the novels non canon would ruin that, basically they would be reduced to the level of fan fic and while there is nothing wrong with fan fic, I sure as heck am not gonna pay WOTC good money to read it.
|
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 30 Jun 2014 : 09:50:27
I'm with the Masked Mage on this. No more RSEs. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 29 Jun 2014 : 17:34:40
I'd say the novels are fine - they just need to put a moratorium on all the RSEs. They are totally unnecessary. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 28 Jun 2014 : 11:33:38
Having actually run a campaign set during the war against Nalavara and her unkillable Ghazneth minions, I learned that if the group of players I am DMing for haven’t read any of the novels then I’m not under any constraint to follow the novels as written.
Some of my players were inspired to read the novels after playing through that part of the campaign, which was cool because I like to think I broadened their interest in the setting.
But had they read the novels previously, I could have told them that things would differ based on what they did (which is how things were proceeding anyway) and kept on going.
I also learned that fidelity to my campaign is way more important that fidelity to Realmslore.
This helped me to realize I was wasting a huge amount of time fretting over timelines and trying to make everything my players were doing fit in with the larger narrative and the sequence of events portrayed in the novels.
I learned there’s no need for DMs to rewrite history that nobody (read: the players) knows about. Nor is there a need to worry over events that players aren’t directly involved with in the campaign.
My campaign need only be internally consistent, not consistent with Realmslore.
This last was a hard lesson to take in, because as a DM I wanted my campaign to fit the Realms. I had this expectation that a campaign could only be considered a Realms game if it closely mirrored the published Realms.
That expectation was wrong.
In my experience some Realms novels can be great tools for use in D&D campaigns. They’re basically overly detailed sourcebooks.
But I recognize there exists a subset of players who’ve read all the novels and who regard the events depicted in them as a big part of their concept of what the Realms is.
Which is to say those events aren’t open to being altered or to reinterpretation.
For these players, whole new stories and campaign arcs crafted by creative DMs are probably the best way to do things.
But there are others who’ve read all the novels and for them it's all fuel play D&D in the Realms. They don’t care about sticking to canon. What matters to them is just being there, in character, as the saga of the Realms unfolds.
So I guess the point of this ramble is twofold:
1. Knowing your players and their Realms appetite is what’s most important.
2. Fidelity to your players is more important than fidelity to Realmslore. |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 28 Jun 2014 : 07:23:22
I appreciate everyone's responses on this topic. I was kinda thinking of this as a theoretical exercise anyway...it's not practical to divorce the novels and the rpg stuff. This is the sort of thing that would have to be done from the beginning of a line I think. And, it turns out, this isn't really a good notion anyway.
I need to come up with something less off the wall to talk about next thread. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 21:59:02
Well I found out about the realms way after the good novels. My first sourcebook was the 3e campaign setting and players guide so the only novels I have ever known anything about is the RSE novels (which I refuse to buy in order to find out about events).
If the novels were not presented as the only outcome of the timeline then I would not be missing parts of the realms because I do not buy the novels.
I shouldn't have to buy a novel to know who the sons of Telemont are. Its an RPG campaign setting. If he is a main character then I should know about him from the sourcebooks.
Novels hold no interest for me. The characters in the novels are just background for me because I am primarily a DM. The characters and stories in those novels belong to other people. The stories and characters I run belong to me, but if I did want to run something around Cormyr during the war with the devil dragon I don't want to have things forcefed to me like Ghazneths which are really there just to have a villain or two able to stand up to Azoun who has been depicted as a 20th level fighter. Yes we should know what cities were attacked when and what the end result is (death of Azoun) but everything else should be up to me as a DM, otherwise I have to rewrite history.
Return of the Archwizards being the most obvious example, I want Shade to return but I don't want them to attack the most heavily defended fortress in the area outside of Darkhold. I don't want them to possess a kill all phaerimm weapon, and i don't want them to rampage across Faerun. To know that they return and some information about them is enough. Now i have to rewrite the phaerimm back into Anauroch, i have to rewrite the destruction of a Wulgreth or two (only one Wulgreth, it says so in the Savage Frontier sourcebook), i have to have some ridiculous half shadow weave mythal in Evereska. I don't want any of that and the list of things to rewrite just keeps on increasing.
Whats wrong with a non epic character being the villain. Anyone ever heard of an Imp or Succubus being the big bad guy in a novel. They would make excellent villains but its always the balors and pit fiends that get centre stage.
But then again as i said i have only ever heard of the events in the RSE novels which is probably why I'm dead against them. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 21:31:01
I'm with Jeremy. Especially given that the Realms started with short stories, it would be senseless to separate off, say, the Knights of Myth Drannor novels, which show so much of how Faerûn works in practice, as opposed to at sourcebook overview level. Ed has often used fiction to spotlight things he couldn't get sourcebook space for. Then there are the RSE novels (actually much fewer, dazzlerdal), which I don't think are good stories, at least not good Realms stories, whose events aren't part of my Realms, and without which I think the setting would be much, much better off. But it's not because they're novels -- the same Realms-shaking has been done since 1989 in sourcebooks by power-crazed game designers. Given that the timeline is going to advance, it would be very confusing to have a novel and a non-novel version. As for spellfire, it's a fine plot device, it just should never have been offered for PCs.
So novel vs sourcebook is not the nature of this 'ere problem.quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Yeah, one of the designers recently mentioned that they now have a program which allows them to search across all their sourcebook and novel pdf files for any search parameters, which should immensely help the continuity-checking process.
Now, we need/want the same thing for all of us Realms nerds! 
Adobe Acrobat does this! |
| BEAST |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 21:26:23
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Actually, I agreed with the change to Darkvision. Infravision shouldn't work underground unless you're near volcanic vent or something. The temperature is relatively uniform below ground. But for some that was too much realism anyway.
Even so, even with a fairly uniform temperature, not all materials/surfaces reflect infrared radiation in the same manner. Some absorb more readily, and some reflect it sharply, and some refract and send it off in odd directions. So the intensity of the heat radiation could be represented by different levels of brightness, even if all of the same basic color/hue.
So you'd basically have all of the variability of an elaborate grayscale system, except for every single color under the rainbow.
|
| BEAST |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 21:21:53
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I doubt such a program will be released intact (cuz it would have to come with every book ever written for FR as well, which would be a stupid move from a business perspective). But if more people can be convinced to come over to the wiki (which is already the number one online FR research tool) and write non-plagiarised, sourced articles, then we can make a great stride toward that goal.
Just saying...
Hint, hint...
Haha!
Oh, I'm not serious about them ever giving up their raw data/notes. I just want it! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 21:07:39
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I get it that the games mechanics will probably never represent the dynamics of the novels' characters 100% accurately. Things get lost (and added) in translation. But even still, there ought to be a great deal of effort made toward having as accurate of translations/adaptations as possible. The games and book departments need to work together. Stuff should be coordinated, to avoid stepping on each other's toes.
Back in the 2E days, they actually employed a "traffic cop" to make sure continuity was maintained.
This was not the case in 3E... And it's one of the many reasons that I remain convinced that the during the 3E era, there was little to no effort spent on maintaining continuity, at least from the company level. Certainly, some individuals did what they could, but I think that their efforts were entirely personal.
I will note that other than the presence of a traffic cop in 2E and the lack of one in 3E, the rest is my personal opinion, and I have nothing concrete to back it up. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 20:02:57
quote:
The gorgeous, imaginative infravision of both 1E and 2E lorebooks and novels got dumped for 3E, because some game designers thought it was too complicated to analyze and explain. I am not aware of any explanation in the novels for why this happened, though. It was just a jarring change because of some gamers' sensibilities. Meanwhile, old 1E and 2E Drizzt novels continued to be rereleased, complete with their old infravision scenes. Now, if the last-published lore trumps older lore, then how do we determine which version of drow vision reigns supreme, when there have so many different editions of the Drizzt novels (with infravision) intertwined between the conflicting lorebooks (with darkvision). If a Drizzt book was rereleased after the latest game manual, would that mean that infravision has replaced darkvision, all over again? Or would it mean that game drow have darkvision, but only novel drow have infravision? What a mess!
Actually, I agreed with the change to Darkvision. Infravision shouldn't work underground unless you're near volcanic vent or something. The temperature is relatively uniform below ground. But for some that was too much realism anyway.
Now to the OP. The novels are guidelines to me. I prefer they stop all the RSEs to make things more palatable...but like Jeremy said, the novels are a great source of lore. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 19:27:34
When novels wreck the setting and make protagonists out of the gods, then it makes it hard to play in the setting.
When novels tell smaller stories where the protagonists are mortals, then it's a hell of a lot easier to play D&D in the setting.
If 5E is about playing D&D *in* the Realms, then the novels should not get in the way.
Novels add a huge amount of Realmslore to the body of information about the Realms.
Divorcing the setting from the novels is a bad idea unless WotC intends to start blowing everything up again. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 18:50:39
I doubt such a program will be released intact (cuz it would have to come with every book ever written for FR as well, which would be a stupid move from a business perspective). But if more people can be convinced to come over to the wiki (which is already the number one online FR research tool) and write non-plagiarised, sourced articles, then we can make a great stride toward that goal.
Just saying... |
| BEAST |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 18:04:02
quote:
Originally posted by hobbitfan
I guess I was being cranky and saying I wish it was easier to manage.
Yeah, one of the designers recently mentioned that they now have a program which allows them to search across all their sourcebook and novel pdf files for any search parameters, which should immensely help the continuity-checking process.
Now, we need/want the same thing for all of us Realms nerds! |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 17:37:38
The books are a resource. I much rather have that resource than be without. And It's better that novels exist in shared continuity with gaming prodeuct than be in an alternate universe like say the Star Trek novels.
I guess I was being cranky and saying I wish it was easier to manage.
It's fine...I'm glad we have all this cool stuff.
|
| BEAST |
Posted - 26 Jun 2014 : 17:24:19
Back in late 2E/early 3E, I think there was a bit of a disconnect between the games and the books side of the Realms. I've heard rumors about it, but few details.
What I do know is that when Bob had his falling out with the former publisher TSR, they had threatened to have other authors take his Drizzt character and write Drizzt stories in addition to/without Bob. That and several other issues lead to him ending his association with TSR. But the Drizzt lore kept coming. One short story was published by another author, one anthology chapter was written by another, and one novel was commissioned (though never released). And more relevant to this discussion, the lorebooks completely ignored the fact that Bob had sent all of his characters back to Icewind Dale in his last novel, Passage to Dawn, and acted as if everything was still going strong down in Mithral Hall, instead. The lorebooks were continuing to move forward in the timeline, while the Drizzt books were stuck in a very different time and place. And so, when WOTC coaxed Bob back into the fold, he had to hurriedly bring his characters back up to the current time, as well as move them all back to Mithral Hall, in order to be in the right time and place to clash with King Obould's orcs for 3E.
The gorgeous, imaginative infravision of both 1E and 2E lorebooks and novels got dumped for 3E, because some game designers thought it was too complicated to analyze and explain. I am not aware of any explanation in the novels for why this happened, though. It was just a jarring change because of some gamers' sensibilities. Meanwhile, old 1E and 2E Drizzt novels continued to be rereleased, complete with their old infravision scenes. Now, if the last-published lore trumps older lore, then how do we determine which version of drow vision reigns supreme, when there have so many different editions of the Drizzt novels (with infravision) intertwined between the conflicting lorebooks (with darkvision). If a Drizzt book was rereleased after the latest game manual, would that mean that infravision has replaced darkvision, all over again? Or would it mean that game drow have darkvision, but only novel drow have infravision? What a mess!
Somebody got the bright idea to have the drow sack the gnomish town of Blingdenstone for 3E. This was right after Bob had begun a treaty between the gnomes of Bling and the dwarves of the Hall at the end of the novel Siege of Darkness, and after 2E had released the tome Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, which in part expanded further on the gnomish town and its interactions with the goodly dwarves. 3E just summarily urinated on all of that prior groundwork. This infuriated Bob so much that he hasn't written of the gnomes, ever since. Even when the games side of the house tried to throw him a bone and say that some of the gnomes survived, it wasn't enough; the damage had already been done.
I get it that the games mechanics will probably never represent the dynamics of the novels' characters 100% accurately. Things get lost (and added) in translation. But even still, there ought to be a great deal of effort made toward having as accurate of translations/adaptations as possible. The games and book departments need to work together. Stuff should be coordinated, to avoid stepping on each other's toes.
Since the RPG is supposed to be about using your imagination to tell your story, I don't see why anyone should ever feel particularly confined by the canon lore, anyway. If the games and novels were divorced, as you say, you would still have to use your own imagination and creativity to come up with and work your way through your campaign, right? So you have to use your own imagination and creativity, either way. Why formally divorce the novels lore away, then? You can (and probably already do, at times) informally divorce yourself from the canon lore, quite easily enough. |
|
|
