Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 How should the FR Community handle the canon?

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

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

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

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

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Aldrick Posted - 10 Jul 2017 : 00:10:17
Okay, even though the other poll dealing with the Wiki is still on-going, I decided to make this poll in advance. This is an issue that has come up repeatedly, and will continue to loom until it is solved. So, it needs to be dealt with before moving forward. That is the issue of existing canon, the timeline, and the changes made with the various editions.

This is obviously a touchy topic for everyone, because most of us have very strong opinions on the matter. I am going to ask that everyone be respectful (we usually are!) of different points of view, but also keep in mind that the solution to this problem is not one merely of personal preference. It needs to be a solution that can get majority support and be sustainable over the long haul. So, when I thought about ways to solve this problem, this is what I came up with.

Proposal: We build the fanon (or ‘Candlekanan’ as it may come to be called) in stages. Each subsequent stage will depart us further and further away from the established Realms.

Stage 1: Establish the Base Realms
There is a great deal written about the Realms. The Grand History of the Realms alone spans 36,385 years, and that does not include everything after 4th Edition. This history is a strong base to work with and it should be the first thing that we write into the Candlekanan/Fanon.

While in this stage the year will be frozen at 1336 DR the Year of the Highmantle. This is a little more than a decade before the date of release of the Greybox 1st Edition Realms. It is before all of the major RSE’s of the Realms, and this is by design. In this year King Azoun IV takes the throne, so this is well into the ‘current mainstream era’ of the Realms. However, the focus at this stage is ironing out the history, canonical inconsistencies, and the base Realms while still staying as close to canon as possible.

There are a lot of things that need to be established at this point, because it influences how things play out later. We need to determine the Candlekanan cosmology, how deities work, how magic works, fix things like the Realmslore around the Giants… there is a lot to do. There is also a lot to fill out and expand upon. A lot of what we talk about here on these forums takes place before this era, and this is an opportunity to flesh some of that out. What were the various tribes of humans that originally inhabited Faerűn? How did the common tongue spread? What were the various human pantheons prior to the Dawn Cataclysm? There is a lot of lore that can be added and shifted around here.

At the core though, the things that need to be immediately established is stuff with the cosmology, how deities work, and how magic works. The cosmology has been retconned practically with every edition, and this creates inconsistantcies within the lore that needs to be ironed out. We need to discuss both how we want to handle deities, as well as how they work within the lore. This has all sorts of implications, and it also ties into the cosmology discussion. We need to determine how magic works, because there have been several different canon explanations, many of them inconsistent. There are also lore problems, for example, if Mystryl was a Netherese deity and she physically embodies the Weave, who/what incarnation did she have prior to Netheril?

All this basic stuff needs to be decided before we move forward and tackle the next stage.

Stage 2: Deal with the RSE’s
Immediately one year after the Greybox 1st Edition Realms the Time of Troubles happens. There are major intermittent RSE’s after that and canon problems as well that need to be solved. By the time 3rd Edition starts in 1372 DR there is a major RSE just about every single year thereafter until the Spellplague in 1385 DR, and after that there is 4th Edition.

While in this stage the timeline will move forward to 1380 DR the Year of the Blazing Hand. While we can still focus on things in a historical sense, one of the main objectives in this stage is to deal with the RSE’s and other major events of the period. This stops the timeline just shy of the killing of numerous deities in 1384 DR and the Spellplague.

A summary of each RSE will be put forward, discussed, and then voted on to be added to the Candlekanan. We may even opt to move some of the RSE’s backward in the timeline to space things out a bit.

What happens if a RSE gets voted down, but you like aspects of the events that happened? For example, let us say the Candlekanan rejects the Time of Troubles or the events of the Lady Penitent Trilogy which result in the death of numerous Drow deities including Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, but you happen to support and like some of the events that take place. What then do you do? Well, there is the option of adding alternative explanations for the elements that you like to the Candlekanan. So, let us say that you like the concept of the Masked Lady. You could create a heresy that is embraced by some followers of Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, and incorporate the Masked Lady into the Realms this way. Let us say you like Kelemvor and Cyric, but the Time of Troubles gets rejected. You could propose an alternative way to incorporate them into the Candlekanan.

Because of this process, certain canon events may be changed or modified, but the ultimate look of the Realms by 1380 DR the Year of the Blazing Hand will not look radically different than the established Realms at the same point.

Stage 3: Complete Candlekanan
In this final stage the timeline begins to advance forward beyond 1380 DR in a set fashion (perhaps one in game year for one real life year as this was roughly the normal pace of canon prior to 4th Edition). Everything after this point becomes complete Candlekanan and should be considered a complete deviation from the Realms canon. This means that the events of the Spellplague and other such things will not happen unless people vote it into existence.

However, people who support elements from 4th Edition and beyond should have the option of trying to incorporate them into the Candlekanan. For example, if someone likes the Warlocks of Vaasa, they could find an alternative means of incorporating them into the Candlekanan. The goal is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but instead find ways of properly incorporating popular elements from 4th Edition and beyond into the Realms. Do you like Dragonborn as a race? Find a way to incorporate them into the established Candlekanan. Many of these elements can even be proposed prior to this stage, for example, elements of 4th Edition cosmology could be proposed in stage one, along with explanations on how to incorporate the dragonborn that does not involve Returned Abeir.

By allowing and encouraging people to do this it brings the Realms very close to the established canon, while maintaining the settings integrity. It also allows us to settle disputes and dislikes involving various changes to the Realms by allowing people to propose alternative explanations.

To me this seems the fairest way of handling disputes and issues people have with the canon Realms. No one will be pleased completely by this, however, it gets us close to canon without dividing the community between editions, RSE's, and time jumps.

So, with all of this said, here is the poll question:
Should the fanon a.k.a. ‘Candlekanan’ Realms be rolled out in stages as just described?
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Zeromaru X Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 18:19:38
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

I think part of this 'lore lite' approach is that they are hoping that projects like CandleKanon will take off.


I guess that the creation of DM's Guild proves your point. They opened their IP for people to do their stuff, instead of they creating stuff that people will be pissed off at.

Plot Twist: Fans are pissed off because WotC isn't creating compelling lore anymore...

As George said:

quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

Poor WotC couldn't win.
-- George Krashos

Markustay Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 18:00:19
While I DO think at least one person (a person who had a particular kind of personality to 'force' his viewpoint into situations, like getting a job in an industry he actually had ZERO talent for... and YES, I have read his 'early stuff'. Its GARBAGE) had an 'agenda'. They wrapped that agenda in a whole bunch of other stuff to get a LOT of people on-board with their plan, and the plan saw fruition (despite many people involved having reservations, including their #1 author), and IT TANKED. BAD.

So I do NOT think 'WotC is evil'. I think one person had their own tastes, and dislikes, and managed to get into a position and steer things to where he wanted them. That I truly believe, and no number of 'insiders' is ever going to convince me otherwise (because then those same 'insiders' would have to admit they were all DUPED .. and very smart people {and 99% of the people in this industry and fanfdom are just that} do NOT like to admit such things, not even to themselves). Then there was a 'fleeing a sinking ship' when they were downsizing like mad, but that was more of a case of one (or two, perhaps three) people throwing everyone else under the bus. "No! My idea was wonderful! these idiots just screwed it up!". Something like that. Even Rich Baker finally got the axe, and that was a damn shame, because he was the only one of the 'core group' that was staying in-touch with the fans.

But anyone can learn from their mistakes, and obviously they are trying to 'make amends'. They just aren't sure how to go about that (like trying to please a few million people, all with opposing opinions about 'what went wrong'). I think part of this 'lore lite' approach is that they are hoping that projects like CandleKanon will take off. Not only will it mean they won't have to create tons of near-useless-yet-kewl lore about the setting (like the color of Azoun's underwear, or what Elminster eats for breakfast... aside from Zhents), but if it generates more interest for their products, and they get to create more of the products they are good at (or, at least, getting much better at), which is all they want. The three main rulebooks, a few splats, and a whole slew of adventures... rinse & repeat. We take the 'why did this god become that god, and then change back again' out of their hands, and they're perfectly happy with that, now. No-one can get mad at them if the lore doesn't go along with so-and-so's personal game/view says it is, because technically, its all just 'fanon'. That's what the DM's Guild is all about, and that's fine. WE caused that with our constant attack on every little thing they do (and now I can make a RW political comment... but won't) - they don't know what to do, so they're dumping it on us.

We've (the fandom) been saying for years, "we could do a better job than they do!"
Okay... lets prove it. Time to put our money where our mouths are.


EDIT: DISCLAIMER
The above is mostly opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm not even angry at this point, I just think that's the way things went down. But it is ONLY AN OPINION.
Aldrick Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 16:10:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win.


Honestly, I'm not convinced, here. There was a statement by someone at WotC saying that they didn't go for an RSE to explain the 2E/3E transition because they'd asked the fanbase and people indicated they didn't want an RSE. And yet, during the 3E era, it was practically RSE of the week, supposedly because RSEs sell.

My personal belief is that when they asked about doing an RSE, they skewed the phrasing of the question to get the answer they wanted -- which then allowed them to simply disregard any bit of continuity they disliked. I think they didn't want to try to explain all the changes, so they made their own reasons why it wouldn't be necessary.

I'll grant that I have no proof of this and can no longer find the "the fans didn't want an RSE" quote. But given the frequency of RSEs we had during the 3E era, I am highly incredulous that fan opposition to RSEs was ever truly a consideration. I think it was a one-time convenient excuse, quickly used and then forgotten.



I think it is probably true that fans said they did not want a RSE explaining the changes from 2E to 3E. It is important to remember the context of the time. We were thinking about the Time of Troubles, the killing of all the assassins in the Realms, etc. People did not want to see that happen again.

On the other hand, people also did not want massive parts of the setting--like the cosmology and the maps (entire regions gone!)--retconned.
Aldrick Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 16:06:01
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win. I think the 3E to 4E time jump was a knee jerk reaction to the previous edition changes, attempting to make the Realms "free and clear" from what had come before. Of course, in my view, the powers that be misapprehended that "what has come before" is what made the Realms the popular setting that it was. But, I may be wrong in that regard. The transition to 5E is a mix of making things right again, providing an in-game explanation and giving the Realms a "free and clear" quality. Has it been a success? Who knows, but hey they had to try something. Plus, edition changes sell a crap-ton of new PHs and DMGs.

-- George Krashos


The only issue that I have with this explanation is that it divorces changes to the setting with changes to the rules.

To give an example: 1E to 2E was the Time of Troubles. During the ToT they killed off every assassin in the Realms. Why? Because there was no assassin class in 2E. This was dumb and unnecessary.

Another example: 2E to 3E they changed the cosmology and the maps. Both of these are clearly retcons and are changes to the setting itself. The issue was not that they did not explain the changes, the issue is that they were retconning previously established lore. Even if they had explained the changes, the explanation would have looked dumb and contrived (see: 3E to 4E transition explanation for how the Abyss got to the Elemental Chaos).

The contention is based on the fact that the established setting and lore should be respected. The resistance comes when changes to the rules lead to changes in the lore (whether retcons or bad in-setting explanations). The problem is that WotC wants the Realms to reflect whatever core version of D&D they happen to be pimping out, but the Realms already has its own in-universe explanations for how things work.

To give an example... It is a bit like the Wheel of Time world deciding that there was a "rules change" midway through the books. As a result, the One Power no longer exists, and the people of the setting are using a new form of magic based around powerful foci. That would be horrible--the One Power is central to the understanding of the setting and the world. Changing it midway through would be madness and completely stupid. Using another example, it would be like the Dragon Age universe changing its rules and setting midway through to say, 'Oh, the fade never really existed, we have something called the Realm of Shadows now!' Again this would be complete madness and stupidity. Things like the One Power and the Fade are intrigral to the understanding of those settings. Yet, things like this happen to the Realms all the time, and the setting itself suffers for it.

It's hard for me to imagine that WotC does not understand this fact. It's just that they have weighed the damage done to the setting versus making the setting match the rules of whatever current version of D&D exists. They then decided that the rules and the setting should be reflective of one another.

All of this, of course, is separate and apart from the RSE's that happened between the edition changes. The issue here is that they are often poorly contrived, and the consequences of engaging in massive shifts are not properly played out. As a result, we end up with a city like Zhentil Keep destroyed and then rebuilt in too short of a period of time. There are no refugees in the aftermath of the destruction of the city. There are no economic consequences for the region.

Changes to the setting--especially big changes--should not be contrived. They should naturally flow out of the consequences of previous actions, this creates an organic and seamless feeling, enhancing the richness of the setting. Even though most people root for the Starks in a Game of Thrones / a Song of Ice and Fire, what ultimately happens to the family are reasonable outcomes for their actions--they almost seem inevitable when viewed with 20/20 hindsight. It does not feel contrived, and it is a major RSE for that setting. All of the major bad stuff that happens occurs as a consequence to stuff that happened previously, and it feels natural and logical for that world and setting. Realms RSE's do not have that same feel. They have the feeling of someone saying, 'Okay, we made a decision last week in our department. We are going to have a Rage of Dragons, here is what we want to happen, and we want you to go write about it.'
Gary Dallison Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 15:50:01
Calm down my furry enforcer, it was a jest (hence the use of ebil instead of evil).
My veiled point was that we should not make excuses for people (or companies) that have had plenty of time (and editions) to make good or even sensible decisions but consistently fail to do so for whatever reason.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 15:31:56
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win.


Honestly, I'm not convinced, here. There was a statement by someone at WotC saying that they didn't go for an RSE to explain the 2E/3E transition because they'd asked the fanbase and people indicated they didn't want an RSE. And yet, during the 3E era, it was practically RSE of the week, supposedly because RSEs sell.

My personal belief is that when they asked about doing an RSE, they skewed the phrasing of the question to get the answer they wanted -- which then allowed them to simply disregard any bit of continuity they disliked. I think they didn't want to try to explain all the changes, so they made their own reasons why it wouldn't be necessary.

I'll grant that I have no proof of this and can no longer find the "the fans didn't want an RSE" quote. But given the frequency of RSEs we had during the 3E era, I am highly incredulous that fan opposition to RSEs was ever truly a consideration. I think it was a one-time convenient excuse, quickly used and then forgotten.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 15:23:38
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Lets not start making excuses for the ebil ones at wotc



And let's stop declaring that everything we don't like was done out of a personal sense of maliciousness on the part of WotC. Saying that a company goes out of its way to deliberately piss off the people that support it is one of the stupidest things you can say -- you're saying that they WANT to go out of business, not have any income, and put themselves out of a job.

Saying someone is evil for not catering to your demands is just as mature as a toddler crying over not getting a toy. I'm getting damned tired of this attitude, which has been on display since 4E was first inflicted on us.

There is no need to assume malicious intent when a failure to understand the fanbase is more than sufficient to explain everything.
Zeromaru X Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 15:21:47
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game.



Now that you mention this, I was wondering what "crisis" was the one to explain the changes from 2e to 3e

I guess that comic books are the ones to blame. Marvel and DC accustomed us to expect a "crisis event" every time they needed to change the timeline for some reason...
Gary Dallison Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 11:51:19
Lets not start making excuses for the ebil ones at wotc
George Krashos Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 10:51:59
And of course, to reiterate a view I've long held, the D&D rules and current/particular edition are a poor lens through which to view the Realms. A poor, oily lens. No matter the edition you play, the Realms should (with a bit of work) be playable for anyone in any time. 4E campaigns aren't governed by the Spellplague and similarly you can run a 5E campaign in 1354 DR. Screw the rules and run whatever you want when you want. Gaming life is easier that way.

-- George Krashos
George Krashos Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 10:44:13
The issue is of course that the powers that be consider that the fanbase won't be impressed by anything other than a world destroying/changing event. That is in part caused by the solid core of the fanbase who ranted regarding the 2E to 3E changes where the rules changes were not explained in game. Poor WotC couldn't win. The 1E to 2E rule changes were explained by an in-game event - the Time of Troubles - which many fans expressed their opposition to. The 2E to 3E rule changes did not have an in-game explanation and were met with the same, if not more, amount of fan criticism. They couldn't win. I think the 3E to 4E time jump was a knee jerk reaction to the previous edition changes, attempting to make the Realms "free and clear" from what had come before. Of course, in my view, the powers that be misapprehended that "what has come before" is what made the Realms the popular setting that it was. But, I may be wrong in that regard. The transition to 5E is a mix of making things right again, providing an in-game explanation and giving the Realms a "free and clear" quality. Has it been a success? Who knows, but hey they had to try something. Plus, edition changes sell a crap-ton of new PHs and DMGs.

-- George Krashos
Lord Karsus Posted - 30 Jul 2017 : 04:11:21
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

It's what people want. "Change" without actual change. Actual change occurred and people didn't like it.


-I didn't mean so much opposing reactions to things happening and "edition bickering", but the whole "WotC let us down, let's take things into our own hands!" thing. Ten years gone (Top 5 Zep song), there have been at least three or four well-meaning attempts to organize such a thing that I can remember- and probably more since I stopped caring about the Forgotten Realms- and nothing sticks. Not trying to disparage this attempt, but like George said, it's all too grand.
Aldrick Posted - 22 Jul 2017 : 00:40:32
Since we are rehashing this, I just want to throw my two coppers in...

What I disliked about the RSE's was not that they changed the Realms. I do not mind the Realms changing. What I disliked about the RSE's can really be boiled down to two things:

1. Many of them were done arbitrarily, change for the sake of change, or change to explain something else. 'It's the Year of Rogue Dragons... I guess we need to have some rogue dragons now!' Alternatively, it was done to explain changes to the rules that were unnecessary. 'There is no assassin class in our new edition, therefore we have to kill all of the assassins in the Realms.'

2. The consequences of major changes is -NEVER- explored, and drastic events are often consequence free. 'Oh, look, Zhentil Keep just got destroyed--again--I wonder how long it will take for it to rebuild this time?' It basically turned the Realms into a cartoon / comic book setting.

Want to collapse the empire? Okay, fine. Find a reasonable way to do that which makes sense, but then deal with the consequences of doing so. Deal with the grim reality of attempting to reform a formerly authoritarian state and the criminal trials of former members and allies of the regime (as well as your own allies engaging in revenge killings). While doing that the new power should fight off rebels rising up against them that represent various groups, many of which can now freely and openly act now that the former government is overthrown--ethnic separatists, former regime loyalists, political radicals, and religious fundamentalists. Watch the nation collapse into a civil war... or avoid it either through brutal oppression like the former regime or by attempting to broker a compromise between the many different factions--most of which not only hate the new power but also hate each other.

Alternatively, overthrow the empire, claim victory and leave the power vacuum wide open! In which case said the previously mentioned radical factions rise up to try and fill the vacuum, resulting in the aforementioned civil war, a bloody reign of terror from regional warlords, a constant flow of refugees from the empire into neighboring lands, a breakdown in the regional power structure, leading all surrounding lands and the former empire into an inevitable descent into a long dark age of barbarism and ignorance.

Isn't creating a power vacuum fun?

So, in the end, I am not opposed to changes to the setting. I am just opposed to changes that are arbitrary and poorly thought out and have no serious consequences attached to them.
sleyvas Posted - 22 Jul 2017 : 00:25:57
While I didn't like the 4e changes. I'm encouraged by the how of how they're bringing things back. What makes me afraid is the "resetting", where it seems that they're not taking in some of the changes of 4e in what they're writing. Not that I liked those changes, but I'm trying to accept them as fact and work around them (a long standing realms tradition). Just to give an example of what I mean, let's take entropy as an example. In 3e it was a giant silent sphere of annihilation worshipped by the mad Karanoks. In 4e, the giant sphere disappeared and it became the crown jewel of Chessenta, and the Karanoks were the heroes of the country. However, we then found out that that crown jewel wasn't actually Entropy, and Entropy had taken up space in southern Chessenta and was swallowing up land... which was neat. But, the SCAG says that Entropy is a giant sphere of annihilation worshipped by the mad Karanoks. I would almost say that "the information is presented in the form of a dissertation from someone far off, so the information could be incorrect or dated", but that would be how things were written back in 1e or 2e, and this is being written as though these are indeed facts.

Not that I'm upset that Entropy is confined again, but what happened to all the land he destroyed (which I have my own ideas there that I've presented). Take into account the actions that occurred in 4e.

Similarly 4e killed Tchazzar off as a part of a massive storyline, but he's back yet again (this being his third return from death in a little over a hundred years). It would be better if he still had worshippers and there was some small cult for us to use related to him.
Markustay Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 21:48:24
See? We can't even agree on what aspect of 4e 'killed' the setting for us. If we can't come to a consensus on what was wrong with it, then we couldn't possibly come to a consensus on how to fix it.

And NO, you don't actually need any (or much) setting-changing events to explain edition changes. WotC said that it was so when they created 4e; that they 'needed' to blow it all up. Then they got around to doing Eberron... and proved all of that was just a lie. The changes from 2e to 3e were just as dramatic (rules-wise, not lore-wise), and yet, they actually made far more changes then they needed when 3eFR was released (and the changes they did make really didn't address the changes in the rules, so it was just a load of crap anyway).

But thats neither here nor there, for the purposes of this - and the other two - discussion threads. Its only being rehashed because I feel we need to look at what ticked us off in the first place, and I would hope some of you are coming to realize the thing that took me so long to realize - we are all focused on different changes. Add to that, we like some of the changes, and we don't agree on any of that, either.

And the 5e rules are GOOD. They are streamlined, and let you play a fast, FUN game of D&D. No THACO's. No checking errata to see how your players 15 PrCs and 5 stacked templates interact with each other, so you can take 3hrs to do a 5-min. combat. Quick, simple, and to-the-point. It lets you get back to what matters most - RPGing. Thats the D&D I remember.

And its the edition that is... S-L-O-W-L-Y... kicking Pathfinder's arse. 4e drove them away, and 5e is bringing them home. Now all we have to do is take all those fresh, eager, young minds and teach them what FR (and D&D) can really be. The foundation is there... USE IT.
Gary Dallison Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 21:33:05
Or just learn that most of your fanbase do not like world shaking events in campaign settings. Therefore don't do them
Wooly Rupert Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 20:39:11
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

After 5 versions of a ruleset you think they would have figured out how to make the rules perfect by now. Instead its a mish mash of two previous versions keeping many of the flaws of both originals.

Also after 5 editions you would think they would realise you do not need to blow up a setting and reinvent it each time they make a new ruleset - the two are not connected.

WoTC proving yet again that big business is pretty stupid.



Actually, most of the commentary I've seen on the 5E rules has been favorable, with people speaking of it as being a good mix of prior rulesets.

And as for blowing up the setting... While I'm not a fan of major RSEs, I will say I think there's a right way and a wrong way to handle them. The Time of Troubles is not universally popular in these halls, but I think this was an RSE that was handled correctly. They were looking for a way to explain changes to the setting (even though the changes were pretty minor), and they came up with one that worked.

My major complaint with the changes of the Sundering is that we simply didn't get any information on them. There were references in some novels, and then a source book that said "Hey, we reset everything. Carry on." I would have like to have seen more attention focused on what was going on, rather than a handful of passing references.

And then there's the changes of 3E, when they changed a lot of things, and explained absolutely none of it. Even when they had provided themselves a way to explain something, they instead opted for "it's always been this way, but no one knew about it!" To me, this showed an enormous lack of respect for the continuity that had previously been a major component of the setting.

I may not have liked the Spellplague, but at least it was an explanation.

So, in a long, roundabout way, what I'm saying is that you don't need to go Hollywood and have MOAR BOOM! to explain changes to the setting caused by ruleset changes -- but you do need some sort of explanation.
Gary Dallison Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:47:26
After 5 versions of a ruleset you think they would have figured out how to make the rules perfect by now. Instead its a mish mash of two previous versions keeping many of the flaws of both originals.

Also after 5 editions you would think they would realise you do not need to blow up a setting and reinvent it each time they make a new ruleset - the two are not connected.

WoTC proving yet again that big business is pretty stupid.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:38:30
My biggest beef with 4e was what it did to the pantheon. I didn't like the time jump, either, but I would have felt better with it if authors had been allowed to finish their stories before the jump was made.

I like 5e, I just wish there was more detail.
Markustay Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:15:09
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

But what the new fans are doing is wrong and they should listen to us. Nu-Realms is bad in every aspect. Drink original realms, it tastes sooooo good.
And my heart agrees with you... mostly.

But the heart is a very bad thing to listen to, I've learned over the years. It makes you make some pretty poor choices that your brain will keep kicking you for as you grow older and wallow in it.

Its summer and I live on a (touristy) island with lots of beaches. The people with 'heart' are rushing into the water and getting demolished by the waves. Over and over again. I'm one those guys. Big fat guy laying on the beach with tons of sand in his trunks... if I still have my trunks. I do it over and over.

But I can't help looking over at the surfers. Sure, I am having fun, but so are they, and they're not getting the crap beat out of them (mostly) repeatedly. They're "riding the wave", instead of fighting them. Both are fun, but one is somewhat less painful.

I have never been the type of guy to 'ride the wave', because I never worried about looking cool. I was doing what I, personally enjoy... and thats okay too. And if thats why you are doing this, more power to you. Just understand the difference.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:11:30
I'm still an oddball in not being bothered nearly as much by the timejump as I was by the Spellplague. If there was no Spellplague, but one hundred years of change that was detailed and could trace logically from the previous era, I'd've not been nearly as bugged. I would have mourned favorite characters, but I would have been eager to learn about all of the changes.
Zeromaru X Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 19:09:15
Sometimes I feel I'm the one who likes nearly all FR editions (I have only issues with 5e trying to revert stuff back to the 1300s, because what made me like the Realms was that it was a living world that always went forward, advanced and got interesting... and somehow, I got over it in the recent months...).
Gary Dallison Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 18:44:11
But what the new fans are doing is wrong and they should listen to us. Nu-Realms is bad in every aspect. Drink original realms, it tastes sooooo good.
Markustay Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 18:34:58
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

It's what people want. "Change" without actual change. Actual change occurred and people didn't like it.
Yes and no.

Little changes were fine. I didn't like the Moonstars. In fact, the feeling I get just by typing that name goes well beyond dislike. However, I didn't have a hissy fit over it, and proclaim, "I am leaving FR forever!" There were lots of things I didn't agree with, from minor stupidity like lichlings (in truth, I am more annoyed about where that adventure was located, than the lichlings themselves), to stuff that should NOT be considered 'canon' (Swords of the Iron Legion - UGH!!!), to outright, "WHY?! What is the point of any of this?!" (return of the Shades - we already had the Malaugrym, which not only come from the same place with the same sort of agenda, but are also FAR more interesting).

And yet, I was still here, all throughout 3e. In fact, I became a MUCH bigger fan during that period, and started making my maps (despite the fact the the inconsistent layout of the 3e maps still makes my head hurt). There was really nothing that made me even consider anything this project is trying accomplish, despite my feelings toward specific points of lore.

And then 4e happened, and it divided the fandom. All this time we've been thinking there was just 'two camps', when really, the fandom wasn't Sundered, it was Shattered (see what I did there? ). Instead of just accepting people who were playing in 'past editions' (although at that time we were all still using the same canon... for the most part), people began taking offense to it, in a bizarre way, as if someone playing in a different period or with different rules than you was some sort of attack on your own intelligence/taste.

And then, of course, there was the 'time jump', and no matter what anyone says to the contrary, that alone was FR's death-knell. We could have weathered nearly anything else (after all, we survived the Tot, and most of us disliked that), but that was just way too solid a dividing line. All 5e did was make more room on one side of that 'great divide'.

So, let me finally make my point: Before 4e we were still all in the same 'book', if not on precisely the same page. It's like asking Harry Potter fans which was their favorite novel - they're not going to go to war over that. They have the established canon of the setting to all fall back on. It is their 'common ground'. We lost that somewhere. Probably when we lost faith in the people creating said canon. Once the majority of decided to simply ignore 'official stuff', it opened Pandora's box. Whereas before we could do something like the CK-compendiums because we were all still fans of FR, despite our differences, now we have all gone on our own directions, mentally. While we may still agree on certain things within a subset of 'alternate timelines' ("let's all agree the Spellplague never happened"), we will NEVER, EVER agree on 'where' the canon went after after we start ignoring official canon.

And thats been our problem with this newest take on a compendium-like project. You either say, "everything that has happened HAS happened", and build on that (and yes, we can still build within the 'past' of that timeline, and even spin things in different ways than what the official canon would have done... had they ever decided to detail anything after 3e). Putting 'new spins' on established lore is fine - it's basically what they did with 4e (call it a retcon, call it backwards-engineering, etc., it's all the same thing). But what it is NOT is ignoring official canon and over-writing it.

And no matter what this project decides to do, I will (probably) still participate, simply by making the lore chunks I write modular, so they fit within my own homebrewed version, the official canon, and also whatever canon we decide to go with here.

But as a last ditch effort to make people understand where I am coming from, my whole thing with FR and participating here at the 'keep (and on the WotC boards back in the day) is creating things people will actually use. That's been tantamount for me. And right now, FR is having a 'resurgence', primarily because now FR IS D&D. people are buying products that contain FR lore (note I didn't say "FR products", because I don't think that's quite true anymore) BECAUSE they are playing D&D.

5e D&D.

With the 5e books... and canon.

If you ignore the official canon - no matter what you may personally think of it - than you are slapping all of those new fans - the people actually playing the goddamn game - right in the face. We joked about 4e being 'New Coke'. Well, what we are trying to do is worse - we are trying to force Cola drinkers to drink Black Cherry Soda. Not Dr. Pepper... some no-name, generic brand they sell at Walmart. We are basically telling all those kids down at the LGS' that "they are doing it wrong', and they should listen to us, rather than the company who is making the game they are having so much fun with. Have you seen those groups play? I have. Do yourself a favor and check it out. They're not' doing it wrong' - they're having fun.

And we can be part of that.
Diffan Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 17:39:28
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Just because a specific change was disliked doesn't mean all change is disliked. The Realms have been changing since the OGB came out. It's just that some changes have been bigger than others.



Well that's sort of a the crux isn't it? The bigger the disturbance, the more or less people will dislike it. I wasn't big into the Realms when the Time of Trouble came about so I don't know what the popular consensus was regarding that thing but I can't imagine it was accepted with loving, open arms.

And honestly, that's somewhat realistic. Not all change is happily accepted and sometimes it down right sucks (from a setting narrative, not from the 3rd-person player perspective). And that's pretty much been the Realms Wheelhouse for a couple of decades now. How much the change affects the Realms and it's acceptance are correlate well with one another.

Take say....the reclamation of Myth Drannor that occurred during the end of the 1300's DR (1375-ish I believe). It's sorta big in that it changes the landscape (politically and demographically) of an area BUT it's not SOOO big that it affects the happenings in Thay or the Sword Coast or Calimshan or the Dragon Coast. It's BIG but it's acceptable because it can still be used in some of it's original, dungeon-esque form because not all the city was saved or purged.

Then take say.....the Spellplague. It's HUGE in terms that it literally reshapes the landscape (politically, demographically, and geologically) of ALL the Realms. It's widely hated. Now there are other reasons why it's hated such as it's move to an unpopular version of D&D (despite those who love it), the 100 year jump with literally nothing between to help the transition, the killing off of major NPCs, the removal of certain lands and implanted with new ones, and the list continues.

Take the Time of Troubles. It's HUGE in terms that it changes how ALL magic works on the ENTIRE planet. Not only that but it also effects many political aspects and changes other parts of the setting too. I can't fathom people being excited that their Magic-User of X-amount of years basically doesn't do anything anymore. Or that their cleric can't cast any spells without being in the near vicinity of their deity. Playing classes like those in the years of the Time of Troubles must've stunk. The hatred for the ToT isn't nearly as big as it is for the Spellplague but I believe it still was there.

How many times have we seen people hoping for no more Realms-Shaking Events? Why? Because it changes the WHOLE setting. But the thing is, if there's change but on such a minimal scale then I have to really ask, why bother? I mean unless you're keeping up with the Canon of the Realms in every game you run in the setting or are heavily invested in what's going on in the area and MUST have progression, why not just have some fun stories about that area that doesn't change it much? Some of the best Realms stories don't change a thing about the area it's in. Look at novels like Erik Scott de Bie's Downshadow, Shadowbane, and Eye of Justice — they all take place in cities like Waterdeep and Westgate but no major changes occur there (except for a great story).

Honestly I think the Realms needs a break in pretty much moving forward on any major plot point. With the novels being discontinued, I don't think that's going to be a huge problem. The adventures are pretty big but the PCs job is simply to keep the status-quo after all is said and done.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 17:07:14
Just because a specific change was disliked doesn't mean all change is disliked. The Realms have been changing since the OGB came out. It's just that some changes have been bigger than others.
Diffan Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 15:08:45
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

-Ten years later, and literally nothing has changed. Kinda funny, kinda depressing.
AYUP.

I hear you, brother.



It's what people want. "Change" without actual change. Actual change occurred and people didn't like it.
Aldrick Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 14:29:15
quote:
Originally posted by Adhriva

Aldrick, has a consensus or decision been reached regarding where the concept of a fanon wiki is going?



I created a new thread taking into account all the feedback.

I wanted to give everyone the opportunity to respond here without a lot of cross-talk discussion. It does not appear that anyone else will be adding anything new. So, the discussion in this thread is now over. Future discussions should be moved to the new thread, to discuss the new consensus proposal.
Markustay Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 06:55:46
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

-Ten years later, and literally nothing has changed. Kinda funny, kinda depressing.
AYUP.

I hear you, brother.
Zeromaru X Posted - 21 Jul 2017 : 06:48:31
I also like to know if there is any consensus about the fanon.

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