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
 A message to all the scribes of Candlekeep...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2130 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  22:44:05  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I hold nothing against Ed for continuing to create stuff for the 4e Realms, just like I don't hold anything against any of the 4e Realms writers for the novels they write in the 4e Realms. They have a living to make, and writing for the Realms probably helps with that. But Halruaa is no longer Halruaa, Maztica is no longer Maztica, Unther is no longer Unther, the Pantheons are no longer the Pantheons, and no matter what you tell me, Waterdeep is no longer Waterdeep. For me, the Realms is no longer the Realms. And many prominent scribes in the 'Keep have also attested to that for themselves. There is nothing wrong with me avoiding scrolls with "4e" in the title so I do not by happenstance read some other thing that WotC has done and get pissed off and start an argument about why they shouldn't have done what they did, and why they should have done such and such instead. That is why I advocate (at the very least until tempers cool, if they ever do) the act of flagging your scrolls as 4e. It helps me personally avoid further conflict with scribes that I like and respect over our different opinions about the changes wrought with the 4e Realms.

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
Go to Top of Page

Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer

USA
908 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  22:57:22  Show Profile Send Matt James a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There is also the option of not responding if you open a scroll and find it to be 4e-related. Forcing members to tag their threads will only lead to further division and segregation amongst the members (it is no different than having a separate forum). It's a slippery slope and not one I desire to battle with. For all of the faults and perceived flaws in the 4e Realms, is it worth something like this?

Edited by - Matt James on 25 Aug 2009 22:57:52
Go to Top of Page

bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe

199 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  23:10:48  Show Profile  Visit bladeinAmn's Homepage Send bladeinAmn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James

There is also the option of not responding if you open a scroll and find it to be 4e-related. Forcing members to tag their threads will only lead to further division and segregation amongst the members (it is no different than having a separate forum). It's a slippery slope and not one I desire to battle with. For all of the faults and perceived flaws in the 4e Realms, is it worth something like this?



I'm with you Matt James.

What's more, given what I perceive to be an extreme and blatant lack of respect by WotC, for the 40yrs of Realmslore that Ed and his trusted friends have made, one could argue that the powers that be at WotC/Hasbro would like nothing more but for Forgotten Realms diehards, such as ourselves, to have dissension among our ranks and fanbase.

Its divide and conquer, in a business setting.

I've seen it all before.

Edited by - bladeinAmn on 25 Aug 2009 23:13:12
Go to Top of Page

Hawkins
Great Reader

USA
2130 Posts

Posted - 25 Aug 2009 :  23:49:14  Show Profile  Visit Hawkins's Homepage Send Hawkins a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The thing is, as evident by all the arguments that have transpired, and the fact that it took a whole year for them to begin to cool off, the division is already there (a Spellplague and 104 years wide division that is). And it is not going to go away with warm thoughts and fluffy feelings. IMO, after a year of trying to pretend that the divide is not there, it has not worked out all that well. I am not advocating a sub-forum for those who enjoy the 4e Realms. Just a little, two-character tag for those posts that pertain to the 4e Realms, kind of a "heads-up" as a courtesy to those of us who want nothing to do with the 4e Realms. Then we can avoid them (the scrolls, not the scribes).

Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane

* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives

My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)

Edited by - Hawkins on 25 Aug 2009 23:57:53
Go to Top of Page

Arivia
Great Reader

Canada
2872 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  00:22:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If you have a problem with merely reading something set in the Year of the Ageless One, that's fine. But it's not an organizational issue that should be forced upon everyone here, and it's something you need to deal with yourself.
Go to Top of Page

Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
879 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  00:42:56  Show Profile  Visit Christopher_Rowe's Homepage Send Christopher_Rowe a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany


...fans are a lot closer to that middle then most of us here would like to admit, because most fans are willing and capable (through their natural creativity) of changing and re-writing or discarding and ignoring parts of the Realms they don't like.

Realms fans have done that for decades. I don't see them stopping anytime soon.




I think this makes a lot of sense.

My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
29795 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  00:46:34  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I see nothing wrong with allowing people to place an edition designator in the title if they so choose, but I'm against making it mandatory. I do recognize that it would help people find or disregard scrolls based on edition, but it's also going the route of forcing an organizational divide. Even if the scrolls are scattered about in all categories, making the edition designator mandatory accomplishes the same goal as sectioning the forums per edition.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31687 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  01:07:34  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn

I can see good arguments for and against a forum for the newest version of the Realms. The arguments against include: the idea that it is discriminatory, it separates new-comers from long-time afficionados and therefore stymies conversation. It's annoying for those who are happy with the changes and want continuity.
Exactly. Why should those who enjoy the new material have to make an exception for their own discussions, when that's never been the case for any edition-based discussion here at Candlekeep? Granted, the scope of the changes incorporated into the core Realms has altered the some of what we can say about the setting, but if I were to start a discussion about Elminster or Cormyr in 4e, it has just as much relevance in a General Forgotten Realms Chat shelf as does a discussion about Elminster or Cormyr in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition.
quote:
On the other hand, those of us who abhor the latest construction may well feel excluded if such a forum doesn't exist. I said a year ago that one of the big problems is that the newest version of the setting forces people into an 'adapt or die' situation. All the latest releases support the new edition and older players will eventually drift away.
Yes. But that's always been a problem here. When 3e was still relatively new, there were those scribes who detested the changes. And as the near-constant trend for RSE's become more and more prevalent, they acknowledged their displeasure here when appropriate. But they never once stopped participating in various discussions about the Realms. Why should the situation with the 4e Realms being any different?
quote:
Or, to use less dramatic terms, it's a case of 'put up or shut up'. And we are beginning to shut up and leave. More threads will come along whereby the topic is about the latest releases, and many of us can not contribute to them. As a good example of this, the enthusiasm about the Pathfinder releases is exactly what FR should be receiving. However, in terms of lore Golarion is left standing by what the Realms once were.
I'm not so sure that's an accurate take on the matter. With Wizards' current publishing regime for Realms content, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see a significant increase in 4e chatter, as there's simply not as much 4e lore published. Especially when compared to that of previous editions. It'll literally take years, perhaps even a decade, for the 4e Realms to properly establish a foundation of Realmslore that could only just begin to compare to what's come before. And by that time, we'll probably see a 5e setting for the Realms.

I mean, you need only look at the kinds of 4e discussions occurring now. We've very few that actually discuss newly released products/web content. Most of the discussions for 4e are based around the changes, the Spellplague, stuff from the FRCG/FRPG, or the 4e novels.
quote:
The division is already there. The question is whether it is a good thing to set up a new forum, which accepts that the division exists, or is to better to carry on as we are and have every other thread turn into another illustration of the division. I know which side of that division I stand but I don't know what the answer is.

I'll agree with this to a point. There is a division. But, at the same time, I think I'm just having trouble seeing this whole argument as something "new." Because it really isn't. It's been around since the introduction of 3e, and we've still managed to ensure a strong and healthy community here at Candlekeep. I can't really see why the introduction of 4e should be interpreted as a reason for this to change.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31687 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  01:21:07  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James

There is also the option of not responding if you open a scroll and find it to be 4e-related. Forcing members to tag their threads will only lead to further division and segregation amongst the members (it is no different than having a separate forum). It's a slippery slope and not one I desire to battle with. For all of the faults and perceived flaws in the 4e Realms, is it worth something like this?

That's a worthwhile point.

I don't think it's really appropriate for 4e fans to start tagging their scrolls. If it's a personal choice, then fair enough. But to make it an established policy here at Candlekeep... well, I think it would start to feel like we're actually working against the concept of this site being open for ALL Realms discussion.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe

199 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  01:21:35  Show Profile  Visit bladeinAmn's Homepage Send bladeinAmn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM

The thing is, as evident by all the arguments that have transpired, and the fact that it took a whole year for them to begin to cool off, the division is already there (a Spellplague and 104 years wide division that is). And it is not going to go away with warm thoughts and fluffy feelings. IMO, after a year of trying to pretend that the divide is not there, it has not worked out all that well. I am not advocating a sub-forum for those who enjoy the 4e Realms. Just a little, two-character tag for those posts that pertain to the 4e Realms, kind of a "heads-up" as a courtesy to those of us who want nothing to do with the 4e Realms. Then we can avoid them (the scrolls, not the scribes).



Oh I wasn't slamming you in any way Hawkins! And I fully agree w/all you've said here.

I juss thought to post as I did b/c I believe that w/a united front of us longtime FR diehards maintaining our dislike of how 4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR, in a decent way, as the moderators want, then I feel we'd put ourselves in a better position to get what we want---not juss out of Candlekeep, but eventually, out of WotC and Hasbro.

The hatred we have for what has happend will never dissipate (if it did, then we've lost our souls). So in regards of tagging threads dealing w/4e material, I completely understand where you were coming from.

But I felt Matt James had a better approach, b/c I've a strong feeling that us tagging things (unless we're in a roleplay room or lore room, here on CK), we'd juss be giving into a possible divide and conquer attempt on the FR fanbase.

And I'm sure all of us here have some measure of an adventurous spirit within us. None of us desire warm thoughts and fluffy feelings, not with all that has transpired with the insult paid to the 40yrs of Realmslore by Ed and his trusted friends.

Edited by - bladeinAmn on 26 Aug 2009 01:34:57
Go to Top of Page

Uzzy
Senior Scribe

United Kingdom
618 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  03:17:49  Show Profile  Visit Uzzy's Homepage Send Uzzy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
I'm not so sure that's an accurate take on the matter. With Wizards' current publishing regime for Realms content, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see a significant increase in 4e chatter, as there's simply not as much 4e lore published. Especially when compared to that of previous editions. It'll literally take years, perhaps even a decade, for the 4e Realms to properly establish a foundation of Realmslore that could only just begin to compare to what's come before. And by that time, we'll probably see a 5e setting for the Realms.


Not much Realmslore is being produced full stop. Not for the Realms or the Shattered Realms, and with Candlekeep being unwilling to continue with its compendium (for understandable reasons), that situation doesn't look set to change.
Go to Top of Page

Sebastrd
Seeker

28 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  06:04:08  Show Profile  Visit Sebastrd's Homepage Send Sebastrd a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
...4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR...
If you think 4E is the first edition to be guilty of this, you need to do some research. As Sage has repeatedly pointed out, it's never caused a division in the past, and there's no reason for it to start now.
Go to Top of Page

bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe

199 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  08:39:27  Show Profile  Visit bladeinAmn's Homepage Send bladeinAmn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I've done my research, friend. I didn't like the twisting that occured then, and I liked it much less w/the Spellplague and 100yr jump, but that's beating a dead horse if I go further.

And I'm all for CK staying edition-neutral, and all of us enjoying FR together.

And hopefully again in a time for all of us to enjoy it in its full splendor, as Ed and his trusted friends envisioned it.

Go to Top of Page

Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe

United Kingdom
762 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  08:56:56  Show Profile Send Kiaransalyn a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks to The Sage and Mr_Miscellany for your comments. I like your arguments and they're persuasive.

You're right, of course, there have been changes in the past. It's part of life and the succession of RSE's weren't anything else but changes on a smaller scale than the Spellplague. The designers had their task, which they've done. I guess if anyone of us had been asked to change the setting then many would not like our changes. Going off the responses to some of my suggestions in the past, I'm sure a Kiaransalyn Realms would be widely hated.

The big problem, for me remains, what The Realms are now no longer appeal to me. I spent a lot of time in the past playing drow characters, role-playing them and acting as a DM. What little remains were never the aspects that really appealed. I could write lots on this topic, but who cares what I have to say about it. I know the argument is take it and make it yours, which I have but then what?

Here's a semi-serious suggestion, instead of a 4E forum what about a retired edition forum where all of us oldsters can sit and talk about the old days?

Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness


Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass.
Go to Top of Page

Jorkens
Great Reader

Norway
2950 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  11:23:29  Show Profile Send Jorkens a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastrd

quote:
...4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR...
If you think 4E is the first edition to be guilty of this, you need to do some research. As Sage has repeatedly pointed out, it's never caused a division in the past, and there's no reason for it to start now.



I agree one hundred percent. There are those among us that have little use for 3ed. and the version of the Realms presented there. This makes a large amount of postings for this version as uninteresting as 4ed. posts. I could scream and shout, chewing my moustache and froth around the mouth at the way the Realms has been handled by all editions, but that would be rather unproductive and pretty boring to most people.

We all see the Realms in different ways and have different interests in the Realms. I for example cant stand Drow as they have become in the Realms and usually don't read threads dealing with them, should I therefore demand a drow tag on those threads? Or the comments I have seen a couple of times from people who dislike having to "taint" their knowledge of the Realms with non-canon lore, should they get a tag of non-canon for simplicity sake? And what about Netherill and Arcane age, should these be given a separate tag?

There is a tendency to look at this whole question as a clear divide between 4ed. and everything else realmsian. This is oversimplifying and somewhat artificial, I have as little use for the 4ed. as the next person, but it doesn't exactly ruin my day to see it mentioned and a good post is a good post no matter what the edition. I agree that it is useful for a poster to mention what edition of rules and what time-frame within the Realms he or she is thinking of, but to make it mandatory would be for Candlekeep to step over a line that changes the very nature of the site. If I where to come to the stage of getting physically ill by anything non-TSR, then I might as well head over to Dragonsfoot, which and always have had a clear edition profile. The same goes for those with a pure interest in 3ed. or 4ed. Realms; there are plenty of sites that have a profile that fits with that view.

And I will end this rant now, before it becomes boring.

Go to Top of Page

Brimstone
Great Reader

USA
2874 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  13:52:16  Show Profile Send Brimstone a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I started a scroll on Waterdeep, and I chose to put 1479 in the Title. Sure that scroll hasn't gotten alot of replies to it, yet Erik, and Steven posted in it.

No new lore being produced, read "Ed Greenwood Presents: Waterdeep". Looks like Realmslore to me. They are some of the best Forgotten Realms novels I have every read.

I for one don't want to talk about the 4E Realms in a "Warsaw Ghetto".

"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep
Go to Top of Page

Thauramarth
Senior Scribe

United Kingdom
653 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  14:17:21  Show Profile Send Thauramarth a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I agree one hundred percent. There are those among us that have little use for 3ed. and the version of the Realms presented there. This makes a large amount of postings for this version as uninteresting as 4ed. posts. I could scream and shout, chewing my moustache and froth around the mouth at the way the Realms has been handled by all editions, but that would be rather unproductive and pretty boring to most people.



I, for one, agree. I have not bought any FR Gaming product for the 3rd Ed Realms, and only a few novels. OK, originally this was because of other issues (real life, and having to pay my own way, for instance), and I do not like everything of what I have managed to gleam from 3rd Ed (I do not like the idea of every God having "Chosen", Hell, I don't even like the idea of Mystra having Chosen, as they have been perceived by many people (and WotC followed, up to a certain point); Shade, ad a couple of others things). Still, not knowing much about 3rd Ed, I still enjoy reading the Candlekeep Forums, and taking whatever ideas and lore come up that I like for my games, and ignoring the rest.

Even if it's ostentibly written for 3rd Ed, or 4th Ed, I can still use stuff for my own campaigns (which are set in the early 1350s to the early 1360s): a description of a good NPC (never mind that the stats, if any are provided, do not fit - I can make those up myself), or a village, or an event can always be used and adapted to fit my needs. Much in the same way that I can get generic modules from Dungeon Magazine and implant them in the Realms (or even material from Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape... to mention only the WotC/TSR worlds) Is that "canon Realms"? No, it is not. Is it "Realms"? Certainly.

My point is - inspiration and good ideas can come from anywhere, regardless of what edition it is "canonically" supposed to be for. If I open a thread, and it turns out to be something I am not interested in, I just quit it, and move on to the next thread.

Club Secretary of the Dragons on the Hill RPG Club of London, UK: http://dragonsonthehill.co.uk/.
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31687 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  15:58:48  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn

Here's a semi-serious suggestion, instead of a 4E forum what about a retired edition forum where all of us oldsters can sit and talk about the old days?
Actually, I've often thought of attempting something very similar. For example, a shelf dedicated to Realms discussions that focus on DMs using rules sets other than the current core D&D system. Since we've already got a number of scrolls dedicated to research re: PATHFINDER rules in Realms games, it might be worth some consideration.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Jorkens
Great Reader

Norway
2950 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  16:13:05  Show Profile Send Jorkens a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If we discuss the Realms in use with other systems it becomes natural to discuss the systems without the Realms also. I must admit that a general role-playing/general TSR shelf would be my wish. Not a general of-topic forum, but clearly focusing on the area of the hobby.
Go to Top of Page

Arivia
Great Reader

Canada
2872 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  17:54:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new?
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
29795 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  19:24:21  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia

We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new?



I could get behind that. Call it "Beyond the Realms" or something like that, to signify it's for stuff that isn't FR-specific. Because, as pointed out, we have had discussions on other stuff there, like Golarion, Castlemourn, or when I did my personal review of Beyond Countless Doorways.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Brimstone
Great Reader

USA
2874 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2009 :  19:26:21  Show Profile Send Brimstone a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I could get behind that.

"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep
Go to Top of Page

The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Moderator

Australia
31687 Posts

Posted - 27 Aug 2009 :  00:50:51  Show Profile  Send The Sage an AOL message  Click to see The Sage's MSN Messenger address  Send The Sage a Yahoo! Message Send The Sage a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia

We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new?

Well, that's not entirely true. We've mostly had to keep to topics that still involve D&D in some way. Or those third-party settings which had at least used the OGL. And I've had to delete some scrolls or reject some PMs with ideas for scrolls because they wanted to discuss settings that weren't connected with D&D in any way.

What I'm talking about is a shelf that allows discussion about any rules set. Take, for example, my own Realms. I've borrowed rules and mechanics from the MechWarrior RPG. But I can't really discuss that here because that system has little to do with either D&D or the Realms. This new shelf would allow such discussion.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)

"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood

Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage
Go to Top of Page

Jakk
Great Reader

Canada
2165 Posts

Posted - 27 Aug 2009 :  03:42:47  Show Profile Send Jakk a Private Message  Reply with Quote
<eloquent reply deleted, as I'd misunderstood the OP's intent>

Edit: 29 August: Thought of something useful to go into this post:

quote:
Originally posted by Sebastrd

quote:
...4e ripped up Ed's original vision and intent for FR...
If you think 4E is the first edition to be guilty of this, you need to do some research. As Sage has repeatedly pointed out, it's never caused a division in the past, and there's no reason for it to start now.



Very true, and I'm glad someone pointed this out (and reminded me). The Moonshaes were completely reworked from Ed's original concept to provide a home for Doug Niles' novel Darkwalker on Moonshae; the entire south coast of the Sea of Fallen Stars (Chessenta, Chondath) is politically and culturally very different from Ed's take on the region, and then there's the first three editions' take on Mulhorand and Unther. I'm assuming that the Moonsea is rather different in Ed's Realms too, given that Phlan was shoehorned into the area by the computer game project by SSI, IIRC... and then there are Kara-Tur, Zakhara, and Maztica. I never really got into Maztica, and I am debating between retconning it out of existence altogether and having Realms imitate Earth again with the natives being wiped out by a plague carried by the Helmites. As derivative as they are, I quite like Kara-Tur and Zakhara, and I plan to keep them around in my Realms.

I also agree whole-heartedly with Jorkens' response to the above-quoted posts. Just because an RSE isn't happening in your Realms, doesn't mean there will be nothing useful to you to come out of that RSE. Brian R. James' supplemental timeline entries are an amazing example of that, as the vast majority of those can be used with little or no modification, depending on other changes you have made. For example, anything regarding the royal family of Cormyr post-1370 is largely unusable to me, as I had given Azoun IV several grandchildren over the decade-plus before his death, although I will likely find a way to integrate future canon generations into my version of the genealogy. (And, for the umpteenth time, I'd love to see the Cormyr Lineage in all its glory...)

In closing, this is as good a time as any for me to remind all scribes of Ed's message (paraphrased) from the OGB (as I've done several times before): The Realms are yours to do with as you wish. If you don't like something, change it. Heck, I'll be blowing up Evermeet in my Realms just because I don't want to mess with the geography of Maztica/Anchorome. I just wish that we could see Ed's version of regions that were changed prior to the original publication.

Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.

If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic.

Edited by - Jakk on 29 Aug 2009 20:17:08
Go to Top of Page

Jorkens
Great Reader

Norway
2950 Posts

Posted - 27 Aug 2009 :  10:49:40  Show Profile Send Jorkens a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by Arivia

We've historically done just that in D&D Core Products, though. Maybe we should just rename it, instead of coming up with something totally new?



I could get behind that. Call it "Beyond the Realms" or something like that, to signify it's for stuff that isn't FR-specific. Because, as pointed out, we have had discussions on other stuff there, like Golarion, Castlemourn, or when I did my personal review of Beyond Countless Doorways.



That sounds like a good idea.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000