| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 07:03:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
It's not relevant to the discussion at hand, but I've published three FR novels (2 in 3e, 1 in 4e), and my fourth one is coming out in September. Go check out my bibliography on my blog for a complete listing, if you're really curious: http://eriksdb.livejournal.com/111591.html
Thanks, looks interesting. I actually just checked Realms of the Elves out of the local library, I'll get a taste of your writing in there I see. You're very young, but I like the many links to various FR lore on your blog. It is encouraging.
Yes, yes, I know having older people assume youth is a negative in talks like these is annoying as hell. But really, if you are twenty something now, in 1987 when FR first came out how old were you? 2 or 3? Doesn't negate your points, but it is different then actually experiencing the events in real time.
Since you showed me yours, I'll show you mine. I don't have a blog (how old of me, right? ;)) so bear with me. I'm 40 something, I started gaming in 1979 or 1980, I honestly can't recall which. When I was young and in shape I too fenced sabre, though not well. I served in the Marine Corps and now I am a historian for the Marine Corps, that's my real job/calling, writing military history. I've had an ongoing Realms campaign since 1987. I also write the 'Off the Shelf' book review column for Knights of the Dinner Table magazine.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
After all, the ToT occurred pretty soon after the initial FR release. The wonderful grey boxed set came out in 1987. Barely two years later, in 1989, the Avatar series came out and reworked the pantheon.
Bane and Msytra, we barely know ye.
<snip>
I think Bane was like *the* villain of the original Realms, and so they wanted to move him aside to let some other BBEGs through.
Really? Because Bane was not the central villain of any novels prior to the Avatar trilogy, nor was he the central villain in any accesories or modules published in the two years of the Realms existance prior to the ToT. I know we old timers like to pretend we gamed non-stop back in the day, but campaigns were not running dry after only two years worth of FR material.
The idea that Bane was *the* villain came afterwards, in part when TSR realized how much the fans loved Bane. I actually think most fans never understood him until Shadowdale when he was brought to life.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
It didn't help that Cyric was extremely lame as a god, especially compared to how cool he had been as a mortal character.
I'm not sure what you mean by "extremely lame" (or what about Cyric causes him to earn that description in your estimation),
Cyric as a mortal was well written and had a compelling, understandable motivation. Cyric as an evil deity had neither, and was poorly served by writers who couldn't portray insanity particularly well, nor properly articulate reasons why he might be insane.
I'm not trying to insult these writers. It's just difficult for a writer properly depict these things, they were set or chose a difficult challenge and they fell short.
I've said before, taste is individual but quality isn't. Ultimately, Curic lacked gravitas. If you want a truly epic fantasy setting, your god of evil cannot come across as a petulant teen-aged boy.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
but ultimately, to each his own. You'll have to take that particular issue (the Prince of Lies) up with Jeff Grubb and Ed.
I don't think Ed had anything to do with Cyric. Not sure about Jeff Grub but I seriously doubt that he did either.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
See here's the thing: if only a single person were working on the Realms (such as, if Ed were writing it all himself) or maybe just a couple people, then you'd get that smooth sidewalk with handprints. However, the Realms was not conceived originally to be a sandbox with only one gamer. In selling the setting to TSR and thence to WotC, Ed made it clear that he wanted lots of people with lots of different opinions and visions playing in his sandbox. Hence the reason you get lots of peaks and valleys and a lot of messy things that don't necessarily make a lot of sense.
And for me, that's WAY more interesting as a setting than one that doesn't allow for a multitude of opinion or a variety of stories.
See, I know what the Realms was sold as. I get that, it's why I started buying FR products back in the day.
But one does not preclude the other. Look at the work Eric Boyd did for the original 2e FR diety books. Innovative, unique, well written, AND incredibly consistent to previous lore. Eric and Steven, and Elaine Cunningham all showed that the setting could be down extremely well an still have that smooth appearence.
Heck, your talking to one of the few old-time grognards who actually liked the Maztica and Horde trilogies. ;)
Actually, Elaine Cunningham's Elfshadow, which i recently reread, is a model example of this. Tightly plotted, well paced, with several new, cool characters and some excellent characterization and well drawn and explained motivations. But the research is obvious throughout. Pull out Darkhold from the Castlesboxed set and you can follow her infiltration on the map. :) In Waterdeep those who owned FR1 Waterdeep and the North recognize tavern after tavern, NPC after NPC, all acting much as they would have in their own campaigns. A young player could yell out, after reading a particular page, "My elf fighter/magic-user drank in that bar!"
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
It should be noted that as a sandbox, the Realms has something of a revolving door. Designers and authors come and go, and they do different things and have different priorities than the last generation.
Yes, that's problem and that's my point. First TSR, and then WotC has never made continuity a priority.
Yes, love of continuity is a matter of taste. The ancient Greeks weren't fans, happily changing events in the Trojan War to suit the storyteller of the moment.
But by far the most successful fantasy work is Lord of the Rings, it is one of the very few modern fantasy genre works that can claim to be literature. And absolutely much of that great work's achievement comes from Tolkien obsessive attention to detail and continuity. It provides depth and suspends disbelief more effectively than anything else in a fantasy author's toolkit.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
If you want a single vision setting, go read Wheel of Time or Song of Ice and Fire (in fact, go read Song of Ice and Fire, because if you haven't done that, you're missing out)
Both well written, neither to my taste. Too verbose. And I find Song of Fire and Ice far more interesting in the first version, in actual English history. ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
or any one of a thousand fantasy series with a single author writing in a single world. The Realms is something different--it THRIVES on multiple ideas and opinions. And I think that's what makes it special and worth reading/writing.
You missed the point. I am a huge fan of Thieves' World, the original true shared world setting that predates the Realms and all by half a decade. Shared worlds do thrive on multiple ideas and writers and viewpoints, but only to the extent that the tension between differing views and agreement is maintained. See, otherwise it ceases to be a single coherent world. It's like the difference between Offut's old Swords against the Darkness series and Thieves' World, Offut's are great short story anthologies but don't even try to be a single world, the tales are all unrelated and that same sandbox joy is missing.
I loved the Realms for many years. I'm trying to rekindle that love, i'm just worried that the powers that be over the realms lost sight of that required tension.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Well, the Spellplague appears to have so reworked the Realms that there is no more Realms to be shattered, right? So that rather makes sense.
I'm sure you didn't mean that as a low-blow, so I'll treat it with the benefit of the doubt. There certainly are some people who feel the Realms no longer exists (to which I say, "what then is the point of wasting your time on a messageboard about it?").
Oh, I won't play innocent. I don't think much of the 4e realms as I've heard it. But I didn't think much of 3e realms either. As I said earlier, one reason I didn't visit here was a feeling that the Realms was dead. WotC hasn't gotten a dime of my money since 3e came out, I've just purchased old 1e and 2e material or turned to other settings and companies. I have accepted 3e material as gifts, or checked it out from the library.
I recognize this is touchy, that you make your living from this. I'm not trying to upset or insult you, but I am determined to be honest in my criticisms.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The 4e FR are still the FR. The Spellplague broke 10% of the setting and reworked it in a pretty serious way. The other 90% is all still there and useful.
Really? My impression was they weed-whacked out a lot of stuff. Erased the Chosen, removed the Old Empires and Maztica, removed Kara-tur. Not to mention that other old favorite of mine, Spelljammer. But that was ripped away with 3e, IIRC.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
As someone who has written and designed in both the 3e and 4e FR, I honestly do not find it all that different or inaccessible.
LOL. That I can believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
What I mean is, "are logically impossible based on the canon and mechanics of the world." What I'm hearing you say when you say "don't make sense" is "don't make sense TO ME." And I can totally understand that when things happen in a setting you know and love that you don't like, they might seem out of the blue. But that doesn't mean they *don't make sense.*
(Does what I'm saying make sense?)
It's properly worded sentances that follow the rules of grammer, so it makes sense.
It's totally wrong. ;) But it makes good sense.
The stuff I listed is, at least arguably "logically impossible based on the canon and mechanics of the world."
One thing I find with all game designers and authors, regardless of setting or genre, is that they are very defensive.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
The sudden appearence of the shadoweave. It was a good idea when it was a unique, interesting aspect of Birthright, importing it into the Realms was a bad idea with no precedents. Perhaps that doesn't fit the defintion of an RSE.
How was that a bad idea? I for one love the shadow weave and the idea of Shar having her own source of magic untouchable by the other gods. It makes perfect sense for her divine purpose.
A divine purpose she didn't have until they created the Shadow Weave. As I said, she isn't FR's Tharizdun until 3e, when they imported this new form of magic. It had not been present at all in any book before that. Total violation of canon.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Mystra being killed made no sense, as others have pointed out.
Actually, Red Walker pointed out that it was extremely plausible--assuming you got behind all the premises, which is a little iffy.
"Assuming you accept that Shar had Mystra killed it made perfect sense that Shar had Mystra killed."
I taught college history for 8 years, that would not have been a passing answer. ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Though, as she is the FR deity who has been killed the most times throughout history, I think it's not only plausible that Mystra bit the bullet, but that it was really only a matter of time.
In a couple thousand years time, game-wise, sure. Not a few measly decades after the ToT.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Mystra's death causing the Spellplague makes no sense (the Chosen existed specifically to prevent such a catastrophy).
We don't really know much about what happened here--certainly not enough to say it made no sense. Sure, what we *know* might be lacking in sense, but we just don't have all the pieces to make that kind of judgment.
Here's the problem. FR is a game setting. It is the designers job to give the gamemasters who purchase that setting solid information. This 'we don't know enough' arguement doesn't work for game settings. And is poor novel writing as well, really... it works on occassion but when over-used makes the reader feel cheap and abused.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
The appearence of the city of Shade made no sense.
You don't think it's plausible that a city of Netheril escaped Karsus's Folly into the plane of Shadow? Considering how powerful the Netherese were, I find that very plausible.
That they escaped, survived, AND made their way back is implausible.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Mystra did that basically twice (and maybe a third time for 4e--who knows?)--so why can't Bane?
On reconsideration, I'll give you the plausibility of that event. I think it is juvenile writing, but it is plausible for the reasons you list.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
That said, I find your explanation extremely plausible as well. More power to you!
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that wasn't meant to be condescending.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
It can't always be done, however, simply because of the revolving door as regards editorial control of the Realms (as I stated above).
I'm a paying customer with many other options for my entertainment dollar. Excuses don't matter to me. The revolving door just means I regret the Realms that might have been as I spend my money elsewhere.
Harsh, I know, but far too often in our hobby there is too much deference, even reverence, by fans for the game designers, authors, even the companies that create the games. When I was younger I succumbed more than once myself, but one grows out of it. I'm sorry that FR has a revolving door of editors and designers but that's WOTC's fault and doesn't cut them any slak as far as FR's faults. Nor does it detract from FR's many glories.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The problem here is that sometimes you have neat and innovative ideas that people didn't think of before. Ed has mentioned this in the past, wherein designers surprise him with new ideas that he couldn't foreshadow, because he'd never dreamed of those things.
Have you compared the poetry of World War I vets with the poetry of Vietnam War vets? Vietnam War vets come off very, very poorly. There are no Dulce et Decorum ests in Vietnam War poetry.
It's because freedom of artistic expression can be the enemy of quality and value in. Following the rules, constraining oneself within a framework often leads to greatness. Free form poetry from those who never studied rhyme and meter simply cannot compare to the poetry of those who force thier brutal, modern experiences into the struture of classical rhyme and meter schemes.
The same thing applies here. If you come with a new and innovative idea that isn't seen previously in the Realms great! Write the story or create the amgic item or sketch the adventure. just put it in a world of your own devising.
After all, how much Lord of the Rings fan fiction is really worth reading?
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Anyone know how to get a hold of Phil?
You can find Phil's blog on google, and contact him through that. Cheers
That was some other guy's comment, not mine. I'm happy to talk with the guy if he shows up here but I ain't stalking him. f his work doesn't speak for itself... but I'm sure it does.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
Edited by - GMWestermeyer on 25 Jan 2011 07:07:03 |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 11:23:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Yes, that's problem and that's my point. First TSR, and then WotC has never made continuity a priority.
Quibble: TSR did make continuity a priority, and had someone whose job was to act as a traffic cop and keep everything straight. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Arioch
Learned Scribe
Italy
222 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 11:43:16
|
I join this party a little bit in late but...
...as I said a in lot of other thread... The only problem I have with Mystra's death is that the official explaination is too obscure.
Yes, it gives you to play Clue infinite times... but I'm gettin a little bored of this... With not enough canon lore ... it is more difficult to produce more lore... (aside from versions too personal and too tailored for a specific campaign...) that makes me feel a taste of broken continuity...
Moreover: it may seems less important but the quality level of your adventures, when based on a less detailed episode/world/event, seems lower... Of course I can build up the details myself ... but when mine details find their fit perfectly inside a more general picture, it is the same pleasure I can get from completing a 2000 pieces puzzle )
|
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 12:01:15
|
I'd imagine that's a big problem for a game setting; they give you too much, the questions are all answered and there's nothing for you to do. They give you too little and you can't answer the questions because you don't know what they are. I suspect there were a few people who figured the "what happened to mystra" thing would be a pretty popular campaign hook when 4e realms hit. For me the lack of information doesn't bug me as I consider Mystra's absence to be a positive change to the realms, not a negative one. But I've come to learn that I'm in a minority on that issue.
Regarding the time between Mystra's deaths; I'm reading the Avatar series now, on Tantras, and so far given Midnight's level of competence compared to Cyric's, what surprises me is not that it only took him a couple of decades after the time of troubles to kill her, its that he didn't manage to do it sooner. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 15:26:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
I see no need for either RSE's nor the "advancement of the timeline" and think that in and of itself was a mistake from the beginning. My best example as to why the advancement of the timeline and RSE's are not needed is the Call of Cthulhu game, where the setting is the very defined 1920s (by default, you can play in other historical epochs). Yet, even with those limitations, Chaosium is still in business and still putting out material years later (and with very little rework of the rules either). Sure, they are not as big as D&D, but then again they also do not have the name recognition or marketing of that brand either. The Realms would have been fine without an advanced timeline and had decades worth of stuff to publish just by detailing locales/groups/etc that existed since the grey box.
Well, I can definitely see your point here, but two things:
1) Call of Cthulhu doesn't have an ongoing novel release schedule. While H.P. Lovecraft wrote a lot of Mythos stuff and there have been imitators and heritors since, you don't have dozens of authors who are specifically producing novels to go along with and promote the game.
2) When Ed sold the Realms in the first place, he specifically planned on it being an evolving, dynamic world wherein things would change and grow. To have a static setting would be to undermine his intention and the strength of the setting, which is precisely that things continue to evolve and grow.
The Forgotten Realms is not an easy horse to ride. It takes constant maintenance on the part of the writers, editors, and designers, and it takes a certain willingness to accept change and role with new innovations. Absolutely you're not going to like everything that happens, and lots of events you're going to say "I could've done that better."[1] But you wouldn't stick with the setting if you weren't willing to do that.
Cheers
[1] I should also say that if you have this "I could've done that better" reaction often, then you should do it. Write your own stories with your own characters and your own plots in your own setting, then see about publishing them. That's how I got writing, and a lot of the endings I disagreed with were actually in Forgotten Realms novels.
In response:
1) You are right in that CoC doesn't have an ongoing novel release, but there are hundreds of short stories that were written about the Mythos without ever creating an RSE that changed Earth history in a major way and yet those novels are still loved and read 80+ years later.
2) Sure, Ed expected the world to grow, but obviously not in the way it has since he still plays 2nd ed and without all the new "canon". There is also a big difference between growing (say extrapolating on events/regions/characters mentioned in the grey box or early supplements) and dramatically changing the scope/feel of the world.
And sorry, the Realms isn't an Ipad, it doesn't need constant "innovations" (and using the word innovation to describe fantasy writing is a stretch in and of itself) to succeed or prosper. Also, it isn't about me doing better, but about adhering to the feel/intentions/and scope that Ed created.
Finally, looking over the publishing timeline of Realms novels, outside of the Avatar Trilogy (which was written to usher in 2nd edition as opposed to for the sake of writing) there were hardly any real RSE's through at least 1997 (which is where I stopped reading everything). |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 15:58:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
...using the word innovation to describe fantasy writing is a stretch in and of itself....
I find this interesting and provocative. Could you explain further?
Cheers,
Christopher
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 16:42:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Yes, yes, I know having older people assume youth is a negative in talks like these is annoying as hell. But really, if you are twenty something now, in 1987 when FR first came out how old were you? 2 or 3? Doesn't negate your points, but it is different then actually experiencing the events in real time.
Well, in the interest of full disclosure, I started reading the Realms in 1990 (when I was, for the record, 7) and started actively gaming in the setting in the early 90s (probably around age 12 or so), at which point it was my go-to setting. So I really feel like I've grown up with the Realms. It holds a very special place in my heart, and I--like any diehard fan--have been struck by the turmoil and treated changes to the setting with a boulder of salt.
As evidence, I can readily attest to having been so wedded to 1e/2e that I got extremely upset and resistant when 3e came out. (I eventually got over it, obviously.) 4e also shook my foundations in the setting, but by that time I'd had the experience of the 2e/3e shift and knew to look for the good, rather than the bad.
I make no pretensions to being a grognard or "old guard"--by an accident of birth year, I can't quite attest to that. But I do call myself a long-time Realms fan--when I think of D&D, I think of the Realms first, game second. When I think of why I started writing or reading or doing well in school (thanks to the previous two), I think of the Realms. And I've shared enough drinks with Ed Greenwood and basked in enough of his praise of my work to think I'm on the right track.
So I don't think of my age as a stumbling block. If you do, and you're going to discount my opinions because of it, then this whole thing is moot. I hope you don't, however, because it's an interesting discussion.
quote:
Since you showed me yours, I'll show you mine. I don't have a blog (how old of me, right? ;)) so bear with me. I'm 40 something, I started gaming in 1979 or 1980, I honestly can't recall which. When I was young and in shape I too fenced sabre, though not well. I served in the Marine Corps and now I am a historian for the Marine Corps, that's my real job/calling, writing military history. I've had an ongoing Realms campaign since 1987. I also write the 'Off the Shelf' book review column for Knights of the Dinner Table magazine.
You know, I probably could have guessed most of those things based on your OP and replies in the thread.
quote:
Really? Because Bane was not the central villain of any novels prior to the Avatar trilogy, nor was he the central villain in any accesories or modules published in the two years of the Realms existance prior to the ToT. I know we old timers like to pretend we gamed non-stop back in the day, but campaigns were not running dry after only two years worth of FR material.
The idea that Bane was *the* villain came afterwards, in part when TSR realized how much the fans loved Bane. I actually think most fans never understood him until Shadowdale when he was brought to life.
I can't speak to why the ToT happened so quickly as it did, and my investiture in the Realms came about after the hubbub, so to me, the Avatar trilogy is one of the foundational pieces of the Realms. This might explain why I view Bane as "the" big bad of the setting (at least in those early years). I'm also here thinking of Pool of Radiance, Pools of Darkness, and several of the video games of the era (which I consider at least as important as the early game material to getting me into the FR).
quote:
I don't think Ed had anything to do with Cyric. Not sure about Jeff Grub but I seriously doubt that he did either.
Well, Ed has been heavily involved with most that goes on in the setting, particularly in those early years. Jeff Grubb was the traffic cop of the Realms at the time, so nothing got past his watch. I should have added James Lowder and Troy Denning there as potential sources--they actually wrote the books.
quote:
In Waterdeep those who owned FR1 Waterdeep and the North recognize tavern after tavern, NPC after NPC, all acting much as they would have in their own campaigns. A young player could yell out, after reading a particular page, "My elf fighter/magic-user drank in that bar!"
I pared down a lot of your quote, but I think I kept the most relevant example (this is not to denigrate the amazing accomplishments you listed). This is a really cool thing, but over time and as the setting aged, it became neither possible nor in the best interest of the setting.
The Realms at the time was a smaller world: there was just less data to be internalized and incorporated, and fewer authors/designers working in it. If you talk to Bob Salvatore, when he started writing Drizzt, Icewind Dale was a curvy line on Ed's map--it had nothing in it and he could invent everything he wanted. When Elaine started writing Waterdeep, of course it had stuff Ed had designed, but nowhere near as much stuff as exists today--if only because Ed has gone back and redesigned the city 3-4 times since then, not to mention other designers working on it, or the other authors who have written books in it.
In such a setting, you can pull off things like this. In the early days of FR, there were just a couple of regions that were developed, and the rest was completely free and open--mostly, the designers stuck to what was there, drawing upon the sources they had. There was a mirror development process between novels and cities.
Over time, as the setting attracted more designers and authors, they had to expand in new directions and start covering things that had already been covered. New stories had to be told, which required new castles and dungeons to be explored. Also, the audience demanded more, more, MORE--more of the information behind all the events, more of the canonical basis for how things worked the way they did. Designers and authors who had previously been allowed to make up new things suddenly couldn't--or at least they drew flak for making up things that weren't grounded/foreshadowed in pre-existing lore.
quote:
Yes, that's problem and that's my point. First TSR, and then WotC has never made continuity a priority.
There's a difference between violating continuity and challenging presumptions. As our whole discussion about the Shades, Mystra, Bane, etc., elucidates, one person might see things as totally conceivable while another considers them preposterous.
(Note: I personally think that I am right as regards their logical possibility--no matter how implausible they might seem, I still assert (and have yet to be challenged with any logical rigor) that they are logically possible. The words "this doesn't make sense to me" do not a logical argument make. Sorry, this is my philosophy degree talking.)
But in a larger sense, it really doesn't matter what I think or say. I'm not going to convince you to like something, and I really have no interest in doing so. All I can ask is that you give things a chance and the benefit of the doubt. I'm not doing so because *I* care, but because *you* have expressed an interest and emotional involvement in the Realms. All I'm interested in doing is saying that you should give what you love a chance--it may surprise you.
quote:
You missed the point. I am a huge fan of Thieves' World, the original true shared world setting that predates the Realms and all by half a decade. Shared worlds do thrive on multiple ideas and writers and viewpoints, but only to the extent that the tension between differing views and agreement is maintained. See, otherwise it ceases to be a single coherent world. It's like the difference between Offut's old Swords against the Darkness series and Thieves' World, Offut's are great short story anthologies but don't even try to be a single world, the tales are all unrelated and that same sandbox joy is missing.
I loved the Realms for many years. I'm trying to rekindle that love, i'm just worried that the powers that be over the realms lost sight of that required tension.
I haven't missed the point at all. I completely understand what you're saying, and my assertion is that while the enlarged setting does wobble and aspects of it do indeed wander off into the ether (just as happens in every large scale effort--look at the X-Files, Lost, the Wheel of Time, Dark Tower, etc.), I believe that the core continuity and theme is there. The Realms has always been still the Realms.
If anything, the recent reset to 4e was an attempt to establish a set continuity--to do away with all the wandering paths and sometimes nonsensical ideas. I personally disagree with a lot of the changes that happened, but given the choice between griping about it and hopping on board to steer the ship to where I want it to go (where I think the Realms should be), my choice is pretty clear.
quote:
Oh, I won't play innocent. I don't think much of the 4e realms as I've heard it. But I didn't think much of 3e realms either.
Well, as I said: "What then is the point of wasting your time on a messageboard about it?"
If you'll pardon the little bit of psychoanalysis (and it's well founded on your stated purpose of trying to rekindle your love of the setting), I think you're here because you want to find hope about a setting that's near and dear to your heart. And while I can't enchant you into agreeing with me (and wouldn't THAT be cool?), I hope you see how much some of us really do love and support the setting--old grognard, newbie, and everything in between--regardless of the many and myriad attempts to shove it under the bus.
quote:
I recognize this is touchy, that you make your living from this. I'm not trying to upset or insult you, but I am determined to be honest in my criticisms.
As I am determined to be honest in my evaluation of your criticisms and response thereto. I do think your criticisms could do with a little less "I don't think much of the Realms based on what I've read" and a little more "I've read XXX sourcebook and find it totally lame" (or something to that effect). I'm not saying that you'll necessarily like all the books you read, but in my experience on the internet it's WAY easier to get fired up over something you haven't read or used. So give the 4e FR books a shot (I recommend Steven Schend's Blackstaff Tower and Ed's Elminster Must Die as starting points), then come back and tell me how you hate it.
quote:
Really? My impression was they weed-whacked out a lot of stuff. Erased the Chosen, removed the Old Empires and Maztica, removed Kara-tur. Not to mention that other old favorite of mine, Spelljammer. But that was ripped away with 3e, IIRC.
Well, the Chosen are still around (albeit diminished in number), Maztica and Kara-tur still exist but aren't covered in what's out there yet (if there's sufficient demand, they will be), and Spelljammer is and always has been its own thing (I am right now playing in a Spelljammer/Planescape/Forgotten Realms 4e game).
As for the Old Empires, which ones do you mean exactly? Could be anything from Chessenta to Mulhorand to Imaskar or Myth Drannor.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
As someone who has written and designed in both the 3e and 4e FR, I honestly do not find it all that different or inaccessible.
LOL. That I can believe.
Ouch! But add the caveats that I have grown up with the setting from 1e/2e onward, and my point becomes a little stronger.
Also, my point's more tailored to those people who love 3e but hate 4e, so I don't imagine it lands on your ears with the same effect.
quote:
The stuff I listed is, at least arguably "logically impossible based on the canon and mechanics of the world."
I think I've offered logical arguments to refute that claim, so I won't repeat them. Just as you were starting with enjoyability vs. quality, logic is not subjective. If I say "A = A and A cannot = B, which entails that A =/= B," that's logically true. If I say, "Mystra has died and been reborn, thus Mystra has the power/potential to die and be reborn, thus in the future Mystra might die and be reborn again," that's logically sound.
But again, it doesn't matter really what I think or say. Your opinion is still your opinion.
quote:
One thing I find with all game designers and authors, regardless of setting or genre, is that they are very defensive.
I want to note that I'm not being defensive--or at least, my intention isn't to be defensive. (Any more than me saying that *is* being defensive.) My intention here is to discuss your points and elucidate my own particular views, in the hope that you might be able to see things how I see them. Whether you choose to get back into the setting or not makes little difference to me. I just know that I enjoy it, you've said that you enjoy it in the past, and I'd like you to be able to enjoy it in the present and future.
quote:
"Assuming you accept that Shar had Mystra killed it made perfect sense that Shar had Mystra killed."
I taught college history for 8 years, that would not have been a passing answer. ;)
That was a throw-away line and not my real point. Feel free to flunk Red Walker there. 
From a philosophy standpoint, it begs the question (i.e. presumes as a premise the very thing it's trying to prove). The appropriate answer is as follows:
Alignment:
As established in canon, Shar is evil. The earliest source I have on this is the 2e boxed set, which describes her as neutral and evil. Her portfolio includes darkness, night, loss, forgetfulness, and the concealed and that which is hidden (i.e. secrets). Specifically, she nurtures "pains hidden but not forgotten, of vengeances carefully nurtured away from the light" (Running the Realms, 48). Our conclusion is that Shar is evil and vengeful.
Enemy of Mystra:
The Sisters of Light and Darkness myth (in which Selune/Shar created Mystryl) is also printed in the 2e Faiths and Avatars book--if you have an earlier source that contradicts this, please let me know. In this, Mystryl appears and favors Selune, giving her victory that Shar laments bitterly. Our conclusion is that Shar has reasons to hate Mystryl/Mystra, even if she's not yet listed as her specific enemy.
Nihilistic:
Based on Shar's established dogma (loss, bitterness, night) and her actions during her symbolic war with Selune (i.e., Selune wanted to promote life, Shar wanted the opposite), it follows that the ultimate goal of her faith might be emptiness/nihilism/destruction of all life. Even if this wasn't the established goal of her church in earlier literature, it is entirely possible that a strong religious leader in her church (say, Rivalen for example, of Paul Kemp's Twilight War) might interpret Shar's interest as this sort of ultimate destruction and return to nothingness; he could preach that and guide the faith in that direction. And as established in the canon of the Realms, the gods depend upon their worshipers for power and influence, and the actions and beliefs of those worshipers guide the deity's course. Hence, we can conclude that Shar's interest might be nihilistic in nature.
Synthesis: Shar attempts to destroy Mystra and bring about the end of the world
From this, it is not so much of a stretch to think that Shar might become Mystra's enemy (as she did in 3e) and try to destroy her (as she did in 4e). Also, I think I've offered a brief but reasonable argument for why Shar might be interested in entropy--that is, the end of all things--leading to her destruction of Mystra, which caused a potentially world-ending catastrophe.
Note that this isn't an argument that it happened exactly this way, or that this is what the designers had in mind. It's only an argument to prove the logical possibility of what happened. I demonstrated that Shar was evil, might have had in for Mystra, might have had the desire to "end it all" (yay goth girl goddess!), and so she might have had the motive to move against Mystra.
This is what I mean when I say "logically possible"--there is a series of plausible steps by which something may come about.
Now whether Shar actually *can* get Mystra killed in the way that happened is a completely separate argument. I only put forth this one, because you seemed extremely hesitant to accept Shar as an enemy of Mystra, and used that as a foundation for why the whole murder/Spellplague thing didn't make sense.
I could put forth a logical possibility argument for said murder, but it relies a lot on things we don't know, and until we do, we have to conclude that it is at least *possible*, just because we don't know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it isn't.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Mystra's death causing the Spellplague makes no sense (the Chosen existed specifically to prevent such a catastrophy).
We don't really know much about what happened here--certainly not enough to say it made no sense. Sure, what we *know* might be lacking in sense, but we just don't have all the pieces to make that kind of judgment.
Here's the problem. FR is a game setting. It is the designers job to give the gamemasters who purchase that setting solid information. This 'we don't know enough' arguement doesn't work for game settings. And is poor novel writing as well, really... it works on occassion but when over-used makes the reader feel cheap and abused.
Ah. I often run into this attitude among the readership, and it is very common in an expanded universe/shared setting/fandom thing like this: you want to have all the answers, and you refuse to make them up yourself. The point here is that the designers/authors CAN'T explain everything, and it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so anyway, because the MASSIVE odds are that it will just alienate people. Some people will like the explanation, some people won't. What designers have to do is find a balance between "here's what happened," "here's what MIGHT have happened"[1], and "make up what happened yourself."
Also, if something in the books happens that doesn't make sense for your game, why get upset about it? Just ignore it or re-explain it, and move on.
[1] And fans are, by and large, extremely loathe to make this connection. As Ed has repeatedly stated, everything it says in the sourcebooks and novels about the Realms is open to interpretation and revision. It's your setting--nothing should be taken as set in stone.
This perfectly moves into . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
That said, I find your explanation extremely plausible as well. More power to you!
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that wasn't meant to be condescending.
Wow, I am really sorry it came off that way. That was the opposite of my intention. I was legitimately saying that I am happy with how you explained it, and I'm glad it works out in your game.
(I'll even include an emoticon so you can see my smile, here!)
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
It can't always be done, however, simply because of the revolving door as regards editorial control of the Realms (as I stated above).
I'm a paying customer with many other options for my entertainment dollar. Excuses don't matter to me. The revolving door just means I regret the Realms that might have been as I spend my money elsewhere.
Harsh, I know, but far too often in our hobby there is too much deference, even reverence, by fans for the game designers, authors, even the companies that create the games. When I was younger I succumbed more than once myself, but one grows out of it. I'm sorry that FR has a revolving door of editors and designers but that's WOTC's fault and doesn't cut them any slak as far as FR's faults. Nor does it detract from FR's many glories.
Then by all means, if you aren't happy with it and aren't willing to give it a chance, take your dollar elsewhere. Harsh, I know, but that's the game.
Let me make clear my intention here: I for one am not asking for deference or reverence or any of that. I'm not interested in offering excuses, only explanations. If what you're looking for is NOT what the Realms is, then find something that IS what you want.
What I find far too often in the hobby industry is that people often deride a setting or game for not being what it isn't meant to be. And sure, you need to move product, but it's a loser's game to try to appeal to people who just aren't going to be happy with you, regardless of what you do.
Speaking for myself (and only for myself, as I always do), my plan is to write and create what I think is cool and fun and what I hope people will like. I'd obviously prefer it if you like it too, but some things are just not meant to be.
Best of luck in your search. I mean that with all honesty and well-wishes. If your love of the Realms is rekindled, great--if not, that's completely understandable, and I hope you find what you're looking for.
Cheers
Edit: Fixed the coding. Man, that was annoying. |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 25 Jan 2011 17:39:21 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 16:51:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Yikes, apparently someone does remember me, or knows me from the KODT forums. I'm sorry Mr_Miscellany, I don't recall you, different username then i would have known you by?
No need to apologize, Paul.
You would have known me as Sanishiver/Jeremy Grenemyer on the Realms-L list.
Your stances on some issues pertaining to the Realms appear to have not changed much over the years. But unlike before where I’d engage you over those positions, I think it’s better to just step back and watch this scroll develop on its own.
I’m enjoying reading about your reasoning and Erik’s; I think the contrast in your opinions accurately highlights how the Realms has changed in its appeal to different generations of fans, illustrates what aspects of the setting are and are not valued by different fans, as well what people do and don’t know about the Realms.
These differences and disparities are due in no small part to WotC taking over from TSR and WotC subsequently being purchased by Hasbro: with different owners come different (business) priorities, new people on the job and different Realms products.
They are also due to the constant stream of behind the scenes revelations about the Realms—how it works, what Ed’s constraints were opposite TSR and WotC down the years, how the various editions of the Realms were put together and information about parts of the Realms that have never seen print but are as much canon as information in any official printed work—we’ve had the privilege of reading from Ed and other designers on this website, the sum of which have radically reshaped many a Realms fan’s thinking and understanding of the Realms (count opinionated grognards like me in that group of people) from what we thought we knew of the setting through the regular sources, i.e. novels, sourcebooks, computer games, comics, etc...
Looking forward to reading more of what you have to say.
[edit] I’m very curious about your early experiences contributing to the Realms. You’re credited on some 2E products and I’m wondering if you’d be willing to share in another scroll what the experience was like? |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 25 Jan 2011 20:32:02 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 17:28:14
|
Thanks for the responses, Apex--to answer:
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
1) You are right in that CoC doesn't have an ongoing novel release, but there are hundreds of short stories that were written about the Mythos without ever creating an RSE that changed Earth history in a major way and yet those novels are still loved and read 80+ years later.
Well, and part of the difference is, Earth history IS Earth history. The Cthulhu mythos wasn't *building* a world, but only modifying an existing one. The analogy doesn't line up--a better one would be to take the Realms as it exists now, pick one FR author (who was NOT around to write all that history--so a new person), have that person write stories completely in line with the established canon at the time (i.e. a snapshot in Realms history), then sit around for 80 years, and then look back on that author's work.
See what I mean?
quote:
2) Sure, Ed expected the world to grow, but obviously not in the way it has since he still plays 2nd ed and without all the new "canon".
I'd be careful about slinging words like "obviously" around or making presumptions about what Ed may or may not think. Too often, people make assumptions based on what an author's character might be like, or what edition that author plays, etc.
quote:
There is also a big difference between growing (say extrapolating on events/regions/characters mentioned in the grey box or early supplements) and dramatically changing the scope/feel of the world.
Absolutely agreed. My own design/author philosophy is NOT to make big waves and (if anything) hearken back to the core Realms feel. (Though sometimes those are contradictory, as when I bring back dead gods that shall remain nameless.)
And I don't want to peg myself as a 4e defender, but I honestly don't feel that the 4e FR (like the 3e FR before it) has changed the scope/feel of the world. That is, of course, debatable (and has been debated, over and over, for the last two and a half years). So my opinion isn't necessarily the gospel truth. I think there have been significant changes, but overall, the Realms to me is still the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
...using the word innovation to describe fantasy writing is a stretch in and of itself....
I find this interesting and provocative. Could you explain further?
Agreed!
I mean, the core of fantasy writing is conservative in nature--hearkening back to "the good old days." But I think all writing has the potential to elevate the mind and ask questions and explore new realms--*particularly* fantasy writing.
I mean, read some China Mieville, for instance.
But you were saying . . .?
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
I'd imagine that's a big problem for a game setting; they give you too much, the questions are all answered and there's nothing for you to do. They give you too little and you can't answer the questions because you don't know what they are. I suspect there were a few people who figured the "what happened to mystra" thing would be a pretty popular campaign hook when 4e realms hit.
And I think that's exactly the point: they are throwing out an unexplained campaign hook for you to use. This is one instance where they chose the needs of the game over the needs of the canon to answer every question. I for one am ok with that ambiguity, but I sympathize with people who want all the answers.
quote:
Regarding the time between Mystra's deaths; I'm reading the Avatar series now, on Tantras, and so far given Midnight's level of competence compared to Cyric's, what surprises me is not that it only took him a couple of decades after the time of troubles to kill her, its that he didn't manage to do it sooner.
Heh, snark!
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 17:50:29
|
One more point that I picked up reading through my own post again:
quote:
I recognize this is touchy, that you make your living from this.
I really don't, actually. The amount I make from my work in the Realms is definitely not enough to live on--I rely on my day job for that. (Also the amount I make while composing long posts on Candlekeep is completely tax-free, I'll say that much.)
So when I'm spending my time posting here, it isn't out of a conflict of interest. What I'm saying only has to do with my own love for the setting, not my wallet.
If I was really out for myself, don't you think I would say something like "You're absolutely right! All that stuff is B.S.! And by the way, you should totally read my books, which ignore all that kerfuffle!"
Cheers
P.S. Though by the way, you should totally read my books, which ignore all that kerfuffle. |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 25 Jan 2011 17:51:36 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 19:30:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
...using the word innovation to describe fantasy writing is a stretch in and of itself....
I find this interesting and provocative. Could you explain further?
Cheers,
Christopher
This wasn't meant as a dig so much as my opinion on misuse of a word. When we think of innovation we think of Apple, Intel, the internet, etc., we don't think of fantasy writing. Especially since most (if not virtually all) fantasy plots have already been done in one form or another throughout the years (even if they haven't been specifically done in the FR). I love great and creative fantasy writing as much as most here, but I would never use the word innovative to describe it. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 20:03:50
|
| Fantasy isn't the only genre where most plots have already been done. If it's a form of story-telling, pretty much all of the stories have been told in some form or other, and most likely, many times over. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Christopher_Rowe
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
879 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 20:43:14
|
Ah, interesting, thanks! Plots, well, plots are what they are. I personally think there's been a lot of stylistic innovation in the fantasy genre in the last ten years or so, and also in worldbuilding.
Cheers,
Christopher
|
My Realms novel, Sandstorm, is now available for ordering. |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3563 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 21:03:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Feel free to flunk Red Walker there.
Cheers
Hey! You can't flunk me for being purposeful, philosophicly ambiguous!
Especially since I didnt know there was a test |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
Edited by - The Red Walker on 25 Jan 2011 21:04:34 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3563 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 21:09:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Ah, interesting, thanks! Plots, well, plots are what they are. I personally think there's been a lot of stylistic innovation in the fantasy genre in the last ten years or so, and also in worldbuilding.
Cheers,
Christopher
I agree with that 100%
Imagine a genre where you couldn't use anything Tolkien used because you would not be innovative....How would he have wriiten what he did without some of the themes from Beowulf and Robert Wagner(to name only 2 of his influences)....be a pretty innovative genre I guess |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 22:27:04
|
Not to mention the Greek, Celtic, and Norse mythology that all ring heavily through D&D in general, and the Realms in particular. (I am including the Norse mythos as separate from Beowulf and Wagner because those were BASED on those myths.) This has been an interesting discussion. Over all, I'd have to say that my own opinion falls somewhere between Erik and GMW. On the one hand, I', also an old-guard who's been around since late in 2nd ed, and feels that much of the change in 4th seems weak and pointless. On the other hand, I am still a fan of the Realms, and though I absolutely REFUSE to PLAY or RUN anything in 4th, I have at least (reluctantly) given it a chance with the novels. I am, of course, trying gamely (see, a pun!) to reconcile my dislike with finding things that I CAN like about the "New" Realms. (Well, since the analogy to Classic and New Coke has already been made, why the Hells NOT?)
That said, there are still MANY things about 4th which I CANNOT accept- not the least of which was the destruction of so many gods, and the debacle (IMHO, anyway) regarding the drow. BUT! And that's a BIG but- I am glad to see that some of my favorite characters are still around, others are being introduced who may prove interesting and entertaining, and it would seem that the wheel is turning around once again, and might eventually come full circle. Here's hoping, anyway.... |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 23:59:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Fantasy isn't the only genre where most plots have already been done. If it's a form of story-telling, pretty much all of the stories have been told in some form or other, and most likely, many times over.
Indeed. You notice this also, with sci-fi, along with fantasy. It's very rare to encounter plot-lines and/or story-elements that haven't otherwise been lifted wholesale, or adapted from previous material, to establish the purpose of a new story.
This is nothing new, of course. It's been happening almost since the dawn of literature. |
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 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 04:55:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
Sorry if I made it seem like your opinion was wrong or anything. I wasn't trying to imply that. I just wanted to be clear that it's not an opinion shared by everyone.
True. But remember, while taste is individual and cannot be argued, quality generally can be judged objectively.
For example, King's Gunslinger series is objectively a high quality bit of writing. But despite my attempts to enjoy it, it simply is not to my taste.
Ummm... no. I've had this argument elsewhere but anything that involves interpretation to be considered "good" or "bad" is subjective by definition. The only objective thing anyone can say about a book, film, game setting or whatever is "X, y and z happened therein." Everything else is completely up for grabs.
To me, saying that "something is not to one's taste" translates into "I think this [insert media here] did something really crappy, but I don't know how to say why I think it's so crappy and everyone else says that it's 'good quality', so it must just be me."
Sorry, I'm just a little bit touchy about other people telling me what is "good quality."
//rant
I suppose I should say something about RSEs...
I'm really good at ignoring such things or putting characters in places that are peripherally aware of the larger goings on, with a few glaring exceptions which I shall not mention here.
I'm less interested in stability but continuity should be extremely important. In a setting as large and as varied as the Realms, where a lot of different things are taking place keeping cultural and political continuity should be extremely important, because it practically a given that something somewhere is in flux. |
Rants and reviews that interest no one may be found here. |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 06:06:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
I'd imagine that's a big problem for a game setting; they give you too much, the questions are all answered and there's nothing for you to do. They give you too little and you can't answer the questions because you don't know what they are. I suspect there were a few people who figured the "what happened to mystra" thing would be a pretty popular campaign hook when 4e realms hit.
And I think that's exactly the point: they are throwing out an unexplained campaign hook for you to use. This is one instance where they chose the needs of the game over the needs of the canon to answer every question. I for one am ok with that ambiguity, but I sympathize with people who want all the answers.
The way I see it the two sides of the arguement, and this relates to the one individual who's name escapes me but insists that the progression of the timeline is a mistake, is that the two camps basicicly want the other to have to do the work.
Say they give you all the answers, which I admit I see the appeal to, then you either play the game completely off script, knowing all the twists and turns and what lays at the end of the road, or you make something out of whole cloth anyway. If they don't give you all the answers, you still make it up, but they give you a springboard from which to jump.
The samething goes for the non-advancing of the timeline; if it doesn't progress except in the individual campaign, you basicly have to make up where the story goes from the starting point onward. If it does change, the person who doesn't want it has to go through the process of removing the changes they don't like, but if it doesn't, the person who wants change has to *gasp* use their imagination.
Problem is, if everything had stayed the same from day one in the realms, I don't think I'd see the appeal of the setting the way I do now. There are several things about 4e realms that I love. Chief among them are Tymanther and the Kingdom of Many-Arrows. Now, if things had never changed or advanced in the realms and I were to say "Ok, so we're going to have a Realms game, but with a kingdom of dragon-like humanoids and another kingdom of civilized and occassionally heroic orcs have formed in the last few decades", I'm pretty sure most people would either stare blankly at me or laugh in my face. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 07:44:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
The way I see it the two sides of the arguement, and this relates to the one individual who's name escapes me but insists that the progression of the timeline is a mistake, is that the two camps basicicly want the other to have to do the work.
I suspect your logic would place me in the "change is good/go ahead and make it up yourself" camp, and that's not an unreasonable assessment. But I do want to clarify that I would LOVE to make all that up (assuming I had the time and opportunity). I absolutely don't want the other camp to do all the work, because *I* want to do it.
That said, I recognize that even if I did have the time and financial freedom to do all that, if I just wrote every little thing into the Realms and offered no freedom for DMs, I'd basically be straight-jacket-ing people into my own vision. And while I'm sure I can find a handful of people who'd go for that, I'm not conceited enough to think that I'll please everyone all the time--not even enough to make the setting viable in terms of product moved.
What one has to do in a game setting is to strike a balance between established canon and places where DMs are encouraged to fill in the blanks. Which is what FR has always done, and is still doing today.
I personally think it's better to err on the side of more answers, rather than fewer, because people can pick and choose which ones to use for their games. But I also see the danger inherent in that strategy--namely that it sparks all kinds of debate and fractures the fanbase as to whether they play "canon" games or not. Also, what happens when the canon you're building all rests on the foundation of an event that lots of players choose to ignore? Then you're spinning your wheels and creating useless product that no one's going to read, much less buy.
I cleave to the core themes of the Realms--as long as your game or novel series or sourcebook or whatever has these themes, then it's a Realms event.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 08:00:16
|
| I suppose my assessment was something of an oversimplification of the issue, regarding the two camps. I don't mind a bit of world building, myself, but I do like to have the foundation already set. So long as it is a foundation I like, anyway. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 16:18:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
I don't mind a bit of world building, myself, but I do like to have the foundation already set. So long as it is a foundation I like, anyway.
Aye, that's the rub, innit?
I personally like to have options, which I can either pick from or ignore and make up what works for me.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 16:40:58
|
quote:
...I'd basically be straight-jacket-ing people into my own vision. And while I'm sure I can find a handful of people who'd go for that, I'm not conceited enough to think that I'll please everyone all the time--not even enough to make the setting viable in terms of product moved.
No personal offense meant by this, because I don't consider you to be in this category, but isn't that exactly what the current "main" FR design team forced on fans with the Spellplague, the re-ordering of the planes, Abeir, the reinterpretation-remapping of the Gods, etc.?
After all, what I hear repeatedly is "don't use the new Realms if you don't like them" and some form of "well, leave the boards if you don't like the new Realms." (And frankly, screw that, I have invested a lot of time and money into my Realms).
For simple pragmatics, that's fine and all, and I'm big enough to vote with my dollar. But after 20+ years of feeling that I had choices, this new Realms indeed feels like putting on the "straight jacket" or leaving the living Realms behind. To me, that says more about this current design team, that they couldn't accomplish what all other prior design teams could accomplish.
Note: again, I don't feel that you're in the group of designers that I blame for the Shattered Realms. I'm just expanding on the discussion.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 26 Jan 2011 17:00:01 |
|
|
|
Erdrick Stormedge
Learned Scribe
132 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 17:43:27
|
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
A divine purpose she didn't have until they created the Shadow Weave. As I said, she isn't FR's Tharizdun until 3e, when they imported this new form of magic. It had not been present at all in any book before that. Total violation of canon.
Are 'ye familiar with the tome "Faiths and Avatars", GMWestermeyer? Within, the legend of the Sisters of Light and Darkness is presented. This is a 2e source by Martin and Boyd which details Shar's divine purpose of subjugating Mystra.
Granted, it is a Martin tome, a Sage whose acumen has been derided in these halls, but 'tis a pre-3e canon source, none the less. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 18:01:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
...I'd basically be straight-jacket-ing people into my own vision. And while I'm sure I can find a handful of people who'd go for that, I'm not conceited enough to think that I'll please everyone all the time--not even enough to make the setting viable in terms of product moved.
No personal offense meant by this, because I don't consider you to be in this category, but isn't that exactly what the current "main" FR design team forced on fans with the Spellplague, the re-ordering of the planes, Abeir, the reinterpretation-remapping of the Gods, etc.?
I can definitely see this argument, and it's a valid one to be made. My response is that this is just another option that's given to you. As with every other supplement ever presented in the Realms, it is expected that you will pick and choose things that you like about the new Campaign Guide, and things you don't. And yes (on your next point), if you really don't like the new Realms, why would you force yourself to use them? Why not use the acres and acres of pages devoted to pre-4e FR, or craft your own version?
quote:
After all, what I hear repeatedly is "don't use the new Realms if you don't like them" and some form of "well, leave the boards if you don't like the new Realms." (And frankly, screw that, I have invested a lot of time and money into my Realms).
Emphasis mine, to mark the part of the post I'm addressing.
I for one am not encouraging anyone to leave Candlekeep or not post about the Realms. I would just question why anyone would want to waste his or her time posting about something he or she has no interest in or doesn't want to use.
The impression I get from a lot of marketers is that, in a very real marketing sense, negative publicity is still publicity. Applying this principle to the discussion at hand: creating a stir about 4e just serves to draw more people into it to figure out what the big deal is.
quote:
Note: again, I don't feel that you're in the group of designers that I blame for the Shattered Realms. I'm just expanding on the discussion.
Well thanks.
I'm in the same boat everyone else is--reacting to the changes--and I'm doing my best to make the best of it all. There are things I like and things I don't, and I tend to focus on the things I like in my writing and my ongoing campaign, and ignore or minimize the things I don't.
I do want to maybe bring the discussion back to where it was originally--we were talking about Realms Shattering Events. That is, big changes that altered the canon or pushed the setting in one direction of another. 4e is a big example of that, but I think *after* the Spellplague, we're going through a period free of RSEs . . . if only because we still have a mostly-unexplored setting to fill in. It's kind of like what I imagine working in the Realms must have been like back in the late 80s and early 90s, albeit with a huge backlog of canonical lore to comb through.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 19:47:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erdrick Stormedge
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
A divine purpose she didn't have until they created the Shadow Weave. As I said, she isn't FR's Tharizdun until 3e, when they imported this new form of magic. It had not been present at all in any book before that. Total violation of canon.
Are 'ye familiar with the tome "Faiths and Avatars", GMWestermeyer? Within, the legend of the Sisters of Light and Darkness is presented. This is a 2e source by Martin and Boyd which details Shar's divine purpose of subjugating Mystra.
Granted, it is a Martin tome, a Sage whose acumen has been derided in these halls, but 'tis a pre-3e canon source, none the less.
I am not aware of such derision. I'm one of the many people who has more than once spoken most favorably about the trilogy of 2E deity books. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Erdrick Stormedge
Learned Scribe
132 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 20:05:15
|
Oh aye, Scribe Rupert. Sage Martin's work as an editor for The High Sage Ed of the Greenwood has been criticized in these halls... though I can'nae find the scroll at the moment. Twas' in the "So Saith Ed Scroll", last year, I believ'eth.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erdrick Stormedge
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
A divine purpose she didn't have until they created the Shadow Weave. As I said, she isn't FR's Tharizdun until 3e, when they imported this new form of magic. It had not been present at all in any book before that. Total violation of canon.
Are 'ye familiar with the tome "Faiths and Avatars", GMWestermeyer? Within, the legend of the Sisters of Light and Darkness is presented. This is a 2e source by Martin and Boyd which details Shar's divine purpose of subjugating Mystra.
Granted, it is a Martin tome, a Sage whose acumen has been derided in these halls, but 'tis a pre-3e canon source, none the less.
I am not aware of such derision. I'm one of the many people who has more than once spoken most favorably about the trilogy of 2E deity books.
|
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3563 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 20:14:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erdrick Stormedge
Oh aye, Scribe Rupert. Sage Martin's work as an editor for The High Sage Ed of the Greenwood has been criticized in these halls... though I can'nae find the scroll at the moment. Twas' in the "So Saith Ed Scroll", last year, I believ'eth.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erdrick Stormedge
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
A divine purpose she didn't have until they created the Shadow Weave. As I said, she isn't FR's Tharizdun until 3e, when they imported this new form of magic. It had not been present at all in any book before that. Total violation of canon.
Are 'ye familiar with the tome "Faiths and Avatars", GMWestermeyer? Within, the legend of the Sisters of Light and Darkness is presented. This is a 2e source by Martin and Boyd which details Shar's divine purpose of subjugating Mystra.
Granted, it is a Martin tome, a Sage whose acumen has been derided in these halls, but 'tis a pre-3e canon source, none the less.
I am not aware of such derision. I'm one of the many people who has more than once spoken most favorably about the trilogy of 2E deity books.
Did they edit Spellfire? |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Erdrick Stormedge
Learned Scribe
132 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 20:17:18
|
Nae, The Red Walker. I can summon 'ye a gate to the World Between Digital Worlds...
**SPIZZ-SPAZ-KADOOM**
http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=341
Follow the gate above to find a scroll detailing Scribe Martin's work.
EDIT: But which strangely dost nae list Faiths and Avatars. Mayhaps her work for the Dragon Magazine was 'ported to this tome... |
Edited by - Erdrick Stormedge on 26 Jan 2011 20:20:55 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why so many Realms Shattering Events?
