| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 19:33:31
|
Hope this isn't too terribly off topic. FWIW I think the timeline should not be frozen, but I also think there is some value in going back to a certain era and filling things in here and there.
RE: novels and canon:
In my experience, novels can produce a lot of enthusiasm to play D&D in the Realms. The novels have the effect of exciting people about the setting. When I started playing D&D in the Realms I was excited to be playing in the same world where displacer beasts bite the feat off of thieves, adventurers ride flying shields to hack at the bellies of dragons and spellfire-wielding heroes melt ancient, terrible beholders into nothing.
I’ve based a lot of my D&D campaigns around novels set in Cormyr.
However, it’s sometimes tricky for me as a DM, because I’ve had players ask “Are these novels I’m reading (and enjoying) part of our game?” I can see that my players are enthusiastic and I’m tempted to say yes, because I want them to have as much fun as possible. But I’m also hesitant, because as often as not I haven’t read the novels they have and I don’t want to limit my options. Nor do I want to create in my player’s heads any sort of cognitive dissonance between the contents of a novel and the events in our campaign.
Of course 5E Realms books should emphasize that it’s a DM’s game to do with as he or she pleases, but I sometimes wonder if you don’t lose something by not also encouraging DMs to talk to their players, find out why they’re motivated to play in the Realms (if at all; some players just want to play a character type/style and that’s it) and if there isn’t some way to latch onto that motivation for the good of the campaign.
BTW I like that sourcebooks gloss over novel events. All that Threat From the Sea stuff happened, for example, but I ignored it in my games and thankfully many sourcebooks ignored it too. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
 |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 02:26:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
All the "canon" does is present an internally consistent baseline, one which (at least ostensibly) lines up and makes sense, from which you make your own game your own way.
I'll note that Sovereign Press attempted to present something of an expansion on the notion of canon for a particular setting.
During the time they held the publishing license for DRAGONLANCE, they released sourcebooks which presented alternate-timeline options and setting material -- and, in fact, an entire mini-campaign setting -- which focused on history playing out differently from the "accepted" canon progression of the Saga.
I thought that this was a particularly use way to show folk how to expand the interpretation of canon, and still make it work for a published setting. Of course, all the material eventually came back to the main canon line of the Saga with the releases afterward, but, for a time at least, we, as fans of DRAGONLANCE, had official options for playing campaigns that ran either counter or completely separate from accepted canon lore. |
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 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 04:14:05
|
I don't get the thesis, here. I don't play the game, but it's my understanding that gamers have always been free to pick and choose whatever elements from the rules and the lore to incorporate into their games that their DMs would allow. It's never been an obligation, but rather, just an offering. Is the OP resenting what we've been offered, or that we will be offered even more? 
In your Realms, for example, your party can band together and (possibly) whack Drizzt for being an annoying, whiny, navel-gazing, diary writer. There's nothing stopping you from doing just that!
But I will say that I don't understand the appeal of partaking of the Realms--a marvellously complex fictional world--if a gamer is not also going to preserve its timeline right along with the rest of it. I'm not religious anymore, but when I was, I was pretty fundamentalist and literalist about it. The same goes for my corner of the Realms, including the timeline. I don't like what has happened to my favorite character, for example, but I accept it, because it's canon now.
However, for the sake of a game campaign, I don't see anything wrong with playing a giant "What if?" and going down an alternate path. The game is more about where your party's creativity (and the luck of the roll) take you, anyway, right, versus slavishly staying on script? I wouldn't think that your detouring away from the canon would be the end of the world.
Nor do I see how the novelists' and lorebook writers' advancing the canonical lore away from your local campaign would be the end of the world, either.
Back in the day, the Bloodstone Lands modules came out with the established notion that the previous modules' adventures had indeed taken place, but the individual gaming group could decide which PC did what in each module. Exactly whom whacked whom or found which artifact was left up to the local gaming group. It wasn't until RAS officially imported the Bloodstone Lands into the Realms that the identities of which epic character did what in those adventures was finally set in stone. Now, does that possibly clash with the results of a lot of gaming groups' campaigns, from back in the day? Sure, it does. But does it undo what they accomplished? Heck no! |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 04:38:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, but under this approach, what does the next author writing in Waterdeep do? And then the one after that? And the one after that?
That depends on the authors, their contracts, and whether they're on speaking terms with each other.
Not just trying to be cute. What happens when someone wants to use Drizzt in a story? Well, they have to work that out with R. A. Salvatore and with WotC. So that's part of the answer. One author's characters may or may not be available to other authors. My proposal doesn't change that.
If the previous author(s) and WotC are okay with it, subsequent authors can incorporate the events in previous novels into their stories if they choose to. Some pressure would almost definitely be exerted on them to do so, assuming that the earlier books were successful. But I'm not in a position to talk about the business end of it.
But again, my suggestions don't change any of that... it would probably work the same way it works now. Except that if I was in the big chair, I would give subsequent authors the option of telling their own story without needing to strictly adhere to previous novels. It's likely that the option would frequently not be taken, but I'd put it out there in the interest of hearing more stories rather than discouraging them by putting a yoke of conformity on them.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
At some point, something's got to happen, officially.
I'm not stopping things from happening. Nothing in what I've said suggests that the world would stop turning.
What I am saying is that the world should turn in Dragon articles and novels, rather than turning by producing a new Waterdeep sourcebook every few years. Which is not exactly what's been happening, but we have a lot of Waterdeep info in sourcebooks rather than other types of things. I wouldn't be able to say that if it was going to result in a loss of lore because (A) my whole reason for violently hating the 4e Realms was the destruction of lore and (B) the Waterdeep lore is, in my opinion, very good and I want more of it, not less of it.
In my system, those extra sourcebooks would have been used to develop other countries, and all the Waterdeep expansions would have appeared in smaller chunks in Dragon articles. We still would have gotten all that lore, and then some. And we would have a bigger playground too.
In my system there would have been only one edition of the FR setting. There would have been the gray box (which would still be in print), and there would have been one sourcebook for each country we came to on a tour of the continent and then the planet. And Realmspace, because Spelljammer was cool, and that's another tangent we don't need to go off on.
Time would have marched on, in novels, and in Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Adventures, and in online forums. The big differences would be that we would have one sourcebook for each place, and the in-game date would have been 1357 for all of them. Novels and articles would have, by now, gradually taken us up through 1372 (25 years from 1987-2012 = 25 years from 1357-1372), across the whole Realms, with more information than has been published in these extra sourcebooks.
And the ToT and the Spellplague would have been campaign options, each spawning their own spinoff series of novels, adventures, article updates and suggested aftermaths, the former moving forward from 1358 into an alternate timeline and the latter jumping ahead to 1479 and going from there.
Stuff would still happen. Probably more of it than we've seen in sourcebooks, because it's easier to write/edit. It just wouldn't create the need for another sourcebook, because it's being outlined and developed elsewhere, leaving sourcebooks free to do what sourcebooks are supposed to do: give us the world, set the stage, create the campaign setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If it's so important to be able to choose everything that happens in a world, and to not have anything official, then why bother playing in a published setting? As soon as you commit to a published setting, you're committing to the choices made by every person involved in bringing that setting to your door. Those are choices you don't have any say in; what makes those different from later ones?
1. I'm not trying to choose everything. I'm not demanding the right to pick names, although some of them seem silly or dumb to me and I might quietly fudge a few of them in my own campaign. One example being some of the stuff in the Whamite Isles we've been talking about in the other thread. I'm actually not demanding anything... except freedom from RSEs being incorporated into the setting. All of this is pretty much an outgrowth of that priority. More about that below.
2. I'm not aiming for nothing being official. Sourcebooks are still canon in my suggested reorganization, and there would be a lot of sourcebooks. DMs also have the option of declaring anything/everything else official for any/all of their own campaigns. I'm not taking anything away, except what I see (and Erik doesn't, as he's argued effectively in previous posts) as the implied requirement that DMs take everything as canon. I'd like to see options that I don't see existing (or being effectively presented, at least) up until now. I'd also like to actually see the whole world developed --mapped/outlined, not exhaustively detailed so as to remove any DM freedom to create/improvise-- instead of just one corner of one continent. I don't see either of those as a Destroyer of Worlds.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I guess what I'm not understanding is the idea that someone else's vision of the Realms is being pushed on us, but what we all bought for the first time -- whether the FRCG or the OGB -- is someone else's vision of the Realms. I'm not understanding the attitude of "I'll pay for someone else's vision, but I don't want someone else's vision."
It's the nuclear bombs that I have a problem with. I liked the grey box for the same reason I've seen other people citing: it inspired. It was a new world, and there was a ton to explore. In my case, it made me want to write, and 25 years later it still makes me want to write something every time I look at it. For a dramatic counterexample I'm sure at least a few people here can relate to, the 4e Realms (completely separate from the 4e ruleset), does not inspire. It makes me daydream about being a billionaire so that I could maybe make a bad investment and turn this failboat around. Though, if this thread is representative, a lot of people wouldn't like me at the helm either.
I also appreciated the 2e and 3e campaign settings, though they were mostly explaining/updating what we already knew rather than opening up new areas. They weren't the original vision, and I'm not saying "if Ed didn't write it I don't wanna read it!" Although it's a fair statement that if he did write it, I do want to read it. The RSEs that came along with 2e and 4e though... they unmake things, instead of opening up new possibilities, and I feel entirely justified in rejecting them. Others feel differently, and I respect that, which is why I want them to be optional... rather than, for example, insisting that a retcon is the only way to go. A retcon isn't necessary if RSEs are optional.
That's the point... getting away from RSEs. The suggestions I made in the original post are geared toward curbing the destruction of the setting. I believe these changes --including stopping the timeline for the game products long enough to actually look at the world and encouraging moar Moar MOAR novels to fill in history both before and after that snapshot -- would make progress toward that goal. I invite constructive criticism. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 04:42:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
sourcebooks which presented alternate-timeline options and setting material -- and, in fact, an entire mini-campaign setting -- which focused on history playing out differently from the "accepted" canon progression of the Saga.
*eyebrow lift*
This sounds suspiciously like a good idea, and a precedent. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 05:11:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The century time-jump in 4e was the single most destructive thing ever done to the setting (also IMHO).
Worse than squishing entire realms out of existence? Not trying to jump on you for this, just tossing out the idea that if WotC insists on moving ever-onward with the timeline, the best way to get me (I can only speak for myself) to look at 5e will be to take another leap forward, far enough that the Spellplague is barely even a legend and has no effect in daily adventuring, and the 5e map looks more similar to the 1e map than to the 4e map... at least as far as the outlines of the lakes and landmass etc. Granted, everybody we know will be dead, and the political boundaries (even the names of countries) will probably be different, but at least some part of the setting would be familiar.
That being said, I'll take this space to reiterate a conclusion I reached earlier that shocked me even as it entered my head. If WotC picks up the Portholes idea, or revamps Arcane Age in some way that recreates a 1357 setting with full support including its own product line... I'll be okay with it, even if the timeline does move forward, as long as the ToT and Spellplague are optional and aren't built on in the sourcebooks.
Still, the panorama of the Realms, all in one year, and using Dragon + novels for filling in the past and future, is a better option. Having a 1357 setting and a 1479 setting, and actually supporting both, means twice the production costs, and each one only has a fraction of the buyers they had before with a unified setting. I'm still no more of a businessman than I was at the beginning of the thread, but I don't see that as a good plan. So the end result of the "support multiple eras" idea would be that none of the eras would get full support... which means it takes 2 or 3 or 4 times as long (depending on how many eras we're talking about) to present the setting.
The advantage that Portholes has over this is that yes it's opening up new campaign settings, but if they do a Cormyr porthole on 26 DR that doesn't mean they're doing a sourcebook for everywhere else in the Realms in 26 DR... it's just one book, and it will briefly overview the regions of the Dales, Sembia, the western Dragon Coast, the Tunlands, and the Stonelands... and that's probably it. If there's a ton of positive reader feedback, which there should be because somebody who really kicks booty will have written it, then Dragon articles could start showing up, solidifying links with the historical details of other regions and allowing DMs to construct a 26 DR campaign setting.
There's also the avenue of adventures. I'd kinda like to see adventures grow back to a respectable pagecount, though hardcover books is overdoing it imo. Keep the pricetag low.
Anyway, I've hijacked Markus far enough from his point.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't want a static setting - I want a setting that moves forward at a steady, logical place. I want to go for point 'A' to point 'B', not from point 'A' to point 'Z', with nothing in-between. Its jarring and Disingenuous to the fanbase.
We're in agreement here. I'm fine with a 1:1 ratio of years. I don't feel quite so strongly about the 100 year jump, but I do agree that it would have been a weird/bad move even without the Spellplague. With it, it's another "wtf" on the already-large pile.
|
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 05:22:44
|
the 100 year time jump was not a bad idea when they introduced the spell plague. The spell plague happened, it ended the FR moves on with the aftereffects of the spell palgue intact.
How wotc explained it was a very very bad idea. If they were to do another timejump to the realms, it could do even more harm and forcing even more fans away. This could force WOTC to converse with Ed Greeenwood about killing Elminster and do everything else that would return the IP that is the FR back to his ownership. Which mind you could have its own share of problems, though I'm sure MW wouldnt mind prodcuing it....
that said if wotc did another time jump, this could put drizzt into retirement and instead of seeing anymroe drizzt novels, we see Drizzt's half moon/half drow daughter dating the son of Jarlaxle. |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 05:46:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Derulbaskul
I would prefer the game products to all site at date 0 and the novels to advance the timeline together with any adventures that WotC may publish. But the supplements should be set at year 0.
I'm in agreement with you so far...
quote:
Originally posted by Derulbaskul
Then, after the 3-5 years that will be the next D&D edition's lifespan, reboot the Realms, including the timeline, but have a review by Ed and various author/designer-fans (you can be either or both of author and designer but you must be a fan) based on their assessment of which events worked with the fanbase and which didn't before including them.
I'm guessing you're being cynical with the 3-5 year estimate, and I like it.  So far, the editions have generally been longer than that. Well, wait a minute. 2e hit us in 1989 I think, and we'll probably see 5e some time in 2013, so that means 4 editions in about 24 years... not far off, actually.
I like that you're limiting the team to actual fans of the Realms. I've said elsewhere that you shouldn't put a bike-hater in charge of selling bikes. It's a weird analogy, I know, but the point is I'm pretty sure whoever was in charge of the 4e changes is not a fan of the Realms. Decisions should be made by people who actually like what they're developing.
quote:
Originally posted by Derulbaskul
That way stagnation is avoided but so is including the events that most people don't like. It also means any RPG DM can safely pick up a FR supplement after the campaign setting is published and not feel like he needs to spend a month on Google catching all the references he may have missed.
Here's where I have to disagree.
The problem is that any group of people is going to have disagreements about what should be official and what shouldn't or doesn't need to be. And even when they reach a concensus, the net result is still that WotC is picking what's official in my game, and yours, and everyone else's. We have the ability, individually, to reject their choices, but wouldn't it be better if they just left the choice up to us?
To use your analogy, their team decided that the Time of Troubles is fact. It happened in the official Realms. That means that all sourcebooks and novels from 1989 on are written with the effects of the ToT as fact... Bane/Bhaal/Myrkul/Leira/Ibrandul are all dead, Cyric and Kelemvor ascended, and Mystra is somebody different now. That was the decision their team reached.
Well, I feel that this was a stupid decision, and I like Leira a lot more than I like Cyric, so I've decided that in my campaign the ToT didn't happen. Now I have to waste my time picking references to Cyric and Kelemvor out of official Realmslore and writing references to the other gods in where appropriate... not a horribly huge inconvenience, but there's no rational argument against the following statement: it would be easier for me if they hadn't done that.
There's also a lot of support for the statement that they should have known a lot of people wouldn't like the ToT. That conclusion doesn't take much brainpower to reach.
By saying that the continental sourcebooks should all have the same date, and RSEs should be presented as campaign options, I'm saying that instead of making these choices for us, they should either (1) stop writing things that destroy lore, or (2) let us make the choices about whether those largescale events are going to be part of our home campaigns. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 05:58:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
What I would personally like to see at the start of the 5e/D&DNext Realms is to initially stop the timeline where the end of 4e left it go back and fix many of the continuity errors (not just from 4e) as well as fill in the 100 year gap between 3.5 and 4e. Then, after (most) everything has been "fixed," go back and restart the timeline where it left off at the end of 4e. I think that this would be infinitely more helpful than freezing it in one place.
Not ignoring you either, Hawkins... I think we just disagree about the desirability of the 4e Realms. Everybody's taste is different. Actually, I think it's pretty cool that the Realms fanbase is diverse/robust enough that collectively we can appreciate both of these settings.
For the record, I'm not talking about fully freezing the timeline. I should have probably spent a little longer coming up with a more accurate title for the thread. The only freeze I'm advocating is outlining the Realms with sourcebooks that all have the same date. Novels and articles and so forth will roll forward and back on the timeline to (hopefully) tell us about every crown to have graced or gored the Realms.
I think it's likely that you'll get what you want, eventually. At the beginning of 5e? Probably not, because I predict they'll want to tell new stories to get the new version of the setting jumpstarted. Just my guess. Unless of course, they are just going to proceed directly from 1479/whatever... then you might see your catch-up right away. Good luck to both of us.  |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 06:00:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We don't need to keep imitating Hollywood and seeking ever-increasing amounts of BOOM to sell a story.
We are, of course, in complete agreement here. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 06:28:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
sourcebooks which presented alternate-timeline options and setting material -- and, in fact, an entire mini-campaign setting -- which focused on history playing out differently from the "accepted" canon progression of the Saga.
*eyebrow lift*
This sounds suspiciously like a good idea, and a precedent.
I've talked briefly about this approach before, in one of Erik's previous scrolls on the 4e Realms.
Basically, the Legends of the Twins sourcebook provided setting-material for this particular period of Krynnish history, while also featuring alternate timeline options set up as mini-campaigns that ran with different ideas.
These included a timeline in which the Kingpriest never died and Istar remained as a powerful force in the world. Another featured a world in which the Wizards of High Sorcery claimed dominion over all. Other fun options focused on a continuation of the Dragon Overlords... which saw them come to dominate practically the entire planet. And, of course, the classic alternate timeline which posited the rise of Raistlin as the God of Magic in the books, is also presented in this tome as well. There are about three or four other alternate timelines detailed too, as I recall, but I can't immediately remember how they were set up.
It's a great book, and remains a worthwhile example of how an RPG publishing company can present official material that encompasses many different timelines, and the histories and worlds that come from them.
|
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 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 07:15:24
|
I would enjoy a Realms book with a similar structure. I was thinking more like 2-3 alternate timelines but there are several interesting possibilities I'd like to see...
* The Spellplague happened, but in a different way, which didn't destroy any realms or deities - I could probably be fine with pieces of Abeir being transposed onto Toril, if it happened on one of the other continents - this would open up new realms for play and be constructive rather than destructive
* The Spellplague didn't happen; the "blue fire" was something else
* Mask was spying as usual, when he overheard Myrkul and Bane gloating about stealing the Tablets of Fate - even though he was momentarily amused by their audacity (and a bit jealous of their success), he foresaw Ao's wrath (the old man has no sense of humor) and predicted that there would be dire consequences for more than just Bane and Myrkul - in a moment of lawful behavior that will leave a sour taste in his mouth for the rest of his existence, Mask let slip a few hints to the other greater powers, who confronted the conspirators - the Time of Troubles didn't happen, meaning Cyric didn't ascend, in turn averting the Spellplague
* Karsus succeeded in replacing Mystra
* The empire of Netheril never fell; Karsus was unsuccessful in some anticlimactic way - the enclaves still float above Faerun
* The empire of Imaskar never fell - this means Mulhorand and Unther, among other nations, were never born - the entire region now called the Hordelands or the Endless Waste is controlled by Imaskar - the frontier areas now known as Mulhorand, Thay, Rashemen, and Narfell are all populated by old, constantly bickering kingdoms; Imaskar keeps them small as a buffer zone against the west - Imaskari portals lead from their kingdoms to various market cities across the western and eastern Realms
|
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 16:15:02
|
| I'm a sucker for alternate history, so I have to chime in and say that I'd enjoy a source book or even a shorter booklet about each and every one of those alternatives. Even if they were just one and done "what if" books light on mechanics and heavy on the lore I would be happy with some Realms alternate history. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 19:53:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
Even if they were just one and done "what if" books light on mechanics and heavy on the lore I would be happy with some Realms alternate history.
Yea, I think they would have to be single sourcebooks. No need for mechanics at all... pure lore, just kickin some ideas out for campaigns that want to go in a different direction.
Other possibilities:
* The sarrukh stir, and set about taking over the Realms again - this plot was hinted/begun in 3.5e and then aborted in 4e; the Spellplague would have destroyed the sarrukh at least as effectively as it blew up Halruaa, so it's doubtful whether anything convincing can be done with them in 4e
* The return of Shade was just the beginning - the shades successfully reinvent mythallars and begin creating new enclaves, populated by shades and creatures of the plane of shadows, served by captured human/demihuman slaves - Netheril is reborn, a dark "through the looking glass" version of its earlier glory
* Myth Drannor didn't fall in 714 DR - it persists, as a sort of Waterdeep-of-the-Elven-Wood
* Miyeritar defeated Aryvandaar, instead of the reverse - elven culture for the last 10 millennia has been shaped by the light instead of the dark
* The demons of Hellgate Keep are not successfully contained, and continue to gate in their buddies, and are spreading to take over the northwestern part of Faerun
* Humans aren't the dominant race in Faerun... sub-possibilities: dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, giants
* The drow successfully take over Cormanthor and raise their own dark Elven Court, complete with mythal-like protective spell webs
* Frost giants still have a mighty kingdom in the Spine of the World, and have ruled continuously since the early ages of Faerun
* Dragons still rule lands at the "edges" of the world; only by gathering in large groups with powerful magic have humans and demihumans been able to forge and hold their own kingdoms
* Dragons are less intelligent and more feral, more like giant flying lizards with breath weapons - they have shorter lifespans but they reproduce more quickly and in larger numbers - this makes them annual high-CR threats to all civilizations on the face of Toril
* Dark is good and light is evil: Eilistraee replaces Lolth as the dominant drow goddess, and the Seldarine are basically the Eldreth Veluuthra raised to godly power - drow are CG and the surface elves are LE
Anyway... yay for tangents!  |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 21:54:55
|
A couple clarifications:
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, but under this approach, what does the next author writing in Waterdeep do? And then the one after that? And the one after that?
That depends on the authors, their contracts, and whether they're on speaking terms with each other.
Not just trying to be cute. What happens when someone wants to use Drizzt in a story? Well, they have to work that out with R. A. Salvatore and with WotC. So that's part of the answer. One author's characters may or may not be available to other authors. My proposal doesn't change that.
No, we just don't do it. RAS is the only one who writes about Drizzt. This is a matter of professional respect.
If, for instance, I were asked to write about Drizzt, I would either decline outright or insist that Bob co-write the book with me so he could handle all the Drizzt parts. I would NOT try to write fiction about Drizzt.
quote:
2. I'm not aiming for nothing being official. Sourcebooks are still canon in my suggested reorganization, and there would be a lot of sourcebooks. DMs also have the option of declaring anything/everything else official for any/all of their own campaigns. I'm not taking anything away, except what I see (and Erik doesn't, as he's argued effectively in previous posts) as the implied requirement that DMs take everything as canon. I'd like to see options that I don't see existing (or being effectively presented, at least) up until now.
To be clear, I *do* see that as an "implied requirement," or at least I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of pressure in the Realms fandom to "do it right" by keeping your Realms as close to canon as possible. I would advocate that WotC make clear movements against this impulse.
Whenever you're playing a game in an IP, you are automatically not playing "the canon," unless you're just choreographing the steps you see in a movie or read in a novel through your own characters. For the Realms to endure, we have to be open to making them our own. That was the whole point in the first place.
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" |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2012 : 01:10:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
No, we just don't do it. RAS is the only one who writes about Drizzt. This is a matter of professional respect.
I'm glad to hear that, it's nice to have a cooperative approach. To get back to Wooly's objection, maybe the next book set in Waterdeep leaves Frehd out of the picture since that was the first author's character, but the changes to Waterdeep introduced in the first novel would be fair game if someone else chose to build on them. Actually, the "lore wonks" Erik mentioned would probably make sure those events get into relevant future novels. I'm not trying to change that... I'm just saying sourcebooks should be written about "now" and remain free of all stuff that happens in novels. We won't lack that lore... the ability to follow up on it doesn't disappear. It just gives authors something to write about in Dragon and subsequent novels.
quote:
To be clear, I *do* see that as an "implied requirement," or at least I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of pressure in the Realms fandom to "do it right" by keeping your Realms as close to canon as possible. I would advocate that WotC make clear movements against this impulse.
My bad.  We're saying the same thing then. I continue to stand by my assertion that separating novels from sourcebooks and writing future RSEs as campaign options (meaning they're not going to be assumed to have taken place in the official setting) is a correct path. |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2012 : 18:22:17
|
I am all for freezing time in sourcebooks or making it move very slowly (in the way presented in the 3e FRCS, I forgot the RL/Realms time factor).
I am all for expanding ahead in novels.
Alternate timelines or past/future stuff also gets my love. |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
187 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2012 : 20:42:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
R. A. Salvatore, before the first Drizzt novel was published, was just writing stuff... it wasn't consistent with anything.
A bit off topic, but for what it's worth, he was actually contacted by TSR to write a Forgotten Realms novel and was given pretty much every piece of FR lore and all the maps etc to work the novel out. |
Edited by - Ozreth on 04 Jul 2012 20:44:00 |
|
|
|
Thrasymachus
Learned Scribe
195 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2012 : 03:22:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think going forward, the Realms of 5e has to incorporate this philosophy: that this is YOUR WORLD, and that the sourcebooks and novels are just SUGGESTIONS that you can use or ignore at your leisure. Game design is a service industry--what WotC is providing to you is a box of crayons, not a color-by-numbers book.
Cheers
and...
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
To be clear, I *do* see that as an "implied requirement," or at least I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of pressure in the Realms fandom to "do it right" by keeping your Realms as close to canon as possible. I would advocate that WotC make clear movements against this impulse.
Whenever you're playing a game in an IP, you are automatically not playing "the canon," unless you're just choreographing the steps you see in a movie or read in a novel through your own characters. For the Realms to endure, we have to be open to making them our own. That was the whole point in the first place.
We’re playing on top of a canon setting.
One of the selling points of the Realms is it’s rich and consistent history. If I wanted to write a campaign based on the kind of Davinci Code/National Treasure - let’s base this egg hunt on the nuances of history sort of adventure, or a time travel adventure where I want to depend on the lore I can do that. I know that the history matches up within the novels and sourcebooks, and I can depend on it. Sure, with this much material there will be an occasional unintended flaw, (which side of the river is Daggerford on?) but I am confidant that the best effort was made to not contradict previous products.
When customers deviate from published canon, then it’s on us to compensate for the Butterfly Effects we create. If our campaigns result in Waterdeep’s falling to the Shade then everything regarding Waterdeep, and the Shade is on us to fill in the creative gap we’ve created moving forward. Even the details of what happens to Waterdeeps Third Infantry stationed in Daggerford and so on.
SUGGESTIONS (as you put it) have a place. They are the products (sourcebooks & novels) that are produced that have the D&D logo, but DO NOT (as I put it) have the Forgotten Realms logo. If they have the Forgotten Realms logo, as a customer, I fully expect that the previous products are not contradicted by the new products.
To play on Erik’s crayon euphemism I don’t believe it’s that difficult for professionals writing in a setting to color within the lines.
Back to the thread: If you stop the timeline and Wizards keeps producing it seems as likely that you’ll have contradictions. They’ll just be in real time so to speak. And for FWIW xaeyruudh I wholeheartedly agree that every edition doesn’t have to be accompanied by a Pow-Super RSE. IMHO they’re a pain in the neck.
Edit: Slightly improved grammar. |
Former Forgotten Realms brand manager Jim Butler: "Everything that bears the Forgotten Realms logo is considered canon". |
Edited by - Thrasymachus on 08 Jul 2012 20:08:24 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2012 : 23:03:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil xaeyruudh
R. A. Salvatore, before the first Drizzt novel was published, was just writing stuff... it wasn't consistent with anything.
A bit off topic, but for what it's worth, he was actually contacted by TSR to write a Forgotten Realms novel and was given pretty much every piece of FR lore and all the maps etc to work the novel out.
Before he wrote the first Drizzt novel, he responded to an open call for new writers by submitting a non-Realms sci-fi/-fantasy book (Echoes of the Fourth Magic) to TSR, and they liked it enough to ask him to write one of the first Realms novels. To help him to do that, they gave him lots of written copies of early Realmslore, and it's my understanding that there were also phone calls directly with Ed to supplement this. (I do believe that it was during these phone calls that Bob got the idea that Gauntlgrym was THE Delzoun homeland, for example.) |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 16:37:11
|
I should have done my homework regarding RAS's start; perhaps he's a poor example for my point, which was that each author started somewhere. Before being published by TSR/WotC, the author's work had the same qualities that it has after being published, but the stories they told (writing adventures for their own gaming groups, for instance) were not accepted as Realmslore regardless of how good their writing was. I picked Salvatore out of the air because I was using the Drizzt books to illustrate other points. The underlying point stands, even if other names should have been used in the example. But everything related to novels is merely a tangent to the point of the thread.
What's wrong with the in-game date being the same for the entire line of sourcebooks that describe the world in the "modern" time?
One advantage would be that collection of Realmslore, going forward at least, would all have the same date and therefore serve as a solid reference. The way it's been done up until now, with dates scattered like breadcrumbs across 1357-1375 or so, leaves gaps in lore. If we proceed forward from 4e, it will suddenly become much worse, with new lore being written in 1479 or even further from the original time. It's sloppy. It's also greedy, because it creates a "need" to continuously revisit previously described places with additional sourcebooks to update the lore. This stunts the development of the setting, by going over the same parts of the Realms over and over again. If, in contrast, every sourcebook had the same date, there would be no repetition. Past lore can be updated at will, and new sourcebooks have to explore somewhere new.
Making this change wouldn't cost us any lore, and this is where the tangents come in. Novels and Portholes-into-the-past/future products will be used (hopefully in better fashion than they have been up until now) to fill in the timeline both before and after the present time. We would still get updates on the "Heartlands" in DDI articles and novels, but each new sourcebook would describe a place we haven't seen developed in a sourcebook before. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 16:54:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
What's wrong with the in-game date being the same for the entire line of sourcebooks that describe the world in the "modern" time?
Because then you have a static setting, with nothing happening. If all of the sourcebooks happen on Day 1, and a novel or module happens on Day 2, even if it's not an RSE, we want to see the in-game effects of that. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Patrakis
Learned Scribe
Canada
256 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 17:48:32
|
But sourcebooks should not describe day 1 in a setting. They should described a local, a region or a city up until that point. It's kind of the opposite, it should describe the last day in history and give some hint of the future. It's not static, it's just what happened up to a point in time. After that, you take control. An adventure module shouldn't have a date, it should be a story that you read about. It will happen if your players make it happen OR if the DM decides some NPCs went through it in his setting and then it becomes history. The DM should decide when it happened.
I think people are going a bit to far with this cannon business. An adventure scenario will become Cannon in a setting when the players go through it or NPCs. Until then, it's just a scenario. That's why i don't like novels driving a game setting and that's why i think a fixed date would work. Every novel or module should be a what if, not a what happened. Sourcebooks should describe the past and give hints of the future.
As for seeing the effect of a module or novel in the world well, why would i want to have to live with the effects of other peoples experiences in my world, my Realms. It only screws up my vision. I'm glad the modules for the time of trouble exists. I'm glad the novel exists! If i want that change, I'll male my players go through it or I'll incorporate the story arch in my background but i certainly don't want an updated campaign setting coming out saying that it's now part of the world as background because the time advanced and that's what happened. I'll see in-game effects when i decide it's in game, not when the new setting comes out ... again.
We would have all of Toril described by now if that development philosophy would of been changed to a fixed date.
As I've said in another post, it's the only way we will ever get the whole darn world described.
Pat
quote:
Because then you have a atic setting, with nothing happening. If all of the sourcebooks happen on Day 1, and a novel or module happens on Day 2, even if it's not an RSE, we want to see the in-game effects of that.
|
Dancing is like standing still, but faster.
My site: http://www.patoumonde.com |
Edited by - Patrakis on 09 Jul 2012 17:52:36 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 19:10:24
|
How can modules not have dates? Some events in modules will be clearly based on prior events -- so those events have to have happened. And some modules may, as part of the adventure, have date requirements -- maybe the PCs have to require a lost crown by Shieldmeet, for example.
Telling us everything that happens on Day 1 is fine, but at some point, I need to know what happens on Day 2. If we never get to Day 2, the setting is static.
And if novels aren't canon, my interest in them is going to greatly diminish. I can enjoy a good story, but if that story is disconnected from anything else, then it lessens the impact, the tension, and the appeal. There have been TV shows like that -- every episode is disconnected from the other ones. And after a while, you lose interest in not seeing anything happen.
That's why novels must drive the setting, and that's why the setting must be updated. It doesn't have to have RSEs and edition changes, but it does have to move forward. |
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! |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2012 : 19:31:25
|
io it would be very wise to consider what amd what not should be canon.
the novels imo should be canon, the adventure modules, no not necessarily |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 08:11:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Because then you have a static setting, with nothing happening. If all of the sourcebooks happen on Day 1, and a novel or module happens on Day 2, even if it's not an RSE, we want to see the in-game effects of that.
No, having all the sourcebooks set in the same year doesn't give you a static setting. It would only be static if there were no novels, or if for some reason it was against the rules to set anything in the future. Neither of those will be true. You want the novels to drive the setting, and they can do that for you. I want the novels to be optional reading for extra detail, and they should be able to be that too.
It seems we're either unable or unwilling to find any common ground on this point. I think it's possible to give both of us what we want, but maybe I'm an optimist. May the best ideas win. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 08:46:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
But sourcebooks should not describe day 1 in a setting. They should described a local, a region or a city up until that point. It's kind of the opposite, it should describe the last day in history and give some hint of the future.
This is a great way of putting it. I'd like to see the game setting outlined as it is on one particular day. With the knowledge that there has been however many centuries/millennia of history leading up to that point, which is sketched in the sourcebook and delved into in greater depth in novels/articles/whatever.
quote:
After that, you take control.
Yahtzee. Going forward (and back too) DMs have the authority to do whatever they want, because the future isn't set in stone. Ideally (contentious issue, I know) novels set in the future and past are cast as possible rather than concrete.
The effects of those story lines can be built on, by the authors who conceived of them and others as well. But individual DMs must have the freedom to adopt or reject those stories, which means that future sourcebooks cannot be written around the events of novels. Otherwise it is guaranteed that we will have more things like the Time of Troubles and the Spellplague, which muck up the Realms and become non-negotiable foundations of the setting. Reference Erik's post above... the ToT happened, as far as all Realms work is concerned. Nobody gets to contradict it in anything that gets published by WotC. I still can't conceive of how anyone thought that was a great idea. Whatever. Making sure that doesn't happen again is a legitimate priority. Events in novels can, and should, and inevitably will be developed in subsequent novels, and in DDI articles, and by independent authors, and I'm totally in favor of all that... but they should never be canonized in sourcebooks because then the sourcebooks lose value for those of us who think the event was horristupidbad.
Going a bit beyond Patrakis' point there. Oops.
quote:
An adventure module shouldn't have a date, it should be a story that you read about. It will happen if your players make it happen OR if the DM decides some NPCs went through it in his setting and then it becomes history. The DM should decide when it happened.
This is an interesting theory. I can't fully support it, but it's interesting. I agree with this as far as RSEs go... things like the ToT and the Spellplague, which should have been written as optional derailments to throw into your game if/when you want to. Those shouldn't have dates attached, partly because they're not built on other events in the campaign. There's no particular reason to say the ToT occurred in 1358 as opposed to some other random year. It wasn't a response to anything else in the game world... it was just a stupid bomb going off. But adventures... I like those being attached to the world. You're probably right, though; sometimes they don't really need a year attached.
quote:
I think people are going a bit to far with this cannon business. An adventure scenario will become Cannon in a setting when the players go through it or NPCs. Until then, it's just a scenario.
Following the assumption that adventures don't happen in a particular year, this works. As it stands now, or rather up until now, this is only selectively true. Events in an adventure become "canon" in your campaign whenever they happen, and they're not "canon" up until that point... but I think of canon meaning what's going on in the official published version of the Realms. Under that definition, things become canon as soon as they're published. They even become canon retroactively, when things are published about the past.
quote:
Every novel or module should be a what if, not a what happened. Sourcebooks should describe the past and give hints of the future.
Yes, at least as far as novels. I'm still open regarding modules.
quote:
but i certainly don't want an updated campaign setting coming out saying that it's now part of the world as background because the time advanced and that's what happened. I'll see in-game effects when i decide it's in game, not when the new setting comes out ... again.
Completely agreed.
quote:
As I've said in another post, it's the only way we will ever get the whole darn world described.
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 09:51:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
How can modules not have dates? Some events in modules will be clearly based on prior events -- so those events have to have happened.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes no. In the interest of consistency (which I admit I'm a total sucker for) I'm also inclined to keep adventures attached to the world. But it's a solid point that sometimes they don't need to be.
quote:
Telling us everything that happens on Day 1 is fine, but at some point, I need to know what happens on Day 2. If we never get to Day 2, the setting is static.
One of our differences... maybe the fundamental one... is that I don't think we should always limit ourselves to one person telling us about Day 2. Regarding certain events --say the return of Shade, in particular the phaerimm resistance to the return of Shade-- I'd like to hear a couple more versions of Day 2 because I don't like the way the phaerimm were portrayed in the books that got published. I'd like to see a version where the phaerimm turn out to be too smart and too powerful to be railroaded.
Sometimes I'm happier with my story about Day 2 than I am with any published version. What to do? Obviously, for my own campaign, history will probably reflect my version of events. I'm going to allow myself to get arrogant for a second. What if I shared my story here on Candlekeep, and what if there was a general agreement in the community that my story was better? Tough. Canon is what got published. According to the system you want to see, of updated sourcebooks coming out periodically reflecting the events in novels, it really doesn't matter who tells the best story. All that matters is what gets published. Whatever gets published, even if it's complete pigswill, becomes the basis for all future editions of the setting. Even if 100% of us were to adopt a different story for our own campaigns.
Comes with the territory; I understand that. But I think there's a way to have our cake and eat it too... in this case to have professional development of a shared setting, and also be able to use our own stories when we want to for whatever reason.
This is an alternative I would like to see. I know we don't see eye to eye on it, and I have no delusions that beating you over the head with my desire would be effective and that's not my intent. I'm just going for a new context or perspective.
I'd like to see the Realms, first. As they stood in 1357 would be my first choice, but I'm pretty open to any point before that too. A snapshot of the whole planet... not exhaustively detailed, because I like being able to fill in some of the blanks myself, and besides... look how much Waterdeep lore we have now and it still isn't exhaustively detailed... and that's only one city. So just enough relevant details to establish a flavor for campaigns set in each region around the world. And then we have novels. Truckloads of novels. Novels set on every continent, in every time frame. Places the elves can't even remember, and places the seers didn't live long enough to dream about.
Sourcebooks are for gaming. They're for showing us the world, as it is now. Stories... all stories, I think it could be argued... belong in novels. There will be plenty of Day 2, and as appealing as I find parallel Realms to be, I also like the idea of everything being consistent, so... that's something I can be happy with either way. The point I'm going for this time is that novels can drive the setting, for those that want them to, while also being ignorable for those who need them to be... as long as they're not built on in sourcebooks... and there's no reason why they should be built on in sourcebooks, so that works out.
I'm not advocating a loss of Day 2. I'm advocating moving on to other parts of the world after one sourcebook about a particular area... using other avenues to expand the lore regarding that first place, while simultaneously putting a second nation/city/region in our hands. Novels will be written, articles will be written, Candlekeepers will put up new stuff based on their own campaigns/thoughts... and every time a new sourcebook comes out, that place appears on the menu of places for us to develop and expand... instead of the way it has been up until now, which is each new sourcebook re-opens a place we already know about, and overwrites our campaigns instead of opening up new possibilities. The list of places in the Realms should, and could, continually grow... to become thousands of regions instead of a few dozen. Everything I'm describing is the absolute opposite of stagnation.
quote:
And if novels aren't canon, my interest in them is going to greatly diminish. I can enjoy a good story, but if that story is disconnected from anything else, then it lessens the impact, the tension, and the appeal. There have been TV shows like that -- every episode is disconnected from the other ones. And after a while, you lose interest in not seeing anything happen.
I agree here. It's hard for me to watch TV... it's not connected enough, there aren't enough subplots to keep things interesting, and the limited time available in a TV series or a movie means that in order to finish a story the scope has to be so limited that the story loses meaning. It's just frustrating to watch. And I don't want the Realms to be like that. It is kinda like that, in the sense that we're only seeing one little corner of the world. There are countries at the edge of the map, and I know they have to have dealings with the countries that aren't on the map, but... those parts of the world haven't been written. Great: I get to write them all. Not so great: I have to write them all.
quote:
That's why novels must drive the setting, and that's why the setting must be updated. It doesn't have to have RSEs and edition changes, but it does have to move forward.
I agree that the novels must drive the exploration of the past and future. And I agree that RSEs and new editions are unnecessary. And I would say it can move forward... I don't see it as necessary, but I don't have any issues with it. It's almost hard to see how we're not in agreement.
Our disagreement comes, apparently, mostly with where those updates need to take place. It sounds like you want periodic updated sourcebooks about each country/city, while I want to see those updates everywhere except sourcebooks because I don't want to pay 30 bucks for a "new" Cormyr book every couple of years. Other than that, we seem to be on the same page. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 10:49:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Our disagreement comes, apparently, mostly with where those updates need to take place. It sounds like you want periodic updated sourcebooks about each country/city, while I want to see those updates everywhere except sourcebooks because I don't want to pay 30 bucks for a "new" Cormyr book every couple of years. Other than that, we seem to be on the same page.
That's not at all what I want. There are other ways to do it, like the periodic gazeteer idea that's been put forth more than once.
What I want is for every sourcebook I buy to give me something new and to remind me that the Realms is a world where things change and where time marches on. |
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! |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2012 : 20:14:23
|
| The Current Clack was always one of the first things I perused in older sourcebooks. I love chronologies. I think in terms of timelines with all my entertainment, both fiction/fantasy and nonfiction. It's hardwired into my brain. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Thoughts (and objections) on stopping the timeline
