| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
WalkerNinja
Senior Scribe
USA
573 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 00:02:13
|
I've been thinking of articles that I could cobble together from some of my old campaigns and some very creative players. The problem is that a number of the lore-innovations we developed were somewhat edition specific in that they don't necessarily apply to 4E's system of wizardry.
Example: In many of my campaigns wizards would gauge one another's respective power by counting the number of magic missiles that they could fire at a single casting. It seems logical enough since it's among the most common spells across all cultures, and has a numeric outcome that is analogous to a wizard's power.
But that doesn't really work in 4E.
What I was thinking is that I might write something like, "In the days before the Spell Plague there were various ways of measuring the power of a mage. Fireball casting competitions were well known events at Mage Fairs, but somewhat less well known was a practice called "Missile Measuring."
Would such an article be considered edition specific?
|
*** A Forgotten Realms Addict since 1990 ***
Treasures of the Past, a Second Edition Play-by-Post game for and by Candlekeep Sages--http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=52011 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 00:21:13
|
I don't believe we've discussed edition neutrality in the Compendium, that much -- we've been more focused on whether or not we should do it.
My opinion -- and keep in mind this is just my personal opinion and is not an official stance -- is that we should approach it like Kobold Quarterly does. KQ is not, on the whole, dedicated to any specific edition. They have had edition-specific articles, though. Some on Pathfinder, some on 3.5, some on 4E, and I believe a couple other systems, as well.
The Compendium focuses more on lore, anyway. The timejump does make something of a connection between rules and timeframes, but even the most detailed 15th Century DR lore can usually be disconnected from the ruleset pretty readily. And since we're trying to avoid rules as much as possible, that's not too much of a factor.
Your proposed article seems to be lore-based, with an in-setting explanation for something changed by the ruleset. I don't see that being an issue, really. |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 02:00:29
|
I agree with Wooly. As long as the story is cohesive, the fact that things differ between editions shouldn't be that big an issue.
Also, two caveats:
1) Articles should be, as Wooly said, "LORE" based, not "MECHANICS" based. If you're looking at a spell's effect to tell you exactly what level or what ability score a rival wizard has, because you know that's how the spell functions, then you're looking at it on a mechanical level. The magic missile example is still a reasonable thing, since that's so typical of D&D stories, but one needs to be careful of going overboard. I assume that the real distinction is in how *effective* a spell is--as you go up in level, you learn slight variations or cast it with more confidence, and so it does more damage or has a bigger effect, as in the fireball or magic missile examples. This is also true of 4e, except that the efficacy of the spell is reflected more in the attack rolls and add-ons from feats you gain as you adventure, rather than the damage increasing based on your level.
2) 3e and 4e have notably different ways of channeling magic and casting spells. I like to think of the 3e magic missile and 4e magic missile (both versions) as being totally different spells that were designed to have the same effect. Casting magic missile the way you did before the Spellplague doesn't work or produces a wild magic surge, etc. That'd be an interesting article right there, I think.
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" |
|
|
|
WalkerNinja
Senior Scribe
USA
573 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 02:56:35
|
As an area of personal interest, I tend to like finding places where mechanics *should* have affected lore, and yet never really did. Like the fact that in a world where fireballs exist, phalanx-fighting should have long since disappeared. But obviously it didn't? Why? Some organizations (PrC's or strictly lore-based operations like the Wizards in Luskan, or Cormyrean War Wizards) often have in-game pre-reqs that would be fairly difficult to distinguish if you were actually living in that society as a person instead of a character sheet. So how do they distinguish between the people that make the cut, and the people that don't?
In the above article, "Missile Measuring" was such a naturally and powerful social construct in game that it spurred PC magical research for ways to game the system or otherwise alter what was a very common and uniform spell (much like the Fireball contest in Elminster at the Mage Fair).
Thus we come full circle to the 4E version being a strictly different sort of spell than the 1/2E version. The Lore exists to sort of bridge the gap. "Here are some innovators in this area of magical research. These are the reasons that they performed the research, and the names of their notable students. This research eventually resulted in the new Magic Missile paradigm that is currently in vogue in the post-Spell Plague Realms." |
*** A Forgotten Realms Addict since 1990 ***
Treasures of the Past, a Second Edition Play-by-Post game for and by Candlekeep Sages--http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=52011 |
Edited by - WalkerNinja on 13 Sep 2012 04:30:59 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 03:09:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My opinion -- and keep in mind this is just my personal opinion and is not an official stance -- is that we should approach it like Kobold Quarterly does. KQ is not, on the whole, dedicated to any specific edition. They have had edition-specific articles, though. Some on Pathfinder, some on 3.5, some on 4E, and I believe a couple other systems, as well.
While I would prefer this stance, we have to appreciate the likelihood that, with the coming of the Spellplague and the changes of the 4e Realms, we now have many new readers who aren't all that interested in prior 4e Realmslore. As such, I think it would be appropriate to mark, clearly, when a particular article is specifically written for the post-Spellplague Realms. The Spellplague, perhaps more so than any other RSE in the setting, serves as a marked point of difference between interpretations of the Realms, so it's convenient to use it as such.
Having edition-neutral articles is the ideal prospect, but, at least to me, that would only seem to exaggerate the already inflamed anti- and pro-4e divide. And we don't need that. So if content is particularly tailored for the 4e Realms, it should be marked as such. Content focused on prior editions, is more easily left as edition-neutral... when appropriate. Obviously, a 2e article featuring new lore on Lolth's Silence would be inaccurate, unless we're talking about an article running that 3e event with 2e rules.
Thus, we probably need to better define exactly what we want for the Compendium. |
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 |
Edited by - The Sage on 13 Sep 2012 03:10:57 |
|
|
|
WalkerNinja
Senior Scribe
USA
573 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 04:22:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
So if content is particularly tailored for the 4e Realms, it should be marked as such. Content focused on prior editions, is more easily left as edition-neutral... when appropriate. Obviously, a 2e article featuring new lore on Lolth's Silence would be inaccurate, unless we're talking about an article running that 3e event with 2e rules.
Thus, we probably need to better define exactly what we want for the Compendium.
I think that this is the same issue that WotC is dealing with in regard to the Realms at the moment. Should a format change for the CKC be considered? I would hate to have articles say "4E Article"--but perhaps if they referenced the time period that they apply to? |
*** A Forgotten Realms Addict since 1990 ***
Treasures of the Past, a Second Edition Play-by-Post game for and by Candlekeep Sages--http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=52011 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 04:56:46
|
One thing we could do is use some sort of little icon -- each article could be flagged with the appropriate icon, and it would otherwise be unobtrusive.
There could be an icon for pre-Year of Blue Fire, one for post-Year of the Ageless One, and one for the lost years in the middle. |
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! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 05:07:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
One thing we could do is use some sort of little icon -- each article could be flagged with the appropriate icon, and it would otherwise be unobtrusive.
There could be an icon for pre-Year of Blue Fire, one for post-Year of the Ageless One, and one for the lost years in the middle.
That's what I'm thinking -- a little symbol with "post-1385 DR" or some-such, while other articles have "pre-1385 DR" somewhere in the symbol. Easy, no fuss, and doesn't distract too much from the actual reading of the content. |
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 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6648 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 07:19:38
|
I think people will quite readily know when an article is "set" if it contains game mechanics. And if a scribe is more comfortable providing game mechanics in a 1E framework, rather than a 4E framework, then they should be at liberty to write the article they want. If someone wants to tweak it for another edition of the game, then they are at liberty to do so. Lore is lore, game mechanics are game mechanics. Everyone here at the 'Keep knows the difference and more importantly, can recognise what material they can use straight away, and what material needs some massaging.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2012 : 08:11:13
|
I'm not sure I understand the need, though.
If an article is of an era/edition someone does not care for, will their eyes be burned from their head if they 'accidentally' read it?
I will know right away when I start reading something if it holds my interest or not - the edition doesn't matter, and some arbitrary little icon isn't going to help me decided if I like the article. I either will, or I won't - why warn me in advance?
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
CKC-Edition Neutrality Question
