| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 01:06:59
|
I found THIS ARTICLE on the interwebz today, and although the guy is writing about Greyhawk (and I lived through all of that, and methinks he hit the nail on the head), the subject matter, I believe, is actually far more pertinent to the Forgotten Realms. Its like he boiled-down the whole problem that started the Edition Wars, without ever mentioning FR. In fact, he may have even hit on why people went running to FR from GH when it was released (and later, why people ran from The Realms to Golarion).
Unfortunately, it ends with a bit of a sales-pitch, but not much. I just think others here might want to read this and add their commentary here - I really feel it reverberates with THIS community. I also hope designers/authors read it, because it makes so much sense - why the game companies wind-up doing precisely what they shouldn't do (over and over again, I might add - whats up with that?)
I am going to refrain from detailed comments myself, for now, until I see what others here think. Its a VERY short article - I doubt it will even take you 5 minutes to read. Go have a look, and see if you, like me, have a, "By George! I think he's got it!" moment. And its so simple, really - he just boiled it all down to one word...
"Tick"
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 01:57:19
|
Well, not 5 minutes if your native language is not English... it took me like ten. 
But yeah, that is the problem I've seen in the FR as well. But, doesn't that problem exist back at 2e? From, more or least, the start? I mean, perhaps 4e did the longest time jump ever, but 2e did the ToT and the jump from the 1350s to the 1360s, and 3e advanced the timeline from the 1360s to the 1370s. Again, IHMO, the problem was the novels. While I like an evolving setting, I share the opinion of the writer of that article: once the timeline advance, it's not your campaign. Is TSR/WotC's.
Anyways, that's why I like settings like Nentir Vale or Eberron (or the 4e reset version of Dark Sun), as in these settings the novels (and even sourcebooks, in NV's case) aren't "hard-written canon", and thus, the timeline doesn't evolve. They are more like "soft canon", just posibilites that you, the DM, can or cannot allow in your campaign. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 18 Jan 2018 01:58:35 |
 |
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 02:03:59
|
| I think the article is spot on. To this day, I still play (primarily) in the 1e/2e era of the Realms from the 1350s to early 1370s. Rarely do I venture outside of that date range in a campaign. Even then, many of the events that took place in the transition from 1e to 2e didn't happen in my homebrew or happened differently. I do play in other games that have moved beyond those times, but I don't like them nearly as much. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 03:36:46
|
Yes, Zero, the problem really has been there since the ToT and 2e. And there was a lot of backlash from that as well. With each advancement of the timeline, more and ore fans were 'pushed' out of the setting, because TSR (and then WotC) kept 'reclaiming' it as their own.
If you create a setting - a wonderful setting like The Realms in the OGB, or Greyhawk's box, etc. - the moment you start to moving the timeline forward, even by by a hair, you've just alienated every single DM that 'made the setting their own'. The idea is to expand it outwardly (and geographically), and perhaps 'in depth', but never, EVER should any publish GAME setting be expanded temporally. Its like saying, "Hey! That thing we sold you? We just turned it into garbage. Please buy the newest product... which we'll be turning into garbage as well, just as soon as we create something even newer".
And the secondary part of that, which the writer of the article didn't mention (because it wasn't really ever a thing in GH), is that authors pick through the setting plothooks and use them. To me, a DM, that's like the guy at gas station filling my tank up, and then later on that night siphoning it back out of my car because he needed it himself. Gaming - especially RPG gaming - is rather unique, and its really hard to get laws to cover whats been going on. Basically, the entirety of the RPG industry has been selling us products that they then take back from us. Its almost like a company doing a product-recall, but then getting paid all over again for the product (over, and over, and OVER again). It Chevrolet has a recall on my car, they can't just take it back without giving me a refund, or a replacement (or fixing the problem), but RPG companies give you the replacement and then charge you for it. In fact, its in their best interest to immediately nullify every product they sell you, in order to sell you newer stuff (Ruins of Zhentil Keep, anyone? What was that good for? like a week?). 'Planned Obsolescence' at its worst. I recall them releasing the last one or two 3e products just one month before announcing 4e. I remember that vividly, because I was like, "Of course they didn't tell anyone before the product release, because that's like trying to sell an Iphone 7 to someone right after tell them the Iphone 8's are coming out next week." They purposely keep these new editions a secret as long as possible, to sell as much of the outdated material as they can.
I had a lot more, but I deleted it. It was pretty-much the same thing, just said different ways. I just feel like I'm the victim of a very clever scam here.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jan 2018 20:04:56 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 04:21:18
|
I disagree entirely with the article, myself. To me, a setting simply isn't interesting if nothing is happening.
As I've commented more than once in the past, Dragonlance is the perfect example. We had one big, two-part story, in 6 books. And then 9 more books that actively shied away from doing anything at all to the setting -- they went sideways, into the recent past, or anywhere from a century to 3 millennia into the past. Instead of doing anything at all new, they stopped the clock.
A setting that isn't advancing is a setting that's not developing. It would be like watching the same TV show over and over and over again.
Sure, that means that no DM gets their toes stepped on... But it also means that no one gets anything new and that nothing ever changes. The political situation in Kingdomland is never developed further, we never find out if the Duke of Whatsit survived the assassination attempt or if his daughter returned the affections of Baron Doohickey's estranged son...
The clock stops, and we can never be surprised by new developments. The world never changes past what's published, and wonderful ideas that may utterly captivate these DMs are never shared with them. With the clock stopped, all world development and design is back on the DM -- and if the DM wanted to be responsible for everything and not accept anything from anyone else, why is he or she running a setting they didn't develop?
There's also the argument that if the clock is stopped or if novels aren't canon, then the DM is never bound by someone else's ideas... But that ignores the fact that the DM never was bound by someone else's ideas. A core precept of D&D has always been to make it your own.
Just because the clock is stopped on a campaign setting doesn't mean the DM is going to use every single element that's published, and it also doesn't mean they can't change or disregard things they don't like. So our DM doesn't like the idea of an assassination attempt on the Duke of Whatsit - fine, he just ignores it or rewrites it.
It doesn't matter if an official clock is ticking or not -- what happens in each individual campaign is up to the DM and the players. I say it's better to give them more options, not to assume that more options ruins everything.
I'm not a fan of the McDonald's Quarter Pounder. The fact that it's on the menu doesn't affect how I enjoy my McChicken sandwich. The fact that the McChicken sandwich isn't sold with extra pickles and Buffalo sauce already on it doesn't stop me from adding them, and the fact that it does come with mayo and lettuce doesn't stop me from ordering mine without those things.
I think the real issue isn't that TSR and WotC published these settings and then changed them -- the issue is that they made these changes that didn't respect the original vision and design mandates of the setting creators. They didn't respect the settings, and instead went the Hollywood route of derivative sequels or relaunches that no one wanted, and going for ever-increasing amounts of MOAR BOOM! They never realized -- or quickly forgot -- that settings can grow and change without being blown up every third day. That is and always has been the real problem.
It's not that change is the problem -- the problem is poorly thought out changes.
The problem is that TSR and WotC don't know how to add to or refine the sand castle -- they just know how to kick it 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!  |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 04:25:18
|
One of the best things about Harn is that they don't advance the timeline.
One of the things I LOVED about both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms is that they were awesome just the way they were published.
Ed Greenwood is SOOOOO good and digging in with the details...and though he has had to "go along with the times" quite literally in the Forgotten Realms, he could have written VOLUMES about things just as they were when the Old Grey Box came out.
THAT is where I like to play my Forgotten Realms...and for many other reasons why it is "AD&D for me" all the way. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 07:02:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There's also the argument that if the clock is stopped or if novels aren't canon, then the DM is never bound by someone else's ideas... But that ignores the fact that the DM never was bound by someone else's ideas. A core precept of D&D has always been to make it your own.
This is true, but only partly. Because, yeah, you can ignore a novel, right until the plot of that novel appears in some form in the next sourcebook. Then, you're tied by the ideas of someone else, regardless of "making stuff my own". If I want to make stuff my own, I have to disregard all/most the ideas of that sourcebook, and then buying that sourcebook was pointless in the first time.
This something that happened to me recently, with the SCAG. I admit, I hated the book for a while for ruining my Neverwinter campaign, solving all the plothooks that they had released in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting. My players weren't thrilled by the canon developments, either (lesson learned: don't let the players read the book; something difficult when the SCAG also is the player's resource).
Now that the campaign is on hold, it has give me time to reconsider stuff and change my viewpoint on some stuff (thanks to the viewpoints of the people here), but the damage was done nonetheless.
I agree with you in some stuff, but I guess that, while is true that you can "develop the plot", you should not develop it in a way that it will affect a DM's campaign. Something I like from the Dragon Age franchise, is their way to advance the timeline while respecting the choices of the people playing in that world.
And not all the metaplots are good. See the original 2e Dark Sun. They killed the magic of the setting right from the start. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 18 Jan 2018 07:04:22 |
|
|
|
Anthony Pacheco
Acolyte
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 07:19:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, not 5 minutes if your native language is not English... it took me like ten.
But yeah, that is the problem I've seen in the FR as well. But, doesn't that problem exist back at 2e? From, more or least, the start? I mean, perhaps 4e did the longest time jump ever, but 2e did the ToT and the jump from the 1350s to the 1360s, and 3e advanced the timeline from the 1360s to the 1370s. Again, IHMO, the problem was the novels. While I like an evolving setting, I share the opinion of the writer of that article: once the timeline advance, it's not your campaign. Is TSR/WotC's.
Anyways, that's why I like settings like Nentir Vale or Eberron (or the 4e reset version of Dark Sun), as in these settings the novels (and even sourcebooks, in NV's case) aren't "hard-written canon", and thus, the timeline doesn't evolve. They are more like "soft canon", just posibilites that you, the DM, can or cannot allow in your campaign.
I totally stalked you guys from the interweb tube links on our blog.
Yeah, the problem did indeed start way back when for the FR in TSRs "lets do something to switch the material to the next edition!" phase.
Anyway, I agree the Nentir Vale was purse source goodness--there's something about its self-contained, near proximity lore that is a cut above and I feel it is an underrated setting. I find the Nentir Vale lore inspiring, really. Specifically, the "Ruler of Ruin".
The 4E portions of it... well, I've already spoken ill of the dead too much already.
--Anthony (Griffon Lore Games) |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 07:39:56
|
I don't think it all matters much. It is VERY easy to make the Realms interesting though novels. Many of the best novels of the Realms did not change the realms at all in any way that would effect a DMs campaign. The Harpers novels, for example. Each was great and made little changes that DMs could grab on to, like the addition of characters, societies, artifacts, villains, etc. The realms existed for years with the largest following of any D&D world - even at the height of Dragonlance and Greyhawk - before it was decided that major world changes needed to be made to make it "interesting."
|
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 07:48:16
|
| As for TSR advancing Greyhawk through time with the Wars series, it was a direct response to a group of Greyhawk players that wanted it and had been asking for it for several years. I remember the crown gathered around the release desk at Gen-Con that year was HUGE. Anyone thinking TSR had gone to shit with those releases was in the definite majority. People loved IUZ and all his baddies. They loved seeing who fought who. They loved creating what were basically war-reenactment campaigns. There was this one table with like 2000 miniatures on it fighting one of the major Greyhawk wars battles over and over again all weekend, just like people do with real world wars. I don't have any of TSRs numbers, but I would not be surprised if those were their best selling products ever. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 13:16:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There's also the argument that if the clock is stopped or if novels aren't canon, then the DM is never bound by someone else's ideas... But that ignores the fact that the DM never was bound by someone else's ideas. A core precept of D&D has always been to make it your own.
This is true, but only partly. Because, yeah, you can ignore a novel, right until the plot of that novel appears in some form in the next sourcebook. Then, you're tied by the ideas of someone else, regardless of "making stuff my own". If I want to make stuff my own, I have to disregard all/most the ideas of that sourcebook, and then buying that sourcebook was pointless in the first time.
Actually, you're proving one of my points right here... If a change is so big that removing it invalidates an entire sourcebook, then that is a huge, setting-wide change -- something like the Spellplague. Instead of a gradual change that respects the setting, you're speaking of the entire thing being blown up.
And that's what I said the real problem was -- not change, but the scale of the change. |
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! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 13:24:00
|
I agree with the article in two ways.
Comparing the 1e and 2e versions.... there was barely any 1e time, so to me the point is moot. Yes, some didn't like the ToT (personally I loved it, except I will denote that I didn't like some of the fallout wherein they suddenly got rid of Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira).... but they did realize their mistakes and tried bringing "Bane" back, and gave ideas for Bhaal and Myrkul both.... and for Leira, I've said my pieces. They were advancing the timeline rapidly though.
When they went to 3e/3.5e, they slowed the timeline. They did some relatively good homework when they released new product (some may disagree) to find and reference old stuff, and more importantly, they didn't re-copy paste a lot of lore that was in stuff like Faith and Avatars/Powers and Pantheons/Demi-Human Deities/Monster Mythology .... when they came out with say Faiths and Pantheons. They respected the fact that many of us would have called them out on releasing the same thing twice.... they stuck to what they needed to for the edition update mostly with some flavor text for new people to the game without access to the old stuff. Their novel line however was making too much happen as far as major changes in a short time frame. Honestly, their novels were releasing SOOOOO fast, most of us couldn't keep up. I'm literally just last week getting around to reading Lady of Pain (or Maiden of Pain?)..... which BTW BadCatMan thanks for the heads up, barely into it but glad to read about Thay and Chessenta so far..... meanwhile we were all dragged into the RSE novels, because we wanted to know "what was happening on a major scale" just to keep up.
Then 4e.... OMG... they did the tick of doom.... they advanced the timeline so far ahead and went into every country and pissed on it somehow. It was like "nothing can be unchanged"... we've been in a war with "these people" (these people being US) and we've now won because we're at the reins of the company (imagine a HA HA HA if you will) and we can change the world how we like.
Meanwhile, there's most of Anchorome.... Osse... Katashaka... some unnamed continents to the west of Anchorome.... some continents to the far north of Anchorome... that small continent to the east of Katashaka.... all lying unused. There's also Maztica, Zakhara, Kara-Tur, and Malatra which most of their fans would have killed for an update.
Now, I've already said... I like Laerakond. I like Akanul. I like Tymanther. I like the warlock knights of Vaasa. I even like Tam as some kind of "Sauron like" lord. Hell, I even like the concept of Shyr that we never really saw much of. However, all those things could have happened somewhere else. Tam could have been chased out by his fellow Zulkirs for the simple fact that the THAYAN GOD OF NECROMANCY and the ZULKIR OF NECROMANCY were mortal enemies. Tam could have been unable to use magic (or maybe he could still use magic, but Velsharoon instills a chosen within Tam's ranks and tells him to topple Tam) and been forced to flee somewhere else, and when he gets there he needs servants quick, and so he turns to undeath.... somewhere OUTSIDE of the Faerunian Pantheon's control. In fact that would have been the perfect segue to introduce say Tam into..... northern Anchorome maybe... The warlock knights of Vaasa... maybe "reveal" the source where the "northmen" and "metahel" came from to the far far north of Anchorome on those islands doing nothing. That could have all been together (Tam in one region, some nice people nearby, and the warlock knights of <insert kingdom name>) in one new produce release. Akanul could very much fit down in Zakhara. Tymanther and Laerakond could have fit with that island off the east of Katashaka.
Instead of saying "we can combine everything from Katashaka into Chult".... I'm saying, let's make Maztica/Anchorome and Katashaka and Osse more filled in and changed from the crap it was? I don't want Laerakond back to Abeir.... let's just displace it somewhere such as near'ish but south of Evermeet. And you know what.... the moon, noone's done anything with the original story.... let's keep the same premise, but let's "twist" it subtly.... people THOUGHT those were elves and humans up there. After all.... it can ALL be just a portal jump away from Faerun. Oh, and Abeir? Let's explore there... its just a portal jump away. The Orc World? The Saurial World? They're just a portal jump away, its just the portals are "hard" to sync to there so they rarely open (hmmmm, maybe opening those portals requires the death of someone who has "tied" themselves to it magically?)
When I heard they were filling in the Shaar, I was like "a pristine enriched land which can be agriculturally rich that is so much like old Thay minus the escarpments"..... I can bring back Thay somewhere else, but close enough to where it was, that... who cares about Thay anymore, except the people in this Tharch who are just pissed and want to recover it to "prove a point" to the rest of the world that they can't be pushed around anymore. At the same time, I can also restore much of Chessenta that I liked, but let's tweak it to modern times. Then when I realized that Laothkund had been "dropped into the sea as well, that just clicked to converting the wizard's reach into exactly what WotC had setup the dominos for, but never implemented fully (but that we can SEE them starting to do, since they've been talking about Thayan rebellion). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1621 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 15:28:54
|
| I like that FR continues to evovle. |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 15:35:52
|
I was very happy with the slow advancement of the timeline during third editions run (one year for every 3 or 4 real life years).
Carefully planned 'current clack'-type articles and novels tickled my imagination and could spark adventure material for a session or two, sometimes could even spark a core idea for a whole season of roleplay time (I for example ran with the idea of a drow civil war during Lolth silence, but did NOT make Lolth coccoon herself into isolation from her priestesshood). I must admit that most novel lines concerning drow during the early 2000's would be largely irrelevant for my campaigns from then on, but the campaign products relating to drow would equip me with nice new avenues of thought about a certain region/subject of my personal campaign in use at that time.
FR certainly felt vibrant and alive to me.
It is a shame though that it became more of a business model (with the super-tick of 4E as the most egregious example), then a tool for gradual expansion of the lore.
|
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 17:30:03
|
I have long felt that WotC making that timejump wasn't the mistake -- it was deliberately leaving it a blank slate that was the mistake. By leaving the that century blank, it entirely disconnected the 4E Realms from the 3E Realms. If they'd've taken the time to cover that century, to connect the two eras together, and to give us a sense of continuity instead of a clean break, I think it would have been much more well-received.
In other words, rather than give us a gradual, organic change -- they made a deliberate disconnection from what was before. It was actually one of their design mandates.
So again, it wasn't the fact that there was change, it was the scale of it. |
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! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 20:12:17
|
I haven't read all the responses yet, but Wooly, your opinion appears to be based solely on novels/reading, and while I will agree with you that that makes perfect sense in a novel-only (or books based on movie/TV IP's) setting, it makes no sense at all for a game setting. A game setting should be almost 100% stagnant, otherwise, you screw-over all the DM's who are moving the timeline forward in their own ways.
Thus, the problem is, there should NEVER be any novels associated within a (Tabletop) RPG setting, unless they are historic in nature (like the ones Blizzard does for its Warcraft setting). A novel like Elaine did for Evermeet is fine, but this whole 'RSE of the week' thing is just setting-breaking, IMO. It just doesn't work if tons of people are trying to develop their own stories. If they want to write those types of 'big stories', then they should create their OWN SETTINGS, completely independent of gaming. Of course, many of them have tried that. I even read a few...
You absolutely CAN'T have one setting for both - its counter-productive to ever move a game(-only) setting forward more than just with very local (adventures) events. You could easily keep adding layers of depth to a setting without having to resort to moving the timeline forward. The problem is, not only is that HARDER to do (because you have to keep coming up with entirely new material, rather than just 'freshening up' products you've done a dozen times already), but it also removes the ability of company employees to 'double-dip' - award themselves writing-contracts for novels.
Giving employees of a company the direct ability to augment their salaries in such a way, and self-promote themselves as 'authors' (in a marketplace that would otherwise NOT publish them), while slowly eroding the very thing they are supposed to be doing is a very bad business model.
That's like letting politicians take money from big corporations whose policies & practices they are voting on... oh... wait... 
But do you even see what I am driving at? The way the system is setup , they - the people working at WotC - actually make MORE money by perpetually breaking the very thing they are supposed to be creating. Its a self-defeating paradigm.
However, I think they may have learned their lesson, finally. I was going to say, the only way to teach them to stop doing this is to not buy an products from new editions. We did just that, in 4e. This is probably why we don't see any more FR novels - they know the same thing will happen all over again. The only way for an average author to make their work interesting is to blow stuff up, in a big way. They have no way of doing novels without alienating their gaming fanbase again.
Even RAS eventually fell into this trap - "A thousand Orcs". You can't keep it interesting without escalation. Just look at every long-running anime ever made.
Even with other types of gaming (VG/computer) it starts to get nuts. I absolutely LOVE the Fallout franchise. Been playing it since the first game. But now they have 'survivors' over TWO CENTURIES later, and there are still cans on shelves, bullets available like crazy, weapons, batteries & other tech, etc., and PEOPLE STILL HAVE FOREIGN ACCENTS! How is that even possible? When the first game was done it all made sense, but now to enjoy the game, you just have to ignore the utter preposterousness of the whole thing.
NO, moving the story forward in ANY SETTING destroys the setting itself, because the setting IS a story unto itself. You can tell new stories, but its really a different setting. Just look at Star Trek (not the new movies - I am talking about each individual series). Each show takes place on a different ship (which sometimes have the same name), or space station in one case - they are different settings with different stories. Sure, they're in the same universe, but they really are different settings each time. So why is SW failing so miserably? Because they realize they can't make new movies without disrupting the existing setting, so all they are doing is retelling the SAME STORY over and over again. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jan 2018 20:37:41 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 21:44:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I haven't read all the responses yet, but Wooly, your opinion appears to be based solely on novels/reading, and while I will agree with you that that makes perfect sense in a novel-only (or books based on movie/TV IP's) setting, it makes no sense at all for a game setting. A game setting should be almost 100% stagnant, otherwise, you screw-over all the DM's who are moving the timeline forward in their own ways.
Not if you make changes that don't blow up the setting.
And as has been pointed out more than once, the second a DM starts a campaign in a published setting, it is deviating from canon in some way -- because he's changing the setting.
So even if the timeline is unchanging, his toes can still get stepped on by any new material in that setting. If the DM picks an undeveloped area, and that area is then developed, his toes are stepped on. If an area that was previously detailed gets further detailed, it's the same issue. In-setting time does not have to pass for this to happen. All you need is the publication of new info.
There are only two ways a DM will never get their toes stepped on: either he makes his own setting, or he never buys anything other than one product for the published setting. Neither option makes money for the gaming company, and both options put all of the onus of developing the setting onto the DM... Which gets back to the original issue of why play in a published setting if you have to do everything yourself?
I've looked at a lot of game settings, not just D&D -- many of which weren't supported by novels. And it doesn't matter if there are novels or not -- if there is no progress and no changes, then nothing is happening and the setting quickly loses its appeal. I've actually declined to get into a couple of games, simply because they did the same thing of "here is the setting, in which nothing will ever happen."
As I said, it's like watching the same episode of the same TV show over and over and over again. If there is no growth, it becomes the same old thing, every time you look at it. If it can't surprise me, it loses its appeal. (I hated the ending of one show that I'd previously loved, because the last episode basically chucked several seasons out the window and reset it back to episode 1. After like 9 or 10 seasons, the last 15 minutes of the last episode tainted the entire series for me)
I don't want to be solely responsible for changing a setting. I want -- I need! -- the input of designers who can give me things I never would have thought of myself.
Even Ed has commented that selling the Realms meant he could be surprised by it.
To me, the true beauty of a setting isn't where it starts, but where it goes from there. If stories aren't being told in the setting, I might as well have nothing more than a map. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 18 Jan 2018 21:52:05 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 23:55:55
|
But then, as the article also points out, maybe everyone is just better-off creating their own world for gaming in? Anything that comes out after the initial campaign setting guide/box becomes less and less useful over time.
BTW, my 20-yr-old son is going to start running his own D&D game, for my 16-yr-old son and his friends, and wants to 'learn about the D&D world' (laughingly, he called it 'Pathfinder'). I wish I still had my OGB, but I do have a copy of the 2e campaign box that I picked-up at Gencon - signed by Ed - that I can give him. That should be close-enough. Still, I feel bad that the wonder of the OGB will now be lost for him.
When my 16 year old was in Jr. HS, and he first found friends to play D&D with, the kid DMing was using one of my maps. My son was like, "my father made that", and he was like, "Yeah... RIGHT". When I finally met the kid, he was in awe. I guess it was like when I met Ed. LOL
I think that when it is, 'my time', I'll look up and say, "I've had a good run..."  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jan 2018 23:56:19 |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2018 : 23:57:39
|
| I became so engrossed in the Forgotten Realms because it was a living breathing setting, ever evolving and pushing forward. I'm glad the Realms is not a static setting like Ebberon. |
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 00:20:10
|
You're both right in a way. You can't have the game never change. If you do, you WILL lose customers. You have to make gradual changes that people can wrap their heads around and thus keep up with the changes. This is what happens in our world, and people watch the news to keep up with the changes. Most game groups get together for all of maybe a year or two. Then somehow or other the dynamic changes (they want to do new characters, they have someone move away, someone gets married, someone has work/kids/lover issues that gets in the way, etc...). Thus, at that time, the DM can "start a new campaign" in the realms in a new area based on the lore at that time. Meanwhile, they've been reading the books, discussing what changes that might cause and they can explore these changes OR not explore them by not going to that area.
The problem comes in when they do a massive change to everything all at once. It would be like you are the president of the united states, and you've got a handle on everything that's going on in the world... and you're doing a good job. Then, you come in the next morning, and half the countries have been wiped out or renamed, the other half has changed their population and culture significantly, and no one remembers who YOU are anymore. You'd be like "F" this and quit your job and just start doing something else.
So, in essence, small gradual change to the campaign setting is acceptable. It doesn't need to change at the speed of the real world (or worse even faster). People have real lives, and they need to keep up with their real lives. Every 2-4 years, they'll maybe start a new campaign (possibly even after just a year), and at that time they can change the setting to what's happened during that timeframe. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Khaelieth
Learned Scribe
103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 12:28:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
*snip*
I pretty much agree with this. I prefer 1368/69, and that works fantastically for me. Players don't know how much I'll include from the published setting, be it the return of Bane, the RSEs of late 3.5rd edition and 4th etc, the return of the city of Shade etc. For me, just after the destruction of Hellgate Keep is when the setting is best for me.
However, I think this is because many of us are DMs confident in our own ability. For many beginners, it can be incredibly (and it was for me) taxing to keep up if the RSEs go Kaiju (exponential in number and size). |
Also known on other forums as ChazSexington, Kusghuul, and Claudius.
|
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 14:30:11
|
| Same here - that was the golden era of the realms to be sure. |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 15:43:58
|
| The problem I'm seeing is the attitude that im order to bring about change you need to blow things up. The Realms is so big you could have miltiple events, non world shaking, that can be going all at once. Why didn't Shade just land in Anauroch and rebuild Netheril? Why fly around bringing world wide desruction that would surely bring too much attention? The Realms is victim to business decisions and nothing more. If they think blowing up half the world will bring them more money then that's what they will do. Most of the player base now don't really care about the Realms, they just buy the modules, play them, rinse and repeat. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Sunderstone
Learned Scribe
104 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 18:20:03
|
I kind of think Wooly is probably closer to the right formula that I enjoy. Novels provide a lot of enrichment to the game setting and sourcebooks by having notable and new inhabitants of the world interact. If you look at Elaine Cunningingham's Songs and Swords and Salvatore's Icewind Dale Trilogy there was a good balance struck.
These series provided great detail to locations, people, and governing to specific places like Waterdeep, Icewind Dale, Ten Towns, Longsaddle, Silverymoon, etc. You also got introduced to in universe Lore, like Mithral Hall and visual expansion of the world by visiting various places.
They were good arcs for progressing the characters and their relationships with interesting adventure arcs without changing the nature of the Realms. Like any story, there was a progression of time take place but it was far more ambiguous and it or the events in the stories did not break the setting and sourcebooks.
I wish that had been the overiding editorial direction and we might still be in DR1360's and getting inhabitants and places fleshed out without forcing gamers to divorce themselves of their capmpaigns or the things they loved with RSE's and Time Leaps. Thc comic book continuam has had great success in having a past where there was a consistant march of time but slowing time passage as the ongoing stories of the different hero's so they can last and persist. Peter Parker is still a teenager for example. |
Edited by - Sunderstone on 19 Jan 2018 18:23:08 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 18:34:42
|
I don't know - I am still seeing folks like Wooly, Brian and others here enjoying the Realms for a much broader reason than gaming, and that's not really what I - and the author of that article - is talking about. For purely gaming purposes, choosing a setting that advances chronologically is counter-intuitive, IMO.
Case in point: I enjoyed the Realms as game setting (only) from several years, and had a lot of fun with it. I didn't even know the setting that well, and just did whatever crazy things i wanted, and my players enjoyed it very much. Then I started reading the novels, and THEN I started inhaling every sourcebook I could find, and I enjoyed the Realms for a whole different reason.
However, I soon stopped running it. I could no longer enjoy running it as a DM, because I was afraid I "wasn't getting it right". FR became more of a mental exercise than a setting a person could actually run a fun game in. At least, thats how I felt, and I get the feeling many others felt the same. In fact, i am fairly certain this is what 4e was all about: You can run an amazing game right out of the OGB. You hand someone that, and just that, and they will do stuff no-one ever thought of with it. Then lump-in 30+ years of books on esoterica and minutia (to the point where we actually DO know the color of Azoun's codpiece), and it stops being a setting for games, and becomes a setting for a different type of entertainment. Instead of being a participant, you are now merely 'audience'. That's NOT what a tabletop RPG is meant to be.
4e 'happened' because FR just stopped being fun... as a D&D setting. We were no longer the drivers on a go-cart track (or riding a quad in the woods), we became people on a rollercoaster... with TRACKS. Sure its fun, but its going to take you in the direction IT wants to go. Thats the whole problem in a nutshell. Its just not a 'sandbox' any more at that point. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Jan 2018 18:40:34 |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 19:03:22
|
| I'd say 4th E happened because WoW happened. No other reason. Dollar signs, bro. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 19:10:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't know - I am still seeing folks like Wooly, Brian and others here enjoying the Realms for a much broader reason than gaming, and that's not really what I - and the author of that article - is talking about. For purely gaming purposes, choosing a setting that advances chronologically is counter-intuitive, IMO.
Case in point: I enjoyed the Realms as game setting (only) from several years, and had a lot of fun with it. I didn't even know the setting that well, and just did whatever crazy things i wanted, and my players enjoyed it very much. Then I started reading the novels, and THEN I started inhaling every sourcebook I could find, and I enjoyed the Realms for a whole different reason.
However, I soon stopped running it. I could no longer enjoy running it as a DM, because I was afraid I "wasn't getting it right". FR became more of a mental exercise than a setting a person could actually run a fun game in. At least, thats how I felt, and I get the feeling many others felt the same. In fact, i am fairly certain this is what 4e was all about: You can run an amazing game right out of the OGB. You hand someone that, and just that, and they will do stuff no-one ever thought of with it. Then lump-in 30+ years of books on esoterica and minutia (to the point where we actually DO know the color of Azoun's codpiece), and it stops being a setting for games, and becomes a setting for a different type of entertainment. Instead of being a participant, you are now merely 'audience'. That's NOT what a tabletop RPG is meant to be.
4e 'happened' because FR just stopped being fun... as a D&D setting. We were no longer the drivers on a go-cart track (or riding a quad in the woods), we became people on a rollercoaster... with TRACKS. Sure its fun, but its going to take you in the direction IT wants to go. Thats the whole problem in a nutshell. Its just not a 'sandbox' any more at that point.
But that's not caused by changes to the setting...
If they had never advanced the timeline a single day, but kept pumping out books covering various different aspects of the setting, you could still find yourself weighed down by minutiae and the sheer breadth of available information, and you could still find yourself worried that you weren't getting it right.
Hell, I've bought damn near everything FR, twice over, and I'm weak on so many things FR it's not funny. Part of that is because of the volume of lore, but part of it is also because I focus more on specific things -- in general, I'm all about Waterdeep, magic, and characters.
Being overwhelmed by lore is not a fault of the setting or the designers: that's purely on us for being so interested in the setting that we keep coming back for more and more information, so we can learn every little thing, like the color of Azoun's codpiece. (Though I, personally, would be far more interested in Alusair's attire, rather than her father's ).
We're the ones that keep coming back to drink from that particular well -- it's our fault if we drink too much.
And the fix for that isn't stopping the timeline, since it could happen without a single change to the setting. The fix for that is what I said earlier: One single sourcebook, and nothing else, ever. One and done, and then no changes will ever bother anyone, and the lore remains forever manageable.
That may be ideal for some, but I'd far rather have more lore than I need, and changes I never would have thought of, rather than have to wing everything myself. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 19 Jan 2018 19:11:54 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 19:14:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
I'd say 4th E happened because WoW happened. No other reason. Dollar signs, bro.
Given how MMO-ish the 4E ruleset felt, I can't disagree. And I think they made a huge mistake in thinking that the strength of WoW was in the play style, as opposed to ready availability of the game: you could devote as much or as little time to it as you wanted, on no one's schedule but your own, and you could do it using something you probably already had in house, and that had multiple other functions: your computer.
That's why I think WotC putting their weight behind a good virtual table top would have been the better move for them. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 19 Jan 2018 19:19:18 |
|
|
|
Sunderstone
Learned Scribe
104 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 19:32:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't know - I am still seeing folks like Wooly, Brian and others here enjoying the Realms for a much broader reason than gaming, and that's not really what I - and the author of that article - is talking about. For purely gaming purposes, choosing a setting that advances chronologically is counter-intuitive, IMO.
Case in point: I enjoyed the Realms as game setting (only) from several years, and had a lot of fun with it. I didn't even know the setting that well, and just did whatever crazy things i wanted, and my players enjoyed it very much. Then I started reading the novels, and THEN I started inhaling every sourcebook I could find, and I enjoyed the Realms for a whole different reason.
However, I soon stopped running it. I could no longer enjoy running it as a DM, because I was afraid I "wasn't getting it right". FR became more of a mental exercise than a setting a person could actually run a fun game in. At least, thats how I felt, and I get the feeling many others felt the same. In fact, i am fairly certain this is what 4e was all about: You can run an amazing game right out of the OGB. You hand someone that, and just that, and they will do stuff no-one ever thought of with it. Then lump-in 30+ years of books on esoterica and minutia (to the point where we actually DO know the color of Azoun's codpiece), and it stops being a setting for games, and becomes a setting for a different type of entertainment. Instead of being a participant, you are now merely 'audience'. That's NOT what a tabletop RPG is meant to be.
4e 'happened' because FR just stopped being fun... as a D&D setting. We were no longer the drivers on a go-cart track (or riding a quad in the woods), we became people on a rollercoaster... with TRACKS. Sure its fun, but its going to take you in the direction IT wants to go. Thats the whole problem in a nutshell. Its just not a 'sandbox' any more at that point.
I don't know that creating other material that interacts with the core setting has to be that rigid unless it changes something in a major way. If you don't materially change the landscape or topography, kill major NPC's i.e. Khelban, or do a RSE that intrudes on the setting to the point it can't be looked at as a contained story, local or particular to a set of characters.
I see some of your points and the points in the article. You could argue the character development of Elaith Craulnober takes choice away from the DM because he is less of a blank slate if he is subsequently used as a NPC in a campaign. On the other hand, Elaine made him a fully realized personage of great interest and intrigue. If you look at one of her stories as flavor instead of canon it can allow for the use of her creative imagination to color how Elaith will interaction with the PCs. Whether story elements that happened in the story are incorporated into whatever exposition the DM wants to be used would be a matter of choice.
Where I think the mistake was made was having all of the Realms wide events and then feeling the need to come out with new editions incorporating it into new history. It probably fits better as Apocraphyl in nature and I think the comic book anolagy is more akin to the middle ground, telling stories but keeping time passage fairly stationary. |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3563 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 19:49:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't know - I am still seeing folks like Wooly, Brian and others here enjoying the Realms for a much broader reason than gaming, and that's not really what I - and the author of that article - is talking about. For purely gaming purposes, choosing a setting that advances chronologically is counter-intuitive, IMO.
Case in point: I enjoyed the Realms as game setting (only) from several years, and had a lot of fun with it. I didn't even know the setting that well, and just did whatever crazy things i wanted, and my players enjoyed it very much. Then I started reading the novels, and THEN I started inhaling every sourcebook I could find, and I enjoyed the Realms for a whole different reason.
However, I soon stopped running it. I could no longer enjoy running it as a DM, because I was afraid I "wasn't getting it right". FR became more of a mental exercise than a setting a person could actually run a fun game in. At least, thats how I felt, and I get the feeling many others felt the same. In fact, i am fairly certain this is what 4e was all about: You can run an amazing game right out of the OGB. You hand someone that, and just that, and they will do stuff no-one ever thought of with it. Then lump-in 30+ years of books on esoterica and minutia (to the point where we actually DO know the color of Azoun's codpiece), and it stops being a setting for games, and becomes a setting for a different type of entertainment. Instead of being a participant, you are now merely 'audience'. That's NOT what a tabletop RPG is meant to be.
4e 'happened' because FR just stopped being fun... as a D&D setting. We were no longer the drivers on a go-cart track (or riding a quad in the woods), we became people on a rollercoaster... with TRACKS. Sure its fun, but its going to take you in the direction IT wants to go. Thats the whole problem in a nutshell. Its just not a 'sandbox' any more at that point.
Hate to say it, but the fault appears to be yours. There is no wrong way to run the realms. I've read Ed say it scores of times, make the realms your own. I'm sorry you got so hung up on what others did that you couldn't enjoy your realms anymore. I'd encourage you not to let outside forces take a p!$$ in your sandbox and ruin it for you.
As a consumer of the realms almost exclusively through novels , I think the slow , self inflicted death of the realms is one of the saddest, most maddening, unecessarry things I've had to witness.
But I did buy a copy of the old grey box off eBay, and man what a joy that baby is! |
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
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2018 : 19:49:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
4e 'happened' because FR just stopped being fun... as a D&D setting. We were no longer the drivers on a go-cart track (or riding a quad in the woods), we became people on a rollercoaster... with TRACKS. Sure its fun, but its going to take you in the direction IT wants to go. Thats the whole problem in a nutshell. Its just not a 'sandbox' any more at that point.
No, this particular piece, I strongly disagree with. 4e happened because the people running the ship basically said what a lot of politicians try to do. If I make too many changes at once, people won't be able to keep track and I can do what I want without have to work too hard. In essence, they knew they couldn't keep up with past lore (which was growing full of contradictions).
It wasn't because it was no longer fun. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
An article that some may find interesting
Topic Locked
