Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bobsan 10-07-04, 02:18 PM	First, let me state the intent of this thread is not to discuss any of the novels. I'm aware of the rules and do not wish to violate them. My question is actually about the sourcebook The Silver Marches and a line I recently read in one of them (And how it pertains to the novels) Recently, I was reading the entry about Wulfgar in the Silver Marches book and a line in there state that at one point he married Catti-brie. Now I've read well past that point in the novels and recently read a small summary of Two Swords which states the triangle gets resolved in that book. My question is thus. Was this a typo in The Silver Marches? Or does WotC have inside information about Realms info on future novels when it comes to producing sourcebooks? (Last thing I would want is a spoiler for a future book) If, in some way, this violated the rules about Novels in some way that I overlooked, I apologize and would see this thread deleted.
Ryltar Swordsong 10-07-04, 04:51 PM	That is just one of many errors in that book.
Kuje31 10-07-04, 05:29 PM	That is just one of many errors in that book. Have to back Ryltar here and say: Yup, just one of the many errors in that sourcebook.
protonik 10-07-04, 09:16 PM	Errors, smerrors. SIlver Marches is perfect because it is a big thumb at the novels and license to say "who cares about novel A, B or C." A step in the right direction I say!!! Jason
GothicDan 10-07-04, 09:33 PM	Unless you want a good sourcebook, of course.
protonik 10-08-04, 11:39 AM	It is a good sourcebook, an excellent one, just not in line with the novels and I applaud that. I don't need no stinking novels to tell me who is what and why! I don't need my sourcebooks to match up with the novels and you know why? It's my game! Jason
Kuje31 10-08-04, 12:06 PM	It is a good sourcebook, an excellent one, just not in line with the novels and I applaud that. I don't need no stinking novels to tell me who is what and why! I don't need my sourcebooks to match up with the novels and you know why? It's my game! Jason Thats nice, now the rest of us actually care about things00 matching up from novel to novel and sourcebook to sourcebook and novel to sourcebook. So no not all of it is a excellent sourcebook.
GothicDan 10-08-04, 12:35 PM	Considering the novels are just as canon as the supplements, the information there is just as "true" as that given in the supplements.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 01:27 PM	Considering the novels are just as canon as the supplements, the information there is just as "true" as that given in the supplements. While novels may be as 'canon' as game supplements that doesn't mean novels hold anywhere near the same degree of importance as game supplements (from a gamer's POV rather than a novel fan's). Novels are fun, interesting, and inspirational...but they are also factually unreliable, contradictory with existing game supplements, and heavily biased towards an author's need to tell a story. Plus they are damn hard to use as convenient sourcebooks at the tabletop! :D Novels are second-rate resources at best. I agree that sourcebooks like the Silver Marches should attempt to get its facts straight...but I'm not going to cry if the marital status of a couple of minor NPCs is listed wrongly either. Overall the SM is a pretty good resource.
Lashan 10-08-04, 02:07 PM	Protonik, I absolutely agree with you on this, but I must warn you. I've been down this road before and BigSis doesn't care for it. I've met lots of people in life and on the boards that dislike the novels being cannon, but this discussion has been done many many times before. It is one of the reasons why WOTC came up with the policy of "no novel discussion". I suggest we abandon that line of thought.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 02:33 PM	I just reread BigSister's Novels - Important Info - Read This! and Protonik doesn't appear to be in violation. He isn't discussing the artistic qualities of FR novels/authors. Rather the whole point of his post seems to be just what exactly he will let into his game. Rejecting FR novels as relevant game material seems to be a perfectly viable and legal choice for these boards. I suspect that if he was actually criticizing FR novels/authors than we would have a problem...but he simply isn't doing that. By the way...here is the link to the Novel rules: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=185204
Kuje31 10-08-04, 02:49 PM	Novels are fun, interesting, and inspirational...but they are also factually unreliable, contradictory with existing game supplements, and heavily biased towards an author's need to tell a story. Plus they are damn hard to use as convenient sourcebooks at the tabletop! :D And sourcebooks arn't like this how, exactly? Every new sourcebook so far has changed the world, are unreliable, contradictory with existing game sourcebooks, and are heavily baised towards a game designers need to change things. And btw, yes the novels hold just as much weight as the sourcebooks and Dragon/Dungeon articles, and they always have since 1987, at least for FR. Some game designers feel differently but that's thier problem.
GothicDan 10-08-04, 02:55 PM	I personally have not read many FR novels, but I don't think that they hold any less weight than the supplements... Eh.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 03:07 PM	And sourcebooks arn't like this how, exactly? Every new sourcebook so far has changed the world, are unreliable, contradictory with existing game sourcebooks, and are heavily baised towards a game designers need to change thing. Its a matter of degree and utility. Sourcebooks are meant to be sourcebooks and novels are meant to be novels. Since sourcebooks serve a different function from novels any errors/changes you might find are judged by a different standard. You can't lump apples and oranges into the same basket and expect me to call them all apples. And btw, yes the novels hold just as much weight as the sourcebooks and Dragon/Dungeon articles, and they always have since 1987, at least for FR. Some game designers feel differently but that's thier problem. So? That doesn't change the fact that good novels do not automatically make good game supplements.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 03:15 PM	I personally have not read many FR novels, but I don't think that they hold any less weight than the supplements... Eh. I dunno...but it seems to me that if you have never read the novels but play the game that, by default, you share the same position as someone who has read them all but refuses to use them in his/her game. In other words the novels are meaningless to both games.
Kuje31 10-08-04, 03:16 PM	Its a matter of degree and utility. Sourcebooks are meant to be sourcebooks and novels are meant to be novels. Since sourcebooks serve a different function from novels any errors/changes you might find are judged by a different standard. You can't lump apples and oranges into the same basket and expect me to call them all apples. So? That doesn't change the fact that good novels do not automatically make good game supplements. Except they arn't judged by a different standard. Canon is canon is canon. Doesn't matter if they are novels, sourcebooks, web articles, or Dungeon/Dragon articles, they ALL have the same weight. There is no lumping, cause again canon and official is canon and official. And to your reply to Gothic, how is that different from someone who reads the novels and never buys a sourcebook? Sourcebooks are meaningless to the novel buyer.
GothicDan 10-08-04, 03:25 PM	I dunno...but it seems to me that if you have never read the novels but play the game that, by default, you share the same position as someone who has read them all but refuses to use them in his/her game. This made me laugh a little because I've never played in a Forgotten Realms game. Ever. :) I just.. read a whole lot. The only games that I've played in in real life are Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Ravenloft.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 03:35 PM	Kuje31: Ok. Canon is canon and official is official. But this has almost NOTHING to do with my point that tabletop games are better served by game sourcebooks than game related novels. In a way I suppose you are right though. I judge all things at my game table by how useful they are to the game. So I do judge novels by the same standards as I use for the FRCS or the PGtF. So it shouldn't be a surprise that novels are mostly ignored in my games.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 03:42 PM	This made me laugh a little because I've never played in a Forgotten Realms game. Ever. :) I just.. read a whole lot. The only games that I've played in in real life are Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Ravenloft. :D Well...these setting all have novels and game supplements so your opinion is as welcome as any on the subject!
Kuje31 10-08-04, 03:44 PM	Kuje31: Ok. Canon is canon and official is official. But this has almost NOTHING to do with my point that tabletop games are better served by game sourcebooks than game related novels. In a way I suppose you are right though. I judge all things at my game table by how useful they are to the game. So I do judge novels by the same standards as I use for the FRCS or the PGtF. So it shouldn't be a surprise that novels are mostly ignored in my games. And no I don't agree that table top games are better served without the novels. There has been tons of info in novels that can't or was not allowed to be printed in sourcebooks. I mean, look at Ed's novels alone, there is tons of info in them that he couldn't or was not allowed to put into sourcebooks. And ATM FR is more of a novel driven world then a sourcebook driven world since there is a new novel montly, but only about 4 sourcebooks a year. Fine they are ignored in your game, and I do the same with some of the Sourcebooks, Dragon/Dungeon, Novels, and Web Articles in my version of FR. So what? They all hold the same weight in canon and official FR and this has always been the case from the 1st printed material for FR, except for what was in Dragon. I for one hope WOTC never does away with the FR novels.
Lashan 10-08-04, 03:52 PM	I wish they never came up with "official canon". They should have just published everything they wanted and left it up to the DM as to wether or not it was "really" happening in the game world. I think they should have left all the old gods in Faiths and Pantheons and explained how things happened in the novels, but left it free for DMs to change things in the game. People edit out a lot of things about FR anyways, but it would have been easier (and less discussions on the message boards) if they purposfully left things open.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 04:07 PM	And no I don't agree that table top games are better served without the novels. I said,"Tabletop games are better served with game supplement than with the novels." In other words I assign an order of preference for where I get my information. Novels are low in the order. I don't totally exclude ANY source nor am I telling others too. There has been tons of info in novels that can't or was not allowed to be printed in sourcebooks. I mean, look at Ed's novels alone, there is tons of info in them that he couldn't or was not allowed to put into sourcebooks. And ATM FR is more of a novel driven world then a sourcebook driven world since there is a new novel montly, but only about 4 sourcebooks a year. Which means that much useful information is locked away in a mostly inaccessible form. Not a neccessarily a bad thing since too much information can just gum up the works of a tabletop campaign. But if anybody wants to wade through that mess than more power to them. But a novel is inherently less useful to me so I don't use them nearly as much as some others might. Fine they are ignored in your game, and I do the same with some of the Sourcebooks, Dragon/Dungeon, Novels, and Web Articles in my version of FR. So what? They all hold the same weight in canon and official FR. Again...So? I don't disagree that all resources have equal weight in canon. But that certainly doesn't mean they are all equally useful at the tabletop!
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 04:19 PM	I wish they never came up with "official canon". They should have just published everything they wanted and left it up to the DM as to wether or not it was "really" happening in the game world. I think they should have left all the old gods in Faiths and Pantheons and explained how things happened in the novels, but left it free for DMs to change things in the game. People edit out a lot of things about FR anyways, but it would have been easier (and less discussions on the message boards) if they purposfully left things open. Agreed. That would of been the ideal way to present the FR.
chme 10-08-04, 04:19 PM	While novels may be as 'canon' as game supplements that doesn't mean novels hold anywhere near the same degree of importance as game supplements (from a gamer's POV rather than a novel fan's). ---snip--- Plus they are damn hard to use as convenient sourcebooks at the tabletop! :D Novels are second-rate resources at best. There is no single gamer POV. I'm a gamer, and read the FR novels exclusively as sources of Realmslore - be it descriptions, npcs, historic events, poetry etc etc. 90% of the sourcebooks I own, I don't bring to the tabletop game, so to me, not bringing novels is an argument that points nowhere. I do use novels, magazines and all my sourcebooks when preparing *before* I got to the session though. When preparing for the sessions, I'll use whatever canon FR source I can get hold of and that does the job. There are no absolute first and second rate categories in that perspective - it all depends on what you're preparing. TBH I don't really see the problem - why do you feel the need to settle the matter once and for all what sources are best for gaming?
Kuje31 10-08-04, 04:26 PM	There is no single gamer POV. I'm a gamer, and read the FR novels exclusively as sources of Realmslore - be it descriptions, npcs, historic events, poetry etc etc. 90% of the sourcebooks I own, I don't bring to the tabletop game, so to me, not bringing novels is an argument that points nowhere. I do use novels, magazines and all my sourcebooks when preparing *before* I got to the session though. When preparing for the sessions, I'll use whatever canon FR source I can get hold of and that does the job. There are no absolute first and second rate categories in that perspective - it all depends on what you're preparing. TBH I don't really see the problem - why do you feel the need to settle the matter once and for all what sources are best for gaming? Exactly. :)
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 04:48 PM	chme: I didn't intend to settle anything. I presented an opinion and than debated it. I fully expect everybody to leave this thread with pre-existing opinions intact. As for the rest of it my opinion if fairly well explored in earlier posts. Suffice it to say that I prefer clean & direct to clutter. Novels are a whole lot of clutter that I don't want to see 'officially' changing the FR.
Kuje31 10-08-04, 04:50 PM	I said,"Tabletop games are better served with game supplement than with the novels." In other words I assign an order of preference for where I get my information. Novels are low in the order. I don't totally exclude ANY source nor am I telling others too. Which means that much useful information is locked away in a mostly inaccessible form. Not a neccessarily a bad thing since too much information can just gum up the works of a tabletop campaign. But if anybody wants to wade through that mess than more power to them. But a novel is inherently less useful to me so I don't use them nearly as much as some others might. Again...So? I don't disagree that all resources have equal weight in canon. But that certainly doesn't mean they are all equally useful at the tabletop! How is that info inaccessible? That line can be said for out of print sourcebooks as well. I don't get it. And yes novels are equally useful at the tabletop. Too much info can gum up the works in a tabletop game? HUH? Yeah if anyone wants to wade through the mess of over 120+ sourcebooks, more power to them. See another argument that can be used either way. A sourcebook is less useful if it doesn't contain the info that a novel does. And a sourcebook contains just as much clutter as a novel does.
GothicDan 10-08-04, 04:57 PM	Well...these setting all have novels and game supplements so your opinion is as welcome as any on the subject! Greyhawk novels I haven't read; it was the first campaign I was in (and possibly the best), with a DM who majored in Shakespearean drama. So I can't say for certain on this. Ravenloft game was very short, so I don't have much to say on that one. The two Dragonlance games I was in? Do we really even have to ask how important/influential the novels were? :D Considering I own 40+ Dragonlance novels, I thin that speaks for itself. And I also own all 4 Planescape books, though I haven't had the pleasure of playing a tabletop PS game yet.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 05:46 PM	How is that info inaccessible? That line can be said for out of print sourcebooks as well. I don't get it. And yes novels are equally useful at the tabletop. Its inaccessible because I don't want to wade through a dozen volumes looking for a reference that I thought I might of seen when I can just go to the Table of Contents of a sourcebook and go directly to that reference. Too much info can gum up the works in a tabletop game? HUH? Yep. I've seen DMs want to impress players with his knowledge of the background bury his players (who could of cared less) under mind numbing detail. The information you glean needs to work for the story...not stop it. Yeah if anyone wants to wade through the mess of over 120+ sourcebooks, more power to them. See another argument that can be used either way. Except I could probably find that information in a much more concentrated and practical form far faster than wading through a 120+ novels. But hey...if you got the time... A sourcebook is less useful if it doesn't contain the info that a novel does. And a sourcebook contains just as much clutter as a novel does. A sourcebook is only less useful than a novel if I consider the novel relevant. If I don't its not a problem. And at least a sourcebook is organized clutter. **************************************** *************** Frankly we are arguing in circles. I limit myself to sourcebooks and consider everything else to be only a minor aid at best...a distracting nuisance at worst. My goal is simply to play a D&D game that just happens to be set in the FR. Your goal (I think) is to immerse yourself in the Forgotten Realms. Detail is needed because your playing a Forgotten Realms story that just happens to use D&D rules. Thus you use all the info you can get your hands on. This is a critical differences in our POV of sourcebooks and novels.
Kuje31 10-08-04, 05:50 PM	Its inaccessible because I don't want to wade through a dozen volumes looking for a reference that I thought I might of seen when I can just go to the Table of Contents of a sourcebook and go directly to that reference. Except I could probably find that information in a much more concentrated and practical form far faster than wading through a 120+ novels. But hey...if you got the time... That info isn't inaccessable then, that's just being lazy because it exists but the person just doesn't want to look for it. :) And again how is this different really with sourcebooks that don't have all the info listed in the Table of Contents? Take a minor reference to a out of the way town, not all of them are listed in the TOC nor the index if it has one. So to find that reference you do have to wade through 120+ sourcebooks, but again hey if you got the time..... Not trying to start an arguement here, and I'm trying to figure out what's the difference between looking through a novel instead of a sourcebook, when both are cluttered and many times sourcebooks don't include some info in the TOC.
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 05:53 PM	The two Dragonlance games I was in? Do we really even have to ask how important/influential the novels were? :D Considering I own 40+ Dragonlance novels, I thin that speaks for itself. Yeah...Dragonlance is one setting where the novels really are critical to the game world.
Kuje31 10-08-04, 06:03 PM	Yeah...Dragonlance is one setting where the novels really are critical to the game world. FR is another. :)
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 06:03 PM	Not trying to start an arguement here, and I'm trying to figure out what's the difference between looking through a novel instead of a sourcebook, when both are cluttered and many times sourcebooks don't include some info in the TOC. Because a sourcebook is built from the ground up to be a game reference. Your far more likely to find the info you need quickly than you would with just a novel. While its true a sourcebook isn't going to be 100% cross referenced its still a marked improvement over a novel that isn't likely to be cross referenced at all. Ya know...this whole thing is starting (or maybe was always) to get really stupid...even for a forum debate! :D We both like what we like and thats it. Lets just shake hands and call it a day! I have a game to get too. ;)
Cthulhu 10-08-04, 06:05 PM	FR is another. :) Doh!
chme 10-08-04, 06:23 PM	I limit myself to sourcebooks and consider everything else to be only a minor aid at best...a distracting nuisance at worst. My goal is simply to play a D&D game that just happens to be set in the FR. Your goal (I think) is to immerse yourself in the Forgotten Realms. Detail is needed because your playing a Forgotten Realms story that just happens to use D&D rules. Thus you use all the info you can get your hands on. This is a critical differences in our POV of sourcebooks and novels. To each his own - but I think you're missing out :). One of the coolest things about DMing Forgotten Realms imo, is that preparing for the gaming sessions is a researchers job: first I get some general up-to-date info if I can, then compare to other sources, check articles, old sourcebooks, novels, ask on the net etc, until I got a lot of info to kind of wrap my own contributions around. For me this makes the DM job a whole lot funner, and usually means I do a better job since I percieve myself more as having *been* to the place where the action takes place, *met* the npc that the PCs meet, rather than me having created the most of it. I'm not sure I know why, but I know for sure than in my game, there's a big difference. Since FR is such a detailed world with many sources of info, it is ideal for this kind of DM job. If I wanted a phone-book world (as in going to one of few source-books and quickly look up facts), I think I would have chosen another setting altogether.
GothicDan 10-08-04, 07:14 PM	Mmm, I love sifting through books of all sorts for days before a major campaign or when making a PC.
Cthulhu 10-09-04, 01:03 AM	To each his own - but I think you're missing out :). One of the coolest things about DMing Forgotten Realms imo, is that preparing for the gaming sessions is a researchers job: first I get some general up-to-date info if I can, then compare to other sources, check articles, old sourcebooks, novels, ask on the net etc, until I got a lot of info to kind of wrap my own contributions around. For me this makes the DM job a whole lot funner, and usually means I do a better job since I percieve myself more as having *been* to the place where the action takes place, *met* the npc that the PCs meet, rather than me having created the most of it. I'm not sure I know why, but I know for sure than in my game, there's a big difference. Since FR is such a detailed world with many sources of info, it is ideal for this kind of DM job. If I wanted a phone-book world (as in going to one of few source-books and quickly look up facts), I think I would have chosen another setting altogether. The FRCS works admirably as a 'phone book' campaign so no real reason to collect everything except a sense of completeness. I don't work well with the level of research you enjoy. For me a basic skeleton is all thats needed. I run a very freeform game where NPCs, towns, customs, even adventures are spun on the spot. I like the creative process of the whole thing. Its worked well enough for 4 groups and a half dozen campaigns over 20 years.
protonik 10-09-04, 01:21 AM	I am sorry I unintentionally created this mess... No, I am not judging the merits of the novels as a piece of art, I just feel that they are unimportant to the game and apparently so does WOTC. Some fo the novels are great fun, other are pulpy pleasure and some suck but what that has to do with sourcebooks I do not know. I dislike the idea that a novel decided to tell me that Lolth went silent so unless I run City of the Spider-Queen she isn't... that is just an example though. Canon is what happens at the gaming table not what happens in the umpteenth Dark Elf book. They are an influence but they take away from the players and that is a no no. Jason
warlockco 10-09-04, 01:38 AM	I am sorry I unintentionally created this mess... No, I am not judging the merits of the novels as a piece of art, I just feel that they are unimportant to the game and apparently so does WOTC. Some fo the novels are great fun, other are pulpy pleasure and some suck but what that has to do with sourcebooks I do not know. I dislike the idea that a novel decided to tell me that Lolth went silent so unless I run City of the Spider-Queen she isn't... that is just an example though. Canon is what happens at the gaming table not what happens in the umpteenth Dark Elf book. They are an influence but they take away from the players and that is a no no. Jason Canon has verified that Lolth has gone silent with the PGtF though :D
protonik 10-09-04, 01:55 AM	Not my canon MWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Jason
chme 10-09-04, 03:03 AM	The FRCS works admirably as a 'phone book' campaign so no real reason to collect everything except a sense of completeness. I don't work well with the level of research you enjoy. For me a basic skeleton is all thats needed. I run a very freeform game where NPCs, towns, customs, even adventures are spun on the spot. I like the creative process of the whole thing. Its worked well enough for 4 groups and a half dozen campaigns over 20 years. Again - to each his own. And I agree, in a phone-book campaign, the single phone-book is best :). I would just like to point out that there is just as much creativeness in the DMing I described, only what one creates come as additions, elaborations and variations of what is already there, creating a totality that usually has greater depth and consistency (in my opinion) than what any DM can possibly conjure up on the spot with any regularity. I've DMed in both styles for just as long or longer than you have, so there's no need for you to flash you DM experience. Nobody is saying your DM style isn't working. It was *you* who made a lot of statements about different sources being awkward to use, being second-rate sources for DMing, etc. All I did was suggest that not all DM like you do, and that the huge amount of material for the FR setting in fact makes it ideal for the researcher DM style, whereas it doesn't really matter what setting you have if you wanna use it in the phone-book style.
Cthulhu 10-09-04, 03:21 AM	chme: I am not trying to be defensive or competetive in my last statement. I was merely contrasting my experience with your own. It was a recognition that those differences exist and can work for the right person. Sorry if there was misunderstanding. I just assumed you were on the same page as I.
chme 10-09-04, 03:57 AM	Sorry if there was misunderstanding. I just assumed you were on the same page as I. Doh! I'm sorry too then. We're on the same page now :).
Xavier_of_Cormyr 10-10-04, 02:23 AM	well, things matching things up from novel to actual FR fact is not an exact science. The two are on totally different timelines. The Foresaken House novel jumps ahead of earlier FR novel series by a few, and by the time the final book of thr trilogy is released it will be 2006. Does anyone hear plan on putting their campaign on hold waiting to mold it to the novels? If the novels were the end all of any D&D world, then playing the game in any pregenerated world would be pointless. The "Return of the Archwizards" trilogy came out over a year ago, and I like many other I'm sure, intergrated the storyline into their campaign. So, while playing the game, would I as DM have to keep the players from taking actions which contradicts the novels? There were Shadovar princes mentioned prominetly in the novels that weren't even noted in any rulebook! And if a NPC doesn't die in a novel, he MUST live in a campaign world? PC's can't defeat Lord Shadow because he still lives in the novels? To each his own, it's your game, your imagination- that's why everyone comes to these message boards & plays D&D; but to call the novels "canon" is obsurd. Yes, officially MOST happenings EVENTUALLY transfer over to rulebooks, but if you're going to wait around for that to happen, and limit your campaigns accordingly, you're in a strange game group in my opinion.
Kuje31 10-10-04, 02:53 AM	well, things matching things up from novel to actual FR fact is not an exact science. The two are on totally different timelines. The Foresaken House novel jumps ahead of earlier FR novel series by a few, and by the time the final book of thr trilogy is released it will be 2006. Does anyone hear plan on putting their campaign on hold waiting to mold it to the novels? If the novels were the end all of any D&D world, then playing the game in any pregenerated world would be pointless. The "Return of the Archwizards" trilogy came out over a year ago, and I like many other I'm sure, intergrated the storyline into their campaign. So, while playing the game, would I as DM have to keep the players from taking actions which contradicts the novels? There were Shadovar princes mentioned prominetly in the novels that weren't even noted in any rulebook! And if a NPC doesn't die in a novel, he MUST live in a campaign world? PC's can't defeat Lord Shadow because he still lives in the novels? To each his own, it's your game, your imagination- that's why everyone comes to these message boards & plays D&D; but to call the novels "canon" is obsurd. Yes, officially MOST happenings EVENTUALLY transfer over to rulebooks, but if you're going to wait around for that to happen, and limit your campaigns accordingly, you're in a strange game group in my opinion. Except your discussing two different things here. Sure peoples campaigns don't have to follow ANY of the printed material, especially if someone has the old material. HOWEVER, since WOTC has said repeatedly novels are canon, it isn't as absurd as you seem to believe. If Shadow dies in a novel, it still doesn't matter how it effects other's games but official he would be dead in WOTC's version of FR. Hells even Ed doesn't play 3e rules and Shade hasn't returned in his version of the setting, nor has he even used the ToT's. I know for a fact that a lot of the DM's I gamed with around here WOULD NOT run the Spider Queen module because they were waiting 4+ years to find out how the Spider Queen novels ended. As a matter of fact, I was one of them even though I own the Spider Queen module. Will I kill off a NPC in my setting if it happens in canon FR via a novel? Hells no, not if it doesn't fit with my setting! Which is why Shandril still lives in my setting, because I didn't like how that novel ended. But she's still dead in canon material via a novel. Or Azoun IV for that matter, he isn't dead in my setting but again he died via a novel.
protonik 10-10-04, 01:10 PM	Maybe the removal of the novel forum and the rules restricting novels were implemented by WOTC to say "hey, the sourcebooks are canon and the novels make of what you will" without really saying it? Jason
GothicDan 10-10-04, 01:15 PM	Maybe the removal of the novel forum and the rules restricting novels were implemented by WOTC to say "hey, the sourcebooks are canon and the novels make of what you will" without really saying it? Or maybe not..? I am pretty sure if WotC wanted the novels to no longer be canon, they would come out and say it. And considering how many supplement authors actually write novels as well (Ed Greenwood and Rich Baker included), I don't think they're going to decide to make their own words non-canon.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 10-10-04, 01:38 PM	first off everyone here has to remember that WotC is a business. Number 1 in their book is making money; so if by linking novels directly to game rules, consumers would have to buy updated rulebooks more often than not just to keep up. And on the flip side, you would also have to purchase the novels to get more than a 1 paragraph description of a major FR event. I try to follow the official ongoings of the FR novels, but sometimes it's IMPOSSIBLE- the novels generally span 18 months in release dates. If some of you guys like waiting around for that, that's fine. I just think that defeats the whole purpose of the game- role playing and creating your own fantasy world, not waiting on books.
Kuje31 10-10-04, 01:40 PM	Maybe the removal of the novel forum and the rules restricting novels were implemented by WOTC to say "hey, the sourcebooks are canon and the novels make of what you will" without really saying it? Jason This isn't true. If WOTC said that then there would be NO novel discussions on these boards. We wouldn't be able to reference them AT ALL even when the topic deals with stuff that could be referenced through a novel or novels. And if WOTC said that then the rest of the Spider Queen novels, that came out after the Player's Guide, would not be canon, etc.
Kuje31 10-10-04, 01:46 PM	first off everyone here has to remember that WotC is a business. Number 1 in their book is making money; so if by linking novels directly to game rules, consumers would have to buy updated rulebooks more often than not just to keep up. And on the flip side, you would also have to purchase the novels to get more than a 1 paragraph description of a major FR event. I try to follow the official ongoings of the FR novels, but sometimes it's IMPOSSIBLE- the novels generally span 18 months in release dates. If some of you guys like waiting around for that, that's fine. I just think that defeats the whole purpose of the game- role playing and creating your own fantasy world, not waiting on books. The point here, is many people follow the canon official realms and want to include everything that TSR/WOTC puts out. This includes the ToT's, Azoun's death, the Shade's returning, The Rage of 1373, The orc attacks around the north, etc. Some of those were or are not printed in sourcebooks and so yes people wait around to find out how they end, especially if those events don't make it into a sourcebook. How is waiting on novels any different then waiting 6 months for a new sourcebook? Shrug, and no I am not saying I do that, except for the Spider Queen events, because you are right it could be years before we find out how things end. Which is again one of the most reasons stated that I've seen online and in person why DM's didn't like the Spider Queen module. "We have to wait almost 5 years to find out how the events end?! Darn that bites!"
protonik 10-10-04, 01:49 PM	Talk to Star Wars fans about Wizards being up front with policy changes. Still haven't been given a yes or no on whether they are canning the RPG or not... just silence. Jason
GothicDan 10-10-04, 01:58 PM	Exactly. Silence. And we have new books (novels and supplements) from WotC/FR constantly, and we have the game designers talking rather frequently with people online and answering our questions. And once more, I think that Rich Baker - the current head FR designer - would not write a trilogy and then go, "Oh, that's not canon." It has been a tradition for DECADES for AD&D books of all campaign settings to be canon. FR, Dragonlance, Ravenloft... Pretty much all except for Planescape.
Kuje31 10-10-04, 02:03 PM	Exactly. Silence. And we have new books (novels and supplements) from WotC/FR constantly, and we have the game designers talking rather frequently with people online and answering our questions. And once more, I think that Rich Baker - the current head FR designer - would not write a trilogy and then go, "Oh, that's not canon." It has been a tradition for DECADES for AD&D books of all campaign settings to be canon. FR, Dragonlance, Ravenloft... Pretty much all except for Planescape. Or Ed for that matter over on Candlekeep. I'm sure that if WOTC said to him, "Oh BTW Ed, your novels are no longer canon," he would have said something on his thread over there because he's said in the past to a reply to BigSister that yes there HAS TO BE a official TSR/WOTC canon to base your games off of. His reply to that question is in my huge file. :)
Baba Yaga 10-13-04, 02:43 AM	Why was that book a smaller softcover? (Also Magic of Faerun and Lords of Darkness for that matter) They could have easily made a big hardcover and done the entire North (Including Waterdeep) I wonder if the Waterdeep book will be a hard or softcover
Kuje31 10-13-04, 03:20 AM	Why was that book a smaller softcover? (Also Magic of Faerun and Lords of Darkness for that matter) They could have easily made a big hardcover and done the entire North (Including Waterdeep) I wonder if the Waterdeep book will be a hard or softcover It'll probably be hardcover since WOTC has said that most people prefer hardcover for thier sourcebooks cause they last longer. The other two FR sourcebooks were softcover because WOTC was trying to keep the price down, but again after getting feed back from people they decided to switch to hardcover. :)
rob4 10-13-04, 03:49 PM	I'm just curious about the comments some posters made about this book containing many errors. What are some of the other errors that people have noticed? I didn't really notice any glaring errors in this book, but I'm no expert.
Kuje31 10-13-04, 03:55 PM	I'm just curious about the comments some posters made about this book containing many errors. What are some of the other errors that people have noticed? I didn't really notice any glaring errors in this book, but I'm no expert. Off the top of my head since it's been years since we posted errors about that book on the boards. Wulfgar marrying the wrong person. Bruenor was still missing his eye. Rich turned Xara evil for no reason, except that Silverymoon "needed" a evil NPC even though she was good in 2e and had a faerie dragon familiar. (yes yes I know: Get over it Kuje! :)) There was others but I can't recall them all any longer. :)
protonik 10-13-04, 06:55 PM	It'll probably be hardcover since WOTC has said that most people prefer hardcover for thier sourcebooks cause they last longer. The other two FR sourcebooks were softcover because WOTC was trying to keep the price down, but again after getting feed back from people they decided to switch to hardcover. :) Note that prices have remained right around the same as they were before the hardcover changeover. They went hardcover because people complained about the prices for the books and the comparable page counts to some D&D hardcovers. Stupid arguement was "you are paying for the FR name on the cover"... not a licensed product wise guy. Jason