Has Ed said anything about the SW? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Has Ed said anything about the SW? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Baptor
05-31-07, 04:21 AM Hey everyone,

Right now I am in a huge conundrum about the SW. Whether or not to actually use it in my campaigns, what version of its lore I will accept as canon, etc. We all know the mechanical issues and glaring inconsistencies when it comes to the new fangled Shadow Weave and the lore behind it that has been revised and changed several times already.

I put alot of weight on things the old man says, so does anyone know if Ed has made any statements on the SW or how he feels about it?
Old Sage
05-31-07, 08:33 AM Ed has discussed the Shadow Weave, and provided some insights on how he thinks it should relate to the FR setting.

Though, the Shadow Weave isn't a creation of Ed's, so the extent of information he can offer is somewhat limited. As he's said often before providing a response when asked a particular question about the Shadow Weave in the Realms -

"Rich Baker is THE expert on the Shadow Weave..."
Faraer
05-31-07, 01:13 PM As always generous and diplomatic, Ed hasn't discussed what he 'really feels' about the Shadow Weave and I don't think it's fruitful to guess.

The questions are: does it fit in the Realms that you know? Do you like it? Does it help tell stories you want to tell? Unless you have three strong positive answers, I wouldn't bother with it.
The Ubbergeek
05-31-07, 07:46 PM Ed said anything that come in books is canon, so here it is.
GothicDan
05-31-07, 09:29 PM It is.

Unless you don't want it to be in your personal campaigns, as Faraer pointed out.

Never stick to canon if for some reason you don't like it. I sure as heck wouldn't (ToT out the window, the Last Mythal series, Return of the Archwizards, the Rage stuff, Kara-Tur, AO, Shadow Weave, the majority of the Netheril product, etc., all right out the window.)
ShadezofDis
06-01-07, 12:01 PM Unless I come up with a good reason to use the SW in my game it won't really be in my Realms, I mean it will be, but as a secret of Shar's church.

Heck, even if I use it my PCs won't know what in the hell is going on. :)

Anyhow, I don't use a lot of canon themes. Sometimes it creates more work for me but that's the price I pay :)
Red_Wizard
06-01-07, 12:34 PM For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore.

Granted it works for the person making the changes, but if you go so far out of your way to omit on many things, some/ many of them drastic changes that have happened (IE: most of GD's list) I fail to see how it can still be called the Realms.

I put it to the example of people moding cars. Sure you may have done some great things with that old '67 mustang, by by the time you're done, what is truly left of what you began with? Maybe a few loose screws, a rusted bolt or two, and the name you peeled off, to slap back on the hood, but on a whole, it is a completely different thing.
ShadezofDis
06-01-07, 12:47 PM For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore.

Granted it works for the person making the changes, but if you go so far out of your way to omit on many things, some/ many of them drastic changes that have happened (IE: most of GD's list) I fail to see how it can still be called the Realms.

I can certainly see where you are coming from but most of the things in GD's list have only happened in the past few years (or decades if you include the ToT) so it really isn't all that drastic a change (granted, a lot of what's thrown out are RSEs but AFAIK most of the RSEs haven't had a whole ton of development and could be left out without compromising the integrity of the Realms)

In other words, I think you'd have to deviate a bit more to lose the feeling of the Realms :)
GothicDan
06-01-07, 01:27 PM For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore.

Granted it works for the person making the changes, but if you go so far out of your way to omit on many things, some/ many of them drastic changes that have happened (IE: most of GD's list) I fail to see how it can still be called the Realms.

Because then it more resembles the Realms as originally printed, with a closer concept to how Ed created it.

It all depends on how you define "The Realms."

To me, there's two different "Realms: that in print, and that which Ed created and conceived.

Since I vastly prefer Ed's style of play (mine has been the same, even before I got into the Realms) and his level of detail, I stick with Ed's Realms.

In contrast to your statement, I often ask how people can play the current Realms and still call it the Realms. I base definitions typically on their original meaning. If they deviate too far, then they get a new label, for good or ill.

For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore.

I put it to the example of people moding cars. Sure you may have done some great things with that old '67 mustang, by by the time you're done, what is truly left of what you began with? Maybe a few loose screws, a rusted bolt or two, and the name you peeled off, to slap back on the hood, but on a whole, it is a completely different thing.

I agree completely.

The 1E Grey Box Realms was the original 67 Mustang. TSR and WotC has changed it a lot. Can you blame me for wanting the original, when I genuinely like it more?
Red_Wizard
06-02-07, 08:07 PM No, I agree I liked the original a good deal aswell, but time has changed, and the realms have changed with it. I don't look at it as the modern realms being the suped up version of the first pass, just the continued expansion of an already indepth world.

I also don't find any of the stuff broken, rediculous, or destructive to Ed's true view. Granted he lost control of the creative reins some time back (though still retains some manner of creative insight from time to time), but that doesn't mean the vision has been lost, or even distorted.

Sticking with the first pass, or throwing away the newer stuff, is like buying half a carton of milk, or a living room set without a couch. Sure it might look nice, or taste good in part, but you aren't getting the whole product in all it's glory.

Enjoying the setting for me, means dealing with the good an bad, and seeing it as a way of bringing an aspect of reality, to my secondary reality :P. So hearing people remove all manner of things, simply because it doesn't conform to a very early concept of the realms seems a little rediculous.

The Realms are as they are, with the past gone, and the presant being reality. Thus it makes the current one the vintage mustang, and the past (or a modified version of it) the pretender to the crown.
GothicDan
06-02-07, 10:01 PM That's like saying you don't understand why people would prefer a 67 'Stang to 98 one, though.

The latter is a continuation of the former, but some sincerely prefer the former.

If I like the new stuff, I include it. If I don't, I don't. The Realms as presented was largely the 'full living room set,' with a few little knick knacks missing for DMs to do what they wished.

The new Realms basically threw out half of the old stuff and replaced it with strange new art deco furniture. It looks fine, but to some, it clashes with the older stuff.
Faraer
06-02-07, 10:09 PM So hearing people remove all manner of things, simply because it doesn't conform to a very early concept of the realms seems a little rediculous.No campaign can include everything, so inevitably people will use and foreground the elements they like.The Realms are as they are, with the past gone, and the presant being reality.This is the part of your post I disagree with. Through the miracles of memory and extrasomatic knowledge, this 'past', which is actually outside time, is accessible to anyone who reads through a copy of TSR #1031.
Bloodtide_the_Red
06-02-07, 11:27 PM Ed must like the Shadow Weave enough. He does have a story in the book Realms of Shadow. If he did not like the Sw, there would be no story.

I'm sure there is a Malaugrym/Shadow Weave/Shade story out there just waiting to be written. And we know Ed likes the Malaugrym....

BT
GothicDan
06-02-07, 11:37 PM Ed is extremely gracious and mature in that he never openly decries any aspects of new additions to the Realms. He leaves that to us.

He did say, however, that the SW has "always fit awkwardly into the Realms," or something along those lines.
MerrikCale
06-02-07, 11:41 PM It is.

Unless you don't want it to be in your personal campaigns, as Faraer pointed out.

Never stick to canon if for some reason you don't like it. I sure as heck wouldn't (ToT out the window, the Last Mythal series, Return of the Archwizards, the Rage stuff, Kara-Tur, AO, Shadow Weave, the majority of the Netheril product, etc., all right out the window.)

I agree with you except I like Kara-Tur and the Rage novels. I'm still up in the air on the Last Mythal, but the rest.....
Red_Wizard
06-03-07, 08:05 AM That's like saying you don't understand why people would prefer a 67 'Stang to 98 one, though.

There is a differance in saying "I like the old and play the old" and saying " I like the old, and add whats suits me from the new". from the overall view of the Realms, yes the older version would fit the analogy of the '67 better, but from a content perspective, the better of the two is IMO the current one. Thus deviating from the current one, is ruining a good thing.

Not to mention by changing either, you are still perpetrating the original point of modifying what was fine to begin with ;):P

The latter is a continuation of the former, but some sincerely prefer the former.

I know it is a continuation of the former, and I know some prefer the former, but then why include any of the latter, unless the former could benifet from it? And if there is benifet to be had, why not simply use the latter to begin with? ;)

If I like the new stuff, I include it. If I don't, I don't. The Realms as presented was largely the 'full living room set,' with a few little knick knacks missing for DMs to do what they wished.

As it stands now, I use everything, and any fuzzy parts, based on the rest, are easy enough to smooth out. You say "I threw this out, and I threw that out", Why not just use the original, and ignore anything modern.

That for me is more acceptable, than ruining what I see as a good thing overall (In both time periods). Not that i'm saying anyone needs my blessing to play the game as they see fit, or that I hope to change opinions with what I say here.

Just picking and choosing doesn't really work when it's something like this you do it for.

The new Realms basically threw out half of the old stuff and replaced it with strange new art deco furniture. It looks fine, but to some, it clashes with the older stuff.

Or you could look at it as improving, and expanding upon areas that needed it. There are some great things that happened in the 70's, but I definatly don't want their furniture. Maybe it is time to realise you're missing something, and spend the little bit extra to fix up the decor ;):P

Ultimatly though, this wasn't/ isn't meant to be directed at you in particular, just using you as an example. I have never been sure why people throw out stuff, that isn't doing any harm where it is, and in some cases improves on what was there already.

Granted the rules themselves have ruined some things *cough* Red Wizard *cough*, but the lore remains just as good, if not better than when it all began.

No campaign can include everything, so inevitably people will use and foreground the elements they like.

I disagree. Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it's not there. Were I to play with GD, i'd be limited by the things he has changed from the current setting. What if I wanted to have an encounter with the city of Shade? What if I made a really good BG, I wanted to play out as an elf after the war against Sarya?

With the changes made, i'd be up shite creek without a paddle.

This is the part of your post I disagree with. Through the miracles of memory and extrasomatic knowledge, this 'past', which is actually outside time, is accessible to anyone who reads through a copy of TSR #1031.

I wasn't saying that the original no longer existed, only that it has been subsumed into what is now "The Realms". Granted you can still pick up a copy of the 1st pass, but it is like reading an out of date textbook, or a novel that has been ripped in half.

It might still be informative, but is not the "true" Realms.

People argue that Ed's first pass is the true one, but that is solely argument based off prefarence. The fact remains, his Realms, has evolved into what we see here today.
XHereticX
06-03-07, 08:23 AM No, I agree I liked the original a good deal aswell, but time has changed, and the realms have changed with it. I don't look at it as the modern realms being the suped up version of the first pass, just the continued expansion of an already indepth world.

I also don't find any of the stuff broken, rediculous, or destructive to Ed's true view. Granted he lost control of the creative reins some time back (though still retains some manner of creative insight from time to time), but that doesn't mean the vision has been lost, or even distorted.

Sticking with the first pass, or throwing away the newer stuff, is like buying half a carton of milk, or a living room set without a couch. Sure it might look nice, or taste good in part, but you aren't getting the whole product in all it's glory.

Enjoying the setting for me, means dealing with the good an bad, and seeing it as a way of bringing an aspect of reality, to my secondary reality :P. So hearing people remove all manner of things, simply because it doesn't conform to a very early concept of the realms seems a little rediculous.

The Realms are as they are, with the past gone, and the presant being reality. Thus it makes the current one the vintage mustang, and the past (or a modified version of it) the pretender to the crown.

That is most definatly NOT the case. After all these years havn't you seen that in the Realms, the past is the key to the present and future?

But I partly agree with you, you shouldn't deny canontical changes just because they disrupt one's "perfect" view of the realms, but everyone has the choice not to use these changes or incorperate them into the distant background.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Baptor 05-31-07, 04:21 AM	Hey everyone, Right now I am in a huge conundrum about the SW. Whether or not to actually use it in my campaigns, what version of its lore I will accept as canon, etc. We all know the mechanical issues and glaring inconsistencies when it comes to the new fangled Shadow Weave and the lore behind it that has been revised and changed several times already. I put alot of weight on things the old man says, so does anyone know if Ed has made any statements on the SW or how he feels about it?
Old Sage 05-31-07, 08:33 AM	Ed has discussed the Shadow Weave, and provided some insights on how he thinks it should relate to the FR setting. Though, the Shadow Weave isn't a creation of Ed's, so the extent of information he can offer is somewhat limited. As he's said often before providing a response when asked a particular question about the Shadow Weave in the Realms - "Rich Baker is THE expert on the Shadow Weave..."
Faraer 05-31-07, 01:13 PM	As always generous and diplomatic, Ed hasn't discussed what he 'really feels' about the Shadow Weave and I don't think it's fruitful to guess. The questions are: does it fit in the Realms that you know? Do you like it? Does it help tell stories you want to tell? Unless you have three strong positive answers, I wouldn't bother with it.
The Ubbergeek 05-31-07, 07:46 PM	Ed said anything that come in books is canon, so here it is.
GothicDan 05-31-07, 09:29 PM	It is. Unless you don't want it to be in your personal campaigns, as Faraer pointed out. Never stick to canon if for some reason you don't like it. I sure as heck wouldn't (ToT out the window, the Last Mythal series, Return of the Archwizards, the Rage stuff, Kara-Tur, AO, Shadow Weave, the majority of the Netheril product, etc., all right out the window.)
ShadezofDis 06-01-07, 12:01 PM	Unless I come up with a good reason to use the SW in my game it won't really be in my Realms, I mean it will be, but as a secret of Shar's church. Heck, even if I use it my PCs won't know what in the hell is going on. :) Anyhow, I don't use a lot of canon themes. Sometimes it creates more work for me but that's the price I pay :)
Red_Wizard 06-01-07, 12:34 PM	For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore. Granted it works for the person making the changes, but if you go so far out of your way to omit on many things, some/ many of them drastic changes that have happened (IE: most of GD's list) I fail to see how it can still be called the Realms. I put it to the example of people moding cars. Sure you may have done some great things with that old '67 mustang, by by the time you're done, what is truly left of what you began with? Maybe a few loose screws, a rusted bolt or two, and the name you peeled off, to slap back on the hood, but on a whole, it is a completely different thing.
ShadezofDis 06-01-07, 12:47 PM	For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore. Granted it works for the person making the changes, but if you go so far out of your way to omit on many things, some/ many of them drastic changes that have happened (IE: most of GD's list) I fail to see how it can still be called the Realms. I can certainly see where you are coming from but most of the things in GD's list have only happened in the past few years (or decades if you include the ToT) so it really isn't all that drastic a change (granted, a lot of what's thrown out are RSEs but AFAIK most of the RSEs haven't had a whole ton of development and could be left out without compromising the integrity of the Realms) In other words, I think you'd have to deviate a bit more to lose the feeling of the Realms :)
GothicDan 06-01-07, 01:27 PM	For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore. Granted it works for the person making the changes, but if you go so far out of your way to omit on many things, some/ many of them drastic changes that have happened (IE: most of GD's list) I fail to see how it can still be called the Realms. Because then it more resembles the Realms as originally printed, with a closer concept to how Ed created it. It all depends on how you define "The Realms." To me, there's two different "Realms: that in print, and that which Ed created and conceived. Since I vastly prefer Ed's style of play (mine has been the same, even before I got into the Realms) and his level of detail, I stick with Ed's Realms. In contrast to your statement, I often ask how people can play the current Realms and still call it the Realms. I base definitions typically on their original meaning. If they deviate too far, then they get a new label, for good or ill. For me personally, I begin to have issues when people start throwing so much out of the Realms, that it ceases looking like the realms anymore. I put it to the example of people moding cars. Sure you may have done some great things with that old '67 mustang, by by the time you're done, what is truly left of what you began with? Maybe a few loose screws, a rusted bolt or two, and the name you peeled off, to slap back on the hood, but on a whole, it is a completely different thing. I agree completely. The 1E Grey Box Realms was the original 67 Mustang. TSR and WotC has changed it a lot. Can you blame me for wanting the original, when I genuinely like it more?
Red_Wizard 06-02-07, 08:07 PM	No, I agree I liked the original a good deal aswell, but time has changed, and the realms have changed with it. I don't look at it as the modern realms being the suped up version of the first pass, just the continued expansion of an already indepth world. I also don't find any of the stuff broken, rediculous, or destructive to Ed's true view. Granted he lost control of the creative reins some time back (though still retains some manner of creative insight from time to time), but that doesn't mean the vision has been lost, or even distorted. Sticking with the first pass, or throwing away the newer stuff, is like buying half a carton of milk, or a living room set without a couch. Sure it might look nice, or taste good in part, but you aren't getting the whole product in all it's glory. Enjoying the setting for me, means dealing with the good an bad, and seeing it as a way of bringing an aspect of reality, to my secondary reality :P. So hearing people remove all manner of things, simply because it doesn't conform to a very early concept of the realms seems a little rediculous. The Realms are as they are, with the past gone, and the presant being reality. Thus it makes the current one the vintage mustang, and the past (or a modified version of it) the pretender to the crown.
GothicDan 06-02-07, 10:01 PM	That's like saying you don't understand why people would prefer a 67 'Stang to 98 one, though. The latter is a continuation of the former, but some sincerely prefer the former. If I like the new stuff, I include it. If I don't, I don't. The Realms as presented was largely the 'full living room set,' with a few little knick knacks missing for DMs to do what they wished. The new Realms basically threw out half of the old stuff and replaced it with strange new art deco furniture. It looks fine, but to some, it clashes with the older stuff.
Faraer 06-02-07, 10:09 PM	So hearing people remove all manner of things, simply because it doesn't conform to a very early concept of the realms seems a little rediculous.No campaign can include everything, so inevitably people will use and foreground the elements they like.The Realms are as they are, with the past gone, and the presant being reality.This is the part of your post I disagree with. Through the miracles of memory and extrasomatic knowledge, this 'past', which is actually outside time, is accessible to anyone who reads through a copy of TSR #1031.
Bloodtide_the_Red 06-02-07, 11:27 PM	Ed must like the Shadow Weave enough. He does have a story in the book Realms of Shadow. If he did not like the Sw, there would be no story. I'm sure there is a Malaugrym/Shadow Weave/Shade story out there just waiting to be written. And we know Ed likes the Malaugrym.... BT
GothicDan 06-02-07, 11:37 PM	Ed is extremely gracious and mature in that he never openly decries any aspects of new additions to the Realms. He leaves that to us. He did say, however, that the SW has "always fit awkwardly into the Realms," or something along those lines.
MerrikCale 06-02-07, 11:41 PM	It is. Unless you don't want it to be in your personal campaigns, as Faraer pointed out. Never stick to canon if for some reason you don't like it. I sure as heck wouldn't (ToT out the window, the Last Mythal series, Return of the Archwizards, the Rage stuff, Kara-Tur, AO, Shadow Weave, the majority of the Netheril product, etc., all right out the window.) I agree with you except I like Kara-Tur and the Rage novels. I'm still up in the air on the Last Mythal, but the rest.....
Red_Wizard 06-03-07, 08:05 AM	That's like saying you don't understand why people would prefer a 67 'Stang to 98 one, though. There is a differance in saying "I like the old and play the old" and saying " I like the old, and add whats suits me from the new". from the overall view of the Realms, yes the older version would fit the analogy of the '67 better, but from a content perspective, the better of the two is IMO the current one. Thus deviating from the current one, is ruining a good thing. Not to mention by changing either, you are still perpetrating the original point of modifying what was fine to begin with ;):P The latter is a continuation of the former, but some sincerely prefer the former. I know it is a continuation of the former, and I know some prefer the former, but then why include any of the latter, unless the former could benifet from it? And if there is benifet to be had, why not simply use the latter to begin with? ;) If I like the new stuff, I include it. If I don't, I don't. The Realms as presented was largely the 'full living room set,' with a few little knick knacks missing for DMs to do what they wished. As it stands now, I use everything, and any fuzzy parts, based on the rest, are easy enough to smooth out. You say "I threw this out, and I threw that out", Why not just use the original, and ignore anything modern. That for me is more acceptable, than ruining what I see as a good thing overall (In both time periods). Not that i'm saying anyone needs my blessing to play the game as they see fit, or that I hope to change opinions with what I say here. Just picking and choosing doesn't really work when it's something like this you do it for. The new Realms basically threw out half of the old stuff and replaced it with strange new art deco furniture. It looks fine, but to some, it clashes with the older stuff. Or you could look at it as improving, and expanding upon areas that needed it. There are some great things that happened in the 70's, but I definatly don't want their furniture. Maybe it is time to realise you're missing something, and spend the little bit extra to fix up the decor ;):P Ultimatly though, this wasn't/ isn't meant to be directed at you in particular, just using you as an example. I have never been sure why people throw out stuff, that isn't doing any harm where it is, and in some cases improves on what was there already. Granted the rules themselves have ruined some things cough Red Wizard cough, but the lore remains just as good, if not better than when it all began. No campaign can include everything, so inevitably people will use and foreground the elements they like. I disagree. Just because you don't see everything, doesn't mean it's not there. Were I to play with GD, i'd be limited by the things he has changed from the current setting. What if I wanted to have an encounter with the city of Shade? What if I made a really good BG, I wanted to play out as an elf after the war against Sarya? With the changes made, i'd be up shite creek without a paddle. This is the part of your post I disagree with. Through the miracles of memory and extrasomatic knowledge, this 'past', which is actually outside time, is accessible to anyone who reads through a copy of TSR #1031. I wasn't saying that the original no longer existed, only that it has been subsumed into what is now "The Realms". Granted you can still pick up a copy of the 1st pass, but it is like reading an out of date textbook, or a novel that has been ripped in half. It might still be informative, but is not the "true" Realms. People argue that Ed's first pass is the true one, but that is solely argument based off prefarence. The fact remains, his Realms, has evolved into what we see here today.
XHereticX 06-03-07, 08:23 AM	No, I agree I liked the original a good deal aswell, but time has changed, and the realms have changed with it. I don't look at it as the modern realms being the suped up version of the first pass, just the continued expansion of an already indepth world. I also don't find any of the stuff broken, rediculous, or destructive to Ed's true view. Granted he lost control of the creative reins some time back (though still retains some manner of creative insight from time to time), but that doesn't mean the vision has been lost, or even distorted. Sticking with the first pass, or throwing away the newer stuff, is like buying half a carton of milk, or a living room set without a couch. Sure it might look nice, or taste good in part, but you aren't getting the whole product in all it's glory. Enjoying the setting for me, means dealing with the good an bad, and seeing it as a way of bringing an aspect of reality, to my secondary reality :P. So hearing people remove all manner of things, simply because it doesn't conform to a very early concept of the realms seems a little rediculous. The Realms are as they are, with the past gone, and the presant being reality. Thus it makes the current one the vintage mustang, and the past (or a modified version of it) the pretender to the crown. That is most definatly NOT the case. After all these years havn't you seen that in the Realms, the past is the key to the present and future? But I partly agree with you, you shouldn't deny canontical changes just because they disrupt one's "perfect" view of the realms, but everyone has the choice not to use these changes or incorperate them into the distant background.