community.wizards.com/bookclub/blog/2010...
Cheers
Well worth reading. Hopefully it'll help out some of those who really need to read it... see if maybe you can sneak that into the Neverwinter book as a sidewall of text, I think it'll help a lot of people. 
That said, how does one "get over" changes to a setting that make a person feel like they're no longer connected to it or invested in it? I'm really being serious here, because I miss that feeling of investment.
Or is there a certain point where people just "move on" to other things if they can't stand certain changes? And is that what companies/designers want and intend, that they expect to lose the older fanbase in order to attract a new one?
It's a good essay, with good advice generally. It definitely addresses canon from a rational viewpoint, and it'll be useful for many people.
That said, how does one "get over" changes to a setting that make a person feel like they're no longer connected to it or invested in it? I'm really being serious here, because I miss that feeling of investment.
Or is there a certain point where people just "move on" to other things if they can't stand certain changes? And is that what companies/designers want and intend, that they expect to lose the older fanbase in order to attract a new one?
It seems pretty obvious we're talking at the 4e FR leap, so let me be clear in my opinion on this: I earnestly believe that the designers were trying their best to please everyone--or at least, as many as possible. These are professional people whose livelihoods and families depend on them to sell products--it's not like they wanted to cheese off the very people who make that possible.
From my perspective as a designer, I would *never* intentionally alienate an existing fan or fanbase, but I do recognize that things will happen that do have the unintentional effect of pushing people out of it. The things that you most love might change--that's just something that happens in entertainment, life, etc.
Let's take one of my favorite examples: A fellow writer of mine once talked about your "Drizzt virginity"--i.e., when you start reading Drizzt and you love the story so much and you're so invested in it . . . but then time passes, and it just isn't the same for you anymore. Maybe it evolves in a direction you don't necessarily like, or one of the characters you love dies or does something to change your view of that character. Or maybe you stick with it, but you might be spending more of your energies to read it when at first you just blazed through it without effort. Regardless of the actual consequence, you can never get your Drizzt virginity back--the books are never going to be quite the same for you.
The Realms are a macrocosm of this. When you first discover the setting (or at some point early on in your Realms playing career), it's a major and memorable experience, and that is, basically, the Realms for you--ingrained in your subconscious in a particular way at a particular canonical state. For me, this is pretty much a combination of the 2e boxed set and the 3e FRCS--the 3e changes seemed like a logical extension to me, and I didn't have to expend effort to make it all fit into the mold of "the Forgotten Realms" that I had in my head.
If, for instance, I'd come into the Realms through The Year of Rogue Dragons or the War of the Spider Queen, I'd see the Realms through that lens, and my basic assumption as regards canon (how the Realms is "supposed to be") would fit in with those book series. The 3e FRCS wouldn't make as much sense to me as the 3.5 PGtF, for example, and all the 2e supplements would be the distant past.
What I'm getting at in the article is that the Realms is and *should be* something different for everyone. If the setting sourcebooks/canon changes to something you don't recognize as the Realms, then you should by all means continue playing in your version of the Realms--not come and arbitrarily declare it "not the Realms." It might not be the Realms for you, but it is definitely the Realms for someone else.
Myself, I find that my affection (some might say obsession) for the setting allows me to follow through all sorts of crazy changes--blue fire, worlds colliding, etc.--but that *doesn't* mean that I love the Realms any more or less than you do. I, like anyone else, cling to those things that appeal to me--that fit in with my vision of what the Realms is--and let the others slip past without much acknowledgment.
There has never been and will never be a "one-size-fits-all" gaming product (not everyone loves Mario Brothers, for instance). Designers know this, and designers assume this, and they just try to put out a product they think will most likely have the broadest appeal possible.
If you're going to buy into a setting or a game of any kind--particularly a RPG--then you're going to have to be prepared to make changes to do your most important job: make it fun. You find things that appeal to you, and you ignore ones that don't.
So anyone else invested in the Realms who doesn't like the 4e FR as presented in the FRCG, etc., has a choice to make: stick with it (modifying as you need to), or don't (and either play in the past Realms or find another game that appeals to you as much).
And don't misunderstand: this isn't a fresh ultimatum, but rather the choice that you've *always* had, everytime there's been a change to the Realms. To most, the 4e FR is just the most drastic shift we've seen in a long, long time.
And even so, I don't believe it's all that big a change, really. Sure, there are some new countries and some new people in charge. But the things about the setting that draw me in are still there--the culture, the plots, the magic, the sword-fighting, the awesome stories. I choose things to focus on to keep it alive in my heart and mind.
And anyone ever playing in the Realms (or any setting) can do just the same thing--or choose not to. You get out of it what you put into it.
It is, and always will be, your Realms--do with it (or not) as you will.
Cheers
I know one of the things I've found I'm really loving about being a new DM and running the Scales of War campaign is CHANGING it. Swapping out monsters that make more sense to me and my players, figuring out which villains could tie into each character's back story, inserting npc's that the story doesn't call for, etc.. At the same time though I'm running a pre-made campaign and I have to make sure that if I want to stick with the overarching plot of that campaign, I can't break it too much.
As it is with most things, it's all about balance.
Great essay Erik. However, I must say I disagree with your premise.
1. What you write is absolutely true. A DM or a group can either choose to ignore or incorporate cannon. This choice has always existed. However, you're looking at the problem logically when the real problem is rooted in emotional perception. The perception of the Realms can vary from individual to individual, but fundamentally it's a gut or emotional attachment / affinity for a setting. It impacts immersion and enjoyment. Allow me to explain.
Let us say we have a player who has read every Drizzt and Elminster novel. This player, who is new to tabletop gaming, has managed to not only find a group of individuals who are experienced in tabletop gaming, but people who seem to be equally enthusiastic about the setting. So they sit down to start a campaign together. The new player is bubbling with excitement about the potential possibility of "meeting" Elminster and Drizzt in the game. He eventually comes to the realization that he's a level one character (having previously no knowledge of what a level even was). He ends up stuck in some backwater village that isn't even worthy of being listed on the map, attempting to find an artifact for some wizard he's never heard of before... Meanwhile, he knows that Elminster must be off somewhere saving the world.
In this case, the player was hoping to live out the fantasies that he had experienced through the novels. Maybe he didn't want to meet Elminster or Drizzt. Maybe he wanted to play a character just like them. If he has a good DM then that DM will make the story the new player experiences exciting and fun. He'll forget all about Elminster and become engrossed in what the group is doing. However, there is no guarantee of a good DM. Maybe the DM simply flatly tells him, "Elminster is off saving the world. You should focus on finding this artifact." That's implicitly stating: You're not important. Elminster is important. Be a good errand boy and do as you're told.
Conversely, maybe it isn't a new player at all. The player has read every Elminster novel and loves the character to pieces. Elminster embodies the Realms to this player. The Realms without Elminster is like peanut butter without jelly. However, the DM has decided that the novels are merely propaganda - all complete lies and fabrication. The true Elminster is an evil scheming worshiper of Cyric, and the players have just discovered the truth, revealing Elminster as the big bad for their campaign.
In shock and horror the player has a character they adore (in their eyes) butchered. Immersion is broken. Their enjoyment of the game has been undermined if not outright shattered.
In both cases the players had a perception of the Realms and the Realms they experienced didn't live up to their expectations.
Perception is really the secret villain that is behind the cannon wars. Some people can handle radical changes to the setting, such as your ability to endure the 4E changes. Others can handle minor changes to the setting. However, it varies from individual to individual. As a DM how do you know where the line is for a player? Everyone is different. Even if you attempt to find a middle ground all you end up with is everyone only slightly disliking what you've done instead of being repulsed by it.
Thus, as a DM there is a large incentive to stick closely to cannon. To not REALLY blow things up or drastically modify prominent NPC's. The middle ground becomes, "We're setting our campaign in Tethyr instead of Cormyr because the cannon doesn't really touch on Tethyr much."
2. This may become a problem once more in 4E depending on if they begin to release source books again. The problem is one of the advancing cannon. Let's say I really love the Red Wizards of Thay. My players have interacted with them on numerous occasions, and I'm really excited about the Unapproachable East coming out. A detailed look at the entire region! I can't wait. I begin to imagine ways of directing the campaign toward Thay itself and making good use of the source book. I pre-order from Amazon and wait until it comes out and arrives.
When the book is finally within my hands I am horrified. Unknown to me a novel trilogy had come out completely modifying Thay and effectively (in my eyes at least) destroying it. Tam has taken over, the Red Wizards as I once knew them are no more, and the entire reason for purchasing the book was for naught.
It's certainly true that I could ignore everything that happened in Thay, or switch things around to fit my campaign (making lemonade out of lemons). However, the bitter taste is still within my mouth. My fun, enjoyment, and immersion in the Realms has been undermined by changes that I didn't even know about. Even if I choose to ignore the changes, I could feel cheated for buying the source book lessening the changes that I'll purchase others.
Maybe my sense of betrayal is so high that I feel divorced from cannon entirely. I swear off buying anymore FR source books or products, I no longer need them. I have everything I need in the FRCS.
3. The last point I want to make is what you discussed in your final thoughts. It is there that we find ourselves in disagreement, more so than in the main body of your argument. I do not view the game as belonging to the DM. It belongs to everyone, collectively. The role of the DM, for me, is one of conflict provider and solver. The story is collaborative and belongs to everyone. Everyone contributes to it. The players are the central characters in the story, while the DM handles the antagonist(s), secondary characters, and general backdrop. Any good story needs conflict and the DM's job is to provide it.
However, it is also the DM's job to ensure that everyone is having fun. If a player's immersion or fun is being hindered by another player or the DM, they ***should*** bring it up. The group then can collectively discuss it then or later after the session has ended, or alternatively the DM could choose to handle it privately with the player(s).
That doesn't necessarily mean the issue will be solved, but a DM shouldn't, at least in my view, immediately shoot them down with: My way or the highway. Concerns should be legitimately considered and addressed.
For example, my squick factor is extremely high. I can tolerate a great deal of dark morbidity. I have to be conscious of the fact that not everyone has the same degree of tolerance, and so when I approach situations in which such things are appropriate I need to be aware of this fact.
This is one of the reasons being the DM is hard work. You're not just running the game for your own enjoyment, but the enjoyment of others as well. Since we aren't all carbon copies of each other, having different tastes, different preferences, and different styles there needs to be both a tolerance of those differences as well as an understanding of limitations. All of this is in pursuit of the elusive goal of fun. Sometimes you hit it out of the park and others you strike out.
In closing, I want to talk about 4E and how it fits into all of this. For me personally, I have a great deal of dislike of many of the changes made to the setting. I'm not a universal hater, though, and I'm highly supportive of the new edition. My support is mostly rooted in the fact that 4E helped me ***FEEL*** liberated from the cannon. So many major changes were made that even an avid lover of the setting could find one or two things they disliked and wanted to change. The lack of detail requires a DM to fill in the blanks, and once you actually have to put in some work you suddenly realize that there is no reason that you shouldn't change a region dramatically to suit your tastes and needs.
I could have done this in 3E had I wanted, but I was reluctant. I was afraid that drastic changes would make the setting "not the Realms." That people's perception of the setting was so strong that it'd be an immersion breaker for me to make insane and radical changes. The spell plague and the time jump were the ultimate Deus Ex Machina. I could change anything I wanted and have it make perfect sense because even the avid lover of the 4E setting likely isn't going to find it immersion breaking.
Saying something like: "I blew up Waterdeep." Is likely to illicit, "Good. WotC already butchered the place, blowing it up at least put it out of its misery." Whereas, in the previous edition the same player could be horrified, "You blew up Waterdeep?! Why?! It was my favorite city in FR, can't we at least get a chance to save it or can you just make some smaller modifications to it?!"
When 4E was announced I was hopeful. When it was released I was horrified, then liberated, and finally empowered. Is Elminster a problem? Not anymore, he died in the spell plague. Don't like the changes to Thay? Don't worry, Thay is completely different. Don't like Dragonborn? They don't exist. So on and so forth.
It was for that reason alone that I embraced 4E over previous editions. I mine the FRCG for ideas, draw upon old source books for inspiration / guidance, set my own theme and mood... I feel as if I look over a world with endless possibilities, whereas in 3E I felt as if I viewed a world of limitations. I felt that I was literally boxed into gaming in areas that were only lightly touched upon in cannon, especially if the campaign was going to lead to sweeping regional changes.
All of the limitations that existed were in my mind and in the minds of the players. There was no fundamental reason that I couldn't make sweeping changes to the Realms in 3E, but it didn't ***FEEL*** that way, at least not to me. I felt as if I was sharing a world with people outside of my gaming group and I had to make room for them and their changes. I didn't like that, but I didn't feel as if I had the ability to simply ignore them outright.
My perception was "tainted" (what you've labeled here as "Drizzt virginity") by my knowledge of the setting and the cannon. I simply knew too much, and that knowledge was like an emotional / mental shackle. I felt that I couldn't simply blow up Thay, even if I wanted to, after all I had purchased the Unapproachable East! Did I really want that money going to waste? 
*snip* The perception of the Realms can vary from individual to individual, but fundamentally it's a gut or emotional attachment / affinity for a setting. It impacts immersion and enjoyment. Allow me to explain.Let us say we have a player who has read every Drizzt and Elminster novel. This player, who is new to tabletop gaming, has managed to not only find a group of individuals who are experienced in tabletop gaming, but people who seem to be equally enthusiastic about the setting. So they sit down to start a campaign together. The new player is bubbling with excitement about the potential possibility of "meeting" Elminster and Drizzt in the game. He eventually comes to the realization that he's a level one character (having previously no knowledge of what a level even was). He ends up stuck in some backwater village that isn't even worthy of being listed on the map, attempting to find an artifact for some wizard he's never heard of before... Meanwhile, he knows that Elminster must be off somewhere saving the world.
In this case, the player was hoping to live out the fantasies that he had experienced through the novels. Maybe he didn't want to meet Elminster or Drizzt. Maybe he wanted to play a character just like them. If he has a good DM then that DM will make the story the new player experiences exciting and fun. He'll forget all about Elminster and become engrossed in what the group is doing. However, there is no guarantee of a good DM. Maybe the DM simply flatly tells him, "Elminster is off saving the world. You should focus on finding this artifact." That's implicitly stating: You're not important. Elminster is important. Be a good errand boy and do as you're told.
*snip (as the rest of the example reflects this same thing*
That sounds like a DM not doing his job, which is to make a campaign that the player will enjoy. Why *can't* you use super high level NPCs in your game, if that's what the players want? There is nothing stopping you, other than potentially a lack of imagination--but if you're looking for ways to integrate Elminster with lower-level characters, read some of the novel series about Elminster; he's hanging around with low-level people all the time, people who *still* manage to do cool and important things. Why can't Elminster be a wise old sage the players meet and consult in the game? Why can't the low-level PCs stumble upon some plot to destroy Elminster and foil it in some clever way that doesn't get them blown up all over the place?
The whole "evil Elminster" idea is great and all, but if it upsets your game/players, then YOU AS THE DM are making the mistake. Being a DM is as much about running with cool ideas as knowing when to walk or not follow a path at all.
2. This may become a problem once more in 4E depending on if they begin to release source books again. The problem is one of the advancing cannon. Let's say I really love the Red Wizards of Thay. My players have interacted with them on numerous occasions, and I'm really excited about the Unapproachable East coming out. A detailed look at the entire region! I can't wait. I begin to imagine ways of directing the campaign toward Thay itself and making good use of the source book. I pre-order from Amazon and wait until it comes out and arrives.When the book is finally within my hands I am horrified. Unknown to me a novel trilogy had come out completely modifying Thay and effectively (in my eyes at least) destroying it. Tam has taken over, the Red Wizards as I once knew them are no more, and the entire reason for purchasing the book was for naught.
It's certainly true that I could ignore everything that happened in Thay, or switch things around to fit my campaign (making lemonade out of lemons). However, the bitter taste is still within my mouth. My fun, enjoyment, and immersion in the Realms has been undermined by changes that I didn't even know about. Even if I choose to ignore the changes, I could feel cheated for buying the source book lessening the changes that I'll purchase others.
Maybe my sense of betrayal is so high that I feel divorced from cannon entirely. I swear off buying anymore FR source books or products, I no longer need them. I have everything I need in the FRCS.
Well, in that case, it is a choice you are making, and not an attitude in some way forced upon you by the canon. The designers and authors aren't out to *betray* you--they are out to tell cool stories that give you cool ideas for your game. You should not (see my essay above) feel constrained to do everything canonically. It doesn't do any favors for your game if you're running events you don't like or don't think fit. Not everything is going to please everybody--in fact, every change made to a beloved campaign setting makes some people happy and pisses some people off--the key for designers is to try and make the most people happy possible, and the key for players is to feel free to ignore or modify as much as you want to meet the most basic of criteria: "Is my game fun?"
As for the bad taste in the mouth, I completely sympathize with that attitude, and I think I've given suggestions (see my original essay) on how to deal with it. If you can't handle the changes or you feel so offended that you don't want to run the setting anymore, then fine, that sucks, but you have to do what's right for your game. On the other hand, if you understand the purpose of canon--as a means of building an immersive world, telling cool stories, and offering inspiration to you for your own campaigns--then I don't quite see why you're getting so offended. These things are SUPPOSED TO BE adaptable. All WotC is doing is offering suggestions on where to take your game--if you don't do that, then you don't do that.
And the thing is, by buying Realms products, you are essentially *asking* for more canonical story. For instance, if you were to ask me, "which of these shirts should I wear--green (2e) or blue (3e)?" and I said "well, how about this red shirt (4e) you didn't think of before?", why would you be offended? You asked for my opinion. And it's not like I have any business being offended if you want to go with the green shirt--or the blue one.
3. The last point I want to make is what you discussed in your final thoughts. It is there that we find ourselves in disagreement, more so than in the main body of your argument. I do not view the game as belonging to the DM. It belongs to everyone, collectively. The role of the DM, for me, is one of conflict provider and solver. The story is collaborative and belongs to everyone. Everyone contributes to it. The players are the central characters in the story, while the DM handles the antagonist(s), secondary characters, and general backdrop. Any good story needs conflict and the DM's job is to provide it.
Sure.
I never said the game belongs only to the DM--it belongs to everyone playing the game. The DM, however, has voluntarily stepped into a certain role, agreed upon by the players, as the referee and final arbiter of all things canon in that particular game. That's the way the DM is described in the DMG, and that's the default for playing D&D: providing structure to everyone else's storytelling creativity.
If you want to open it up to players to overrule you, that's fine, but in that case it is a choice you are making to waive your referee rights in favor of your players' opinions. What should NOT happen is that you should not feel constrained to do things a certain way, because a canon lawyer stands up in the middle of the game and says, "No, DM, you're wrong, because I read it in XXX sourcebook or XXX novel." The point of my point here is that DMs should not feel burdened by canon, as the whole purpose of canon is just to provide them tools and structure--not chains.
However, it is also the DM's job to ensure that everyone is having fun. If a player's immersion or fun is being hindered by another player or the DM, they ***should*** bring it up. The group then can collectively discuss it then or later after the session has ended, or alternatively the DM could choose to handle it privately with the player(s).
That doesn't necessarily mean the issue will be solved, but a DM shouldn't, at least in my view, immediately shoot them down with: My way or the highway. Concerns should be legitimately considered and addressed.
Indeed, this is the DM's job. I was not saying that a DM should hinder player creativity--I was saying that a DM should not allow players to overrule him/her. That does not foster creativity--it fosters argument and is counter-productive.
Discussion is great--I am all for discussion. Players should talk to their DMs about their perceptions of canon: maybe they want to include something they read in a novel or a sourcebook that the DM overlooked, and the DM might feel that's ok or might not. Ultimately, it's the DM's decision what to include in the game (unless you've made other arrangements).
What I want to escape is the perception that a DM has to bow to the wishes of all the players and has to be constrained by canon . . . except by your own choice. If you choose to impose limits on yourself (and every interpretation of canon is just that--an interpretation), then those are your own chosen limits.
This is one of the reasons being the DM is hard work. You're not just running the game for your own enjoyment, but the enjoyment of others as well. Since we aren't all carbon copies of each other, having different tastes, different preferences, and different styles there needs to be both a tolerance of those differences as well as an understanding of limitations. All of this is in pursuit of the elusive goal of fun. Sometimes you hit it out of the park and others you strike out.
Yep, being a DM is indeed hard work. You need to maintain an open line of communication with your players, so you can know and incorporate what they want in your game. If they want to meet Elminster or Drizzt, then do that (without taking off the spotlight). You are here to tell your story, yes, but you're also here to help them tell *their* stories. The DM is a service role--not a king or a traffic cop or a parent, but rather a guide, expert, and sage on your particular campaign world, whether it's homebrewed or established, heavily true to the canon or wildly divergent.
Whatever way you play, it's all good.
I could have done this in 3E had I wanted, but I was reluctant. I was afraid that drastic changes would make the setting "not the Realms." That people's perception of the setting was so strong that it'd be an immersion breaker for me to make insane and radical changes.
*snip*
All of the limitations that existed were in my mind and in the minds of the players. There was no fundamental reason that I couldn't make sweeping changes to the Realms in 3E, but it didn't ***FEEL*** that way, at least not to me. I felt as if I was sharing a world with people outside of my gaming group and I had to make room for them and their changes. I didn't like that, but I didn't feel as if I had the ability to simply ignore them outright.
Well, you *do* have that power, but if it feels wrong to employ it, then you're kinda stuck.
See, that's the thing--your game is only "Not the Realms" if you and your players feel like it isn't the Realms. And if making drastic changes would make it not the Realms for YOU, then you wouldn't be playing in the Realms.
I sympathize deeply with what it sounds like you're saying--namely, that you dislike the changes made throughout 3e/3.5e but couldn't bring yourself to make your own changes because then you'd feel like it wasn't the campaign world. That's a ridiculous double standard to inflict upon yourself. What, if I may ask, *is* the Realms to you? What aspects of it do you like, and what do you not?
The designers cannot get inside your head and determine what works for you, and even if they could, there's no guarantee that what they'd find would work for the directions they want to build. You either need to accept all the changes and run things *canonically* (with all the grey areas and wiggle room that implies) or make the changes you need to make your game fun (one of my four strategies associated with approach #2). If you can't do either one, then you might be playing the wrong game.
My suggestion is to find a vision of the Realms (one of the editions) that *most* fits into what you want for your game, and play that.
Cheers
@Erik: emotions are reactions, they aren't choices in a classical sense. Emotional attitudes are "forced" upon some people by canon, particularly when they are massive changes to canon and when the person has been emotionally invested in a prior edition. I think that's part of what Meldread was getting at, IMO.
Once you've had an emotional (or "gut") reaction and can both recognize and understand it, you can rationalize through that emotion to a degree. That's how therapy works, actually. But to "choose" a different emotional reaction means that you'll eventually have to invest emotionally in the changes that were made, or simply leave things behind. The stronger the original emotional investment, the harder it will be, I think. Weak attitues (i.e. emotions) can be re-framed with less effort than strong attitudes.
And with the Forgotten Realms, I think it's probably the case that most people had strong attitudes and attachments after decades of playing in it. Why was it easy for the designers to re-paint the Realms? Well, they had clear personal benefits from changing things. For consumers, there were few benefits to emotionally accepting the changed Realms unless those consumers a) disliked the old Realms for something that didn't exist anymore in 4E Realms, or b) were new consumers who wanted either a stripped down, or PoL, or low-lore setting. That's why people say it divided the fan base.
I think there's a third reason to embrace the 4e FR beyond "I didn't like stuff in 3e that's gone now" or "I didn't know the Realms very well/at all before." And that is a combination of: 1) the stuff I loved is still there, 2) there's new, cool stuff to play with, and 3) it's still my campaign world.
This is not to say that if you love/loved the Realms, you *MUST* have this reaction. I, for instance, was fairly pissed off at some of the 4e FR changes too, but I very quickly found things I loved and wanted to adapt to my game and my writing. That's easy for some and hard for others, and everyone has to take his or her own personal journey in the face of change, either toward acceptance/embrace or jumping off and going somewhere else.
I am not herein advocating that folks need to embrace change or not--just that it happens, and I'm proposing ways to deal with it.
Cheers
Valid points, all, Jorunhast! I think there's a third reason to embrace the 4e FR beyond "I didn't like stuff in 3e that's gone now" or "I didn't know the Realms very well/at all before." And that is a combination of: 1) the stuff I loved is still there, 2) there's new, cool stuff to play with, and 3) it's still my campaign world. This is not to say that if you love/loved the Realms, you *MUST* have this reaction. I, for instance, was fairly pissed off at some of the 4e FR changes too, but I very quickly found things I loved and wanted to adapt to my game and my writing. That's easy for some and hard for others, and everyone has to take his or her own personal journey in the face of change, either toward acceptance/embrace or jumping off and going somewhere else. I am not herein advocating that folks need to embrace change or not--just that it happens, and I'm proposing ways to deal with it. Cheers
That's the key, I think. To move into and adopt the 4E Realms, you absolutely have to find things about the changes that you like.
But I've tried, and I can't. The sad realization for me is that there's little to nothing I like about the changes; I hate them, in fact. The things that are "still there" that I do like are fairly generic. And there are many things that were removed or destroyed that I loved.
For me, that means I leave it behind. Unfortunately, the changes also leave a bad taste in my mouth which makes it very hard to just "go back and play in an older Realms." The feeling is there, I can't just choose to ignore it. I've tried recently to develop another campaign set in the 1300s, but knowing what I know about canon future (say, compared to 1350 DR), my enthusiasm is just plain dead.
That is the way of things, I suppose, when a "persistent shared world" really isn't in one's control.
Oh well.
The principles I'm advocating in my original essay are kind of obvious in theory, but that doesn't make them easy to practice. If you're really keen on keeping everything *exactly* as it appears in the products, then for sure you are going to get burned eventually.
Not everyone is going to like everything, and it would be unreasonable to expect any product to match your every desire when it comes to RPGs, or books, or TV series, or whatever. The chances that something not specifically crafted for you will match exactly what you want are about nil.
Cheers
Personaly just from the idea of a bussiness stand point what they did to the Realms was a gamble that I feel in general they took because they...did not know how to deal with things in the Realms. I believe knew qwith 100% certainly that they were going to loose fans of the old Realms with the changes they did...they were just hoping to gain more new players and the RPGA would make it money.
But personaly I think the changes were waaayyyy too radicle to be good...just some points I think if you are writting for RPG world( which is very different from writting a novel)
1) No 100 (or so) time jumps. This really unneccessarily removes a certain number of people that will buy your books...alot of people ran living games you suddenly remove the need or desire to buy the new books.
2) Don't resolve conflicts. My favorite example of this is the Shade take over of Sembia....is currently preoviding a great campaign I am in...but it sorta puts a damper on it to know that in the end Shades win we loose. It was a great idea to have it happen...but just leave it along. Especialy since most of how it happens does go directly against the little we know about it.
3) If changes happen....atleast try to make sure they follow some logic. I mean in 4th ed how does it make sense that Baldur's Gate becomes a refuge city. The world is going to the Abyss....you are a city that is run by a LN practicle mercenary group...why in all that is logical would you allow refugees to start piling up outside your city walls? Or take the Witrches of Rashemen...how did the maintain power when the main way they did so just went away with the Spellplague...
4) Don't kill any gods...sorry....but this gets ugly when you do so. Especialy when done in a specular dumb fashion. But even then how does it hurt you in keeping Elistraee?
Anyway my point is that I think they knew they were going to alienate a certain percventage of their fan base with these changes...and I really got more of a sense they did not care...they just want to make the Realms their own.
The changes the did might be great for a novel(though I would have liked to see more consistency personaly) but as a RPer these changes are a death knell for the Realms. And personaly I buy Realms books because it is RPG...if I wanted to read a novel...I would be reading a novel.
Just my two cents.
Everyone will react to changes differently, liking some things but not others, and that's just the nature of the beast. My article is mostly about giving people the tools to handle canonical shifts.
I am curious what "consistency" issues we're talking about--you say you'd like to have seen more of it in the novels . . . what's inconsistent about the novels?
Cheers
P.S. To talk 4e directly for a moment: 4e is just the latest and greatest example, and while it provides a sharp illustration of my point, the scope of my discussion applies to all editions of the game. Though on the point of 4e and its changes, we *don't know* who made what decisions, which decisions were handed down from on high, and how much pressure there was from Hasbro to "make it different."
Would I have done things differently? You bet.
Do we have what we have? That we do, and I am trying to advance ways to use it, game it, and love it just like previous editions.
I don't dismiss the emotional attachment many have to any old things. God knows when the X-Men movies came out I was frothing at the mouth and calling for the head of Hale Berry on a plate. But it feels like when it comes to an activity that is all about excersizing your creativity and cooperatively telling a story among friends, it is entirely the responsibility of those friends to do what they want to do while having fun, published material be damned.
I mentioned a few inconsistencies...like um I really just don't see Baldur's Gate becoming a home for refugees...or Rasheman staying status Quo....those just don't make sense to me. But the entire seris of novels that dealt with the drow pantheon makes no sense at all given previous canon. I don't see Elistraee risking the drow redemption on a game that plays to her adversaies stregnths.
The thing is if canon is consistent and make sense than there should not be issues with sticking to it. Sure people are different so each game would have different interpertations...but there are rather large holes in the curent Realms( there was always holes in it I'll be honest...but you could patch over them).
Now personaly I think the changes are bad....I can't think of a single one that did not make my characters useless or what my players did...but ignoring that for a second. The changes are bad because they are sooo drastic that it puts fans in position of saying is this even worth buying?
With a novel you can get away with it. You could write a seris of novels where things are changing every book. But a RPG setting is a very different animal in my opinion. You can't treat the two as the same. A RPG designer goal should be to give a framework where other people can tell the story they want( rather it is gritty realistic or pur fatnasy with flying pigs). In the FR before 4th ed I can see it being a home to many different kinds of story...it seemed alot more flexable to me. But in 4th ed...they is really no choice but to run a game where the PCs are these silly fantasy epic heroes and everybody in the world are caredboard cutouts there to either be beaten or to stroke their egos. The game has become to novel like.
What you are saying...is nothing new...I doubt there is a group out there that plays 4th ed FR that hates it. Gamers will of course change things to suit their needs. Whether it is changing the tribal orc's leader name in a obscure reference to saying there are no gods. That has always been in our power. The problem is that the 4th ed Realms really did take that power from us. They decided how things were going to go down....and either we just ignore it...or we go along with it.
That's funny, since the entire purpose of 4e is to give you all that power back. There is little enough data in the 4e FRCG, and hardly any explanation of why things are the way they are, forcing you the DM to make up a lot of it. And just because things aren't mentioned (such as, whatever happened to Storm Silverhand?) doesn't mean they don't exist (as evidenced by Ed's new novel).
I'm sort of a 4e apologist and I do indeed like using it, but I think it's non-controversial to say that 4e gives you an unprecedented amount of freedom (compared to other FR editions) to make it your own game. If you really like what's gone before, well, a lot of it is still there (Cormyr, Waterdeep, Silverymoon, etc.); if you like new stuff, well there's a lot of that (Akanul, Tymanther, Returned Abeir); and if you want to shake things up and change what's expected, there's that too (Luskan, Calimshan, Thay, etc).
I mentioned a few inconsistencies...like um I really just don't see Baldur's Gate becoming a home for refugees...or Rasheman staying status Quo....those just don't make sense to me. But the entire seris of novels that dealt with the drow pantheon makes no sense at all given previous canon. I don't see Elistraee risking the drow redemption on a game that plays to her adversaies stregnths.
Sorry, I was misunderstanding what you were saying.
Technically, to say something is "inconsistent" means that it contradicts something you know to be true (or, to put it more specifically, two things are inconsistent when they cannot both exist, because each implies the non-existence of the other). To say, "Eilistraee's plan to redeem the drow doesn't make sense to me because it seems like a stupid plan" is not to say the canon is *inconsistent,* unless there's some other fact, like "the drow cannot be redeemed, and therefore Eilistraee's plan to redeem the drow cannot succeed," in which case the assertion ("Eilistraee's plan succeeded in redeeming some of the drow") is logically inconsistent.
Likewise, you'd need a piece of lore saying "Baldur's Gate cannot support refugees," or "Rashemen doesn't have the power to preserve itself in a cataclysm situation" to be inconsistent with the other examples.
It's fine if you don't *like* canon or it doesn't make sense to you, but that doesn't make it "inconsistent." Things that are inconsistent are, "XXX says this character is NE" while "XXX says the character is CG." Since those can't both be true, we have a logical inconsistency.
The thing is if canon is consistent and make sense than there should not be issues with sticking to it. Sure people are different so each game would have different interpertations...but there are rather large holes in the curent Realms( there was always holes in it I'll be honest...but you could patch over them).
I'm not sure you could actually *stick* to canon and come up with a game that is the same at every table, but I think I agree. I just wouldn't go so far as to say there is "one perfect realms" that everyone is supposed to play in. The first day the PCs are doing stuff, they will change stuff, and as close as you try to stick to "canon," you have to be a little flexible.
A RPG designer goal should be to give a framework where other people can tell the story they want( rather it is gritty realistic or pur fatnasy with flying pigs).
It seems to me that's exactly what the 4e FR world is--it just requires some work on the part of the DM and PCs to make it work for an individual game.
In the FR before 4th ed I can see it being a home to many different kinds of story...it seemed alot more flexable to me. But in 4th ed...they is really no choice but to run a game where the PCs are these silly fantasy epic heroes and everybody in the world are caredboard cutouts there to either be beaten or to stroke their egos. The game has become to novel like.
Too novel-like is a criticism I've never heard of the 4e FR (or 4e in general)--most of the time, people criticize it for being too impersonal and too much like a boardgame. So that's one I'll have to think about.
Also, honestly, that sounds like awful DMing, and it's really NOT the case that PCs are forced to become "silly fantasy epic heroes" and "everybody in the world are cardboard cutouts." I run a 4e FR game that is WAY the opposite of that, and am in a 4e FR-related game that is *hugely* character driven. (And yes, they stick to the canon as presented in the books--at least as much as works for the game: I've run all the Loudwater stuff and the Scepter Tower of Spellgard and my players are having a blast.)
I mean, if you want to run a cliche boardgame fantasy RPG, you could do that by brutalizing any setting down to the bare bones--that's hardly a unique strategy to 4e.
It sounds like you just don't like the 4e changes, and that's fine. That doesn't mean, however, that the system is bad or the campaign setting is unusable. It just means you don't like it. And if you're unwilling or unable to modify it to fit your table, then you really shouldn't even be wasting your time talking about it. Go find something that DOES work for you, and play that.
Life is too short for all the negativity!
Cheers
I think Penny Arcade summed all this up nicely right here:
I don't dismiss the emotional attachment many have to any old things. God knows when the X-Men movies came out I was frothing at the mouth and calling for the head of Hale Berry on a plate. But it feels like when it comes to an activity that is all about excersizing your creativity and cooperatively telling a story among friends, it is entirely the responsibility of those friends to do what they want to do while having fun, published material be damned.
lol!!
1) Elistraee we know by the previous established lore gaved up alot to stay and try to guide the drow back to the path of light...to redeem them. To just risk all of that in a game is against the character as established...that is glaringly inconsistent to me.
2) I did not say that Bladur's Gate could not support refugees I said they would not do it. It goes aganst everything established about them. Sure it is possible that something might have happened...but there is no hint about it at all.
3) By logical extension Something should have happened to depower the Witches in Rasheman as during the hundred years of the Spell plague magic became unreliable...except it did not change as it should have. The Witches used magic to keep in power...without the barbarian lodges should have gained some more control. It is established in canon before hand that is how Rasheman works.
Sure I know alot more about the Realms then you it sounds like...and sure not every change though out it's history made sense...but that is the problem with 4th ed. The previously changes were small and could be dealt with...there is no coping with the changes in 4th ed. It is a bad design...because it cuts your fan base in half.
Sure you can run great stuff in 4th ed...even in the New Realms...but to me the changes to the Realms made it stop being what the Realms were about.
Yes I can see you are a 4e apologist and since they pay you I can understand that. But I am here looking at it objectively...and 4e Realms was very bad design as is 4th ed...I mean pretty much pages of erata every month and pretty much 4.5 in 3 years...really I don't get why people think it i so great. It is a terribly built system...not that there is anything wrong with that...I play Rifts and enjoy it...but I just don't why people turn a blind eye to all the many flaws. Nothing ever improves wothout critism.
1) Things that "don't make sense" to you are not necessarily logical inconsistent. If we're going to use that term, let's at least use it correctly. "Inconsistent to me" doesn't mean anything other than "I don't like how this played out."
2) I have been gaming in the Realms since I was in middle school, writing fiction in the Realms since college, and designing in the Realms for about two years. I'm not going to claim that I know everything there is to know about the Realms, but I do know my stuff. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.
3) I can see *lots* of ways in which things you don't accept at face value (Baldur's Gate taking in refugees, Rashemen remaining intact, etc.) make sense. The designers seem to have purposefully left in things like that in order to give you the opportunity to fill them in--just because they don't fill them in for you doesn't mean they can't be filled in.
4) I am not now, nor have I ever been an employee of Wizards of the Coast, and I don't plan on becoming one in the near future. I posted about FR canon because I love the Realms and I am SICK of some of the attitudes I have seen online based on a logical fallacy about the purpose of canon. I am not saying things are "all good," nor am I saying that I support all the canon that's there. Even a cursory reading of my article will provide that--the entire purpose is to say "not all of this works for everyone."
Finally, I don't see any way to engage in a real discussion unless we use real arguments rather than "it's just so horrible" and the prejudicial and inaccurate "4.5 in three years" kind of stuff that shows up on the boards all the time (not to mention the use of insults as to my intelligence, knowledge, or partiality). So that said, I think I'm done with this particular debate.
Cheers
4E FR beat him up and took his lunch money, don't worry about it.
The one 4E change I really can't get over is to the holy symbols. 
I can kind of see Lolth and her followers changing her holy symbol in the wake of the change to Corellon's to tick him and his followers off, but I can't figure out why the bloody hells either he or his followers would change it in the first place. What the heck was wrong with the old one?
Mind you, this is the easiest thing in the multiverse to houserule so it's utterly useless to even worry about it. (And makes for a minor character trait, I've got a sun elf cleric of Corellon who predates the Spellplague who considers the new one heresy and refuses to use it, still clinging to his old battered silver crescent moon.) Although if I ever ran 4E FR for some bizarre reason(I'd be more likely to use grey box) I'd probably feel compelled to come up with an actual in-world explanation for it. Or ignore it. Although the former I suppose would be more interesting. Lots of fun speculation as to the reason behind the change(I can kind of think of one thing, though it's a bit unlikely) and the reactions in the church. Nevermind the reactions of the clergy to it now being OK for non-elves to be priests... Ahh, religious conflict. And the nice thing about elves is that they live long enough and are stubborn enough to still have issues with things even a hundred years on. :D (Even if I don't like a lot of the changes, I've got to admit that there are some things that do really get me thinking and give me food for thought and make me want to *do* something with it.)
I'd be more upset about Vhaeraun going down, but I still maintain that he isn't dead at all and is just faking everyone out. I really hated that entire trilogy. Except for Q'arlynd. And Karas. Naxil wasn't bad either. (Seriously, other than Q'arlynd the only cool characters in that trilogy were the various Nightshadows.)
Yes I can see you are a 4e apologist and since they pay you I can understand that. But I am here looking at it objectively...and 4e Realms was very bad design as is 4th ed
The sheer irony of you claiming to be "objective" is just too hilarious. 4E is also a very well designed system and far better than 3rd edition ever was IMO. The fact that I'm running three games and still enjoying all of them, while in 3rd ed I was running one game and utterly hating it (due to needing to houserule the billions of immensely broken elements within it) is a great improvement. Plus at least the "4.5" this time around isn't forcing me to rebuy all my books again.
Incidentally Erik, you should note that many of the answers John gives you are what disproves your initial post that you can just use canon as you feel like. People will cling to old canon regardless of if it would still make sense 100 years on. Take the example he makes of Baldurs Gate, which has no immediate canon as to why they accept refugees at the moment but it does from previous sources. The previous canon, even if it is 100 years in the past clearly indicates that they shouldn't have taken anyone in. People who stick with canon firmly will claim 4E is inconsistent, when in reality a lot can change in 100 years and provide an explanation. We are just never given it in the actual canon in the books - 4E FR leaves a lot to the DM to decide and write that in themselves. This is its appeal or its flaw - depending on who you are.
Incidentally Erik, you should note that many of the answers John gives you are what disproves your initial post that you can just use canon as you feel like. People will cling to old canon regardless of if it would still make sense 100 years on. Take the example he makes of Baldurs Gate, which has no immediate canon as to why they accept refugees at the moment but it does from previous sources. The previous canon, even if it is 100 years in the past clearly indicates that they shouldn't have taken anyone in.
I take your point and agree with your principle that people cling to canon (and I would add, sometimes not helpfully as regards their games), but I'm insanely curious about this one: why, canonically speaking, *wouldn't* Baldur's Gate take in refugees?
I wasn't under the impression they were a predominantly evil city, nor that they were run by evil people, nor that they just ruthlessly murdered refugees at the gates. What, canonically, prevents them from taking in refugees from some great cataclysm?
Not that I'm saying it's true or not--I'm just asking why, because you guys seem pretty dead-set on it being the case.
Cheers
What you are saying...is nothing new...I doubt there is a group out there that plays 4th ed FR that hates it. Gamers will of course change things to suit their needs. Whether it is changing the tribal orc's leader name in a obscure reference to saying there are no gods. That has always been in our power. The problem is that the 4th ed Realms really did take that power from us. They decided how things were going to go down....and either we just ignore it...or we go along with it.
Gee, I musta missed that blurb in the 4e PHB, DMG, or FRCG where is says "Hey! This is the ultimite version of the Realms and anyone to depart with ANY information within this tome is subject to disciplinary action". And they (WotC/TSR) have always said "This is how it's going down, take it or not." That's nothing new. I've had to deal with the nations I hated, I had to deal with deities that I've despised, and I've had to deal with certain NPCs that I could give a rats-ass about since I've started D&D but it's MY choice as to how (if ever) they affect my Realms. So no, WotC didn't give us any "take it or leave" policy with the advent of 4e since it's ALWAYS been there from it's start.
I mentioned a few inconsistencies...like um I really just don't see Baldur's Gate becoming a home for refugees...or Rasheman staying status Quo....those just don't make sense to me. But the entire seris of novels that dealt with the drow pantheon makes no sense at all given previous canon. I don't see Elistraee risking the drow redemption on a game that plays to her adversaies stregnths.
Just because you don't see Elistraee doing something doesn't mean she's NEVER going to be unpredictable. She was, what, CG in 3.5 so doing something completly off-the-wall isn't far fetched from her alignment. And as for Baldur's Gate, when there is an even where people literally flood your city you can do one of two things: 1. Attempt to kill them all as they venture to the city walls (something I highly think wouldn't happen) or 2. slowly gather them in an area where they can be protected yet observed and orderd (like a new Ward of the city) and thus you got *pop* a district/tent city as they do now. Just because the Flaming Fist is a mercenary company doesn't make them ruthless and evil to kill innocent civilians.
The thing is if canon is consistent and make sense than there should not be issues with sticking to it. Sure people are different so each game would have different interpertations...but there are rather large holes in the curent Realms( there was always holes in it I'll be honest...but you could patch over them).
Yes, the canon of the Realms has had holes in it but NOW, you as a DM can choose how to fill them holes up or pay any (or no) attention to the holes at all. And the best part is....if you choose to fill them up, there very little in the way of Canon to stop you!!
Now personaly I think the changes are bad....I can't think of a single one that did not make my characters useless or what my players did...but ignoring that for a second. The changes are bad because they are sooo drastic that it puts fans in position of saying is this even worth buying
This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. There have been drastic changes to the Realms since the Time of Troubles (take that for what it's worth) and so on. Deities have died, come back, died again, have changed names, came out with Aspects, etc... but that just goes to illustrate the constant flux the Realms has ALWAYS seen. Sure, canon flows from these events too, but I think Erik is trying to say you don't have to follow these events or even incorporate them into your game.
With a novel you can get away with it. You could write a seris of novels where things are changing every book. But a RPG setting is a very different animal in my opinion. You can't treat the two as the same. A RPG designer goal should be to give a framework where other people can tell the story they want( rather it is gritty realistic or pur fatnasy with flying pigs). In the FR before 4th ed I can see it being a home to many different kinds of story...it seemed alot more flexable to me. But in 4th ed...they is really no choice but to run a game where the PCs are these silly fantasy epic heroes and everybody in the world are caredboard cutouts there to either be beaten or to stroke their egos. The game has become to novel like.
And exactly what stories can't be told in the Realms?! You want a western-style story, theres a hundred of small no-name towns needed defended by bandits. You want an arid, dry, sandy campaign dealing with genies or Arabian-style theres the entire breath of Calimshan to explore and parts of Netheril where the Anuroch is still desert. You want gritty, sin-city, with political intrigue there's Westgate, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, and most of Sembia. You want a pirate-setting theres the entire Sword Coast, the Trackless Sea, the Shining Sea, the Dragon Coast, etc.....
And normally players want to play a hero or have their PC effect the setting in a positive way (or negative way if they're evil) and not just play a baker or farmer for their entire career. If so, then what exaclty is the point of the rules for any edition to begin with.
And you state "...everybody in the world are caredboard cutouts there to either be beaten or to stroke their egos". How so? Is it because they don't have 2-3 pages of backstory, history, motives, goals, etc....?? I doubt you'll see that even in 3E save for 1 or 2 epic level characters.
That's funny, since the entire purpose of 4e is to give you all that power back. There is little enough data in the 4e FRCG, and hardly any explanation of why things are the way they are, forcing you the DM to make up a lot of it.
I could be wrong, but in some ways, I think this is one of the issues for some people. There are those who love the canon and view it as a persistent living world because of the canon. Then suddenly it was all shattered, with no definitive explanation of what happened during and after and to top it off the Campaign Guide gives scant information on anything in the Realms meaning the DM has to make it up. Except those who love the canon don't want to make it up, they want to be told what happened, they want the details of how a region is now post-spellplague beyond a half column of Streetwise and Hstory information.
With the initial policy of Campaign Guide + Player's Guide and nothign else, those who cherished the Realms for the canon suddenly felt lost in the wilderness wth no more books forthcoming.
Erik I apologize for not responding sooner. The last couple of days have been very hectic, and I haven't gotten the opportunity until just now.
First, I want to touch on the Baldur's Gate topic. I really can't think of a scenario, outside of ethical or tribal situations (and even then not always), which would welcome hordes of refugees with open arms. Virtually all of them are coming with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, many are likely sick, most of them are starving and desperate. That's not really something you want within or near your city. Not unless you like lawlessness and crime, which is something I'm pretty sure the Flaming Fist is opposed too.
Of course, it's not as if they're going to kill them, and it's hard to make them leave short of threatening their lives. One of the first things people seek after food and water is security. That's what Baldur's Gate provides them, but I seriously doubt they provide little else... in my Realms the descendants of those refugees live outside the main city surrounding its walls in makeshift shanty towns. Some are tents, others might be hastily constructed buildings with whatever could be found. It's likely filled with gangs, opportunists, and thugs. Crime is likely the main way of life. When the Flaming Fist show up it's likely to beat down one criminal gang or another upsetting trade (i.e. attacking caravans and whatnot). Regular "purges" might even take place if they get desperate and start to rebel or demand something... life is certainly, harsh, hard, and horrible. It's not a place someone would willingly elect to live.
That being said, I want to answer your questions: "What, if I may ask, *is* the Realms to you? What aspects of it do you like, and what do you not?" These questions would have been more difficult to answer before 4th Edition. After 4E I really had to consider them.
I like many things about the Realms (obviously), and one of the things I liked the most are its ancient cultures and civilizations. The Realms is filled with ancient wonders and fallen (and sometimes forgotten) civilizations. One of the things that really left a bitter taste in my mouth during 3E was the move to bring some of them back such as what was done with Netheril.
Part of what makes the Realms great is the character and color fallen civilizations, both ancient and more recent, lend to those who came after them. To give an example: look at Myth Drannor and how its fall influenced such places as Silverymoon, the Dales, and Cormyr. They each take something, sometimes small and other times large, from those that came before.
But the depth of the Realms history is only one aspect that gives the Realms its unique flavor. It is a world shaped and influenced by magic in ways that are both direct and indirect, for both good and ill. It is a world that feels throughly lived in and alive; a place where you can pick up a source book, open it up to any page, and find a potential seed for an adventure. The characters and people who inhabit the world feel colorful and interesting. You can read a little blurb about someone in a source book and picture them in your minds eye. Suddenly, you want to use them in your game - you have to fit them in somewhere. These fictional characters are also shaped by the many faiths and organizations that increase the color and vibrancy of the Realms as they all scheme and vie for goals both good and ill.
To me, it is all of those things that come together to make the Realms what it is... if you lose one of those things, you're losing a part of the Realms. That doesn't mean character's can't die. No, they MUST die if the story calls for it. The Realms also is filled with danger, and people must constantly be reminded of that. For every hero there is always at least one (in many cases more) villains waiting. Sometimes the bad guys need to win just to prove that they CAN win, and to maintain their reputation.
It was this reason, really, that got me to dislike how cannon was being handled in previous editions. Many of the main villains, such as the Zhents and Red Wizards (but especially the Zhents) lost much of their legitimacy in my eyes. It's hard to take them seriously when you constantly hear about their failures, rather than their successes. Even though Ed pointed out in the past, for every failure we read about there are five to ten success stories that we never know takes place.
However, this goes back to my first post in this thread. It is about perception. Reality and facts mean little when people perceive something else to be true, and perception is often driven by emotion. That is the problem that we face here again and again.
My 4E Realms is significantly different than what is described in the FRCG. I drew inspiration from the world put down in that book, but also in the work done in previous editions and my own imagination to make the Realms my own. I like 4th Edition because I feel that it liberated me from the cannon. In previous editions, I tended to stick to areas not well covered in the cannon as I felt as if I was sharing a world with the designers and authors. I no longer feel that way, the Realms finally feels like it belongs to me - no more sharing is involved. I use source books now, not for lore, but for inspiration and ideas. I might steal some of the lore, of course, but that isn't the primary purpose.
For me, the Realms lore died with 4th Edition. Whether it abandoned me or I abandoned it is irrelevant, but I regard that (for me at least) as a positive development.
What I would like to see going forward is this:
1. New source books sticking with the "Not "FR"? No problem!" that was established in the FRCG.
2. New source books set during the same time as the FRCG. I would like to see source books ceasing to advance the cannon. At the very least, ceasing to advance the cannon until a new edition change.
3. I would like the novels to retain canonical consistency with the setting, but I want authors to have as much freedom as possible to write ***GOOD*** stories. I don't like the feeling that I sometimes get that novel authors are writing stories dictated them by designers. Telling a good story should be the primary focus for any novel.
4. After each novel (or once a trilogy or whatever is completed) I would like the see the changes made to the setting detailed on DDI. For example, if you get rid of the Nightmasks in your novel what are the implications for Westgate? This is good for other authors as well as players who want to incorporate either aspects of the cannon into their setting or mine things for ideas.
5. The rules should be viewed as separate from the setting. The D&D rules are things that take place outside of the setting, in my view. They may influence the setting or provide a guideline, but they should not dictate canonical changes.
I think, in my view, this is the best compromise solution to the problem of dealing with advancing cannon.
Lets take a DEEP breath and calm down please. Lets all agree to disagree.
QFT.
Seriously, Erik's just offering a suggestion on how to deal with the current situation, and I seriously doubt he started this thread to conjure up edition war garbage again. Let's not devolve it into that same old mess again, please...
For one, the canon from the novels should be an optional component that a DM can use if they want to, or ignore if they want to. While it's technically possible to do this regardless, it makes it much more difficult whenever the stories are incorporated into the base setting - adding something you like is much, much easier and more engaging than removing something you don't like. As someone else mentioned, it's also easier said than done to throw away things you don't like because of the emotional investment that most people cultivate with the world and all its goings-on.
FR was at its best and most pure in its original incarnation, before outside lore crippled the novelty and mystery of the setting. As an example: One of my biggest beefs with the current (including 3e) FR is the overly literal way that religion and gods are handled. 2e took place before the Time of Troubles and therefore the gods were handled in a more mythological fashion. But because of that one novel series, I have to include (or at least put effort into displacing) a dumb back-story where the gods descended and as a result of that all of the god soap opera within the realms is treated literally, which is really annoying. On top of that 4e wiped away every non standard pantheon, basically uniting the entire continent of Faerun under the same religion, which is pretty hokey. All of this came about due to the over proliferation of lore from various media that made a setting reset a near necessity. The same thing will happen again if FR continues to be handled this way.
I've come to terms with the changes in the Realms. It probably isn't the kind of terms that WotC wants, but that's their problem now. I've decided to ignore the current canon and go back to the 1E grey box. WotC has seen to it that I have to do a lot of extra work to use the Realms in 4E, so instead of that work going toward expanding upon fluff I don't like in the first place, I'll use that time to adapt old fluff I do like to the new system. I spend enough time writing adventures without having to write the setting myself too. That's why I buy a premade setting in the first place.
This is likely what I will do in the future as well.
Not saying these are truths, but they are reasonable explanations (imo, of course):
]
1) Elistraee we know by the previous established lore gaved up alot to stay and try to guide the drow back to the path of light...to redeem them. To just risk all of that in a game is against the character as established...that is glaringly inconsistent to me.
I personally don't think Elistraee was gambling on winning a game. I think she knew what she was doing. In a way, she had to die (or at least give up her divinity) to redeem her people. I do feel it is a pity that she is gone, though a heritage remains in even the 4th ed Realms. there are more 'redeemed' drow now than ever, and even a few of her faithful survive (as drow).
2) I did not say that Bladur's Gate could not support refugees I said they would not do it.
I don't know if they would want to support them - but I doubt they had much choice. If refugees flood to your city en mass, you have two options: accept them (outside the city gates, most likely, but with a possibility for them to establish themselves, especially over a 100 year period) and deal with it, or evict them with force and invite a lot more trouble.
3) By logical extension Something should have happened to depower the Witches in Rasheman as during the hundred years of the Spell plague magic became unreliable...
Magic only was unreliable in the first few years after the Spellplague. Ten years after, most wizards had (part) of their magic back. Also, I personally feel the witches were never arcanists, They felt more like drawing on primal powers (hence their connections to barbarians) - which outsiders may have teated as arcane magic (for no other reason than that it was not divine). Their power wouldn't have diminished - unlike, say, that of the Red Wizards - so it would be fairly easy for them to survive.
So I don't see inconsistencies myself, though you do need to make a few presumptions.
Gomez
and even a few of her faithful survive (as drow).
Which I absolutely hate as it makes the whole thing even MORE pointless than it already was. Yay, we slaughtered the entire drow pantheon in these novels so we can lead up to the execution of some badly-thought-out, stupidly executed plan that barely works in the first place and then later gets retconned to not even work as well as it was allegedly supposed to have.
Thankfully they seem to have completely and utterly dropped all of that so with any luck we'll never have to hear about it again and can just sweep it under the rug and then plug our ears and go LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU any time someone tries to bring it up.
And I can cheefully cling to my insistence that Vhaeraun isn't in fact dead after all, and is actually hanging out in Erevan Ilesere's basement.
But I adapted, and he adapted, without letting myself get bitter about the changes. I'm honestly still glad that there's a Realms at all, and ranting about a single event so angrily so long after the fact just seems...fruitless to me, I don't know. But that's the beauty of the home game, yeah? You can include or disallow whatever the heck you want.
Sounds like a great attitude!
Sometimes the adaptation is really pretty fun, and when it isn't, you can always mold things however you see fit.
And I can cheefully cling to my insistence that Vhaeraun isn't in fact dead after all, and is actually hanging out in Erevan Ilesere's basement.
NC, don't be silly! You think a good-for-nothing-but-hilarity scoundrel like Erevan Ilesere has the wherewithal to buy, particularly in this economy?
They're both crashing at my place, and they both snore something fierce.
Cheers
And that jokester Erevan will just encourage him.
I heard all the scuttlebutt from Eilistraee who is staying at my place. It's like she can't stop ragging about her brother. As for her habits... she tends to stay up really late and dance naked to pop music, but I don't mind that so much. ;)
Insist on rent and groceries if they end up staying longer than a couple weeks.
One way I started working through the changes with my character Kaelen was writing. I love the Realms, and writing something for the Realms, be it a short story or whatever, is a dream of mine. So I even posted a few of my stories to my deviantart, along with other works (some even published!).
Still haven't heard back about that writing sample I sent in to WotC, but oh well -_-
Thanks, Erik. Honestly I'm a huge fan of your work, and I loved Downshadow.
One way I started working through the changes with my character Kaelen was writing. I love the Realms, and writing something for the Realms, be it a short story or whatever, is a dream of mine. So I even posted a few of my stories to my deviantart, along with other works (some even published!)plug>.
Still haven't heard back about that writing sample I sent in to WotC, but oh well -_-
Thank you, and I'm glad you enjoy my stuff. I do plan to keep writing it (follow-up to Downshadow, entitled Shadowbane, due out Fall 2011)!
As for writing in the Realms yourself, I wouldn't read too much into not hearing back on a sample you sent to WotC. They are all-too-often swamped. They might not even be your best bet--if you're serious about writing fantasy, you should try all avenues of publication, including WotC, fantasy magazines, and the traditional "write-a-book, hire-an-agent" thing. What you should *not* do is wait on anyone--keep writing, reading, experimenting with new things in your work, etc.
I actually wrote a whole blog post about this, so check it out: eriksdb.livejournal.com/218027.html
Cheers
Cheers
NC, don't be silly! You think a good-for-nothing-but-hilarity scoundrel like Erevan Ilesere has the wherewithal to buy, particularly in this economy?
They're both crashing at my place, and they both snore something fierce.
Cheers
I should have known, tsk. Erevan probably bet his place in a poker game and lost. I don't know about Erevan, but the advice Corellon gave me on if Vhaeraun's snoring is to just knee him until he rolls over onto his side, he doesn't snore then.
It may be from old Battletech days but I feel all novels should be canon.
If they are not part of the setting they are fanfiction with the setting logo on them. I like hearing about other peoples games or reading fanfiction on series I like, but I like seeing the setting advance more. Even if I don't like the decisions or results, I like it more than it sitting on the self. I like it like I like hearing about friends and loved ones, even if they broke their leg on the first day of a ski trip. They are living.
I treat every campaign I DM in as I treat divergent fanfiction. It works in as much of the canon as I like till the first minute of the first session. I play the same way so my characters can always aspire to heroes of renown and creators of things not present in the canon.
Personally the 4e setting hurt the Realms 'feel' because it jumped so far ahead and minimally filled in the blanks. That is good for creative options but FR felt alive because it had continuity that this jump lacked. It detailed consequences, it didn't evolve them.
That said, the more I review it, the less I feel I 'hate' aspects and more usable I find them. And in a world where no one dies forever, everything removed from the setting is simply waiting to return wherever I want them.