But my main concern is that the PnP game will hinder good story development in future novels. I will clarify with an example. So far throughout the n"4E" novels I have taken certain nuggets of information and got to wondering if they are setting up for an eventual return to godhood for Mystra. Now this could just be wishful thinking on my part, but there are certainly a lot of questions unanswered with her death. But the one thing that stops me is this sense that WoTC axed her for a reason, to give them an excuse for the major changes in the Realms. Why would they bring her back?
So what are your thoughts on maintaining the balance between rule book and novel? I personally feel that novels should be allowed to develop on their own without having to rely on what the rule books establish. But I also understand that you can't really separate the two.
So I have seen a lot of people state that they haven't read this FR book or that FR book because "It is a 4E novel". This got me thinking as to why someone would want to deprive themselves of a good FR story regardless of the edition period it was published in. I can understand people not liking the way the base world story line changed, heck I had plenty of reservations myself. But after reading every "4E" novel so far I have to say it makes for an interesting read.
-I am one of those people. It's very simple: I don't read about place/things that I'm not interested in. I'm not interested about the American Wild West, so I don't read books about the American Wild West. The "new" Forgotten Realms, using the terminology used by the designers, as a whole, I'm not interested in. As such, I don't read the novels about them. The "old" Forgotten Realms, using the terminology of the designers, as a whole, I am/was interested in. As such, I read the novels about them.
But my main concern is that the PnP game will hinder good story development in future novels. I will clarify with an example. So far throughout the n"4E" novels I have taken certain nuggets of information and got to wondering if they are setting up for an eventual return to godhood for Mystra. Now this could just be wishful thinking on my part, but there are certainly a lot of questions unanswered with her death. But the one thing that stops me is this sense that WoTC axed her for a reason, to give them an excuse for the major changes in the Realms. Why would they bring her back?
So what are your thoughts on maintaining the balance between rule book and novel? I personally feel that novels should be allowed to develop on their own without having to rely on what the rule books establish. But I also understand that you can't really separate the two.
-This "issue" has always existed: Being that both novels and sourcebooks are all official, and both create lore for the setting, you have to keep an eye out for both, if you want to say as official and close to canon as possible. Ultimatley, though, I think it's pretty much a non-issue, now and then. First of all, a person's campaign is ALWAYS going to go against canon as soon as they run the game- it's impossible to run a coherent game and stay true to canon 100%. As soon as you run into a minor nugget that can't be answered, like, "What does this flower smell like?", and the DM makes something up, canon has been broken from. But, anyway, as long as people have games, canon is going to be diverged from. Everyone's entitled to do whatever they want at home, in their own games. As long as, in the game, you make it a point to let your players know what's going on, and you let them know what "counts" and what doesn't "count", how much everything "counts", what sources you use, and all of that, everything will be fine. When everyone is on the same page, there won't be problems.
-I am one of those people. It's very simple: I don't read about place/things that I'm not interested in. I'm not interested about the American Wild West, so I don't read books about the American Wild West. The "new" Forgotten Realms, using the terminology used by the designers, as a whole, I'm not interested in. As such, I don't read the novels about them. The "old" Forgotten Realms, using the terminology of the designers, as a whole, I am/was interested in. As such, I read the novels about them.
I can respect your view on the novels. I enjoy the setting and I like to digest any story based in the setting. It's the same way with Star Wars. I have friends who only consider the original movies to be Star Wars. Where as I will read anything that has the name Star Wars on it....call me a sucker. As for the "New" FR novels. I do notice in certain novels that there is a forced usage of terminology which I find out of place. I am waiting for them to get over the "beat me over the head that this is the new Realms" phase and get back to just writing a damn story.
-This "issue" has always existed: Being that both novels and sourcebooks are all official, and both create lore for the setting, you have to keep an eye out for both, if you want to say as official and close to canon as possible. Ultimatley, though, I think it's pretty much a non-issue, now and then. First of all, a person's campaign is ALWAYS going to go against canon as soon as they run the game- it's impossible to run a coherent game and stay true to canon 100%. As soon as you run into a minor nugget that can't be answered, like, "What does this flower smell like?", and the DM makes something up, canon has been broken from. But, anyway, as long as people have games, canon is going to be diverged from. Everyone's entitled to do whatever they want at home, in their own games. As long as, in the game, you make it a point to let your players know what's going on, and you let them know what "counts" and what doesn't "count", how much everything "counts", what sources you use, and all of that, everything will be fine. When everyone is on the same page, there won't be problems.
With 4E, WoTC made a big deal about the fact that they felt they couldn't change the game mechanics without changing the entire story line of the game world. If the individual DM's game worlds are supposed to be their own and not bound by canon. Wouldn't it have been better for them to change the rules but leave the world story line alone then say to the DM, "Here are the new rules, you figure out how it fits into your world"?
With 4E, WoTC made a big deal about the fact that they felt they couldn't change the game mechanics without changing the entire story line of the game world. If the individual DM's game worlds are supposed to be their own and not bound by canon. Wouldn't it have been better for them to change the rules but leave the world story line alone then say to the DM, "Here are the new rules, you figure out how it fits into your world"?
That is the basis of all the core rules sets. The campaign settings are a different story. However even the campaign settings are written in such manner as to be open ended, which is why novelists have such literary discretion and their works are considered to be 'official'. However, consider the scope of the setting books, and scope of the novels. The settings books are very broad in their scope; defining things such as racial histories, regional boundaries and back stories, interplannar interactions and deity/ worshiper interaction and back stories. On the other hand the novelists scopes are very narrow; defining such things as particular individuals, current affairs in regions and cities, current affairs of the deities and particular followers.
I agree with you on the reading of the novels, I to read them simply because they say 'Forgotten Realms' on the cover. Salvator is taking an interesting route in bringing the Drizzit story up to the new setting. So far I've read both of the 'Transitions' novels, and they where both good.
As for the 'deaths' of the old deities, I think that the writers handled the story lines of the transition rather well. All the 'dead' deities have been 'killed' in such open ended manners as to leave great big giant ?'s surrounding them. Take Eilistraee for example at the end of the 'Lady Penitent' series; she had absorbed Vhaeraun, and then she faded out, to be replaced at the Sava table by Corellon Larethian. That situation left the questions; did she go into an 'incubation' similar to that which Loth did during the 'War of the Spider Queen', was she absorbed by Corellon Larethian or is she in fact dead? Only time will tell as new cannon come out.
That is the basis of all the core rules sets. The campaign settings are a different story. However even the campaign settings are written in such manner as to be open ended, which is why novelists have such literary discretion and their works are considered to be 'official'. However, consider the scope of the setting books, and scope of the novels. The settings books are very broad in their scope; defining things such as racial histories, regional boundaries and back stories, interplannar interactions and deity/ worshiper interaction and back stories. On the other hand the novelists scopes are very narrow; defining such things as particular individuals, current affairs in regions and cities, current affairs of the deities and particular followers.
This is true. I actually just started rereading the FR Campaign guide because I have a little more perspective after reading a handful of 4E novels. One thing that I do enjoy is reading lore and the campaign guide provides plenty of that. I guess my main gripe was the reason the decision was made to make the huge story change to the Realms. As I said before, the designers stated that they wanted to give players a reason for the rules change. But it is done and we must move on. However, if I start seeing terminology such as the class roles of striker, defender, controller, etc (which I HATE) sneak into the novels I might have to give up on FR. But as of right now they appear to be moving in a good direction.
I can respect your view on the novels. I enjoy the setting and I like to digest any story based in the setting. It's the same way with Star Wars. I have friends who only consider the original movies to be Star Wars. Where as I will read anything that has the name Star Wars on it....call me a sucker.
-From a "technical" point of view, you're right, because the Expanded Universe is 100%, official Star Wars! :P
With 4E, WoTC made a big deal about the fact that they felt they couldn't change the game mechanics without changing the entire story line of the game world. If the individual DM's game worlds are supposed to be their own and not bound by canon. Wouldn't it have been better for them to change the rules but leave the world story line alone then say to the DM, "Here are the new rules, you figure out how it fits into your world"?
-In an interview I did with him, Bruce Cordell mentioned that terminology, like 'Eladrin', would indeed be used to ensure that rules-novels transparency, but setting-specific terms, like 'Sun Elf', would also be used, to make sure that the generic D&D stuff doesn't override the Forgotten Realms specific terms, to the point that they get intentionally and/or unintentionally forgotten.
-I can't agree that WotC would have been off just changing the rules, but not the setting, and letting each person figure it out themselves. There are a lot of things that are huge changes- certain Elves being able to teleport, for example. They've gotta explain why. Not everyone plays D&D and will/can have a game to explain those things in their games, anyway.
Two things I'm seeing going on the 'on going' novels to work into the new setting lore
1) The spellplague or plague of spells- which I don't at this point know anything about, but seems to be the catalyst for major changes in how character's powers are going change to reflect the new rules
2) The time line push - the new setting is advanced one hundred years ahead of the 3.x setting, which appears to end at 1600, a lot can happen in that span of time.
1) The spellplague or plague of spells- which I don't at this point know anything about, but seems to be the catalyst for major changes in how character's powers are going change to reflect the new rules
-One of the goals of the Spellplague was to transition the 3e rules into 4e rules, in terms of the setting, to explain how stuff has changed, yes.
2) The time line push - the new setting is advanced one hundred years ahead of the 3.x setting, which appears to end at 1600, a lot can happen in that span of time.
-The "old" Forgotten Realms 'ended' in 1,375 DR. The "new" Forgotten Realms starts in 1,479 DR, a time-jump of 104 years. Also, the names on the Roll of Years ends in 1,600 DR, but that doesn't actually mean that the world is going to end. That just means that the auguries and prophecies concerning the events to come in those years don't extend past 1,600 DR, for whatever reason.
The new century of the realms I treat largely as the expanded universe options for Starwars, i.e. its like playing in the era's devided like starwars did with the Old Republic era, the Rebellion and the New Galatic Republic era. The realms had a playable old era (2nd ed Arcane Age supplements; by the way did this get novels?), the current era (mine is 3.5 1374) and the future era (4e and 1479).
by the way did this get novels?)
-Yes and no. There are four books that make up the Lost Empires series- The Lost Library of Cormanthyr, The Nether Scrolls, Faces of Deception, and Star of Cursrah- that take place, or deal with, ancient civilizations. There was also the Netheril trilogy. As a whole, though, there never was an "Arcane Age" trilogy, or series.
So what are your thoughts on maintaining the balance between rule book and novel? I personally feel that novels should be allowed to develop on their own without having to rely on what the rule books establish. But I also understand that you can't really separate the two.
Quite simply, I believe that the two must co-exist. I should imagine that the PnP game needs the, anecdotally, far more lucrative novel line to supply money to WotC in that it would not surprise me, at all, to find that staff costs and FR R&D is subsidised by these monies. The novels don't need the game as much, I believe, since they could continue profitably without it, they do need a narrative frame though. I think that narrative frame is supplied by the game.
On the other hand, with respect to balance, I believe that the time-jump was a game effect and should not have been allowed to affect the novels. I have read the interviews and dev statements about why it did. I just don't agree with them. It is a no win situation that, I believe, hurts the novels more than the game.
And yes. I happily agree that I am biased in this.
And yes. I happily agree that I am biased in this.
-You and me both know, the Forgotten Realms is a setting for stories to be told in, first and foremost, after all. A very novel idea! ;)
-Yes and no. There are four books that make up the Lost Empires series- The Lost Library of Cormanthyr, The Nether Scrolls, Faces of Deception, and Star of Cursrah- that take place, or deal with, ancient civilizations. There was also the Netheril trilogy. As a whole, though, there never was an "Arcane Age" trilogy, or series.
I always thought the Arcane Age trilogy was the story about the barbarian who went adventuring through the Nethril Empire time and met Karsus and tried to stop him. I am pretty sure the novels came out at the same time that the game supplements did.
I always thought the Arcane Age trilogy was the story about the barbarian who went adventuring through the Nethril Empire time and met Karsus and tried to stop him. I am pretty sure the novels came out at the same time that the game supplements did.
-It has the Arcane Age "stamp", but it's the Netheril Trilogy, not the Arcane Age trilogy- hence the "yes and no".
To me it just doesn't follow that it's a good idea to push the game setting 100 years forward and not have the majority of novel stories take place in that era.
To me it just doesn't follow that it's a good idea to push the game setting 100 years forward and not have the majority of novel stories take place in that era.
I agree. Although I would gladly allow exceptions. To me, Elaine Cunningham's Reclamation, should it ever come to be completed, shouldn't meet with WOTC's opposition because it's a pre-Spellplague novel. Nor should Ed be met with resistance if he comes up with a new story in the old Realms. While I agree that focus should remain on the new world, I don't think WOTC has anything to lose by letting the right authors do some pre-Spellplague novels every now and then.
Despite what I said earlier, I have to agree with you that exceptions should exist. I don't believe WotC was smart to have such an absolute cutoff as they did.
Obviously I'm armchair quarterbacking here, but in my marginally educated opinion I don't think WotC risks much in the way of loosing focus on the post-Spellplague Realms by having popular Realms authors wrap up story arcs that sell well and generate mostly positive fan discussion online.
:::::::::::::::::::::
Balance between novels and the game has long been an issue. Stepping back to the release of Third Editiono D&D, consider Tilverton's destruction.
Tilveron was just one town, but its destruction caused a stir nonetheless because people had placed their 2nd Edition AD&D campaigns in Tilverton, it was a place detailed in Volo's Guide to Cormyr and ignoring its destruction put some DMs and their campaigns at odds with the much larger story arc of the Shades returning to Faerûn.
This wasn't a position that DMs who like to feel immersed in the wider setting want to be put in.
According to at least one game designer who worked on the (Third Edition D&D) Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting it was the novel department's idea to destroy Tilverton, and that's not the only place they wanted to axe as part of their story arc. It took the objections of the game designers to limit those changes to just one place.
What I'd like to know is just how cross-cooperative the novel and game divisions were in the Spellplague changes. Isn't Phil Athans (who has a design credit in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide) a longtime WotC editor?
Frankly, I think the time jump hurt the game setting more than it hurt the novels. You can still tell a new story. However, many people had 2E and 3E source books that are now largely invalid outside of being used for historical reference. Books have time jumps all the time, although granted 100 years is a lot.
I think someone compared the situation to Star Wars vs the Expanded Universe. I think that is an apt analogy. What sucks the most for those who read the novels is the fact that some of the subplots were never tied up, and that many favorite human characters are now dead. Outside of that the changes are negligible at best. In some cases, people might actually say that it was a small sacrifice to make the setting more open ended for the authors to tell stories (which would in turn lead to better stories).
Frankly, I think the time jump hurt the game setting more than it hurt the novels. You can still tell a new story. However, many people had 2E and 3E source books that are now largely invalid outside of being used for historical reference. Books have time jumps all the time, although granted 100 years is a lot.
I can agree with this to a degree. I can look up any old Eberron book and it's still completely relevant to 4E.
When you have three core books and that's it, I can see the problem when former sourcebooks are not useful anymore. Some of the old 3E Eberron books are amazing, like Argonnessen and Secrets of Xen'drik. Due to the 100 year timejump, many of the old 3E FR books are now horribly out of date or irrelevant.
So what are your thoughts on maintaining the balance between rule book and novel? I personally feel that novels should be allowed to develop on their own without having to rely on what the rule books establish. But I also understand that you can't really separate the two.
I believe that though the two have a link that shouldn't be separated, novels should definitly have more leeway in terms of what the character in them can do.
For example, I think WotC's worst mistake was writing up "stats" for the various characters (and gods) in the Realms. Trying to put what a character does from a novelist's view into a ridged format is never going to be 100% accurate. This can sometimes leads to new rules within D&D and thats great, but when people complain (not that you are) that a certain character can't do that due to stats/racial abilities/etc... really frustrates me.
Now, in relation to setting/edition specific things I can see why some people would be bothered by reading a FR novel set in 1479 based on just the vast changes that have happened. I'm sure someone who hates FR4e would be a bit bothered by a novel based on the adventures of an Eladrin (Sun Elf) swordmage, Dragonborn avenger of Bahamut, a human cleric of Amaunator, and a Drow paladin of Corellon, lol. I think the changes to the races, deities, and physical world itself is a deterrent to those opposed to FR4e.
But I also think the pro-FR4e crowd is in the majority and WotC is producing novels that appeal to that majority. Hence the 4e setting books. I've only read one 4e novel (Swordmage) and thought it was extreamly well written. I haven't read any others mainly because I don't know which ones are set in 1479.
Due to the 100 year timejump, many of the old 3E FR books are now horribly out of date or irrelevant.
It's only irrelevant if you choose so. I've been in the process of starting my first FR4e campaign and I'm finding alot of 3.x sourcebooks useful, espically for converting Prestige Classes into Paragon Paths, updating unique magical weapons/armor/wondrous items, and for the local history.
Alternatively, the older source books are great tools for building character backrounds, in depth maps, and names of famous locations (Friendly Arms Inn anyone?) and thus are invaluable. Besides, if you have em', why not use em'?
I can't remember who said it, but it was either Rich Baker or Chris Perkin's I believe. It was stated before the release of the FRCG, about two or three months after the changes were announced.
I think it was the interview with Bruce and Phil together, mentioning Rich in places, (See Design and Development: Forgotten Realms). Although from my rereading of it (which has just raised me to anger at Bruce again. GNAH.) I don't think it is suggested that this was primarily for the novel authors. They do in fact mention DMs, game designers and authors in what seems to be the appropriate section.
Frankly, I think the time jump hurt the game setting more than it hurt the novels. You can still tell a new story. However, many people had 2E and 3E source books that are now largely invalid outside of being used for historical reference. Books have time jumps all the time, although granted 100 years is a lot.
I am afraid I couldn't disagree with the more strongly. Sorry Meldread, but there is one thing you seem to fail to account for here and it is fundamental. DMs are perfectly capable of modifying any and all setting material to fit their campaigns, 100 years out or not. Readers of novels have no control of what choices and design or story directions taken in them. One given example, Tilverton, can your average DM have it rebuilt in your game? Yep. Can your average reader have it rebuilt in the novels? Nope.
I think someone compared the situation to Star Wars vs the Expanded Universe. I think that is an apt analogy. What sucks the most for those who read the novels is the fact that some of the subplots were never tied up, and that many favorite human characters are now dead. Outside of that the changes are negligible at best. In some cases, people might actually say that it was a small sacrifice to make the setting more open ended for the authors to tell stories (which would in turn lead to better stories).
Um, subplots and characters pretty much are the Realms for me, thanks. How often do you get novels about a single city? I mean the city itself? Now how often do you get novels about the people within that city? Indeed.
I do not and would not consider it a small sacrifice, even in the light of my excellent experience with 4E novels so far. They could have moved the timeline forward, concentrated for the most part on 4E novels while wrapping up the 3E stories, or even waiting a year while FR was the only 4E setting and then do so when, with the release of Eberron, the FR focus could be allowed to broaden a bit. There has been, however, no evidence of this.
Personally I don't care for the novels and never have. I still am happiest with settings where novels are not canon at all (Eberron) and feel this is the far superior approach. It also means game metaplot and other things are non-existent issues.
Excellent. I am extremely glad that you have found a setting and a type of setting that you are happiest with. As you have pointed out though, FR is different. And I for one hope that it stays that way.
I am afraid I couldn't disagree with the more strongly. Sorry Meldread, but there is one thing you seem to fail to account for here and it is fundamental. DMs are perfectly capable of modifying any and all setting material to fit their campaigns, 100 years out or not.
-The biggest knock against the claimed phenomenon that there's too much information to be used (if that's possible) by people trying to make a D&D game: No one is beholden to use what they don't want to.
I am afraid I couldn't disagree with the more strongly. Sorry Meldread, but there is one thing you seem to fail to account for here and it is fundamental. DMs are perfectly capable of modifying any and all setting material to fit their campaigns, 100 years out or not. Readers of novels have no control of what choices and design or story directions taken in them. One given example, Tilverton, can your average DM have it rebuilt in your game? Yep. Can your average reader have it rebuilt in the novels? Nope.
You're correct. A DM can change whatever he wants in his campaign, but that wasn't my point.
As a novel reader you're always going to be a slave to what the authors write. You're always going to find things that you dislike. Let's say you're a fan of Elminster. One day Ed Greenwood decides that he's sick and tired of writing Elminster stories, and so in a final novel he kills Elminster. To add insult to injury, he has the entire novel end up being a dream Elminster experienced after having fallen asleep in his bath tub - where he promptly drowns in the end.
There is nothing you can do. If I want Elminster alive in my campaign, I can wave my hand and make it so. You can't.
However, Elminster's Daughter, Elminster in Hell, and a Making of a Mage - all the previous books where he played major and minor roles - they are still valid and good. Those stories are still just as useful to you as they ever were.
Now, let me walk over to my shelf and pull off the 2E Forgotten Realms Game Accessory: Old Empires. I have this book here designed specifically to assist me running a campaign in Chessenta, Unther and Mulhorand. All of which in 4E have undergone dramatic changes (or literally disappeared!), and what's more the time jump makes everything written there invalid.
Now, I can make changes to my Realms, this is true. However, the purpose of the book was to help make my job as a DM easier. Unless I am using it as a historical text, it's more-or-less trash. Yet, you can pick up any one of the novels written for the Realms and therein you'll find a self-contained story. It doesn't matter what changes are made to the Realms - the story sinks or swims on its own.
There is nothing about the design of 4E FR that makes it incompatible with telling good stories. People may dislike things, and that's fine – there is nothing wrong with that – but by and large I've only heard positive things about the stories written exclusively in the 4E timeline. (I exclude some of the transition novels from this.)
Sure, some characters are dead, but many are still alive and well. You seem to not understand that you were always beholden to what happened in the novels. Any character that you liked could have been killed at any time, and any plot that you liked could have ended differently.
In effect this makes you impossible to please: it was inevitable for something to happen that you disliked very strongly. It is also inevitable that it will happen again. And again. And again. And it will continue for as long as they write FR novels.
However, Elminster's Daughter, Elminster in Hell, and a Making of a Mage - all the previous books where he played major and minor roles - they are still valid and good. Those stories are still just as useful to you as they ever were.
Broadly true, although I would make a case that novels of the past are affected by the reader's knowledge now. If I now know that after all of it Elminster will fall to a bathing accident, will I not then look at his prior activities in a different light? This is the joy, as you put it, of being a slave to what authors write. I would also raise the point that with a game-tied novel line some of the plot isn't, in fact, decided by the authors.
Now, let me walk over to my shelf and pull off the 2E Forgotten Realms Game Accessory: Old Empires. I have this book here designed specifically to assist me running a campaign in Chessenta, Unther and Mulhorand. All of which in 4E have undergone dramatic changes (or literally disappeared!), and what's more the time jump makes everything written there invalid.
Does it? First of all you have the "everything that happened, happened" design goal of 4E (with the addenda to that). Second of all, as has been pointed out in the past to people who have made the point you are now making (by Misc, I believe, though I do apologise if I am wrong) that there is nothing whatsoever stopping you from stealing that material and useing it wherever your like. Unless your players have an encyclopedic knowledge of the book in question it is likely, is it not, that there is still material you can use.
Now, I can make changes to my Realms, this is true. However, the purpose of the book was to help make my job as a DM easier. Unless I am using it as a historical text, it's more-or-less trash. Yet, you can pick up any one of the novels written for the Realms and therein you'll find a self-contained story. It doesn't matter what changes are made to the Realms - the story sinks or swims on its own.
Now this I would query. First of all, as suggested above, I believe that even older materials could still make your job easier as a DM. Although since I am not currently a DM in the Realms I cannot answer that from experience and will accept, on the basis of your personal experience, that it is "more-or-less" trash in wherein "everything written there is invalid". Secondly, and in addition to the point I made above about the reader's current knowledge, I do not consider the books stand-alone as you seem to. The novels are part of a greater story, the "thousand stories all happening at once". Sure, a novel may end but that is, to me, a single window into a far greater world. As I have said before, what I value is the continuity of the narrative of the Realms. This means that no single story, for me, sinks or swims on its own.
Sure, some characters are dead, but many are still alive and well. You seem to not understand that you were always beholden to what happened in the novels. Any character that you liked could have been killed at any time, and any plot that you liked could have ended differently.
In effect this makes you impossible to please: it was inevitable for something to happen that you disliked very strongly. It is also inevitable that it will happen again. And again. And again. And it will continue for as long as they write FR novels.
And what you do not seem to understand is the basis for, and target of, my objection. My unhappiness with the transition is not that the characters have passed, or that things I may dislike will happen. I am aware that this will take place, often, whether I like it or not. It is a novel. It happens in any novel series, FR is not special in this respect.
Now to clarify. My objection, as has been stated in this very thread and indeed in other threads is not to the novels that exist and the stories told in them... but with the stories that will remain unwritten due to Wizard's application of the time-jump and their specification of no-3E-only products. I don't actually mind too much if a character dies in a novel, as long as they don't go down looking like too much of a idiot. What I do mind is that story not being told at all.
Does this policy mean that no loose ends will get dealt with in flash-backs? Probably not, I am sure that a few will see narrative conclusion in the coming months and years. Do I believe, however, that Wizards will leave many more stories unfinished and lives unchronicled? You damn betcha.
That is what, I believe, the time-jump has given the novel line and why I believe the degree of invalidation that the sourcebooks of prior editions that you have read and used have suffered (and they have) is still less than the likely negation (Please let them change their minds!) of the possible release of novels I haven't even had a chance to see yet!
Like Aegeri though, I greatly prefer the novels to be divorced from canon. Whoever thought the idea up to intertwine the two needs to be taken over someone's knees and spanked, and not in the fun sort of way.
Wouldn't that be Ed and whoever worked out the first the first novel deal (Darkwalker wasn't it?), Stigger?
Now this I would query. First of all, as suggested above, I believe that even older materials could still make your job easier as a DM. Although since I am not currently a DM in the Realms I cannot answer that from experience and will accept, on the basis of your personal experience, that it is "more-or-less" trash in wherein "everything written there is invalid".
Keep in mind I am not claiming this to be a personal problem. However, it is an issue that grates on my nerves nevertheless.
The source books are tied to the novel line. As a result they must constantly be forced forward into the future. This means by the time a source book reaches my hands it is already being outdated by some novel. Since most people who read the novels (like yourself) don't game in the Realms, there is no reason to link them together. The novels could have remained canonical among themselves, and in effect act as if the PnP game didn't exist at all.
...but I digress. My point is this: If you pick up a copy of Elminster's Daughter it is just as valuable to you as any other book published for the Realms. If you pick up a copy of the Old Empires, it is remarkably less valuable to you unless you plan to set your campaign in or around the same date. Yes, a handful of things could still be useful to you, but let's assume you have something like the Maztica Campaign Guide and you want to play a campaign set in the True World.
Not only is it over 100 years out of date, if you are sticking with canon, it is completely vanished from the face of Toril. If you want to set your campaign in Maztica you have to somehow get your players to Abeir (which has very little information). Then you have to get them to Maztica, and then determine what changed between the release of the campaign setting before it was transported to Abeir. Finally, you have to fill in the 100 years since it has been on Abeir... and by the time you've done all that work you've deviated so far from what has been written that it's more-or-less useless to you.
That is the difference.
Now to clarify. My objection, as has been stated in this very thread and indeed in other threads is not to the novels that exist and the stories told in them... but with the stories that will remain unwritten due to Wizard's application of the time-jump and their specification of no-3E-only products.
There are many more stories that will never be told regardless of the time jump. Where is the story of Esmel I "Serrus the Great", the Shoonite general who founded the nation of Amn? What about the First ruler of Dambrath Reinhar I, who united the Arkaiun tribes under his rule, and died in an invasion of Halruaa? What about Morlorn the Usurper king of Impiltur? What about the story of Halikam Ameythystall the Margrave of Meiritin? How about the events of 557 DR Year of the Melding, in which an army of hobgoblins devastated the dwarven Duchy of Hunnabar, then are destroyed by Phalorm's armies only to have the elf king Ruardh Lightshiver slain in battle?
These are all stories that you shall never hear, yet you do not complain. They happen hundreds of years in the past before even the first novel was written. I am sure they would be fantastic stories. Yet, they will never find their way into a novel.
There will always be millions of stories never told, with or without the time jump.
...That is the difference.
To be honest I think there is little reason to expect further illumination on this point, expecially on the comparative impact of the changes. So I will concede that Plague and time-jump have had a serious and lasting effect on the applicability of previous edition material on the Realms and leave it at that... barring waking up in the morning and having anything more useful to add to it.
These are all stories that you shall never hear, yet you do not complain. They happen hundreds of years in the past before even the first novel was written. I am sure they would be fantastic stories. Yet, they will never find their way into a novel.
There will always be millions of stories never told, with or without the time jump.
You can't see the difference between the two? To my, admittedly limited knowledge, and from your impication these have never been tackled in novel form. I have already specified that I value narrative continuity. You are right, these stories may never find their way into a novel... but nor have they before.
The characters I have talked about before, the stories I have spoken about in the past were all things that have already appeared in novel form. In some cases in a few novels, in many cases half a dozen or possibly even more. Are you honestly suggesting that had the time-jump not taken place that WotC is unlikely to have ever published another book featuring the Chosen? Or the Royal Court in Cormyr? Because by equating the events you listed above with the ones I have been referring to that is what you are logically suggesting.
I am not looking for them to start to chronicle new eras of history, or start in on the life stories of people we have never met (although I wouldn't mind it). What I have said, time and again, is that I do not agree with not finishing the stories they have already begun. To compare the impact of loss of coverage for events that have never appeared in novel form with the impact of loss of coverage for events that have appeared, and appeared often, in novel form is apple-to-oranging.
The time-jump and era-limit is, in effect, like the cancellation of a tv series with a 5 minute addendum at the end stating "Some characters survive, some die. Watch next week for an entirely new show!"
More will come in the morning if I think of it.
There are many more stories that will never be told regardless of the time jump. Where is the story of Esmel I "Serrus the Great", the Shoonite general who founded the nation of Amn? What about the First ruler of Dambrath Reinhar I, who united the Arkaiun tribes under his rule, and died in an invasion of Halruaa? What about Morlorn the Usurper king of Impiltur? What about the story of Halikam Ameythystall the Margrave of Meiritin? How about the events of 557 DR Year of the Melding, in which an army of hobgoblins devastated the dwarven Duchy of Hunnabar, then are destroyed by Phalorm's armies only to have the elf king Ruardh Lightshiver slain in battle?
These are all stories that you shall never hear, yet you do not complain. They happen hundreds of years in the past before even the first novel was written. I am sure they would be fantastic stories. Yet, they will never find their way into a novel.
-These are events that were "built into the history" of the Forgotten Realms. That is, from day one, these events were historical events, not contemporary events. The "current era" of the Forgotten Realms- that is, the timeline in which we, the players, readers and fans understood as the present- never took place during the rise of Shoonach, Impiltur, Amn, or 577 DR. The "current era" of the Forgotten Realms has always been (barring the recent time jump) contained within the past twenty years or so (1,350's to 1,370's). During those decades, we've been introduced to characters pertinent to the present, stories pertinent to the present, places pertinent to the present, and so on.
-Not having an event that already exists in the annals of Forgotten Realms history is no real biggie, being as that we already know, ultimately, what conclusions are reached. Not having events that don't exist in the annals of Forgotten Realms history, that don't have absolute conclusions...That is a much different matter, and that is what is going on here, that I, that Iluvrien, that many others bemoan.
Balance between novels and the game has long been an issue. Stepping back to the release of Third Editiono D&D, consider Tilverton's destruction.
Tilveron was just one town, but its destruction caused a stir nonetheless because people had placed their 2nd Edition AD&D campaigns in Tilverton, it was a place detailed in Volo's Guide to Cormyr and ignoring its destruction put some DMs and their campaigns at odds with the much larger story arc of the Shades returning to Faerûn.
This wasn't a position that DMs who like to feel immersed in the wider setting want to be put in.
According to at least one game designer who worked on the (Third Edition D&D) Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting it was the novel department's idea to destroy Tilverton, and that's not the only place they wanted to axe as part of their story arc. It took the objections of the game designers to limit those changes to just one place.
What I'd like to know is just how cross-cooperative the novel and game divisions were in the Spellplague changes. Isn't Phil Athans (who has a design credit in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide) a longtime WotC editor?
This is exactly the situation I was thinking about. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to this game to stress that the PnP world is strictly defined by the players and the DM's. WoTC can provide a setting, lore and stats. But I think that they should get away from these massive story defining world changing adventures. It's fine to define smaller adventures that could be tied together into a campaign like the ones in the 4E FR campaign guide. But leave it to the individual DM to decide how their players affect the setting story line. This would allow the novel line the freedom to write the stories it wants. So if Tilverton gets destroyed, so what. It's still there in game terms. If the DM wants, he can tie that into his campaign world.
If this was how WoTC approached this there would never have been a Spellplague of a 100 year jump. The setting is the same, the lore is the same, only the stats change. I think it would have been fine to allow the DM's to figure out how to incorporate the new rules. But I guess the real problem for WoTC is that if they do that, it would be too easy for DM's to stick to old rules. Their whole MO is to force people to switch to 4E thus why would they separate it all. It is in their best interest to have the PnP game so closely tied to the novels. That way they can gently steer people into buying what they want by shifting the story line. That's why you see all of the new novels focusing so much on aberrations, spellscars, and new lands such as Ankul. The Sembia article got bumped because it didn't fit into the whole "New" Realms that WoTC is selling (my opinion). Not that I blame then, it makes total economic sense. It's hard to ask a publicly traded company to be altruistic.
Their whole MO is to force people to switch to 4E thus why would they separate it all.
-Only with the "new" Forgotten Realms. With the transition from 1e to 2e (the Time of Troubles), there wasn't super-catastrophic change. With the transition from 2e to 3e, there was barely any change.
As for 4e adventures having more trouble as being written into a story...it is the same as implying that you can't develop a good story/campaign with 4e Dnd. Which we all know is bullocks. If you can tell a good story than you can do it with 4e as well and write about it just as easily as previous editions. Only difference is that 4e is more combat oriented, but a good author will usually summarize battles as fast paced parts of the entire story.
Everyone so stuck on lore need to remove the sticks from their arse and stop making things more problematic then they are. So what if 4e FR history only spans the last 20 years or so. You can still use previous edition lore to fill up the rest of the history. There will only be a gap of 80 years between 3rd and 4th edition.
Everyone so stuck on lore need to remove the sticks from their arse and stop making things more problematic then they are. So what if 4e FR history only spans the last 20 years or so. You can still use previous edition lore to fill up the rest of the history. There will only be a gap of 80 years between 3rd and 4th edition.
Contempt... the best way to win people over?
Maybe people who don't like 4E Realms should be allowed to have their opinion.
Contempt? Perhaps. But I don't see well-informed opinions. I see poor excuses and non-reasons pass by.
In matters of taste, people don't have to defend their opinions. Claims, yes. But not opinions.
Wouldn't that be Ed and whoever worked out the first the first novel deal (Darkwalker wasn't it?), Stigger?
Could be. I have no idea any way it goes to be honest. Don't really care any way it goes either. It was still a bad idea in the long run, though I'm sure it sounded great at the time. But like many things people do, it doesn't mean its the best of ideas, just that we keep doing things that way. Well, let me reiterate that, great from a marketing and lorists point of view, not so good from a gamers point of view.
Well, let me reiterate that, great from a marketing and lorists point of view, not so good from a gamers point of view.
I made a thread soon after I joined the boards about how the novels should be cut loose from canon. I was actually argued down by some of the same people the discussion here features.
I would also point out that this thread serves as evidence that the status quo although generally good is a little rough for all consumers of the Realms.
I made a thread soon after I joined the boards about how the novels should be cut loose from canon. I was actually argued down by some of the same people the discussion here features.
I would also point out that this thread serves as evidence that the status quo although generally good is a little rough for all consumers of the Realms.
What exactly do you mean by saying that the novels should be cut loose from canon?
What exactly do you mean by saying that the novels should be cut loose from canon?
-That the novels should have their own continuity (a novel-verse), that sourcebooks have their own continuity (a sourcebook-verse), and the two don't influence each other. So, you can your people who can read their novels, and not have them be devastated by rule changes, you can have your people who play their D&D games and don't have their own changes "ruined" by the direction the official novels take, and everyone's happy.
-Doug Niles wrote the Darkwalker on Moonshae, by the way. Saw them mentioned earlier.
There are many more stories that will never be told regardless of the time jump. Where is the story of Esmel I "Serrus the Great", the Shoonite general who founded the nation of Amn? What about the First ruler of Dambrath Reinhar I, who united the Arkaiun tribes under his rule, and died in an invasion of Halruaa? What about Morlorn the Usurper king of Impiltur? What about the story of Halikam Ameythystall the Margrave of Meiritin? How about the events of 557 DR Year of the Melding, in which an army of hobgoblins devastated the dwarven Duchy of Hunnabar, then are destroyed by Phalorm's armies only to have the elf king Ruardh Lightshiver slain in battle?
These are all stories that you shall never hear, yet you do not complain. They happen hundreds of years in the past before even the first novel was written. I am sure they would be fantastic stories. Yet, they will never find their way into a novel.
There will always be millions of stories never told, with or without the time jump.
But there's a difference between "never told" and "never finished after already telling 2/3 of it"
This is exactly the situation I was thinking about. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to this game to stress that the PnP world is strictly defined by the players and the DM's.
I personally prefer settings with a meta-story. While all individual campaigns are bound to stray away from it at some point, I still like them very much. I don't have much interest in "dead" settings without a meta-plot
But I think that they should get away from these massive story defining world changing adventures.
While these things can't happen if you have non-canon novels, they're also not a must if you have canon novels. They can write canon novels without having to write realm shattering events. I actually very much prefer the small-scale novels, that are mostly about the local adventures of a few persons (e.g. Glass Prison, Faces of Deception and the like).
-That the novels should have their own continuity (a novel-verse), that sourcebooks have their own continuity (a sourcebook-verse), and the two don't influence each other. So, you can your people who can read their novels, and not have them be devastated by rule changes, you can have your people who play their D&D games and don't have their own changes "ruined" by the direction the official novels take, and everyone's happy.
-Doug Niles wrote the Darkwalker on Moonshae, by the way. Saw them mentioned earlier.
Ah...ok yes. That is exactly what I want to have happen. I think it is best for both the game and the novel....but as I stated earlier it wouildn't be the best thing for WoTC.
Ah...ok yes. That is exactly what I want to have happen. I think it is best for both the game and the novel....but as I stated earlier it wouildn't be the best thing for WoTC.
-I disagree, but yes, you've got it! :P
I thought it was kind of a given that the novels would be crap myself... I was more suprised to find good ones than I was to find bad ones. Like Aegeri though, I greatly prefer the novels to be divorced from canon. Whoever thought the idea up to intertwine the two needs to be taken over someone's knees and spanked, and not in the fun sort of way.
I imagine that was probably Ed Greenwood, or then again maybe TSR thought it would be a good idea back in the day (it would be hard to tell to be honest). I remember the sheer drama that occurred on the boards when they destroyed Tilverton. It wasn't long after certain things like that all novel discussion was banned from these forums.
It isn't at all hard to guess why.
I remember the sheer drama that occurred on the boards when they destroyed Tilverton. It wasn't long after certain things like that all novel discussion was banned from these forums.
-The Siege came out in December 2001. The 'Novels' section of the board was removed, and direct discussion of novels was banned circa mid 2004.
I imagine that was probably Ed Greenwood, or then again maybe TSR thought it would be a good idea back in the day (it would be hard to tell to be honest).
From my sig:
This time, we were after something different; a world that we could continue to develop over the years that will follow, and set all future AD&D game modules into. A place where a variety of talented individuals could all contribute to its creation and its development. Rather than one view, a combination of views that would grow and develop through adventures, sourcebooks, short stories and books.
--Jeff Grubb, from the Introduction to the DM's Sourcebook of the Realms, 1987.
So what are your thoughts on maintaining the balance between rule book and novel? I personally feel that novels should be allowed to develop on their own without having to rely on what the rule books establish. But I also understand that you can't really separate the two.
Sure you can. I've seperated them for years.
To me, the novels are but the chronicle of how someone elses campaign might've played out.
Every now & then I'll read something in a D&D novel and steal it for use in my own games (FR or not). But this isn't any different than what I do concerning any other source....
So the WoTC authors? They can write whatever they like in the novels. I might read them - or I might not. Either way I'm not obligated to include their stuff come Friday night (Not even if it's included in the actual rule books).
And thus the WoTC/novel FR & MY version of the FR can both peacefully co-exist.
And thus the WoTC/novel FR & MY version of the FR can both peacefully co-exist.
I wish I had this attitude when I had started DMing in the realms quite some time back and I had players with the same concept. Would have given my blood pressure a much needed reduction and it might have altered many of my opinions on the removal of things like high NPCs among other aspects 4E changed.
This time, we were after something different; a world that we could continue to develop over the years that will follow, and set all future AD&D game modules into. A place where a variety of talented individuals could all contribute to its creation and its development. Rather than one view, a combination of views that would grow and develop through adventures, sourcebooks, short stories and books.
That is interesting.
Sure you can. I've seperated them for years.
To me, the novels are but the chronicle of how someone elses campaign might've played out.
Every now & then I'll read something in a D&D novel and steal it for use in my own games (FR or not). But this isn't any different than what I do concerning any other source....
So the WoTC authors? They can write whatever they like in the novels. I might read them - or I might not. Either way I'm not obligated to include their stuff come Friday night (Not even if it's included in the actual rule books).
And thus the WoTC/novel FR & MY version of the FR can both peacefully co-exist.
You are looking at it from the opposite side. I'm a novel reader first and a PnP gamer.....well probably like 32nd or something since I rarely get to play. But I will be playing within a month...woot! But anyway, I feel, and others have agreed, that the novels story lines are influenced at times by the rules of the game and the story line of the game...thus the Spellplague. I want the writers to be able to write without a designer coming up to them and saying that they can't do this or that because it will hurt the game. I feel that DM's should maintain their own story line within the setting rather than WoTC providing it for them...this we are probably in agreement on.
As for the novels, we are not in agreement. I enjoyed reading the Realms novels in as they were and it has been very hard for me to accept the massive changes that occured with 4E. I guess I should have worded the subject differently. "Can the OnP game keep it's grubby little hands off of my novels?" Yes, that's much better.
You are looking at it from the opposite side. I'm a novel reader first and a PnP gamer.....well probably like 32nd or something since I rarely get to play. But I will be playing within a month...woot! But anyway, I feel, and others have agreed, that the novels story lines are influenced at times by the rules of the game and the story line of the game...thus the Spellplague. I want the writers to be able to write without a designer coming up to them and saying that they can't do this or that because it will hurt the game. I feel that DM's should maintain their own story line within the setting rather than WoTC providing it for them...this we are probably in agreement on.
-Well, when you have two mediums for the same information (the Forgotten Realms), there's gonna be a symbiotic relationship there, as novels and sourcebooks have.