How can I contribute to the Candlekeep Compendium. I know that its being held back for new fan policy info but I'd like to know ahead of time. For my own game I created a whole timeline (mostly canon information) and tribes and culture information for the Wemics in the Shaar. Who should I ask to find out if that I have is "good enough"? Also, this is for the new Forgotten Realms. Are the Candlekeep Compendiums going to be for the new FR, old FR, or both?
As for your potential submission, you can either share it with the rest of the Compendium staff for discussion, or just send it to me [as one of the senior scribes on the Compendium staff] and I'll give the once over. After that's done, we'll discuss what place it may have in the next [or future] Volume of the Compendium.
As for your last question... the Candlekeep Compendium maintains a strict policy of being edition-neutral in terms of the Realmslore. We want all Realms fans to find the Compendium useful, so that means including Realmslore from 1e, 2e, 3e, and even the post-Spellplague Realms of 4e.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me via PM or email, and I'll do what I can to assist.
Since the next issue is being held back until the 4e Fansite Policy is released, it could be a VERY long time before we see another issue anyway.
Could you expand on this? The what needs to be released?
As it is, most of the Compendium staff aren't as comfortable writing their material for this next Volume while there exists such uncertainty with the Fan Site policy. And it would be somewhat difficult to publish the next Volume of the Compendium when it has content that deals with both pre- and post-Spellplague material. We don't want to start splitting the submissions up and releasing independent edition-specific Volumes.
And, for what it's worth, I agree with this stance. My current article submission deals primarily with the planes. But given the planar changes in 4e FR, some of what I've written into the article may now no longer be something that can be treated in a fan site publication. So if that's the case, it could cause problems for Candlekeep.com later. And that's something I don't want to see happen.
Mine was a historic piece, so it worked in any edition. :P
I just realized, yesterday, however, that my last (and only) article was voided out by the Spellplague. My hidden 'Easter Egg' of Lore had my boy coming from the year of Lost Ships - 1400 DR - he was a mariner who had gotten stuck in Umberlee's Fist and transported through time.
Don't think that works so well now.
The current thinking, however, is that promoting "edition-specific" Volumes of the Compendium will only serve to further divorce the 'anti-4e FR' and 'pro-4e FR' camps. And that kind of production decision would ultimately serve to unjustly characterise the attitudes of most of the scribes at Candlekeep.
I don't want to see that happen.
I don't want to see that happen.
Yes, neither do I.
:evillaugh
:D
C'mon, where's your sense of drama? :P
:evillaugh
:D
Sometimes, I'm just NOT in the mood for drama.
Aye.
The current thinking, however, is that promoting "edition-specific" Volumes of the Compendium will only serve to further divorce the 'anti-4e FR' and 'pro-4e FR' camps. And that kind of production decision would ultimately serve to unjustly characterise the attitudes of most of the scribes at Candlekeep.
I don't want to see that happen.
I concur.
In fact, I think we at CK are all on the same page after some discussion.
Although many of us are not happy with the 4e changes, we accept them as canon and are willing to work with them, and not against them. We may or may not use them in anything we write, but they are part of FR lore and deserve some degree of respect and coverage at edition-neutral Candlekeep.
I know I've been going out of my way to make sure everything new I produce is backwards-compatible with all editions, in order to maximize its usefulness to the community at large. It's even made me come to appreciate some of the 4e lore...
Not much, mind you, but at least I'm not sickened by it anymore. ;)
Aye.
The current thinking, however, is that promoting "edition-specific" Volumes of the Compendium will only serve to further divorce the 'anti-4e FR' and 'pro-4e FR' camps. And that kind of production decision would ultimately serve to unjustly characterise the attitudes of most of the scribes at Candlekeep.
I don't want to see that happen.
Matter of factly, my little work for the Keep will be strictly 3,5E stuff and I simply do not mind what 4Eers think of it or not or whether someone deems it canonic or not. When I write stuff I do it to provide information or resources to DMs and players alike, people who like the Realms like I view them (and that's pre-Spellplague and 3,5E). Those who don't need not to use or like my stuff. My opinion on 4E does not come into it one single bit.
Which, of course, means that I won't provide anything Spellplaguish or post-Spellplagueish or anything 4E ... for that matter.
I performed a little tinkering behind the scenes. So it should be working properly now.
they can't even manage the ddi thing
Markus is referring to the Fan Site Policy WotC is putting together to help fan sites, like Candlekeep.com, determine what IP content can and cannot be included on their websites. Given the fact that this new policy will likely have some affect on the content of future Compendium volumes, we [the Compendium staff] have decided to hold back on the next release until we know the particulars of this new policy.
I sure hope this forthcoming policy is one of reasonable limits. Heavy-handed limitations do nothing but hurt the game.
This is a business, ultimately, and comes down to the dollar. I can say this with complete honesty: I've never once failed to buy a product and/or give WotC my hard-earned money because of a Fan Site. Conversely, I have been encouraged to do so after being introduced to new lore/ideas/whatnot by these sites.
Where Fan Sites are a staple, as Candlekeep has been, Campaign Settings are typically strong. Again, here's to hoping the new policy is sound-minded and reasonable.
I doubt they'll release the fansite policy, anybody asked around?
they can't even manage the ddi thing
-There are still threads in the GSLsection. As you know, though, probably, there isn't anything definite yet.
I doubt they'll release the fansite policy, anybody asked around?
I've a private line I can tap for information, sometimes. I haven't heard anything lately however.
Or, there again, maybe not.
That was immediately following a batch of lay-offs, one of which was the woman who was supposed to be responsible for the fansite policy, and I was wondering if it was still going to be produced.
Since then, we have seen yet another round of lay-offs, and I doubt the fansite policy is receiving any sort of priority.
Considering the horrendous Holiday Season we had, I'm expecting some more large cuts in Hasbro's least-productive depts, which unfortunately D&D falls under.
In other words, I'm really not expecting this thing to ever see the light of day.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :D
Wotc_ScottR said in one thread
It's been off my desk for a few months and now sits on the desk of someone in our web studio who will shepherd it through to completion...
but it's not his biggest priority, he's got other stuff he is working on and although this is important, it's not pressing...
hopefully he wasn't fired
-That might be a good thing. WotC never getting around to a Fansite policy, that is.
Not so...
Without a fansite policy, no new lore will be produced by Candlekeep... which is damn shame (and not just because I wrote in the last one - I was a fan first).
BTW... I'm not being negative toward WotC here - I think it would be very smart of them to delay it indefinately.
You see, there is a funny thing about 'the law'. Once you spell something out explicitly, people can then figure out ways around it (and they always do). This is what happened with the GSL - it blew-up in their face. People figured out all they had to do was not sign it, and they were in the clear. The documents very existance helped people find ways around it.
WotC has never had a fansite policy before now (AFAIK), so anytime they felt like dropping the axe on a site, they could, no questions asked. All they had to do was issue a 'Cease & Desist' order, and claim they are protecting their IP.
Once they actually produce a fansite policy, people will know EXACTLY what is allowed, and how far they can 'stretch' the various definitions of things therein. The existance of the policy will probably cause them greater grief in the long-run, because it will give fanstes some legal grounds to stand upon.
No policy = no leg (for fans) to stand on.
So I understand fully why they are holding back, and I commend them on thinking things through thoroughly... for once. ;)
That made NO difference - ignoring a bunch of fans, even ones as organized as CandleKeep, is easy enough. As long as you're not making money off of the IP, they can just pretend you don't exist (and claim they had no knowledge of you in court).
Once you start charging for stuff, the law becomes a bit more firm - the owner of an IP MUST protect their IP at all costs - failure to do so (and proof of that in court) will result in the IP falling into the public domain.
This is why the Fansite policy is a bit trickier then the GSL - whatever material that WotC deems 'fair use' in the policy will be considered public domain, if it is ever challenged, unless they are VERY precise about their wording.
Bottom line - you can tell a Judge you didn't know about Joe Shmoe's fansite and get away with it, but if you have a fansite policy then you can't. While I am vexed by the hold-up at CandleKeep, I am smart enough to damn well understand why they are dragging their feet, and do not fault them for that.
However, my standing by Candlekeep on any collective decision made there goes without saying. ;)
I was actually replying to the support for Candlekeep you expressed earlier. I should've used the "QUOTE" function. Sorry.
And just a reminder to everyone - just because no Compendium is currently being worrked on doesn't mean you can't come over to CK and ask us about stuff in the Realms - it may not be the same as a written book of articles, but many of us enjoy going on and on about the Realms all the time anyway. :D
Plus you get to ask published designers and authors stuff, which is just way too cool to ignore.
And just a reminder to everyone - just because no Compendium is currently being worrked on...
Just a slight correction... the current Volume of the Compendium has indeed been somewhat put together. Several submissions have come in and there are one or two scribes still working on articles for potential inclusion.
... doesn't mean you can't come over to CK and ask us about stuff in the Realms - it may not be the same as a written book of articles, but many of us enjoy going on and on about the Realms all the time anyway. :D
Plus you get to ask published designers and authors stuff, which is just way too cool to ignore.
Indeed. Markus has the right of it.