Have a read and discuss here please. Let's just keep it civil, m'kay? ;)
Linky
I can't agree more.
"This is one reason why it’s insane to use novels as canon for any game setting."
YES YES YES.
The man is spot on.
I have to agree with a lot that has been said. I'm still reading some of the comments, but the first several comments I'm in general agreement with.
A quote:
"It’s like giving complete creative control to Peter Jackson when he was directing “Lord of the Rings;” we get a superior product that is more entertaining than if limits were placed on everything." - The Key of E
I think that is the perfect way to view things when it comes to the novels and FR. In my opinion the first thing you have to do is be loyal to the medium in which you work. I'm sure we've all had a situation where we've read a book then went to see the movie based on that book, and walked away realizing the two were radically different in some ways.
Sometimes that's a result of creative license, but other times it's a result of the medium through which the story is told. Some things in books will not work in movies, even though conceptually they're very similar.
The same is true for books or movies which are translated into computer games. The same is true for movies, books, and computer games which are translated into tabletop games.
Tabletop games are a radically different medium than novels, movies, and computer games. In novels and movies they are largely similar - you're a passive observer. In computer games, particularly RPG's, you have some degree of freedom to travel down a pre-determined path. In Tabletop games - things are radically different. Unless you have a railroading DM, players are given a HUGE amount of freedom. Virtually every aspect of a planned story can suddenly fall a part unexpectedly due to player action - this is part of the fun. If everything was completely planned out and the DM was merely the "Presenter" of the story rather than the Narrator it would be insanely boring. Hell, we play with dice to INJECT randomness into the story.
So what's the end result? When novels and the tabletop game meets bad things happen. Novel authors are constrained from writing the stories they want to write because it could present certain problems to those playing the tabletop game. Tabletop players have changes inflicted upon the game world as a result of novels - altering future game supplements. This can be a bad thing depending on what has taken place in their games, and can resort in all sorts of weird contortions if a DM tries to shoe horn things together.
Further, when media outside the game setting is canon, it places an emphasis on facts and events outside the control and immediate knowledge of a given DM, such as me. That means, if I care about the canon for whatever reason, I have to educate myself about these facts. But the reality is that these facts have no bearing on my personal campaign unless I choose for them to. The problem with official emphasis on canon is the “official”–it makes it seem like you’re playing improperly if you ignore the canon. That’s a false position, but one that countless players and DMs hold. The canon also makes some players uncomfortable, wondering if, as they create a personal expression, they’re doing it right. That discomfort, because of canon, is bad enough.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I don't think this in and of itself justifies the Spellplague in the Realms, but it sure builds a base from which a justification could be made to jump the setting ahead in time.
I respect people who educate themselves on canon. It’s neat to be involved deeply in a rich world. It’s also fun. Heck, some people, such as Brian R. James, deserve a damn honorary degree in literature for their knowledge of certain influential settings.
Sweet.
but rulke 0 applies, if it it didn't happen in your realms , it didn't happen.
If I want to run into Elminster and trick him while he is insane to tell me tales of Myth DRannor back in its golden days, then I will do so.
If I say the Chronomancer decieved everyone and it was his clone that died that day, than guess what, pay no attention to the netherese wizard behind you.
outside media on the otherhand such as electronic rpgs, they should get mentioned, but not treated as a big deal...
but then I could have a valid point and poorly worded it.
Look at some of the Waterdeep novels: most do not change anything. They mostly give backgrounds. I like that. It is all local so you can use it if you want or not.
Killing off Eilistraee, otoh... and transforming all her followers.. (well, not ALL of her followers...)
Gomez
I disagree, novels should be canon.
but rulke 0 applies, if it it didn't happen in your realms , it didn't happen.
If I want to run into Elminster and trick him while he is insane to tell me tales of Myth DRannor back in its golden days, then I will do so.
If I say the Chronomancer decieved everyone and it was his clone that died that day, than guess what, pay no attention to the netherese wizard behind you.
outside media on the otherhand such as electronic rpgs, they should get mentioned, but not treated as a big deal...but then I could have a valid point and poorly worded it.
I think you're overlooking two problems that face everyone with advancing cannon. The first problem was most prevalent in previous editions when they were releasing source books about the setting. If you happen to be ignoring official cannon and largely playing based upon information in old source books and in the campaign guide, then you run the risk of having large sections being completely irrelevant to your game. Why purchase those source books when you know that drastic changes have been made to a region due to a RSE that didn't (and won't) take place in your FR. The second problem resulted from not keeping up with game cannon and having something dumped into your lap unexpectedly - suddenly learning, for example, that the government of an entire region has been toppled, that there is a vast amount of devastation, etc. These two issues are less important if you aren't gaming in those areas, of course.
A third issue, although this doesn't effect everyone - it certainly impacts some - is the issue Chris Sims brings up with "official" lore. A fourth issue, not touched upon by Sims or anyone else I don't think, is having to deal with individuals who want a "pure" Realms experience and don't want any strong deviation from cannon.
Outside of the game setting, there are additional unnecessary pressures on novel authors. They are constrained to certain degrees about what they can write and the types of stories they can tell.
Finally, I see it as a situation where, in the end, there are no winners only losers. I think advancing cannon is an interesting trait that doesn't really add much to the setting. If someone says to me, "What's the point of reading the novels if they aren't cannon?" My instant gut response is this: "The same reason you'd read any other book. Because you enjoy the story. Because you enjoy the setting. There is no reason anyone should be forced to suffer through a novel that is utter garbage just so they can soak up some additional cannon information."
In the end, if we look at the pro's vs the con's I think the situation is clear. Did anyone really win as a result of 4E? The setting was blown up to explain the changes to the Realms, to make it more accessible to new players who didn't want to have to wade through 20 or so years of cannon information to get up-to-speed with veterans of the setting. It was also done to make room for novel authors to tell more stories with less constraints.
Had the novels been freed from cannon their authors could have told the stories they wanted with less trouble. The community wouldn't have been ripped in half by the changes brought on by 4th Edition. And a larger bulk of our older cannon lore would still be relevant, but enough changes would be made for a new player to still enter the setting without a large degree of trouble. It's the difference between what was done to Eberron in the shift between 3E to 4E and what was done to the Realms.
As far as the novels go, I vote they should be canon. I mean whats the point of even reading it if it didnt "really" happen?
Why not read them for the sake of reading them? Why not read them for the same reason you'd pick up any other book - because you think you'd enjoy the story? Why not read them because you like them?
I always shake my head when someone says this, because what the person is saying and what I'm taking away from their words is completely different. When someone says this, this is what I hear: "I don't think I could choke down those god-awful novels if they weren't cannon. If it weren't for the fact that they were cannon, I'd prefer to burn those books - that's the only thing they're good for. But please keep these crappy novels cannon because otherwise I'll be forced to read them for no reason."
That may or may not be what is being said, but that's what I take away when people use that excuse. If someone doesn't want to read the novels for pure enjoyment, then to me that says they suck really bad. So, then it makes me wonder - "Why does this person want crappy novels that they hate to be made into cannon so they have to keep reading them?" 
This was a very real problem that faced the Forgotten Realms setting when the 4e D&D game came on the scene. Keepers of the Forgotten Realms went even further in the past, actually. Just about everything with an official seal on it is canon for the Realms—games, video games, novels, and so on. Now that’s crazy and limiting. However, it could have all been solved by hitting the reset button on the Realms the way Wizards did with Eberron and Dark Sun. Back to 1357 DR, anyone?
I agree. It's interesting because on EN world they have this thread where they have a poll about how people would like to see a 5E setting. The option for a "reboot" to a certain time point is by far the thing winning by miles and I can't help but agree (as I've stated a few times recently now).
I pretty much agree with everything that he wrote, though he gets a little hyperbolic a bit with Dark Sun in 4E. I know that in 4E Dark Sun instead of writing swathes in the book of "You cannot do this" the book instead just ignores the subject. It talks about what is commonly there, instead of writing into canon all the things that are not there. In the end this leaves things for the DM to decide what goes in and what doesn't. Divine magic is generally not in Dark Sun, but who says the odd nutcase or even genuine true believer hasn't found the way to unlocking some form of Divine Magic? Leaving such a determination up to the DM, while leaving space to things that ARE in the setting rather than trying to tell you what is not, is by far the genuine "common sense" approach to this.
Novels being canon is something I've always thought was a terrible idea. Albeit current novels seem to have taken the attitude of generally not doing very much that would count as a RSE or similar (this is a pretty good thing). At the same time, having to tone this down really dilutes the sort of drama and stories they can tell. On the other hand, making novels not canon is win win. Authors can write awesome stories however they want and nobody has to feel its ever relevant to their games (just like Eberron novels).
Novel canon has been nothing but limiting for the game side Realms. That's not to say that I didn't like many of the novels... I loved many of the series, but there were also many novels that I thought were so horrible they should've been burned.
At the same time, I fully understand that some people love the idea of an evolving, shared world. But such a world should never be limiting, either for the game or for novel authors.
Novels could've been kept separate, although consistent within their own variant of the Realms. I honestly believe that if that had been true, both the novels AND the game would have been better off. Novel authors would not have been limited by game design principles, and the game setting could have remained as a static starting point for DMs and their players without having to "keep up" on even the most stupid of plot developments in novels that flop.
We also would have been able to avoid arguments over matters of taste. If you wanted to include something from novels in your game, you could take bits that you liked and left others behind. If you loved Drizzt, add him. If you hated Drizzt, no need to add him. Novels would've been like modular possibilities, like a smorgasbord to choose from, rather than having to sit there while a waiter fills half of your plate with things you hate.
I think novels should be canon - I just don;t think they shoudl involve RSE's or gods or actually *change* things.
Look at some of the Waterdeep novels: most do not change anything. They mostly give backgrounds. I like that. It is all local so you can use it if you want or not.
Killing off Eilistraee, otoh... and transforming all her followers.. (well, not ALL of her followers...)
Gomez
I agree with you 100%. The novels were great in flavoring the world...then the RSE's starting to happen and became worthless(also I think overall the quality of writting went down hill as well). Stick to small things or writres novels about the past is what they should have done.
But alot of people want novels explaining how Cyrc killed Mystra, how the love triangle of Justice, Protection and Luck happenned and what happenned during the 100 years of Spellplague.
Those are RSE and would be canon. I think some people are contradicting themselves.
Let them be RSEs to their own variant Realms, not mine. You're assuming that people only care about what happens in the novels because they impact the game setting. If novels were divorced from game canon, then they would only have to worry about remaining consistent with other novels in their variant version of the Realms.
Thing is, though... there may be a little truth to the idea that people might buy the novels only if they impact the game world. I loathe Cyric. I hated the entire ToT. The spellplague was ridiculous. Would I have purchased those horrid novels if I knew they didn't affect the game Realms? Probably not. That said, they wouldn't have needed the ToT, Cyric, or the Spellplague if game canon had been kept separate from novels in the first place.
What makes novels important and FR different is that the world evolves with them. This is why canon is important and useful. The Realms didn't just stay the same over 20 years, and that made it interesting. It also made us buy alot of books and made TSR/WotC lots of money. Can you imagine us using the FRCG for the next 20 years?
They could have let Ed do what he does best, and allowed him to evolve the Realms rather than relying on the novels to do it. Ed was, and still is, excellent at coming up with little tidbits that can be put into a timeline for game use. He's a master of adventure hooks and fun little things that can easily jumpstart a campaign. Just look at 1E.
The Realms could have evolved, year by year, with positive additions like that for the game, and it would have felt alive. The novels could have, and should have, been maintained as a separate world unto itself. Instead, a number of authors took those adventure hooks meant for DMs and turned those into novels. As DMs, once that happens you no longer have the option to use that hook.
Just think about divorced canon for a second. Drizzt, isolated up in the north, would probably have remained just as popular, and people would have begged for statistics and things so they could use him and Menzoberrenzan in game. But for those who hated Drizzt, it wouldn't have been canon. All gamers would have remained happy.
Elaine Cunningham's novels would have been just as good, because she's an excellent writer. Imagine if she had not been constrained by game design elements (most namely, it being her job to explain the change in drow magic from 1E to 2E). She would've been more free to tell an even more awesome story, which would've been more her and less editorial control.
The FR are just stuck in a temporal stasis. Unmoving, unchanging, uninteresting.
Sims made me mad when he said:Some novels or other non-game setting materials do more or less harm to games that exist alongside them or follow them. The Forgotten Realms setting is indeed a place where thousands of stories can happen. It is more tolerant to canon because of this.
Any setting is tolerant to thousands of stories! The problem with DS was that the authors of the Prism Pentad novels started playing with what made the setting different, right after the setting was published. It was from lack of experience, internal leadership and vision. The FR would have the same problem if designers started killing off gods for weird reasons... Oh wait.
Except that Realms authors quickly discovered that if they wanted to have a trilogy, they needed an epic story. And those epic stories usually translated into RSEs, which were BAD for the game world. RSEs immediately put limitations on DMs because they're all canon.
Joking aside, what I want to say is the editors, when they are handing over contracts to novelist, they should say that certain stuff is off limite, unless they want specific changes. Mistakes were done in the past but now, after 35 years of experience, they should know. This way novels can be canon, what happens in them finds itself in game book or a DDI article (sigh) at some point. And everyone is happy.
News flash, that's what editors have done and continue to do. But it's obviously not working, because they "had no choice" but to do retarded things like the Time of Troubles and the Spellplague/100-year jump. Do you know ANY old-timer DM or player who has been happy with all of these ridiculous changes?
Actually the ToT novels were done because they changed edition. Not the way around.
Out of everything I wrote, this is what you derived? Sheesh.
Actually the ToT novels were done because they changed edition. Not the way around.
That's actually a relevant point. Having advancing cannon required novels to be written to explain changes to game mechanics. It resulted in those who enjoyed the novels being forced to endure changes to THEIR world for the sake of the game. It resulted in those who enjoyed the game setting being forced to endure novels that killed off deities, and did numerous ridiculous things in order to explain mechanics changes that could have been hand waved away.
Instead of doing a transition similar to what Eberron did from 3E to 4E, we - all of us - have to endure ridiculous eye-rolling changes. There are no winners in the end, only losers.
Those who enjoy the novels lose. Those who enjoy the game setting lose. Novel authors lose. Everyone loses. And eventually WotC will lose as well.
As for a static setting, I don't see it as dire as you do. There could have been endless supplements released detailing parts of the Realms. Supplements such as the Utter East, the Volo's Guides, Netheril Empire of Magic, Races of Faerûn, Lands of Intrigue, Champions of Ruin, etc. Then if we some how ran out of room on Faerûn (nearly impossible) there are HUGE swaths of the world not even touched. That doesn't even touch upon releasing adventures and other modules for the setting.
Jorunhast, there's no reason for you to throw snark into the discussion like that.
In fact I was going to make the same point goldomark did: the ToT was a device designed to explain away the changes in the Realms due to rules changes between 1E and 2E.
Yes the ToT itself was composed by FR editors and authors. However the link between the rules and the setting changes should not be overlooked.
---
I believe it's inaccurate to say they had "no choice" to create both the ToT and the Spellplague.
If this were true we'd have had a similar event in the 2E to 3E transition in the Realms (which we did not, because the designers listened to the fans when they said "no thanks" when they were asked if a ToT part deux would be acceptable or not...though this didn't prevent newer fans not yet plugged in to the Realms from whining like babies over 3E's changes for several years after).
This lends credence to goldomark's original statement: WotC either simply forgot their past mistakes or—through simple attrition and brain drain due to firings of key staff—didn't have the right people on-hand to say "hey, based on past experience and fan reaction it doesn't make sense to do things in the Realms this way".* WotC should have done a better job editorially of limiting the scope of novel influence in the Realms.
*I find either of these scenarios very unlikely given that Rich Baker, Phil Athans and Ed Greenwood were still around when the 4E Realms was taking shape. Regardless, I don’t believe the fact of the post-Spellplague Realms taking shape as it did is enough to justify the idea WotC had “no choice” in the matter.
Jorunhast, there's no reason for you to throw snark into the discussion like that.
Do not presume to lecture others, when you've done far worse yourself. Or when goldomark calls people "idiots" (though I see that those were deleted).
That's actually a relevant point. Having advancing cannon required novels to be written to explain changes to game mechanics. It resulted in those who enjoyed the novels being forced to endure changes to THEIR world for the sake of the game. It resulted in those who enjoyed the game setting being forced to endure novels that killed off deities, and did numerous ridiculous things in order to explain mechanics changes that could have been hand waved away.Instead of doing a transition similar to what Eberron did from 3E to 4E, we - all of us - have to endure ridiculous eye-rolling changes. There are no winners in the end, only losers.
Those who enjoy the novels lose. Those who enjoy the game setting lose. Novel authors lose. Everyone loses. And eventually WotC will lose as well.
This.
Do not presume to lecture others, when you've done far worse yourself.
:yawn:
You're right, I'm the 1,000 pound gorilla. But even gorillas my size can't be said to "lecture" when they're just pointing out the obvious.
Now then, take your snark and keep it out of my thread.
Since you didn't respond to my opinion that the idea that WotC had "no choice" regarding the ToT and the Spellplague is a false one, I'll just accept that you have nothing more useful to add so we can agree to disagree.
Mr_Miscellany-
WotC always had a choice. It's just no matter what they did their choice had consequences. In my opinion, they want novels to be cannon because there are many FR players and DM who will buy them no matter how bad they are - if they stop, they lose this potential customer base. Yet, in the end they still lose because by constantly putting out bad novels that alter the setting it drives such individuals away from the setting entirely, not just the novels. There are numerous other problems as well that impact WotC that causes them to lose one group or another.
The changes from 2E to 3E weren't that drastic. Yet, its a clear case where the game setting actually impacts the novels rather than the reverse being true. Because of the Retcons involved as a result of the rules change it altered the lore. People screamed about the retcons (remember the Wheel vs Tree debates?)
Had WotC simply done a 2E to 3E style transition with the Realms many people would have still been angry. They were clearly going after most of the real-world analogs - Maztica, Kara-Tur got hit far worse than Faerûn, Mulhorand, Chessenta, Unther - all of them are gone for a reason. If they wanted to get rid of those they faced one of two choices: First they could have simply retconned things, or second they could have had a major RSE. They went with major RSE. The only alternative was to keep those areas, or advance the timeline as they did and make significant changes to them.
No matter what happened someone was going to lose out. The only way to avoid that would have been to decouple novel cannon from Realms cannon. This would have allowed the Realms to be updated via retcon for the new rules, and the novels to not be impacted.
As for the rules changes being reflected in cannon - I think a retcon could have honestly handled most of it fairly without ultra-strong complaint. The biggest issue obviously would have been the changes to the way magic worked, which would have had a jarring impact upon those who read the novels if it was merely reconned without explanation.
The more gamy 15th century FR world (the current impression the sourcebooks give) can grow out of its current corselet and become vivid and lively through the novel line. New empires such as the Imaskari could get a real boost in realmslore if a novel would choose the magocracy as its scenery. Sure it will impact some areas, but the lore can enhance the setting and can be expanded on by the community, designers or authors.
Menzoberranzan has been one such succesful product in the past that was created largely because of Salvatores popular work on it. This interaction between novels and a game setting is an example of the benefits of shared world writing and designing. I hope the energy remains to uphold the realms shared world status, because that combined with a vital community can really help fit in or smooth out new ideas into FR's game setting.
"The same reason you'd read any other book.
I do not read these other books. I let them on the shelves in the book stores for that very reason.
The community wouldn't have been ripped in half by the changes brought on by 4th Edition.
No, instead they would be ripped after each and every novel and each and every following novel when the author was cherry picking whichpart of the previous novel he wants to consider canon for his current novels and which not.
I wouldn't want to play in a static setting, I don't play Eberron for that very reason.
Yet, in the end they still lose because by constantly putting out bad novels that alter the setting it drives such individuals away from the setting entirely, not just the novels. There are numerous other problems as well that impact WotC that causes them to lose one group or another.
For a whole lot of people these are good novels with them being canon being the icing on the cake. The icing that made them pick these novels instead of all the other novels sitting on the shelves.
The changes from 2E to 3E weren't that drastic. Yet, its a clear case where the game setting actually impacts the novels rather than the reverse being true. Because of the Retcons involved as a result of the rules change it altered the lore. People screamed about the retcons (remember the Wheel vs Tree debates?)
But that had nothing to do with the novel. The retcons didn't hurt the novels much, because the plane's only played a very minor part in the majority of novel. That was a retcon hurting the gamers and would have hurt them with or without canon novels.
The only way to avoid that would have been to decouple novel cannon from Realms cannon. This would have allowed the Realms to be updated via retcon for the new rules, and the novels to not be impacted.
Once again: The novels were hardly impacted by this, the gaming side was hurt and any retcon would have hurt them even more.
I think a retcon could have honestly handled most of it fairly without ultra-strong complaint.
Retcons are cause for the ultra-strongest complains of all. Even a real bad explanation will cause much less complains than no explanation at all
Novels could've been kept separate, although consistent within their own variant of the Realms. I honestly believe that if that had been true, both the novels AND the game would have been better off. Novel authors would not have been limited by game design principles, and the game setting could have remained as a static starting point for DMs and their players without having to "keep up" on even the most stupid of plot developments in novels that flop.
We also would have been able to avoid arguments over matters of taste. If you wanted to include something from novels in your game, you could take bits that you liked and left others behind. If you loved Drizzt, add him. If you hated Drizzt, no need to add him. Novels would've been like modular possibilities, like a smorgasbord to choose from, rather than having to sit there while a waiter fills half of your plate with things you hate.
This is my view as well. I think the novels should maintain a consistent canon with themselves, but I do not and will never regard the novels as absolute canon for the game setting. Instead, I view them as optional lore supplements. They've established a body of lore that I can use to flesh out the campaign setting when I think it's necessary (though they do this by proxy through the Realmslore wizards here, as I don't read the mostly god-awful novels myself). In my world, sure, Drizzle exists and follows the general concept of the character, but like hell I'm going to be burdened by adhering to a huge body of fiction if I decide he should make an appearance. Same thing with Merlin - err, I mean Gandalf! No, wait... I mean Elminster.
The problem with having all of these things as "official" canon is that I feel it necessary to elaborate on and document how I will be deviating from canon in my campaign. If I don't do this, then players may have assumptions about the world they're in that do not apply or contradict how I run the setting - why wouldn't they assume they're true, if I don't say otherwise?
I regard other information sources in the same way, though everyone at my table knows that the FR computer games are an "optional" supplement that is highly weighted in my world. That makes sense for my group, because those of us who had prior familiarity with the setting were introduced to it through the Baldur's Gate games and later the Neverwinter Nights games. For us, viewing those sagas as "official" canon makes sense as it's a common ground for us to build on. For others, treating them as official becomes a burden.
Granted, 7th Sea died, but the problem with that setting is they advanced the setting with every splatbook released. These all, of course, built on each other. The result was what someone else in this thread said: a bunch of stuff that became a burden if you wanted to discard something like the Montaigne invasion of Castille, or the horrifically dark turn the setting took with the die Kreuzritter splatbook.
Now, I only played one campaign in Dragonlance, but it was almost entirely dominated by the books. The thing is I am aware of this despite the fact that I never finished any of the Dragonlance books. For someone who was a complete Dragonlance neophyte to feel constrained by books he never read is noteable, IMO.
Sure, it could be the fault of the group, or the DM, or whatever, but if even I knew that there was already a set of heroes who have Saved The World Multiple Times....well....it diminishes the accomplishments of later heroes (the PCs).
Which is, of course, why I love Eberron. Those authors keep away from ESE (if you'll pardon the corruption of the Realms' acronym), so I don't need to worry about my game interfering with some other novel that will start a war or whatever. Only recently have Eberron books come out that have told stories that seriously alter the world (Bassingthwaite's Heirs of Dhakaan trilogy), but since that's not canon, I don't need to worry about employing it in my games!
Another aspect is a charge I'm sure you are all familiar with, mainly the overpopulation of the Realms with uberpowerfull characters. That probably has changed greatly since the 4e setting came out, but still, before the edition changed over, you have a bunch of characters who are Just That Awesome Because The Book Says So And The Book Is Canon. How do you deal with that? In Eberron, I can have Zed Arthen walk down the street smoking a pipe of Black Pit Blend (the worst tobacco in Khorvaire. He smokes it because he wants to quit smoking.) because I love his character. But, if I remove his character from Black Pit, that village won't lose a major part of itself.
So, I maintain that not having novels be canon is the best route to go.
All stories become 'what if' scenarios. Characters in a novel become Bobby Ewings... it does't matter if they die. They return when you reboot.
Personally, I'd rather they dont use RSEs than have a RSE and be it 'just a dream'.
Or use your own setting. I think that works better.
Crimson_Dawn I have to say, though, that while you are baffled by my love of books that "didn't actually happen", I'm similarly baffled as to why you would even *let* novels constrain your creative process. Especially bad ones.
Vhaeraun: A few of his clerics and Q'arlynd Melarn use High Magic to open a gate between his realm and Eilistraee's. Eilistraee had been warned in advance because Q'arlynd was lulz double agent. Allegedly, Eilistraee kills him. This happens off-camera. We're shown a corpse in the Astral Sea in the prologue of the next book, but: 1. It's Lolth doing it. 2. The prologue/epilogues for the books are massively abstracted. 3. Dead gods are supposed to be giant stone corpses in the Astral, not moaning.
Selvetarm: Beheaded by Cavatina with the Crescent Blade. It's a pathetic disgusting worthless death that serves no purpose, done by a character who doesn't deserve anything but a slap upside the head and a slow painful death.
Kiaransalee: More E-Z High Magic is used to erase her name from the minds of everyone on Toril. This is retarded because: 1. She already did that to Orcus once. It uh, kind of didn't work. 2. There's more to the multiverse than Toril. 3. Seriously?
Eilistraee: Randomly and stupidly decides to put ALL of her essence into Qilue in order to give freaking Halisstra Melarn one more godsdamned pep-talk. Halisstra has the Crescent Blade and Eilistraee's Sailor Moon attempt does not work. Beheading ensues. This is made even more retarded by the fact that the supposedly soul-destroying Crescent Blade is used on the aforementioned Cavatina right before this. She appears on the Fugue Plane and gets picked up by Corellon's pet solars, her soul rather obviously not destroyed. Wat. With an even more retarded implication therefore that Eilistraee isn't actually dead. Then again it would explain Corellon's nonchalance in the epilogue. He isn't upset about his daughter being Dead Forever because she isn't. (And neither is Vhaeraun! He never died in the first place! He was faking it! Selvetarm didn't die either, he's just lurking somewhere. Spider That Waits and all that.)
Ghaunadaur, hell if I know what's going on with that.
Basically, it's three books of the most retarded stupidity ever invented. Like... You can almost smell the 'Damn it I don't want to write this crap' coming off the pages. Also, godsdamnit, Vhaeraunites wear masks that cover the TOP half of their face! Not the bottom! Argh!
Kiaransalee: More E-Z High Magic is used to erase her name from the minds of everyone on Toril. This is retarded because: 1. She already did that to Orcus once. It uh, kind of didn't work. 2. There's more to the multiverse than Toril. 3. Seriously?
Add to that that her priestess, affected by the spell, did clearly remember her titles and synonyms, which is actually more than enough. Nobody cares if she can't remember the name Kiaranshalee anymore, as long as she prays to "The Crone" instead Kia receives full power from it. And even if we were to assume that all priestesses had completely forgotten her, divine starvation takes at least decades, if not centuries.
However another explanation would be that she died the moment her piece was taken on the sava board. Whatever happened on the mortal coil was lastly completely irrelevant (evidenced by Selvetarm standing alive and well in the game room, after having supposedly been slain by decapitation, and only dying as his piece was removed from the board)
But, but, whats the point of even reading a novel if it didnt "really" happen?
I'd go with reading it because you enjoy the story (and if you don't, why are you bothering reading it in the first place?)? Or is that just too silly a notion or something...
You see, setting changes that mess around with default game elements, such as whole power sources, should avoid absolutism.
I disagree with this. In my opinion it is the absolutes that give a setting its flavor. You are so used to this happening in your other games and now you're absolutely shocked to see that now divine magic doesn't exist on Athas, or that there are no orcs on Krynn (last I heard, that is). It's what makes the setting different from the standard.
Also less than ideal are trivial changes that fail to define the game world in a meaningful way. The worst among these are absolutes that some designer or novelist added without much thought. Dark Sun setting material from older editions read that kank meat is inedible. So what? Does that small fact help you tell a story set on Athas?
Why not? That small fact, while not all that huge on helping tell a story, once again gives the setting a little bit of flavor. That is if a GM can remember it.
It’s better to create tension, saying the arcane pogrom targeted gnomes, than to create absence, saying the arcane pogrom wiped gnomes out. In the former case, those who want gnomes in their campaign can have bitter, furtive gnomes that dislike human arcanists. In the latter case, those who want gnomes have to break with the official position on the subject. In both cases, those who want no gnomes can use the historic massacre as an excuse. Which tack is more flexible? Isn’t more flexible better for the game?
Once again this goes to my positive view on setting flavor versus keeping everything as is in the three core rulebooks. My suggestion to having "race X used to exist but was hunted down" is to simply say that a small group managed to survive. Hell, look how many Jedi are running around post Order 66 in Star Wars.
To use older Dark Sun material as a reference point again, some of the adventures and the second edition of the setting were less than popular among fans. This was with good reason. At least a couple adventures place novel characters in the central roles they had in the novel. They do the cool stuff while the players and player characters watch or take up secondary roles. Fun, eh? The whole second edition of the setting assumes the Prism Pentad novels have happened—have become part of the canon—and that the world has changed. A number of defining elements from the original setting are gone, because the novel protagonists removed them, usually bloodily. Allowing the novels to interfere with the game material did the fans no favors.
Look, there are crappy novels and other media in all shared worlds. I know, I've read and played some myself. The thing is, for the most part, these events haven't had much effect on any games that I've played. And, I personally feel that it really facilitates roleplaying. I've been completely used to the way this world is, and now it's completely different. How do I adjust to this? Can I, even?
This is one reason why it’s insane to use novels as canon for any game setting. Another is that a roleplaying game is about interacting with an imaginary world as a potentially important imaginary person or as one who directs events set in that world. The game is not about merely consuming someone else’s narration or spectating at historic events.
This is what I disagree most with. My #1 rule when it comes to canon is this, and I personally suggest that some of you adopt it: Everything that happened before the starting day of campaign in the books etc, happened. Anything after is entirely on its own. If the party cannot have any reasonable control over what happens in the latest novel, let's say, it happens. That's my rule; you can use it or not.
Further, as the number of novels increase, the canon becomes increasingly unwieldy until it’s overwhelming for normal players. Most people avoid playing cumbersome games. Enforcing novels as canon from an official position also, eventually, makes it a nightmare to design game material and write shared-world fiction for that setting.
And that is why LFL made the Holocron and fans make wikis. We can't possibly read every novel or play every game. While I may love the books of Franchise X and may try, I know that it's pretty much impossible to do so.
This was a very real problem that faced the Forgotten Realms setting when the 4e D&D game came on the scene. Keepers of the Forgotten Realms went even further in the past, actually. Just about everything with an official seal on it is canon for the Realms—games, video games, novels, and so on. Now that’s crazy and limiting. However, it could have all been solved by hitting the reset button on the Realms the way Wizards did with Eberron and Dark Sun. Back to 1357 DR, anyone?
I've never found it limiting, personally. Well, that's a lie. I've never found it frustratingly limiting.
On the other hand, Middle Earth really has one ultimate task that needs accomplishing. If you ain’t a member of the Fellowship of the Ring, pal, you’re nobody.
I personally disagree with this as well. You may be a nobody as far as saving the entire world goes, but what about the village that your party saved from trolls on the same day, hundreds of miles away. They'll likely never hear the name of Frodo but children will be named after you (or fathered by, depending on the characters...)
Game world canon can and should make the game better and easier to play. It should be defining rather than trivial. Setting material should teach you how to make a game of your own, instructing you on how to make fitting exceptions even to defining canon. What I’m really saying is that you can portray a unique and interesting game setting, and at the same time, make that setting easy to play. You have to be careful with your canon.
With the exception of canon shouldn't be trivial, agreed. I'm a big supporter of canon in large franchise worlds, as you can probably see. I also understand that some people aren't. I've seen cries for a reboot in pretty much everyone of my favorite franchises and I've not been a part of either one. To me, making novels and games canon in a game system adds to the fun. If the other players don't get the slight reference I make, that's fine. I got it.
Even if I didn't know what in Arvandor an event was still only said I choose whther or not it happened.....
now its the novels.... why they couldn't of hit the reset button...
thank you and good night
But, but, whats the point of even reading a novel if it didnt "really" happen?
I'd go with reading it because you enjoy the story (and if you don't, why are you bothering reading it in the first place?)? Or is that just too silly a notion or something...
Im just not a big fan of "What Ifs" or "oh it was all just a dream". Just feels like a cop out to me, so while it might be a top notch storyIt would still bug me.
Not only that, but the authors seem to have trouble keeping up with canon as it is, if they get free reign and are no longer bound by canon just think of all the crap that could get published, like oh in my Realms novel Waterdeep is populated solely by fey Gnomes, or in my Realms novel Shar is really the goddess of warm fuzzy feelings, I dont know I just think it would be a bad idea all around if the novels were not canon. I also think its a bad idea that LFR adventures are no longer canon for much the same reason, although Im not a LFR member so that doesnt really affect me, but I still think its a bad idea. Of course this is my own opinion.
The one thing they left out of the 4e frcg, the Roll of years.
Even if I didn't know what in Arvandor an event was still only said I choose whther or not it happened.....
now its the novels.... why they couldn't of hit the reset button...
thank you and good night
Ugh, dont even get me started on the reset button! I think thats the worst thing they could possibly do, that might work for other settings, and comic books, but this is the Reams damn it.
no worst than making it tie into the rules directly....
I think it would be worst, but yeah tieing it with the rules does kinda suck, but the magic system did change dramatically and im glad they did an in-game explanation for it. theres lots of other things that they didnt have to screw with things to explain, like Genasi and Dragonborn, I mean comeone, they were already there, we didnt need a collosion of worlds to explain them in the Realms! The whole Time of Troubles was pretty unneeded as well, I mean 1e and 2e are pretty much the same exact thing, so did they really need a RSE to explain the edition change!?
No this, no that.
reset the calendar at 1250.....
Reset it and it never happened....NO SP, NO TOT, no Return of Shade
No this, no that.
reset the calendar at 1250.....
Exactly, none of that would have happened, so its like all the previous Realms stuff I have should just be thrown away! The Realms has a continuous history, if they took that away, I think it would take away part of what makes the Realms so great.
Im just not a big fan of "What Ifs" or "oh it was all just a dream". Just feels like a cop out to me, so while it might be a top notch storyIt would still bug me.
Not only that, but the authors seem to have trouble keeping up with canon as it is, if they get free reign and are no longer bound by canon just think of all the crap that could get published, like oh in my Realms novel Waterdeep is populated solely by fey Gnomes, or in my Realms novel Shar is really the goddess of warm fuzzy feelings, I dont know I just think it would be a bad idea all around if the novels were not canon. I also think its a bad idea that LFR adventures are no longer canon for much the same reason, although Im not a LFR member so that doesnt really affect me, but I still think its a bad idea. Of course this is my own opinion.
I don't think non-canon novels really fall into either the "What If?" or "Lame Dream Sequence" category, personally. My own view is that canon novels (abstractly)intrude upon my take on the Realms and somewhat (again, abstractly) interfere with my freedom as a DM by mucking up things with stuff I'd never, ever want to unleash upon the Realms. No matter how good or bad they (canon novels) might be, it still bugs me on some level in the back of my head, much like yourself for non-canon novels. Guess one of us is going to be bothered no matter what happens with that.
As to novel continuity, given that they rarely coincide with my view of the Realms in the first place, that part doesn't bother me much, beyond providing fodder for yet more eye-rolls on my part.
What I don't understand is how people who advocate for an evolving Realms can hate 4th Edition. It seems somewhat hypocritical.
I mean, if you advocate for a setting that is constantly changing and evolving, you're opening yourself up to changes that you don't like. It could be the 4th Edition changes, or it could be a crappy novel that turns Cormyr into a smoking crater.
Either way, the fate of the Realms ends up being controlled by someone else that isn't you. All future source books and novels will take said crappy changes into account, no matter how heinous. You might score every now and then, but at least eight times out of ten there is going to be a sizable crowd that hates any one particular change.
Reset it and it never happened....NO SP, NO TOT, no Return of Shade
No this, no that.
reset the calendar at 1250.....
Exactly, none of that would have happened, so its like all the previous Realms stuff I have should just be thrown away! The Realms has a continuous history, if they took that away, I think it would take away part of what makes the Realms so great.
no, it would just be put as what may happen over what did happen.
Im just not a big fan of "What Ifs" or "oh it was all just a dream". Just feels like a cop out to me, so while it might be a top notch storyIt would still bug me.
Novels could have their own canon unto themselves, without imposing that canon on the game world.
In any case, I thought roleplaying, and fantasy/sci-fi more more generally, were all about the "What If?" questions. Exploring "What If" is the point, I thought. And I'd far prefer "top notch" stories to those that satisfy the whim of some random designer because X and Y are "supposed to happen" for an inexplicable reason (see: death of Kiaransalee or death of Eilistraee).
Not only that, but the authors seem to have trouble keeping up with canon as it is, if they get free reign and are no longer bound by canon just think of all the crap that could get published, like oh in my Realms novel Waterdeep is populated solely by fey Gnomes, or in my Realms novel Shar is really the goddess of warm fuzzy feelings, I dont know I just think it would be a bad idea all around if the novels were not canon. I also think its a bad idea that LFR adventures are no longer canon for much the same reason, although Im not a LFR member so that doesnt really affect me, but I still think its a bad idea. Of course this is my own opinion.
If novel canon was dissociated from the game world, seeing completely absurd things would hardly be likely. Novel authors wouldn't be writing for Faerun at all if Waterdeep only had gnome citizens. That's just silly, and no author would ever go to such a divergent extreme.
That said, even if the author, the editing team, and the publisher were all stupid enough to let something like that pass, you could still completely ignore it since it wouldn't be canon. That's the point. In a canon-tied world, you can't... or at least, future material can't.
You can obviously ignore anything you don't like for your own Realms, but every single product in the future is tied to Realms history as we know it. ALL of it, from the ToT to the Spellplague. That's why it's a bit of a faulty premise to say, "just ignore it if you don't like it" because although you can (sort of) the designers and future novelists cannot. If I don't like the ToT and the spellplague, for example, I have to make sure to personally delete it and any after-effects that show up in every single future product that is published. The designers can't ignore things randomly, because it's all canon, so they have to make sure every single future product is consistent with all of the prior history.
So when I buy books, I have to go through new products every time to delete/change/modify things to match with what I've previously kept out. At some point, the mass of accumulated stupid is just too much, and it's better to stop buying things.
that is truth and the whole truth.... outside of DDI which isn't all that informative...
You should already know this, but:
community.wizards.com/lfr/wiki/Realmslor...
I think that is quite a fair amount of lore.
I disagree. That is not a fair amount of lore.
The magazines, while enjoyable and useful, provide about a tenth as much setting/lore information as the average novel.
I'm sure this is true for every fan of the Realms. But we don't all agree on the same authors/designers, and that's where the constant infusion of canon lore becomes a problem. Personally, I'd be thrilled if WotC took all of the short articles written by Greenwood during the 2E period (many of which were regional flavor, or hints and adventure hooks, and posted weekly or monthly at the old site... now an archive) and compiled them into a big book. But that wouldn't be to everyone's liking. Just like I don't like most of the fluff of 4E, and yet there are people who really want more of that.
"More" just sometimes doesn't fit the bill, even when that's certainly true with LFR and DDI, particularly when we all have differing tastes and preferences for what happens in our own Realms.
What I don't understand is how people who advocate for an evolving Realms can hate 4th Edition. It seems somewhat hypocritical.
There's evolving and there's making a 100 years jump.
Since it's original release the FR evolved at a slow pace more or less in time with the real world. 30 years FR in RL? 30 years continued FR timeline.
What I don't understand is how people who advocate for an evolving Realms can hate 4th Edition. It seems somewhat hypocritical.
There's evolving and there's making a 100 years jump.Since it's original release the FR evolved at a slow pace more or less in time with the real world. 30 years FR in RL? 30 years continued FR timeline.
It's still evolution. The history may not be as detailed as some want it but then others, including myself, are happier with broad strokes which leave room for improvisation. I personally cheered at the idea of going back before the Time of Troubes but then again, I grew up with the Old Grey Box which was pretty lean itself on history.
There was never going to be a happy medium.
I do know this. I have been a DDI subscriber since there were subscriptions available. I have read every article on that list, and you know what?
I disagree. That is not a fair amount of lore.
The magazines, while enjoyable and useful, provide about a tenth as much setting/lore information as the average novel.
+2
It's still evolution. The history may not be as detailed as some want it but then others, including myself, are happier with broad strokes which leave room for improvisation.
Excellent, I am indeed pleased that you are happy with the way things turned out.
I would, however, challenge that it is an evolution. It doesn't seem like an evolution to me, it seems to be a discontinuity. Evolution requires that there be a continuity of states, doesn't it? Even if we don't know what they all are, they did/do exist.
If that is true then wouldn't it have to be argued that the designers know what each of the "states" of the Realms was during the 100 year jump were? While specifying a policy that they weren't going to detail them?
Of course, I can't be sure, and this is only my own opinion... but out of the two, the discontinuous adjoining of two distinct narratives seems more likely to me than a careful, but entirely untold, continous evolutionary narrative.
1. Too many piecemeal sources leading to a lot of confused events and random contradictions.
2. Too much large-scale hokey soap opera styled melodrama derived from events that take place in novels.
3. Excessive proliferation of lore, characters, and dramatic events (see any comic book) to the point that it becomes trite and takes away from any sense of immersion and mystery.
The 4e Realms is a direct result of the above problems, which in turn were a direct result of novels being considered canonical (don't get me started on the god nonsense with the time of troubles, etc.).
Also, I agree with Iluvrien, evolution implies a somewhat linear structure of advancement, rather than the wipe away destruction and entire reformation that occurred with the 4e realms.
However, I also agree with an earlier poster that the first edition of the realms was simply the best, because it didn't have a library of cheesy stories pushing it along against its will and hadn't had to undergo a massive restructuring in a somewhat vain attempt to regain its purity. The flavor of the setting back then was also quite superior.... a mysterious forgotten fantasy mirror Earth - "herein lie the lost lands".
The magazines, while enjoyable and useful, provide about a tenth as much setting/lore information as the average novel.
I've also read both articles and novels, and I disagree.
While a novel like Plague of Spells contains quite an amount of lore on various subjects, it is quite diffferent form what you can find in an article like Vaasa. In my experience, aside from specific character history, most novels do not really contain that much more ready-to-use lore.
As Jorunhast said, we may expect different things when we talk about lore.
I simply disagree that DDI is not informative. These are not the days of 2nd/3rd ed with a FR book every other month. But we still get lore, even if it comes in small parcels. I get the feeling 2nd/3rd ed spoiled people a bit.
Gomez
The 4e Realms is a direct result of the above problems,
4e realms is a result of catering to their detractors instead of their fans in hope of gaining more money from the detractors than they're losing by alienating their fans.
Excellent, I am indeed pleased that you are happy with the way things turned out.
I would, however, challenge that it is an evolution. It doesn't seem like an evolution to me, it seems to be a discontinuity. Evolution requires that there be a continuity of states, doesn't it? Even if we don't know what they all are, they did/do exist.
If that is true then wouldn't it have to be argued that the designers know what each of the "states" of the Realms was during the 100 year jump were? While specifying a policy that they weren't going to detail them?
Of course, I can't be sure, and this is only my own opinion... but out of the two, the discontinuous adjoining of two distinct narratives seems more likely to me than a careful, but entirely untold, continous evolutionary narrative.
Again, I am only speaking for myself. I don't need a ton of books in order to play a game in a campaign setting. Indeed, I prefer NOT to need a lot of books to do so.
Are most of the main gods I'm familiar with from the Old Grey Box still around (those that the Time of Troubles didn't kill)? Yes. Are most of the main countries that that set bothered to cover around? Yes. That is enough continuity to satisfy me.
I appreciate that that may not be enough for many people. But then I more or less ignored a lot of what happened after the Time of Troubles, even as I've played several games from later editions with my husband, who has a lot of 3e FR books (game-related and novels) on our shelves.
I personally think the introduction of AO and the Time of Troubles the stupidest thing to enter the FR setting. I'm intrigued by the idea of Abeir-Toril's twin worlds and their present intermingling. 4e made me pick up the books again and read.
I personally would like to do away with the phrase 'canon' period. This is a game, not a religion, although the level of antagonism that has arisen in the past has made me wonder about it with some people. Let the novels be novels and not bibles. Let authors be able to tell a story without being burned on the internet stake for committing gamer heresy and introducing 'non-canon' portrayals or concepts.
But again, that's me.
The 4e Realms is a direct result of the above problems,
4e realms is a result of catering to their detractors instead of their fans in hope of gaining more money from the detractors than they're losing by alienating their fans.
Agreed. Wizards of the Coast saw the extremely vocal hatred for the "canon-logged" Realms (and if you've only been on a small portion of the internet, you'll know, a lot more people voice their displeasure in a product than people posting how much they like it) and decided to cater to them. In the process, I believe that they really swept away what--at least I--love about the Realms. I love all the lore. The writing guidelines for Living Forgotten Realms was also an obscene gesture to fans like me, in my opinion, as well.
what I liked is gone, some of what I liked is still around.
but how they did it, the LFR was all a bad joke.....
The writing guidelines for Living Forgotten Realms was also an obscene gesture to fans like me, in my opinion, as well.
What were the guidelines?
You'll want to read the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide to get a better appraisal of the changes. However, there are some specific concerns that impact writing adventures for Living Forgotten Realms that we'll address here.
• Don’t focus your adventure on the past too much. in other words, don’t provide tons of background that is extraneous to the adventure. Keep history light and very adventure-specific. You don’t need to tell folks that “the Spellplague did this!” or “you know that this ancient tomb was founded in 867 DR by...” This intimidates new players and creates a situation that makes the adventure too “dense” with facts. The old Realms is gone; focus on what’s going on in the adventure. Ask yourself this question: Is this information really needed for the play of the adventure? If it isn’t, then don’t use it. (With that, don’t try to shoehorn history into an adventure as an excuse to “create more history” or “tell the story of what happened decades ago.”) Don’t try to resurrect the past just because you want to remind people of what happened in the interim. Let the novels talk about those elements.
•Forgotten Realms story elements that are new to the 4th Edition Realms aren’t new to the inhabitants of the world. These things happened generations ago. Most folk never talk about the Spellplague, the return of Netheril, etc. Events that are “new to you” aren’t current topics of conversation or things that weigh on people’s minds. Tymanther and Akanul, for example, aren’t “new” places in the context of the game world; they’ve been around as long as many people remember.
•Use the civilized points of light that are presented in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide rather than creating new ones when possible. We want to avoid adding more “dots on the map” as each place needs to be assigned a location and could potentially create problems with future projects. It is fine to create tons of adventure locations, but stuff that goes on a world map will likely not be approved.•In short, you’re writing a D&D adventure that happens to be set in the Forgotten Realms. You’re not writing a novel or a history book. Keep your adventure focused on gameplay and not extraneous details.
EDIT: Not only did it undo most of my formatting, it got rid of my comment. This is pretty much the majority of the Writing for the Realms section of the guide. A few of these make sense, but the first one is what really bugs me. It almost seems to imply "The old Realms are dead and no one here cares. Can't scare away the new players with a little history lesson, right?"
I never took the bit about 'not adding background' too seriously - though stuff did get cut for being too detailed or wordy.
In general though, the guidelines existed to prevent adventures becoming unwieldy, or from R&D losing track of the lore. Part of these also came to be in the first batch of adventure proposals, where we didn't yet have a very good idea on the world, and when R&D really wnated us to fovcus on the here-and-now Realsm, so it could get established.
If you check out some later LFR adventures, you'll notice we didn't shy away from a history lesson once in a while.
Gomez
as Silversword told me, I don't want another account that I wouldn't use.
well maybe not those words, but I myself have enough passwords to memorize.
so If you care to share...
but to get the adventures of the lfr, one has to join it, and I don't want to join. as Silversword told me, I don't want another account that I wouldn't use.
well maybe not those words, but I myself have enough passwords to memorize.
so If you care to share...
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that LFR adventures are copyrighted and don't fall under "fair use" exceptions (other than for bits and pieces - like copying a small map for use with your own player group).
---
And having glanced over the guidelines for LFR (posted above), I'm a little disappointed that they'd want to limit "more dots on the map" because that kind of thing would be exactly what I'd LOVE to see (even for the older edition Realms). Little tiny villages that get their own fixed place, teeny backwater communities dealing with some weird monster, things like that which aren't some bizarre RSE but can be quickly adapted and pulled in to my own version of the Realms... that's what I want most! And oh... nice maps, really nice ones with detail and love put into them!
More generally, and not about LFR because I don't have access to those -
Little things like Greenwood's old mini-articles for flavor, where you'd get a lightly mapped out region on the other side of the Moonsea, or anecdotal news from Waterdeep about some minor crime, unique recipes and brews from isolated wilderness Inns and taverns... the stuff that made the 2E Volo guides awesome, I want more of that! Non-artifact magic items, spellbooks, or small encounters with a bit of Realmsian history, those are also things I love.
I really don't want statted out Elminsters and deity avatars, weird global events, warcrafty-floating "earthmotes", cheesy deity soap operas (or quite frankly any deity avatars gallivanting around), or -plop!- big magical cultures that are hammered into some region that has been totally undeveloped for 20+ years. Honestly, the dragonborn are THE prime example of the "kitchen sink" phenomenon that everyone complained so bitterly about re: places like old Maztica and Mulhorand.
I want appetizers, small tidbits that can be adapted and really "fit" the theme of the old Realms (and aren't dependent on 4E-specific things like the spellplague or returned Abeir). I don't want exotic foods prepared by aberration chefs in the Far Realm. Adventure hooks, those are my meat and potatoes.
Well, they were guidelines, ya know.
I never took the bit about 'not adding background' too seriously - though stuff did get cut for being too detailed or wordy.
In general though, the guidelines existed to prevent adventures becoming unwieldy, or from R&D losing track of the lore. Part of these also came to be in the first batch of adventure proposals, where we didn't yet have a very good idea on the world, and when R&D really wnated us to fovcus on the here-and-now Realsm, so it could get established.
If you check out some later LFR adventures, you'll notice we didn't shy away from a history lesson once in a while.
Gomez
To tell the truth, if I ever submitted a pitch, I wouldn't either. I haven't had a chance to read the more recent modules, though, so I can't take your word for it. I think I'll sanction some for my friends to take a look at 'em.
The writing guidelines for Living Forgotten Realms was also an obscene gesture to fans like me, in my opinion, as well.
What were the guidelines?
Socking it up, eh?
Now Lord Arumar is nutso and Khelben is dead, and on top of that there is some moron walking around Cormyr claiming to be the Chronomancer claiming to have a hand of 3 dragon ante still to play.......
hahahaha
but how they did it, the LFR was all a bad joke.....
I love how people who have never played LFR talk about it as if they are an authority. Warms my heart every time.
I agree with the general sentiment in the authors schedule in the end. Adventures that are designed for a convention style play as LFR shouldn't be history lessons: They should be focused on what is most relevant and important for the adventure. If something is critical to the adventure it should be detailed, it shouldn't be a way of writing anything you feel like into canon. This is probably one fo the numerous good reasons they decided to do away with LFR adventures being canon. Now people have the freedom and authority to write what they want to write, more detail for those who want it and similar. Even so, good adventures focus on the adventure and detail the most important aspects as a priority - not get distracted in everything else at the cost of the adventure.
Pamela
I personally would like to do away with the phrase 'canon' period. This is a game, not a religion, although the level of antagonism that has arisen in the past has made me wonder about it with some people. Let the novels be novels and not bibles. Let authors be able to tell a story without being burned on the internet stake for committing gamer heresy and introducing 'non-canon' portrayals or concepts.
I agree. Do away with canon from novels and LFR (done one already) and it will be good. Campaign settings should dictate the games canon IMO, letting people just adjust it and use it as they see fit.
I agree. Do away with canon from novels and LFR (done one already) and it will be good.
And I disagree strongly.
I agree. Do away with canon from novels and LFR (done one already) and it will be good.
And I disagree strongly.
I agree strongly with Mirtek
oh, andAegeri, It warms my heart to know that.
have a nice day.
lfr was made non canon for one reason, only deal with ONE timeline, and the LFR was a 2nd timeline.
LFR never should of been canon in the first place,
have a nice day and happy gaming
but to get the adventures of the lfr, one has to join it, and I don't want to join.
That's your choice.
I'm a little disappointed that they'd want to limit "more dots on the map"
Note that the restriction aimed to significant landmarks, not hamlets and anything else small enough that it need not be put on the Faerun continent map.
As to flavor elements, Waterdeep (and the latest Mini series) utilized 'broadsheets', which announced regional news. An sample can be read here:
community.wizards.com/lfr/blog/2010/07/1...
And we use player handouts, which occasionally add flavor. I.e, DALE2-1 has a diary fragment listing historical regional events since the Spellplague.
As I said, sometimes things got cut. My description of Shadowdale, for instance, and a few handouts describing the Searing and the fall of Sessrendale, were considered to be too detailed, likely interesting to very few players, so they were shelved for later use.
Note that FR going non-canon has to do with R&D not having the time available to fact check FR.
I think that is a pity, as LFR introduced some good ideas (and was careful to introduce no RSE's), but it became obvious R&D couldn't keep up with it.
Gomez
What I don't understand is how people who advocate for an evolving Realms can hate 4th Edition. It seems somewhat hypocritical.
There's evolving and there's making a 100 years jump.Since it's original release the FR evolved at a slow pace more or less in time with the real world. 30 years FR in RL? 30 years continued FR timeline.
As Pam said it's still an evolution.
My point was this: If you wish for everything to be cannon you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Eventually something is going to happen that absolutely makes you want to quit the Realms entirely. It could be the death of Eilistraee, the return of Netheril, the destruction of Sembia, the death of Mystra, the Time of Troubles, or a time jump - the list can go on indefinitely. The point is, eventually, someday, you'll find something that you hate so badly you'll want to walk away.
At that point, all you can do is reflect at where things went wrong and realize that you've swallowed a poison pill.
Despite popular belief the changes made to introduce 4E were not simply to appease Realms-haters. No, they were made to more properly align the Realms with the vision for 4E D&D, but also - even more importantly (and the main reason for the time jump) - it was done for the novel authors. It was done to provide more "room" for new stories to develop. The flagship characters were kept around, naturally, and the 100 year gap left largely empty to give the authors freedom.
That's how they accomplished that goal. I'm not against giving authors freedom - I believe they deserve it. They need the ability to tell good stories, but the method I would have chosen would have been completely different.
Yes, it was the advancing cannon to which the Realms is chained that caused perhaps the most hated changes in Realms history. That poison pill might have tasted sweet going down, but in the end it killed what you loved about the Realms.
That was my point.
Note that FR going non-canon has to do with R&D not having the time available to fact check FR.
I think that is a pity, as LFR introduced some good ideas (and was careful to introduce no RSE's), but it became obvious R&D couldn't keep up with it.
On the bright side, time-wise you'll only have to rely on your own LFR development team now. And if you want to make up historical stuff you can paint with a wider brush. Plus, once it becomes available to the general LFR players and DMs, everyone can decide whether or not to adopt any new historical elements into their own versions of Faerun. Those seem like good things, right?
Note that FR going non-canon has to do with R&D not having the time available to fact check FR.
I think that is a pity, as LFR introduced some good ideas (and was careful to introduce no RSE's), but it became obvious R&D couldn't keep up with it.
On the bright side, time-wise you'll only have to rely on your own LFR development team now. And if you want to make up historical stuff you can paint with a wider brush. Plus, once it becomes available to the general LFR players and DMs, everyone can decide whether or not to adopt any new historical elements into their own versions of Faerun. Those seem like good things, right?
Well, I'd preferably have it all in continuity, but I guess that's fine. The one thing I'm wondering about--since I haven't read the original article--is whether they're taking the entire thing out of continuity, including the older, already published adventures.
I agree. Do away with canon from novels and LFR (done one already) and it will be good.
And I disagree strongly.
And I agree with Aegeri. I don't want to be forced to perpetually read umpteen bad novels to keep up with the comic bookish plots going on in the Realms. The CS should present a baseline that can be expanded by DMs/players and novel writers however they wish - the evolution from the starting point should be solely in the hands of individuals, and I should not have to deal with imposing stories created by other individuals that I consider to be hokey and that contradict my own.
I agree with Chris. Making novels canon is a bad idea all the way around.
What I don't understand is how people who advocate for an evolving Realms can hate 4th Edition. It seems somewhat hypocritical.
There's evolving and there's making a 100 years jump.Since it's original release the FR evolved at a slow pace more or less in time with the real world. 30 years FR in RL? 30 years continued FR timeline.
Despite popular belief the changes made to introduce 4E were not simply to appease Realms-haters. No, they were made to more properly align the Realms with the vision for 4E D&D, but also - even more importantly (and the main reason for the time jump) - it was done for the novel authors. It was done to provide more "room" for new stories to develop. The flagship characters were kept around, naturally, and the 100 year gap left largely empty to give the authors freedom.
Yes, it was the advancing cannon to which the Realms is chained that caused perhaps the most hated changes in Realms history. That poison pill might have tasted sweet going down, but in the end it killed what you loved about the Realms.
That was my point.
This.
By having thight control on authors through editing and consultancy from the world designers I think a shared world can flourish perpetually. Its a matter of focusing the vivid creativity of authors with tools existing in the frame of the world they work with.
Its not an easy task, I concur, but it has been done with flair and elegance in FR. The Greenwood presents Waterdeep series are a good example of how authors and desgners can make great additions to eachother. Ed wrote too much lore for the FRCG to handle and it became an authors bible instead. The results are some great stories set in uniquely changed parts of Waterdeep.
I agree that the current timeline gives authors more freedom to write their preferred vision of the Realms. But by adhereing too much to this freedom some of the "feel of the realms" can be lost if the communication between designers and authors is lacking.
lfr was made non canon for one reason, only deal with ONE timeline, and the LFR was a 2nd timeline.LFR never should of been canon in the first place,
I don't cate about the canon status of LFR, I was refering to the novels.
BTW, LFR wasn't a second timeline, it was just a second feed into the one timeline.
My point was this: If you wish for everything to be cannon you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
And I am happy to accept also that (the return of Bane might have tasted bitter, but I was there when it happened, it wasn't just a "Ah yes, while you were just not looking (for 100 years) the following all happened).
Making novels canon is a bad idea all the way around.
Which is cleary shown in the popularity of FR novels and Eberron novels, ..... wait it isn't.
Which is cleary shown in the popularity of FR novels and Eberron novels, ..... wait it isn't.
I doubt that being considered canon for the CS has much to do with the popularity of FR and Eberron novels. Even if it did, it still doesn't it make it a good idea.
Personally, I can't stand reading soap operas about gods and really powerful characters, and think it's absurd that those stories have been considered canon and implemented into the base Campaign Setting. FR was by far best in its 1st edition, before all of the nonsense from the novels destroyed the sense of mystery and immersion in the setting.
Again, there is no reason whatsoever why novels should affect the CS, it should only be the other way around - as long as novels are internally consistent with one another and externally consistent with the world of Toril, they would not suffer any.
Personally, I can't stand reading soap operas about gods and really powerful characters, and think it's absurd that those stories have been considered canon and implemented into the base Campaign Setting...Again, there is no reason whatsoever why novels should affect the CS, it should only be the other way around - as long as novels are internally consistent with one another and externally consistent with the world of Toril, they would not suffer any.
Agree double here. The Realms also, to me, seems quite generic, a standard medieval world with magic largely slathered on top without any care for the socioeconomic effects.
FR books are so popular because the setting has been around for more than two decades, and consequently, has some major cash cows (That Dark Elf, for one, but also Elminster, and doesn't Cunningham have a good amount of books?). Even without the cash cows, there are a hell of a lot more FR books simply because of its time. Eberron has been around for about six years and two months. That's not enough time to develop the kind of following that FR has.
Thinking about it, when were other settings discontinued? I won't try to be any authority, but FR has been, to my knowledge, the most heavily supported setting for 3e (and consequently, 3.5 as well), which represents the origin edition for most modern players. So, if FR is the only game in town, of course it will be "popular." The only other setting I can think of that has booku books would be Dragonlance, and I don't know much about that (aside from the fact that I played in a DL campaign, and I was not thrilled with the setting).
One of the things I love about the Realms though is that it's story is continuosly moving foward, so I wouldnt want to see a reset, or a non changing world, or non canon novels. Although I do agree the 100 year time jump was a little extreme.
Personally I think anything published for the Realms should be considered canon for the Realms, so novels, Dragon/Dungeon articles, LFR adventures, whatever else should be considered canon. Of course if they did do away with canon, I wouldnt be totally heart broken, after all as a DM its really my job to determine whats canon and not, ITS MY REALMS!!!
One of the things I love about the Realms though is that it's story is continuosly moving foward, so I wouldnt want to see a reset, or a non changing world, or non canon novels. Although I do agree the 100 year time jump was a little extreme.
You're definitely a firm supporter of canon, but why? What do you see as benefits of canon being lock-tied to the setting? There have been quite a few reasons given for the other side, but what are the reasons for supporting it?
Do you believe sales would suffer? If so, why? Do you believe that the Realms would lose something?
Thing is, I know you dislike a number of changes that were made in the setting (over the years), changes that were required because of the required tie to canon. That would tend to suggest that canon isn't something you would want to support, but you really firmly do. Why?
PS: I totally get that you love the idea of a "continuing story" because that makes the world feel alive in some ways, but the 100-year jump effectively discontinued the old Realms.
Personally I think anything published for the Realms should be considered canon for the Realms, so novels, Dragon/Dungeon articles, LFR adventures, whatever else should be considered canon. Of course if they did do away with canon, I wouldnt be totally heart broken, after all as a DM its really my job to determine whats canon and not, ITS MY REALMS!!!
One of the things I love about the Realms though is that it's story is continuosly moving foward, so I wouldnt want to see a reset, or a non changing world, or non canon novels. Although I do agree the 100 year time jump was a little extreme.
You're definitely a firm supporter of canon, but why? What do you see as benefits of canon being lock-tied to the setting? There have been quite a few reasons given for the other side, but what are the reasons for supporting it?
Do you believe sales would suffer? If so, why? Do you believe that the Realms would lose something?
Thing is, I know you dislike a number of changes that were made in the setting (over the years), changes that were required because of the required tie to canon. That would tend to suggest that canon isn't something you would want to support, but you really firmly do. Why?
PS: I totally get that you love the idea of a "continuing story" because that makes the world feel alive in some ways, but the 100-year jump effectively discontinued the old Realms.
Im not overly concerned if sales would suffer, Im not a WotC employee or a stockholder, but I like the advancing timeline of the Realms, it does make it seem more alive, so if the novels were not canon then how would the timeline advance any? Theyve already stated that they will not put out any more game books for the Realms, or any other setting. And sure we have DDI articles, but thats not going to be enough to lay out changes like ok in 1481 half of Waterdeep collapsed into Undermaountain or something like that. Im depending even more now on the novels for my Realmslore, so if the novels were no longer "official" Realmslore I think that would effectively kill the Realms for me. This is of course just my own opinion and others see the 100 year time jump, or the Spellplague, oreven the Time of Troubles as the "death" of the Realms. We all have our own ideas about what makes the Realms great, so its really hard for them to make every one happy. I think Ed should be given more control over things, I think that would make alot of people happy.
If they did non canon novels, I suppose I could be alright with that, as long as they novels stayed true to previous lore, and had constient canon for the novels themselves, so that if people wanted to use that lore for their games, then cool, and if they didnt then oh well.
Im not overly concerned if sales would suffer, Im not a WotC employee or a stockholder, but I like the advancing timeline of the Realms, it does make it seem more alive, so if the novels were not canon then how would the timeline advance any? Theyve already stated that they will not put out any more game books for the Realms, or any other setting. And sure we have DDI articles, but thats not going to be enough to lay out changes like ok in 1481 half of Waterdeep collapsed into Undermaountain or something like that. Im depending even more now on the novels for my Realmslore, so if the novels were no longer "official" Realmslore I think that would effectively kill the Realms for me. This is of course just my own opinion and others see the 100 year time jump, or the Spellplague, oreven the Time of Troubles as the "death" of the Realms. We all have our own ideas about what makes the Realms great, so its really hard for them to make every one happy. I think Ed should be given more control over things, I think that would make alot of people happy.
Ah, I think I understand better. What would "killing the Realms" really mean for you, though? Would you stop playing D&D in the Realms, or do you mean that you'd stop buying novels, or ?
Personally, my purchase habits for novels became really sporadic after the Time of Troubles happened. That was the "jumping the shark" moment for me. But there have been some really fantastic series that I have bought throughout the 2E and 3E period. I just became really discriminating, although I tended to follow specific authors. My purchase of gaming materials also sharply dropped with ToT, partly because I wasn't gaming through most of 2E and the early part of 3E. I was also less than impressed with the tendency in 3E to re-tread the same fluff, dress it up, maybe add a few details to 2E material, and pass it off as a "new" hardcover.
To me, the Realms haven't been "killed" per se, because after my group finishes our Conan d20 we will be going back to do a campaign in the 1E period. But I don't think I follow novel canon in the same way that you might. After the ToT, I haven't treated novels or new edition materials as if they're all worthy of inclusion. And nothing so far about 4E has really grabbed me as a "great idea!" worthy of inclusion, and none of the 4E novels have grabbed my interest at all. That's just my opinion, though, and everyone has their likes and dislikes. However, I will say that my opinion may change for 4E novels once we get the new Realms novels from Elaine Cunningham and Paul Kemp.
If they did non canon novels, I suppose I could be alright with that, as long as they novels stayed true to previous lore, and had constient canon for the novels themselves, so that if people wanted to use that lore for their games, then cool, and if they didnt then oh well.
I think they'd pretty much need to, if novels were disconnected from game canon. They'd still have to have their own internal consistency and canon, otherwise they couldn't really call them Forgotten Realms at all.
Also I got to say that I really liked the Avatar Trillogy, of course I read those in high school some 20 years ago, gods that makes me feel old. Any way I thought it was an interesting story, gave some insight inot the gods, and showed us that things can change drasatically in the Realms, I think that what really drew me in. Im pretty sure those were the first Realms novels I read. I liked that things changed like that and that the changes stuck. It seems like in other settings, and in movies, comic books, etc, things change dramatically but then after awhile things revert back to the way they were. I think thats what really does it for me, that they stick with the changes made and continue the story of the Realms onward. If they changed that, whether or not that would cause me to stop playing in the Realms and stop buying Realms stuff remains to be seen, I guess it depended on how they went about it.
Personally I think anything published for the Realms should be considered canon for the Realms, so novels, Dragon/Dungeon articles, LFR adventures, whatever else should be considered canon. Of course if they did do away with canon, I wouldnt be totally heart broken, after all as a DM its really my job to determine whats canon and not, ITS MY REALMS!!!
But that's the point, it's not your Realms! If you don't have all the canon in your game then you're doign it wrong!!!
(That was sarcasm by the way
)Just my 2 Sembiam Steelpences
Those seem like good things, right?
In a way, though the idea of a Livign Campaign is PCs affecting tehw rold, and if the campaign is 'non-canon', you take a bit out of that idea away for some people.
Also, having spent a lot of time writing and editing for FR adventures, it is a pity if the NPCs, locations, and events you describe are simply never used again.
I believe most of what was wrtten so far is still canon - so some names may survive and see further development, but it is also posisble R&D will now entirely ignore what was written in LFR - including the good ideas.
What you get them is that LFR becomes out of sync - and anything published in DDI or novels may become useless as it conflicts with 'Living Canon' (since yuu will need to have 'canon' within the campaign itself).
Gomez
I believe most of what was wrtten so far is still canon - so some names may survive and see further development, but it is also posisble R&D will now entirely ignore what was written in LFR - including the good ideas.
I doubt that they'd de-canonize LFR canon, seems like it'd be too much work for R&D.
What do you consider the best lore/canon to come out of LFR? I'm not being facetious here, just curious because I don't follow LFR very closely at all.
I believe most of what was wrtten so far is still canon - so some names may survive and see further development, but it is also posisble R&D will now entirely ignore what was written in LFR - including the good ideas.
I doubt that they'd de-canonize LFR canon, seems like it'd be too much work for R&D.
What do you consider the best lore/canon to come out of LFR? I'm not being facetious here, just curious because I don't follow LFR very closely at all.
From what ive seen they are mostly combat encounters strung together with a vague plot, like go here fight these guys and then do this fight some more guys to get the thing you need to find the last set of guys to fight. Still though they do manage to fit some bits of lore in there. Like we now know for certain that Saerb in Sembia is still around, thanks to Escape From Sembia.
The nature of LFR adventures (they most of the time need to fit a 4-5 hour slot, and need to be easy to prepare), means that they are generally lore-light, and plots are often fairly simple. But I have seen more complex stories (especially told over more adventures), and these also hold lore.
Some things:
- Raven's Bluff is being worked on in LFR. This will come out in GenCon. I *think* these adventures are the last batch to be considered canon. Anyway, I have seen the first adventure, and it provides some details on Raven's Bluff, including an updated map (the only new map I can recall of a major city in a LFR adventure).
- For the Dalelands, we worked on the Fall of Stars and the people and organizations that flock around it, and some of the rulers in the region, including those of Shadowdale, Daggerdale, Deepingdale, and the Burghers of New Velar.
- Personally, I like how the Chiang Emporium turned out.
- I didn't play a lot of Waterdeep yet, but it has some adventures focusing on several of its noble families
I don't have too much exposure to most other regions (I do not play a lot). The content varies. Some introduce interesting NPCs or events, others are more dungeony and have less (new) background. Some elements I know explored are the Seven Swords and Nathlek in the dragoncoast, the Yuir gods in Aglarond, the Queen of Thorns in Cormyr and the Fraternity of Tharos in Impiltur.
Heck, what do you mean by 'lore' anyway?
I am curious - how exactly do people use lore in their games? I hear people wanting to read it for its sake in novels or books, but how exactly do you present it in a game, particularly to people who aren't lore enthusiasts?
Heck, what do you mean by 'lore' anyway?
I don't know about others, but my group usually starts a campaign with a handmade packet containing recent history, general area info and legends, that kind of thing. When it's the Realms, we note not only the date and recent events, but also some lore/history of the region we start in, a few NPCs we are likely to know, bits and pieces we are likely for our PCs to know given our backgrounds, that kind of thing.
We haven't had to delete anything out because we've always started in a 1E time period, but the DM does let us know of various changes and possible changes to the standard setting (if we would know as PCs). One of our DMs used to also import a few things from the 2E Volo guides, even though we've really stuck to 1E time, like inns and taverns and whatnot, but nothing major.
But yeah, we do the history/regional packet regardless of what we're playing, whether it's Realms or Greyhawk or even like Conan d20.
Heck, what do you mean by 'lore' anyway?
For me, "lore" is the setting. The Oxford online dictionary defines lore's origin in terms of things taught or learned and the word itself as :
"a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a particular group, typically passed from person to person by word of mouth"
That, for me, effectively describes lore as a concept. Lore is the things we learn about a world, in this case the Realms. It doesn't place limits on what those things have to be. As such, and as usual I am only speaking for myself, everything I learn about the Realms is lore. Everything. Geography, Civilisations, People(s), Spells, History, Cultures, Monetary Systems... everything.
A sourcebook might tell you the general trends and habits of a city's populace, but a novel will show you what those actually mean in the day-to-day life of someone living there. Both, for me, have a place in the canonical description of the Realms. And since, again for me, canon (such a loaded term, ohohoho) only functions as a label for those records which could be considered genuine ("could", not "should" I am not about to suggest that anything be added to anyone's Realms game if they don't want it to be). I fail to see why it has become such a focus of hatred.
[this next bit doesn't address Pamela's post directly, it speaks to the general discussion]
People have said that lore becomes a problem because of the way people react to it and that the 4E lore-lite approach is justified, and by extension that novels should be severed from canon to keep it lore-lite and to keep it RSE free. I see the logic in the point, I just don't agree with it. The WotC novels department commissioned the novels and, from the reading of various author's comments, the RSE that comprise them because they sold. The problem isn't with the novels, but with the subject matter they were tasked with handling.
Novel canon may cause people to a problem with a player who is a lore-lawyer, or for a DM who feels they have t read every novel before they can run a "Realms game", that I have to accept because people in this thread have suggested it to be their experience (and I am now about to call anyone a liar), but why can't this be approached in the same way as any other concept that provides a possible threat or difficulty?
Do we ban cars because people might have an accident? Nope, we educate people about how to drive properly and then legislate about what happens if they don't.
Do we prevent people from buying aerosols because they might be inhaled or misused? Nope, we stick signs on the side warning of dangers and don't sell the more harmful ones to the young while telling them about the dangers.
I could go on. I really don't think canonical novels are a problem if:
1) The novels are handled in a sensible localised/non-RSE way.
2) DMs remind themselves that it is their Realms to run, and they can do with it as they will.
3) Canon-lawyer players just plain stop. The behaviour is classic disruption, it is covered in the DMG even. D&D is a co-operative game, if a player really is causing that much of a problem and refuses to understand that for the good of the group they need to shut the heck up then why are you playing with them in the first place? And if it is the whole group who are getting lawyery... then don't run it for them, or even better, get one of them to run it and see how they like it.
I've only been playing 4E for about 18 months, but in that time we've had problems like these come up in our group and yet we have been able to come to an understanding every single time.
Maybe we are all saints... but I doubt it.
Canon isn't the problem, it is what you do with it that can be.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Hah! You thought your wall of text was big? I'm dividing mine up into three parts because it's so huge. ;)
Since the dawn of the Realms in print, game designers, novel authors and brand managers have recognized the inherent ties between the D&D game rules, printed adventure materials and stories (i.e. novels) that gamers read and absorb to create a common shared knowledge of the Forgotten Realms as an imaginary world to experience fantasy roleplaying and to read about fantasy in general.
Specifically, gamers will on average take something in print—whether a game rule or some fact about the Realms derived from a sourcebook or novel—and treat it as something that is. This is true of all gamers, not just rules lawyers or Monty Haul-type players. All. Gamers.
From the very beginning when the Grey Box was released, the concept of the Unreliable Narrator was introduced so that your typical player would not interrupt play mid-session and point out to the DM that "...Room 23 isn't where the second mirror-gate is located in the Halls of the Beast Tamers; it's in Room 20 like it says on the map," because to your average player the act of pointing out a canon contradiction is no different than pointing out to another player or his/her DM that they've interpreted a game rule incorrectly.
Think about it: from the get-go Ed Greenwood—arguably one of the best game designers in the world—recognized from experience that players expect consistency from their DM; they except to be able to read about some facet of the game world and see it reflected in what their DM does, regardless of whether the player was supposed to read the source of that information (sourcebook adventure or novel) ahead of time or not.
Now multiply those expectations times every single piece of lore that's been written about the Realms. Do you see why it can be so incredibly difficult for DMs of all stripes to play in the Realms?
Players want the world they know so much about and have spent so much time reading on to be represented at the gaming table. Again, this isn't extreme, this is average.
The idea that "Oh, we can just handle it at the gaming table" completely ignores the expectations of reasonable players and DMs who enjoy playing D&D in the Forgotten Realms. The notion that canon contradictions during play are issues for "lore-lawyers" only is rather mistaken.
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new. Yes, DMs were and always have been free to add to the Forgotten Realms in ways large and small, but they were not generally as free to make changes to canon lore without first explaining it to their players (or, if the DM was very fortunate, by relying on his or her players to investigate the seeming contradiction through play).
The basic idea that the Realms are fixed and universally understood has held for quite some time.
This changed, however, for two reasons.
1) The explosion of Realms novels and sourcebooks produced from the time of the release of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons through to the end of 3rd Edition D&D.
Thousands of pages of source material produced over the last two decades or so meant there was a knowledge gap between brand new players and even mildly experienced-in-the-Realms players. This also meant that fans of the setting bought sourcebooks and novels because they were really into the lore or just because they felt an honest need to keep up.
Sure, most D&D adventure sessions aren't the sorts of activities where DMs sit and read verbatim from a sourcebook like Lands of Intrigue while the players rarely role a dice and instead ooh and ah over the lore as it's read aloud. But if you're a new (to the Realms) player and the DM or one of the other players at the table has to regularly pause and fill you in on the background of Tethyr's tumultuous history just so you can keep up with what's going on (because unlike you they all bought Land's of Intrigue when it came out, gobbled up the lore and got so excited by it that they decided to run a game there), then Houston, we have a problem.
What I've just described isn't unique; in the time when Lands of Intrigue, the various Volo's Guides and other source material was being produced, plenty of Realms fans gobbled it up for the sake of the lore alone. Whereas before when you had just a taste of lore and that was enough to want to make you play D&D in the Realms, now you either had to know or were driven to know the lore in-depth to really enjoy a D&D game set in the Realms.
That's great for lore-lovers, not so great for your average Joe who just wants to roll up a Fighter from Cormyr and hack some orcs up.
2) RSEs.
The idea that whole parts of the Realms, such as the Time of Troubles or the return of Netheril and subsequent destruction of Tilverton, could be ignored in someone's game is a phenomena that didn't come about until these events and other lower-level RSEs happened in the Realms.
The advent of multiple new RSEs meant that a typical player's and DM's perceptions of just what the Realms are in someone's game vs. the overarching metaplot of the Realms in print were different things.
Whereas before you just "played in the Realms", now one has to ask questions: Are you playing pre or post-Spellplague? If pre, are you playing before or after the Time of Troubles? If after the Time of Troubles, are you incorporating all the low-level RSEs that happened? And is the Spellplague going to happen or are we just ignoring it?
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new. Yes, DMs were and always have been free to add to the Forgotten Realms in ways large and small, but they were not generally as free to make changes to canon lore without first explaining it to their players (or, if the DM was very fortunate, by relying on his or her players to investigate the seeming contradiction through play).
Its always been your Realms, I think that it was stressed in every edition, that the Realms were ours to do with as we please. I dont think its a new notion at all, at least it shouldnt be.
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new. Yes, DMs were and always have been free to add to the Forgotten Realms in ways large and small, but they were not generally as free to make changes to canon lore without first explaining it to their players (or, if the DM was very fortunate, by relying on his or her players to investigate the seeming contradiction through play).
Not really. That was explicitly called out in the Grey box. And arguably, it needed to be, since the Realms were one of the earlier settings to build up a sizeable body of 'canon' that wasn't in the form of adventures. Prior to that, it was almost expected that a GM would create their own setting, and drop material into it where and if they wanted. With the Realms, specifically calling out that you could do the same thing was imo a good idea. Suddenly you weren't 'just' altering adventures or dropping them into a setting where you wanted. You were altering 'fundamental concepts of the world'. I remember arguments on the subject, where that specific phrase got used.
Damn stupid, IMO. Shouldn't need saying.
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new...
As others have pointed out, it's hardly new. 1E was quite explicit about doing whatever you wanted in your Realms (and it was a major selling point, actually).
The basic idea that the Realms are fixed and universally understood has held for quite some time... (Time of Troubles and RSEs)...
I think you have it a little confused. Canon didn't really become a major problem until the Time of Troubles and other RSEs. Novels up to that point, well, people felt completely free to ignore them and do whatever they wanted. Thing is, you didn't ever really have to say, "my Realms are different with X and Y" prior to ToT because everything up to that point could really be handwaved away. Nothing about 1E Realms was so awful that it had to be removed by a lot of DMs. Plus, no players really cared if you (for example) ignored the entire Darkwalker on Moonshae trilogy in your game. If you moved to someone else's game where it did happen, no big whoop. If Elminster really was a minor sage and not a wizard in your Realms, no one really cared. It didn't matter until 2E.
Honestly, it was the ToT and later RSEs that really made canon questions awful. From that point onward, you really had to make a point of listing any and all changes to your Realms. Only at that point did people start whining about having or not having Cyric, whether or not your Realms had specific wild magic areas, or if you were going to have X and Y (but not A and B) from certain novels.
No one really cared about the Volo guide material, because it was all just flavor and fun little tidbits. As a player, if you had no idea what a regional sourcebook or a Volo guide said, it honestly made little to no impact on the game. No one cared that much about regional sourcebooks, which also usually just had fun flavoring. Both could be changed or removed with absolutely no problems in play, and you still felt like you were "in the Realms." People -did- care about whether or not the ToT and other RSEs happened, though. They also complained about kitchen sinky things like Mulhorand and Maztica, and whether or not you incorporated Spelljammer. Once 2E came out, you needed a list of divergences so everyone would be on the same page for your personal campaigns.
Before 2E and the ToT, canon really just wasn't that big of a deal. At least, that's the way it was with everyone I knew.
As others have pointed out, it's hardly new. 1E was quite explicit about doing whatever you wanted in your Realms (and it was a major selling point, actually).
This is the problem with forums like these. People are so eager to show how smart they are that they'll look for anything the appears wrong and pounce, instead of reading the entire post before commenting. (raises hand for being guilty of that in the past)
Thus, it would appear the three of you who responded either missed my point or didn't bother to read my admitedly wall-sized post from top to bottom to take in all that was said.
The point, again, is that there are degrees to what it means to "do what you want" with a setting.
As I previously stated, at the dawn of the Realms, DMs were expected to add to the Realms—and were explicitly told which areas weren't going to be further elaborated on in future sourcebooks to encourage them to fill in the gaps in those regions (see DMs sourcebook of the Realms, page 6*)—but they weren't expected, much less encouraged, to do things like kill off all the gods and turn the Dales into a blasted ruin.
Of course DMs could add in lots of NPCs, ruins, towns, castles, monsters and their lairs, etc...that's always been true (and is not contested by my claims).
So, was it a selling point of the Realms that you could add in your own material in areas not already covered? Yes?
Was it a selling point of the Realms the you could flip the setting on its head and change everything recognizable? No, not at all.
This is why "it's your world, do what you want with it" relatively new, because what it means now isn't nearly the same thing as it did twenty years ago.
Canon didn't really become a major problem until the Time of Troubles and other RSEs. Novels up to that point, well, people felt completely free to ignore them and do whatever they wanted. Thing is, you didn't ever really have to say, "my Realms are different with X and Y" prior to ToT because everything up to that point could really be handwaved away. Etc...
This was basically already stated in my previous post, but I think you said it better.
No one really cared about the Volo guide material, because it was all just flavor and fun little tidbits. As a player, if you had no idea what a regional sourcebook or a Volo guide said, it honestly made little to no impact on the game.
I'm sure this was true in your games, which appear from the sound of it to be very lore-light. But true for all games? Or even a majority of games? No.
I think you're confusing the impact of RSEs on the player mindset versus the strong popularity of the lore (that is, people buying Realms sourcebooks just to read the lore) and impact of relative lore knowledge between players at the gaming table.
Before 2E and the ToT, canon really just wasn't that big of a deal. At least, that's the way it was with everyone I knew.
Would you say that's likely because you used the setting as written?
*TSRs viewpoint at the time was that they'd be invalidating a DMs campaign if a future sourcebook overwrote what a DM was doing in, say, Sembia.
So what was my point from the previous two giant walls of text?
I suppose it's that the expectations of players and DMs about what the Realms "are" have changed considerably over time as the Realms have grown and adapted through new editions of D&D and the printing of numerous sourcebooks and novels.
Expectations at the gaming table have changed too. What might be considered "canon-lawyering" nowadays was considered typical player behavior twenty years ago.
Canon is a problem because if you start a new game in the pre-Spellplague Realms, you have to assess everyone's setting knowledge and expectations of what is and isn't in the setting.
Whereas in the post-Spellplague Realms, everyone's on an even keel. The DM is free to explore and elaborate on the setting and the players are free to absorb the world through the DM's story, this allows them to focus exclusively on their characters and build them up in the DMs' version of the Realms. That's as it should be.
This is the problem with forums like these. People are so eager to show how smart they are that they'll look for anything the appears wrong and pounce, instead of reading the entire post before commenting. (raises hand for being guilty of that in the past)
Just in the past?
Thus, it would appear the three of you who responded either missed my point or didn't bother to read my admitedly wall-sized post from top to bottom to take in all that was said.
Not really. Technically, you took both sides of the "argument" in the same post. Nothing like casting a wide net and hoping for some fish to land in it, eh? We just responded to the first part because it was obviously not true (and generally, most people hang their arguments on the initial lead-in.
Canon is a problem because if you start a new game in the pre-Spellplague Realms, you have to assess everyone's setting knowledge and expectations of what is and isn't in the setting.
Canon has been a problem since the ToT, not just the "before the spellplague." Before the ToT, novels weren't really a problem. It remains a problem in the post-spellplague Realms, because you still have every single RSE in "history" to deal with in one way or another.
Canon is a problem because if you start a new game in the pre-Spellplague Realms, you have to assess everyone's setting knowledge and expectations of what is and isn't in the setting.
Whereas in the post-Spellplague Realms, everyone's on an even keel. The DM is free to explore and elaborate on the setting and the players are free to absorb the world through the DM's story, this allows them to focus exclusively on their characters and build them up in the DMs' version of the Realms. That's as it should be.
I think I'd adjust that to "could be a problem", since the issue was hardly universal to each and every game set in the Realms. With cold-meet groups, I'd agree that it probably was going to be a problem, but I would question whether it would be as much of an issue with an established gaming group, at least every single time.
As to the last bit there, the DM always was free to explore and elaborate. Perhaps players expectations might hinder that on occassion, but my view is that its a group issue, not a setting issue... which is a little semantical, but I'm a firm believer that group dynamics and expectations are responsible for most issues that people blame on the settings.
What I would agree with is that 3e, in general, presented things in a way that encouraged that sort of approach and thinking, not just with the Realms, but with most stuff. That 3rd person omniscient tense usage was a mistake of the largest order in my book. While I'm not overly familiar with 4e, much less with the 4e Realms, I couldn't say, but it does seem to have alleviated a lot of the issues that many seemed to think were present in the Realms, so in that sense it fulfilled its purpose, even though its not a game I'm particularly interested in. My suspicion though is that more and more novels appear for the setting, that the same sort of barrier is just going to reform at some point if WotC isn't careful about things.
This is the problem with forums like these. People are so eager to show how smart they are that they'll look for anything the appears wrong and pounce, instead of reading the entire post before commenting. (raises hand for being guilty of that in the past)
What!? i didnt pounce! I pretty much agreeed with what you said except that one part, and its not even like I was saying youre wrong and im right, I understand you was speaking in general, not how you yourself see it. I understand that alot of people see the "its your Realms" philosophy as a 4e thing, I was just saying that it shouldnt be that way, it was always intended to do what we want with, you know that, I know that, but some people...
I just dont understand why people get all up in arms over canon, if you dont like it then dont use it. Obviously, if youre just into the novels, and not the game side of it, then you cant really do that, unless you rewrite the novel yourself, but any way, even if the novels weren't canon, thats still not going to stop them from putting out books that some people wont like.
Its through novels that a lot of people get their first taste of FR and D&D. Salvatore novels are very popular and some other FR authors get high ratings in most review sites. Its a good way for newcomers to get a feel of what the scenery of a shared experience of roleplaying could be seen as. But mostly they are a good read for some sword and sorcery tales in a would be magic world.
This has been so for so long that the interplay between the two have generated so much informatinon that no one, not even Ed, really knows all the nooks and crannies of the realms. So new ones are added on a constant basis. This fact will still remain even if you seperate novels from setting books. The setting/world itself will still require explenation of this bit and that. Somewhere the answers to some questions have to be given a yay or nay, so eventually a body of lore will amass even wthout novels adding more. (Go and have a look at the amount of lore thats generated yearly by asking Ed questions at Candlekeep to see it for yourself how much!)
Its a truth for all fantasy settings that (his)story comes first, the gaming parts get added in addition. The advancing of this history is something that might prove complex and burdensome and result in a metaplot. Up untill now I never found this so heavy handed that there was only room for that "metaplot" story to tell. On the contrary. I have seen so many different small tales in the realms (look into the wizards, citadels, dungeons and wilds series) that give no attention to any of the overarching RSE or worldspanning plots that I begin to wonder what the metaplot IS.
Is it the struggle between Mystra vs Shar and Cyric? Few novels tie into that directly.
Hmm; I seem to have made my point. Time for another coffee! oO
What I don't understand is how people who advocate for an evolving Realms can hate 4th Edition. It seems somewhat hypocritical.
There's evolving and there's making a 100 years jump.Since it's original release the FR evolved at a slow pace more or less in time with the real world. 30 years FR in RL? 30 years continued FR timeline.
Despite popular belief the changes made to introduce 4E were not simply to appease Realms-haters. No, they were made to more properly align the Realms with the vision for 4E D&D, but also - even more importantly (and the main reason for the time jump) - it was done for the novel authors. It was done to provide more "room" for new stories to develop. The flagship characters were kept around, naturally, and the 100 year gap left largely empty to give the authors freedom.
Yes, it was the advancing cannon to which the Realms is chained that caused perhaps the most hated changes in Realms history. That poison pill might have tasted sweet going down, but in the end it killed what you loved about the Realms.
That was my point.
This.
By having thight control on authors through editing and consultancy from the world designers I think a shared world can flourish perpetually. Its a matter of focusing the vivid creativity of authors with tools existing in the frame of the world they work with.
Its not an easy task, I concur, but it has been done with flair and elegance in FR. The Greenwood presents Waterdeep series are a good example of how authors and desgners can make great additions to eachother. Ed wrote too much lore for the FRCG to handle and it became an authors bible instead. The results are some great stories set in uniquely changed parts of Waterdeep.
I agree that the current timeline gives authors more freedom to write their preferred vision of the Realms. But by adhereing too much to this freedom some of the "feel of the realms" can be lost if the communication between designers and authors is lacking.
lfr was made non canon for one reason, only deal with ONE timeline, and the LFR was a 2nd timeline.LFR never should of been canon in the first place,
I don't cate about the canon status of LFR, I was refering to the novels.
BTW, LFR wasn't a second timeline, it was just a second feed into the one timeline.
My point was this: If you wish for everything to be cannon you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
And I am happy to accept also that (the return of Bane might have tasted bitter, but I was there when it happened, it wasn't just a "Ah yes, while you were just not looking (for 100 years) the following all happened).
Making novels canon is a bad idea all the way around.
Which is cleary shown in the popularity of FR novels and Eberron novels, ..... wait it isn't.
Which is cleary shown in the popularity of FR novels and Eberron novels, ..... wait it isn't.
I doubt that being considered canon for the CS has much to do with the popularity of FR and Eberron novels. Even if it did, it still doesn't it make it a good idea.
Personally, I can't stand reading soap operas about gods and really powerful characters, and think it's absurd that those stories have been considered canon and implemented into the base Campaign Setting. FR was by far best in its 1st edition, before all of the nonsense from the novels destroyed the sense of mystery and immersion in the setting.
Again, there is no reason whatsoever why novels should affect the CS, it should only be the other way around - as long as novels are internally consistent with one another and externally consistent with the world of Toril, they would not suffer any.
Personally, I can't stand reading soap operas about gods and really powerful characters, and think it's absurd that those stories have been considered canon and implemented into the base Campaign Setting...Again, there is no reason whatsoever why novels should affect the CS, it should only be the other way around - as long as novels are internally consistent with one another and externally consistent with the world of Toril, they would not suffer any.
Agree double here. The Realms also, to me, seems quite generic, a standard medieval world with magic largely slathered on top without any care for the socioeconomic effects.
FR books are so popular because the setting has been around for more than two decades, and consequently, has some major cash cows (That Dark Elf, for one, but also Elminster, and doesn't Cunningham have a good amount of books?). Even without the cash cows, there are a hell of a lot more FR books simply because of its time. Eberron has been around for about six years and two months. That's not enough time to develop the kind of following that FR has.
Thinking about it, when were other settings discontinued? I won't try to be any authority, but FR has been, to my knowledge, the most heavily supported setting for 3e (and consequently, 3.5 as well), which represents the origin edition for most modern players. So, if FR is the only game in town, of course it will be "popular." The only other setting I can think of that has booku books would be Dragonlance, and I don't know much about that (aside from the fact that I played in a DL campaign, and I was not thrilled with the setting).
One of the things I love about the Realms though is that it's story is continuosly moving foward, so I wouldnt want to see a reset, or a non changing world, or non canon novels. Although I do agree the 100 year time jump was a little extreme.
Personally I think anything published for the Realms should be considered canon for the Realms, so novels, Dragon/Dungeon articles, LFR adventures, whatever else should be considered canon. Of course if they did do away with canon, I wouldnt be totally heart broken, after all as a DM its really my job to determine whats canon and not, ITS MY REALMS!!!
One of the things I love about the Realms though is that it's story is continuosly moving foward, so I wouldnt want to see a reset, or a non changing world, or non canon novels. Although I do agree the 100 year time jump was a little extreme.
You're definitely a firm supporter of canon, but why? What do you see as benefits of canon being lock-tied to the setting? There have been quite a few reasons given for the other side, but what are the reasons for supporting it?
Do you believe sales would suffer? If so, why? Do you believe that the Realms would lose something?
Thing is, I know you dislike a number of changes that were made in the setting (over the years), changes that were required because of the required tie to canon. That would tend to suggest that canon isn't something you would want to support, but you really firmly do. Why?
PS: I totally get that you love the idea of a "continuing story" because that makes the world feel alive in some ways, but the 100-year jump effectively discontinued the old Realms.
Personally I think anything published for the Realms should be considered canon for the Realms, so novels, Dragon/Dungeon articles, LFR adventures, whatever else should be considered canon. Of course if they did do away with canon, I wouldnt be totally heart broken, after all as a DM its really my job to determine whats canon and not, ITS MY REALMS!!!
One of the things I love about the Realms though is that it's story is continuosly moving foward, so I wouldnt want to see a reset, or a non changing world, or non canon novels. Although I do agree the 100 year time jump was a little extreme.
You're definitely a firm supporter of canon, but why? What do you see as benefits of canon being lock-tied to the setting? There have been quite a few reasons given for the other side, but what are the reasons for supporting it?
Do you believe sales would suffer? If so, why? Do you believe that the Realms would lose something?
Thing is, I know you dislike a number of changes that were made in the setting (over the years), changes that were required because of the required tie to canon. That would tend to suggest that canon isn't something you would want to support, but you really firmly do. Why?
PS: I totally get that you love the idea of a "continuing story" because that makes the world feel alive in some ways, but the 100-year jump effectively discontinued the old Realms.
Im not overly concerned if sales would suffer, Im not a WotC employee or a stockholder, but I like the advancing timeline of the Realms, it does make it seem more alive, so if the novels were not canon then how would the timeline advance any? Theyve already stated that they will not put out any more game books for the Realms, or any other setting. And sure we have DDI articles, but thats not going to be enough to lay out changes like ok in 1481 half of Waterdeep collapsed into Undermaountain or something like that. Im depending even more now on the novels for my Realmslore, so if the novels were no longer "official" Realmslore I think that would effectively kill the Realms for me. This is of course just my own opinion and others see the 100 year time jump, or the Spellplague, oreven the Time of Troubles as the "death" of the Realms. We all have our own ideas about what makes the Realms great, so its really hard for them to make every one happy. I think Ed should be given more control over things, I think that would make alot of people happy.
If they did non canon novels, I suppose I could be alright with that, as long as they novels stayed true to previous lore, and had constient canon for the novels themselves, so that if people wanted to use that lore for their games, then cool, and if they didnt then oh well.
Im not overly concerned if sales would suffer, Im not a WotC employee or a stockholder, but I like the advancing timeline of the Realms, it does make it seem more alive, so if the novels were not canon then how would the timeline advance any? Theyve already stated that they will not put out any more game books for the Realms, or any other setting. And sure we have DDI articles, but thats not going to be enough to lay out changes like ok in 1481 half of Waterdeep collapsed into Undermaountain or something like that. Im depending even more now on the novels for my Realmslore, so if the novels were no longer "official" Realmslore I think that would effectively kill the Realms for me. This is of course just my own opinion and others see the 100 year time jump, or the Spellplague, oreven the Time of Troubles as the "death" of the Realms. We all have our own ideas about what makes the Realms great, so its really hard for them to make every one happy. I think Ed should be given more control over things, I think that would make alot of people happy.
Ah, I think I understand better. What would "killing the Realms" really mean for you, though? Would you stop playing D&D in the Realms, or do you mean that you'd stop buying novels, or ?
Personally, my purchase habits for novels became really sporadic after the Time of Troubles happened. That was the "jumping the shark" moment for me. But there have been some really fantastic series that I have bought throughout the 2E and 3E period. I just became really discriminating, although I tended to follow specific authors. My purchase of gaming materials also sharply dropped with ToT, partly because I wasn't gaming through most of 2E and the early part of 3E. I was also less than impressed with the tendency in 3E to re-tread the same fluff, dress it up, maybe add a few details to 2E material, and pass it off as a "new" hardcover.
To me, the Realms haven't been "killed" per se, because after my group finishes our Conan d20 we will be going back to do a campaign in the 1E period. But I don't think I follow novel canon in the same way that you might. After the ToT, I haven't treated novels or new edition materials as if they're all worthy of inclusion. And nothing so far about 4E has really grabbed me as a "great idea!" worthy of inclusion, and none of the 4E novels have grabbed my interest at all. That's just my opinion, though, and everyone has their likes and dislikes. However, I will say that my opinion may change for 4E novels once we get the new Realms novels from Elaine Cunningham and Paul Kemp.
If they did non canon novels, I suppose I could be alright with that, as long as they novels stayed true to previous lore, and had constient canon for the novels themselves, so that if people wanted to use that lore for their games, then cool, and if they didnt then oh well.
I think they'd pretty much need to, if novels were disconnected from game canon. They'd still have to have their own internal consistency and canon, otherwise they couldn't really call them Forgotten Realms at all.
Also I got to say that I really liked the Avatar Trillogy, of course I read those in high school some 20 years ago, gods that makes me feel old. Any way I thought it was an interesting story, gave some insight inot the gods, and showed us that things can change drasatically in the Realms, I think that what really drew me in. Im pretty sure those were the first Realms novels I read. I liked that things changed like that and that the changes stuck. It seems like in other settings, and in movies, comic books, etc, things change dramatically but then after awhile things revert back to the way they were. I think thats what really does it for me, that they stick with the changes made and continue the story of the Realms onward. If they changed that, whether or not that would cause me to stop playing in the Realms and stop buying Realms stuff remains to be seen, I guess it depended on how they went about it.
Personally I think anything published for the Realms should be considered canon for the Realms, so novels, Dragon/Dungeon articles, LFR adventures, whatever else should be considered canon. Of course if they did do away with canon, I wouldnt be totally heart broken, after all as a DM its really my job to determine whats canon and not, ITS MY REALMS!!!
But that's the point, it's not your Realms! If you don't have all the canon in your game then you're doign it wrong!!!
(That was sarcasm by the way
)Just my 2 Sembiam Steelpences
Those seem like good things, right?
In a way, though the idea of a Livign Campaign is PCs affecting tehw rold, and if the campaign is 'non-canon', you take a bit out of that idea away for some people.
Also, having spent a lot of time writing and editing for FR adventures, it is a pity if the NPCs, locations, and events you describe are simply never used again.
I believe most of what was wrtten so far is still canon - so some names may survive and see further development, but it is also posisble R&D will now entirely ignore what was written in LFR - including the good ideas.
What you get them is that LFR becomes out of sync - and anything published in DDI or novels may become useless as it conflicts with 'Living Canon' (since yuu will need to have 'canon' within the campaign itself).
Gomez
I believe most of what was wrtten so far is still canon - so some names may survive and see further development, but it is also posisble R&D will now entirely ignore what was written in LFR - including the good ideas.
I doubt that they'd de-canonize LFR canon, seems like it'd be too much work for R&D.
What do you consider the best lore/canon to come out of LFR? I'm not being facetious here, just curious because I don't follow LFR very closely at all.
I believe most of what was wrtten so far is still canon - so some names may survive and see further development, but it is also posisble R&D will now entirely ignore what was written in LFR - including the good ideas.
I doubt that they'd de-canonize LFR canon, seems like it'd be too much work for R&D.
What do you consider the best lore/canon to come out of LFR? I'm not being facetious here, just curious because I don't follow LFR very closely at all.
From what ive seen they are mostly combat encounters strung together with a vague plot, like go here fight these guys and then do this fight some more guys to get the thing you need to find the last set of guys to fight. Still though they do manage to fit some bits of lore in there. Like we now know for certain that Saerb in Sembia is still around, thanks to Escape From Sembia.
The nature of LFR adventures (they most of the time need to fit a 4-5 hour slot, and need to be easy to prepare), means that they are generally lore-light, and plots are often fairly simple. But I have seen more complex stories (especially told over more adventures), and these also hold lore.
Some things:
- Raven's Bluff is being worked on in LFR. This will come out in GenCon. I *think* these adventures are the last batch to be considered canon. Anyway, I have seen the first adventure, and it provides some details on Raven's Bluff, including an updated map (the only new map I can recall of a major city in a LFR adventure).
- For the Dalelands, we worked on the Fall of Stars and the people and organizations that flock around it, and some of the rulers in the region, including those of Shadowdale, Daggerdale, Deepingdale, and the Burghers of New Velar.
- Personally, I like how the Chiang Emporium turned out.
- I didn't play a lot of Waterdeep yet, but it has some adventures focusing on several of its noble families
I don't have too much exposure to most other regions (I do not play a lot). The content varies. Some introduce interesting NPCs or events, others are more dungeony and have less (new) background. Some elements I know explored are the Seven Swords and Nathlek in the dragoncoast, the Yuir gods in Aglarond, the Queen of Thorns in Cormyr and the Fraternity of Tharos in Impiltur.
Heck, what do you mean by 'lore' anyway?
I am curious - how exactly do people use lore in their games? I hear people wanting to read it for its sake in novels or books, but how exactly do you present it in a game, particularly to people who aren't lore enthusiasts?
Heck, what do you mean by 'lore' anyway?
I don't know about others, but my group usually starts a campaign with a handmade packet containing recent history, general area info and legends, that kind of thing. When it's the Realms, we note not only the date and recent events, but also some lore/history of the region we start in, a few NPCs we are likely to know, bits and pieces we are likely for our PCs to know given our backgrounds, that kind of thing.
We haven't had to delete anything out because we've always started in a 1E time period, but the DM does let us know of various changes and possible changes to the standard setting (if we would know as PCs). One of our DMs used to also import a few things from the 2E Volo guides, even though we've really stuck to 1E time, like inns and taverns and whatnot, but nothing major.
But yeah, we do the history/regional packet regardless of what we're playing, whether it's Realms or Greyhawk or even like Conan d20.
Heck, what do you mean by 'lore' anyway?
For me, "lore" is the setting. The Oxford online dictionary defines lore's origin in terms of things taught or learned and the word itself as :
"a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a particular group, typically passed from person to person by word of mouth"
That, for me, effectively describes lore as a concept. Lore is the things we learn about a world, in this case the Realms. It doesn't place limits on what those things have to be. As such, and as usual I am only speaking for myself, everything I learn about the Realms is lore. Everything. Geography, Civilisations, People(s), Spells, History, Cultures, Monetary Systems... everything.
A sourcebook might tell you the general trends and habits of a city's populace, but a novel will show you what those actually mean in the day-to-day life of someone living there. Both, for me, have a place in the canonical description of the Realms. And since, again for me, canon (such a loaded term, ohohoho) only functions as a label for those records which could be considered genuine ("could", not "should" I am not about to suggest that anything be added to anyone's Realms game if they don't want it to be). I fail to see why it has become such a focus of hatred.
[this next bit doesn't address Pamela's post directly, it speaks to the general discussion]
People have said that lore becomes a problem because of the way people react to it and that the 4E lore-lite approach is justified, and by extension that novels should be severed from canon to keep it lore-lite and to keep it RSE free. I see the logic in the point, I just don't agree with it. The WotC novels department commissioned the novels and, from the reading of various author's comments, the RSE that comprise them because they sold. The problem isn't with the novels, but with the subject matter they were tasked with handling.
Novel canon may cause people to a problem with a player who is a lore-lawyer, or for a DM who feels they have t read every novel before they can run a "Realms game", that I have to accept because people in this thread have suggested it to be their experience (and I am now about to call anyone a liar), but why can't this be approached in the same way as any other concept that provides a possible threat or difficulty?
Do we ban cars because people might have an accident? Nope, we educate people about how to drive properly and then legislate about what happens if they don't.
Do we prevent people from buying aerosols because they might be inhaled or misused? Nope, we stick signs on the side warning of dangers and don't sell the more harmful ones to the young while telling them about the dangers.
I could go on. I really don't think canonical novels are a problem if:
1) The novels are handled in a sensible localised/non-RSE way.
2) DMs remind themselves that it is their Realms to run, and they can do with it as they will.
3) Canon-lawyer players just plain stop. The behaviour is classic disruption, it is covered in the DMG even. D&D is a co-operative game, if a player really is causing that much of a problem and refuses to understand that for the good of the group they need to shut the heck up then why are you playing with them in the first place? And if it is the whole group who are getting lawyery... then don't run it for them, or even better, get one of them to run it and see how they like it.
I've only been playing 4E for about 18 months, but in that time we've had problems like these come up in our group and yet we have been able to come to an understanding every single time.
Maybe we are all saints... but I doubt it.
Canon isn't the problem, it is what you do with it that can be.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Hah! You thought your wall of text was big? I'm dividing mine up into three parts because it's so huge. ;)
Since the dawn of the Realms in print, game designers, novel authors and brand managers have recognized the inherent ties between the D&D game rules, printed adventure materials and stories (i.e. novels) that gamers read and absorb to create a common shared knowledge of the Forgotten Realms as an imaginary world to experience fantasy roleplaying and to read about fantasy in general.
Specifically, gamers will on average take something in print—whether a game rule or some fact about the Realms derived from a sourcebook or novel—and treat it as something that is. This is true of all gamers, not just rules lawyers or Monty Haul-type players. All. Gamers.
From the very beginning when the Grey Box was released, the concept of the Unreliable Narrator was introduced so that your typical player would not interrupt play mid-session and point out to the DM that "...Room 23 isn't where the second mirror-gate is located in the Halls of the Beast Tamers; it's in Room 20 like it says on the map," because to your average player the act of pointing out a canon contradiction is no different than pointing out to another player or his/her DM that they've interpreted a game rule incorrectly.
Think about it: from the get-go Ed Greenwood—arguably one of the best game designers in the world—recognized from experience that players expect consistency from their DM; they except to be able to read about some facet of the game world and see it reflected in what their DM does, regardless of whether the player was supposed to read the source of that information (sourcebook adventure or novel) ahead of time or not.
Now multiply those expectations times every single piece of lore that's been written about the Realms. Do you see why it can be so incredibly difficult for DMs of all stripes to play in the Realms?
Players want the world they know so much about and have spent so much time reading on to be represented at the gaming table. Again, this isn't extreme, this is average.
The idea that "Oh, we can just handle it at the gaming table" completely ignores the expectations of reasonable players and DMs who enjoy playing D&D in the Forgotten Realms. The notion that canon contradictions during play are issues for "lore-lawyers" only is rather mistaken.
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new. Yes, DMs were and always have been free to add to the Forgotten Realms in ways large and small, but they were not generally as free to make changes to canon lore without first explaining it to their players (or, if the DM was very fortunate, by relying on his or her players to investigate the seeming contradiction through play).
The basic idea that the Realms are fixed and universally understood has held for quite some time.
This changed, however, for two reasons.
1) The explosion of Realms novels and sourcebooks produced from the time of the release of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons through to the end of 3rd Edition D&D.
Thousands of pages of source material produced over the last two decades or so meant there was a knowledge gap between brand new players and even mildly experienced-in-the-Realms players. This also meant that fans of the setting bought sourcebooks and novels because they were really into the lore or just because they felt an honest need to keep up.
Sure, most D&D adventure sessions aren't the sorts of activities where DMs sit and read verbatim from a sourcebook like Lands of Intrigue while the players rarely role a dice and instead ooh and ah over the lore as it's read aloud. But if you're a new (to the Realms) player and the DM or one of the other players at the table has to regularly pause and fill you in on the background of Tethyr's tumultuous history just so you can keep up with what's going on (because unlike you they all bought Land's of Intrigue when it came out, gobbled up the lore and got so excited by it that they decided to run a game there), then Houston, we have a problem.
What I've just described isn't unique; in the time when Lands of Intrigue, the various Volo's Guides and other source material was being produced, plenty of Realms fans gobbled it up for the sake of the lore alone. Whereas before when you had just a taste of lore and that was enough to want to make you play D&D in the Realms, now you either had to know or were driven to know the lore in-depth to really enjoy a D&D game set in the Realms.
That's great for lore-lovers, not so great for your average Joe who just wants to roll up a Fighter from Cormyr and hack some orcs up.
2) RSEs.
The idea that whole parts of the Realms, such as the Time of Troubles or the return of Netheril and subsequent destruction of Tilverton, could be ignored in someone's game is a phenomena that didn't come about until these events and other lower-level RSEs happened in the Realms.
The advent of multiple new RSEs meant that a typical player's and DM's perceptions of just what the Realms are in someone's game vs. the overarching metaplot of the Realms in print were different things.
Whereas before you just "played in the Realms", now one has to ask questions: Are you playing pre or post-Spellplague? If pre, are you playing before or after the Time of Troubles? If after the Time of Troubles, are you incorporating all the low-level RSEs that happened? And is the Spellplague going to happen or are we just ignoring it?
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new. Yes, DMs were and always have been free to add to the Forgotten Realms in ways large and small, but they were not generally as free to make changes to canon lore without first explaining it to their players (or, if the DM was very fortunate, by relying on his or her players to investigate the seeming contradiction through play).
Its always been your Realms, I think that it was stressed in every edition, that the Realms were ours to do with as we please. I dont think its a new notion at all, at least it shouldnt be.
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new. Yes, DMs were and always have been free to add to the Forgotten Realms in ways large and small, but they were not generally as free to make changes to canon lore without first explaining it to their players (or, if the DM was very fortunate, by relying on his or her players to investigate the seeming contradiction through play).
Not really. That was explicitly called out in the Grey box. And arguably, it needed to be, since the Realms were one of the earlier settings to build up a sizeable body of 'canon' that wasn't in the form of adventures. Prior to that, it was almost expected that a GM would create their own setting, and drop material into it where and if they wanted. With the Realms, specifically calling out that you could do the same thing was imo a good idea. Suddenly you weren't 'just' altering adventures or dropping them into a setting where you wanted. You were altering 'fundamental concepts of the world'. I remember arguments on the subject, where that specific phrase got used.
Damn stupid, IMO. Shouldn't need saying.
Now then, the notion that "it's your world, do what you want with it" is relatively new...
As others have pointed out, it's hardly new. 1E was quite explicit about doing whatever you wanted in your Realms (and it was a major selling point, actually).
The basic idea that the Realms are fixed and universally understood has held for quite some time... (Time of Troubles and RSEs)...
I think you have it a little confused. Canon didn't really become a major problem until the Time of Troubles and other RSEs. Novels up to that point, well, people felt completely free to ignore them and do whatever they wanted. Thing is, you didn't ever really have to say, "my Realms are different with X and Y" prior to ToT because everything up to that point could really be handwaved away. Nothing about 1E Realms was so awful that it had to be removed by a lot of DMs. Plus, no players really cared if you (for example) ignored the entire Darkwalker on Moonshae trilogy in your game. If you moved to someone else's game where it did happen, no big whoop. If Elminster really was a minor sage and not a wizard in your Realms, no one really cared. It didn't matter until 2E.
Honestly, it was the ToT and later RSEs that really made canon questions awful. From that point onward, you really had to make a point of listing any and all changes to your Realms. Only at that point did people start whining about having or not having Cyric, whether or not your Realms had specific wild magic areas, or if you were going to have X and Y (but not A and B) from certain novels.
No one really cared about the Volo guide material, because it was all just flavor and fun little tidbits. As a player, if you had no idea what a regional sourcebook or a Volo guide said, it honestly made little to no impact on the game. No one cared that much about regional sourcebooks, which also usually just had fun flavoring. Both could be changed or removed with absolutely no problems in play, and you still felt like you were "in the Realms." People -did- care about whether or not the ToT and other RSEs happened, though. They also complained about kitchen sinky things like Mulhorand and Maztica, and whether or not you incorporated Spelljammer. Once 2E came out, you needed a list of divergences so everyone would be on the same page for your personal campaigns.
Before 2E and the ToT, canon really just wasn't that big of a deal. At least, that's the way it was with everyone I knew.
As others have pointed out, it's hardly new. 1E was quite explicit about doing whatever you wanted in your Realms (and it was a major selling point, actually).
This is the problem with forums like these. People are so eager to show how smart they are that they'll look for anything the appears wrong and pounce, instead of reading the entire post before commenting. (raises hand for being guilty of that in the past)
Thus, it would appear the three of you who responded either missed my point or didn't bother to read my admitedly wall-sized post from top to bottom to take in all that was said.
The point, again, is that there are degrees to what it means to "do what you want" with a setting.
As I previously stated, at the dawn of the Realms, DMs were expected to add to the Realms—and were explicitly told which areas weren't going to be further elaborated on in future sourcebooks to encourage them to fill in the gaps in those regions (see DMs sourcebook of the Realms, page 6*)—but they weren't expected, much less encouraged, to do things like kill off all the gods and turn the Dales into a blasted ruin.
Of course DMs could add in lots of NPCs, ruins, towns, castles, monsters and their lairs, etc...that's always been true (and is not contested by my claims).
So, was it a selling point of the Realms that you could add in your own material in areas not already covered? Yes?
Was it a selling point of the Realms the you could flip the setting on its head and change everything recognizable? No, not at all.
This is why "it's your world, do what you want with it" relatively new, because what it means now isn't nearly the same thing as it did twenty years ago.
Canon didn't really become a major problem until the Time of Troubles and other RSEs. Novels up to that point, well, people felt completely free to ignore them and do whatever they wanted. Thing is, you didn't ever really have to say, "my Realms are different with X and Y" prior to ToT because everything up to that point could really be handwaved away. Etc...
This was basically already stated in my previous post, but I think you said it better.
No one really cared about the Volo guide material, because it was all just flavor and fun little tidbits. As a player, if you had no idea what a regional sourcebook or a Volo guide said, it honestly made little to no impact on the game.
I'm sure this was true in your games, which appear from the sound of it to be very lore-light. But true for all games? Or even a majority of games? No.
I think you're confusing the impact of RSEs on the player mindset versus the strong popularity of the lore (that is, people buying Realms sourcebooks just to read the lore) and impact of relative lore knowledge between players at the gaming table.
Before 2E and the ToT, canon really just wasn't that big of a deal. At least, that's the way it was with everyone I knew.
Would you say that's likely because you used the setting as written?
*TSRs viewpoint at the time was that they'd be invalidating a DMs campaign if a future sourcebook overwrote what a DM was doing in, say, Sembia.
So what was my point from the previous two giant walls of text?
I suppose it's that the expectations of players and DMs about what the Realms "are" have changed considerably over time as the Realms have grown and adapted through new editions of D&D and the printing of numerous sourcebooks and novels.
Expectations at the gaming table have changed too. What might be considered "canon-lawyering" nowadays was considered typical player behavior twenty years ago.
Canon is a problem because if you start a new game in the pre-Spellplague Realms, you have to assess everyone's setting knowledge and expectations of what is and isn't in the setting.
Whereas in the post-Spellplague Realms, everyone's on an even keel. The DM is free to explore and elaborate on the setting and the players are free to absorb the world through the DM's story, this allows them to focus exclusively on their characters and build them up in the DMs' version of the Realms. That's as it should be.
This is the problem with forums like these. People are so eager to show how smart they are that they'll look for anything the appears wrong and pounce, instead of reading the entire post before commenting. (raises hand for being guilty of that in the past)
Just in the past?
Thus, it would appear the three of you who responded either missed my point or didn't bother to read my admitedly wall-sized post from top to bottom to take in all that was said.
Not really. Technically, you took both sides of the "argument" in the same post. Nothing like casting a wide net and hoping for some fish to land in it, eh? We just responded to the first part because it was obviously not true (and generally, most people hang their arguments on the initial lead-in.
Canon is a problem because if you start a new game in the pre-Spellplague Realms, you have to assess everyone's setting knowledge and expectations of what is and isn't in the setting.
Canon has been a problem since the ToT, not just the "before the spellplague." Before the ToT, novels weren't really a problem. It remains a problem in the post-spellplague Realms, because you still have every single RSE in "history" to deal with in one way or another.
Canon is a problem because if you start a new game in the pre-Spellplague Realms, you have to assess everyone's setting knowledge and expectations of what is and isn't in the setting.
Whereas in the post-Spellplague Realms, everyone's on an even keel. The DM is free to explore and elaborate on the setting and the players are free to absorb the world through the DM's story, this allows them to focus exclusively on their characters and build them up in the DMs' version of the Realms. That's as it should be.
I think I'd adjust that to "could be a problem", since the issue was hardly universal to each and every game set in the Realms. With cold-meet groups, I'd agree that it probably was going to be a problem, but I would question whether it would be as much of an issue with an established gaming group, at least every single time.
As to the last bit there, the DM always was free to explore and elaborate. Perhaps players expectations might hinder that on occassion, but my view is that its a group issue, not a setting issue... which is a little semantical, but I'm a firm believer that group dynamics and expectations are responsible for most issues that people blame on the settings.
What I would agree with is that 3e, in general, presented things in a way that encouraged that sort of approach and thinking, not just with the Realms, but with most stuff. That 3rd person omniscient tense usage was a mistake of the largest order in my book. While I'm not overly familiar with 4e, much less with the 4e Realms, I couldn't say, but it does seem to have alleviated a lot of the issues that many seemed to think were present in the Realms, so in that sense it fulfilled its purpose, even though its not a game I'm particularly interested in. My suspicion though is that more and more novels appear for the setting, that the same sort of barrier is just going to reform at some point if WotC isn't careful about things.
This is the problem with forums like these. People are so eager to show how smart they are that they'll look for anything the appears wrong and pounce, instead of reading the entire post before commenting. (raises hand for being guilty of that in the past)
What!? i didnt pounce! I pretty much agreeed with what you said except that one part, and its not even like I was saying youre wrong and im right, I understand you was speaking in general, not how you yourself see it. I understand that alot of people see the "its your Realms" philosophy as a 4e thing, I was just saying that it shouldnt be that way, it was always intended to do what we want with, you know that, I know that, but some people...
I just dont understand why people get all up in arms over canon, if you dont like it then dont use it. Obviously, if youre just into the novels, and not the game side of it, then you cant really do that, unless you rewrite the novel yourself, but any way, even if the novels weren't canon, thats still not going to stop them from putting out books that some people wont like.
Its through novels that a lot of people get their first taste of FR and D&D. Salvatore novels are very popular and some other FR authors get high ratings in most review sites. Its a good way for newcomers to get a feel of what the scenery of a shared experience of roleplaying could be seen as. But mostly they are a good read for some sword and sorcery tales in a would be magic world.
This has been so for so long that the interplay between the two have generated so much informatinon that no one, not even Ed, really knows all the nooks and crannies of the realms. So new ones are added on a constant basis. This fact will still remain even if you seperate novels from setting books. The setting/world itself will still require explenation of this bit and that. Somewhere the answers to some questions have to be given a yay or nay, so eventually a body of lore will amass even wthout novels adding more. (Go and have a look at the amount of lore thats generated yearly by asking Ed questions at Candlekeep to see it for yourself how much!)
Its a truth for all fantasy settings that (his)story comes first, the gaming parts get added in addition. The advancing of this history is something that might prove complex and burdensome and result in a metaplot. Up untill now I never found this so heavy handed that there was only room for that "metaplot" story to tell. On the contrary. I have seen so many different small tales in the realms (look into the wizards, citadels, dungeons and wilds series) that give no attention to any of the overarching RSE or worldspanning plots that I begin to wonder what the metaplot IS.
Is it the struggle between Mystra vs Shar and Cyric? Few novels tie into that directly.
Hmm; I seem to have made my point. Time for another coffee! oO