I find it weird that the FRCG and FRPG seem to give no real inkling of this. I like it, and I'm adding it to my game.
Good to see I'm on the right track. ;)
I picked up Mistshore today and began reading it. What strikes me most of all in that book is that in 1479, after the Spellplague, magic is portrayed as this wild force, barely under control. While common, it seems terrifying to most people, even those using it. The main character is an extreme example of this, but at the same time it seems true in general.
I didn't quite get the same impression. While Icelin is an "extreme example," she's also pretty much the only detailed example in terms of spellcasting. Tesleena, the Watch Commander's aid, doesn't do a lot of on-the-page Artwork, but the feel of her character and of her role in the Watch doesn't bespeak a lack of control (in my reading). The magic items that we see (the cloaks the characters use to disguise themselves among the beggars, Ruen's ring and the object he uses to communicate with the Watch, the daggers used by the Locks) all seem to work more or less as advertised.
The reason that the magic seems so wild in, I guess you'd say, gaming terms, is that so much of it is cast by the spellscarred Icelin. But even more to the point, the reason that it seems so wild in Mistshore is that when wild spell effects occur, Jaleigh has written them from Icelin's point-of-view, and Icelin's psychology, effected it as it is by her troubled past, tumultuous present, and burdensome eidetic memory, is the filter through which we experience the magic. All of which bears testament to Jaleigh's enormous skill at characterization, one of the special delights of this fine book.
As for the game I'm running, magic works just fine for PCs. They're professional killers(monster killers) and good at what they do. What I'm more interested in is magic's dark and mysterious reputation.
I wasn't really talking in game terms, I was talking in flavor terms. The common people are scared of magic. It seems to have a bad reputation. This is a fairly significant change from previous FR fluff.
As for the game I'm running, magic works just fine for PCs. They're professional killers(monster killers) and good at what they do. What I'm more interested in is magic's dark and mysterious reputation.
Gotcha. Do you think the fact that almost all of the common people we meet in Mistshore are in, well, Mistshore? With it's plaguechanged sea wraiths and transient population of the poorest and least educated (people who, therefore, may be more inclined to superstition)? Of course, working against this is that the worst off of them all don't seem to have any particular problem with shapechanging ghosts!
Most of the other folks we see are the people of Blacklock Ally and various Watch members who know (or believe, anyway) that Icelin's magic in particular deserves a bad reputation.
Anyway, it's a good question. Have you read Swordmage or Blackstaff Tower yet for comparison's sake? Steven Schend's book is up next for me, and I read the hardcover the day it came out so it's been awhile (though I don't remember the people of Hulburg seeming particularly put out by magic use).
Gotcha. Do you think the fact that almost all of the common people we meet in Mistshore are in, well, Mistshore? With it's plaguechanged sea wraiths and transient population of the poorest and least educated (people who, therefore, may be more inclined to superstition)? Of course, working against this is that the worst off of them all don't seem to have any particular problem with shapechanging ghosts!
Most of the other folks we see are the people of Blacklock Ally and various Watch members who know (or believe, anyway) that Icelin's magic in particular deserves a bad reputation.
Anyway, it's a good question. Have you read Swordmage or Blackstaff Tower yet for comparison's sake? Steven Schend's book is up next for me, and I read the hardcover the day it came out so it's been awhile (though I don't remember the people of Hulburg seeming particularly put out by magic use).
If I remember correctly, both Icelin and Sull both make comments on magic being a topic of dread(to a moderate extent) in mainstream society. They were both of the merchant class. Some of the comments people make are aimed at magic in general, and not Icelin in particular.
I have read Blackstaff Tower, after my OP. While Blackstaff Tower doesn't really focus on the Spellpague as closely, many of the characters are prejudiced against magic, and one of the main characters, Laraelra, hides the fact that she is a Sorcerer because of this prejudice.
Anyway, it's a good question. Have you read Swordmage or Blackstaff Tower yet for comparison's sake?
Read both. Even in Swordmage, magic users are—if not feared—definitely elevated beyond the perception of what was normally “The norm.” People are wary, if not scared of them. Maybe it depends on the territory.
If I remember correctly, both Icelin and Sull both make comments on magic being a topic of dread(to a moderate extent) in mainstream society. They were both of the merchant class. Some of the comments people make are aimed at magic in general, and not Icelin in particular.
I have read Blackstaff Tower, after my OP. While Blackstaff Tower doesn't really focus on the Spellpague as closely, many of the characters are prejudiced against magic, and one of the main characters, Laraelra, hides the fact that she is a Sorcerer because of this prejudice.
Correct. It’s the focus of the entire novel—returning the mage to its rightful respect (though, again, the “mage” happened to be the villain).
Perhaps sorcery is feared more than wizardy is. Going by the design plans on the sorcerer the class will be the new wild mage, barely controlling the arcane sources they wield. (would love to play one!)
I would think this apt, except for the point that the villain I pointed out about is actually a wizard and not a sorcerer.
It was said by the old man who spellscar kept him from dying. He also described magic as being alive and needing the "weavers". It makes sense that spellscars represent shards of the Weave as the path levels allow them to use spellfire.
Unfortunately, I would take both with a grain of salt at this point.
Read both. Even in Swordmage, magic users are—if not feared—definitely elevated beyond the perception of what was normally “The norm.” People are wary, if not scared of them. Maybe it depends on the territory.
Correct. It’s the focus of the entire novel—returning the mage to its rightful respect (though, again, the “mage” happened to be the villain).
I would think this apt, except for the point that the villain I pointed out about is actually a wizard and not a sorcerer.
Unfortunately, I would take both with a grain of salt at this point.
I agree. I take all of it with a grain of salt as there are already lore contradictions. It doesn't help that silver fire, spellfire, etc are all powers now either. Makes for a confusing time.
Then they need better editing and proofing to catch the errors:D
Well, again, the timing doesn't really work out that well. Given the relative timelines and production schedules of editing, printing, binding, and distribution--which tend to be longer in novels than in game design products anyway--the novels were probably already composited while final editorial and design decisions were still being made on the campaign guide.
Even when this kind of work is being done sequentially, decisions sometimes have to be made that better serve a story or a game than fanatical devotion to continuity would. That's one of the (many) things that make a setting alive rather than static and stale. When the work is being done more or less in parallel, then those kinds of decisions will come up even more often.
As it happens, I wouldn't even describe those few rough spots as I've found in reading almost two thousand pages of the fourth edition lore thus far as rising to the level of continuity "blips," much less "errors." Yummy-vee.
I'm not sure who you mean by "they" when you say that they're in control of release dates--I'm sure you don't mean the writers, editors or designers, so I'm guessing you mean a general "they" of the company, Wizards of the Coast. But that's not true. Books are released in seasons, sales reps and marketers produce catalogs and pitch chains on books sometimes well over a year in advance of publication, buyers make orders based on in house factors like sales calendars and external factors like holidays and the public school year, printers and binders schedule production runs based on run volume and trim size and day to day fluctuations in the cost and availability of different paper stocks. Release dates are set in advance, but they're not set in a vacuum, and they're not set on a whim. The quantity and complexity of resources that must be brought to bear to bring a major trade publication like a nationally distributed mass market paperback to the market is enormous, the number of stakeholders is large, and they all have their say. The fact that Wizards, or any other trade publisher, hits their release date targets more often than not is a minor miracle.
But even ignoring all that publishing trade inside baseball, for me, there's a much better reason to have a generous view of these "minor blips." And that is, for me, that the first responsibility of a storyteller is to her story, and the first responsibility of a game maker is her to her game. I love canon--I love this particular canon--but we must allow creators to treat it as a sea to be sailed upon, not drowned in.
Well, when novels are announced to be canon by the designers, and released campaign guides are also supposed to be canon, then there is a responsibility to make sure the 2 coincide and agree. I would agree with you that there have only been a few minor blips, but stating that divinations do not work in Waterdeep and then having divinations cast (and not even as rituals) successfully in the novels would be a major blip. At the end of the day they are in control of release dates an it would not be hard to make sure things coincide (especially since so few 4e things have been released to date). It certainly would make things smoother on the lore board when things are discussed :D In a round about way my point is if I spend money on a guide, the information better not be proven wrong a week later in another release.
Again, my point is that consistency is needed if you are stating that both are sources of canon. Espcially when you're a storyteller you need to be sure of facts to avoid having to retcon when inconsistencies arise.
Again, my point is that consistency is needed if you are stating that both are sources of canon. Espcially when you're a storyteller you need to be sure of facts to avoid having to retcon when inconsistencies arise.
I believe that novels are now being addressed in terms of being canon (small "c") while game products (most notably printed ones) are canon (with a big "C"). In this I mean that in the new game-centric design, the game products can and will contradict novel material (probably on an increasing basis with the DDI) certainly in a mechanical sense but likely in a narrative one.
I personally find the "binding canon" argument about as convincing as a speech on Humanitarianism by an Arms Dealer for several reasons which I am sure I have already bored most people with a long time ago.
I use different definitions of (c/C)anon for a specific reason. Canon (rules) is defined as being authoritative in terms of representing the game world mechanically. canon (narrative) is defined as specifying that the novels do indeed take place in the framework labelled the "Forgotten Realms". As such I don't expect the Canon to present coherent fluff and I don't expect the canon to maintain the boundaries imposed by the rules.
And I shan't elucidate my feelings about this distinction.
Again, my point is that consistency is needed if you are stating that both are sources of canon. Espcially when you're a storyteller you need to be sure of facts to avoid having to retcon when inconsistencies arise.
Agreed and indeed. And see below....
I believe that novels are now being addressed in terms of being canon (small "c") while game products (most notably printed ones) are canon (with a big "C"). In this I mean that in the new game-centric design, the game products can and will contradict novel material (probably on an increasing basis with the DDI) certainly in a mechanical sense but likely in a narrative one.
I personally find the "binding canon" argument about as convincing as a speech on Humanitarianism by an Arms Dealer for several reasons which I am sure I have already bored most people with a long time ago.
I use different definitions of (c/C)anon for a specific reason. Canon (rules) is defined as being authoritative in terms of representing the game world mechanically. canon (narrative) is defined as specifying that the novels do indeed take place in the framework labelled the "Forgotten Realms". As such I don't expect the Canon to present coherent fluff and I don't expect the canon to maintain the boundaries imposed by the rules.
And I shan't elucidate my feelings about this distinction.
I have no doubt that things are bound to get overshadowed, mixed-up, or dissed simply for the sake of telling a story.
Unfortunately, we currently have three 4e novels out and we are already seeing discrepancies. Not only is this goofy, but its one of the major factors why they reset the setting in the first place.
Read my lips!: No new taxes!
This discussion kind of makes me happy I don't care very much about "canon" anymore, I just make my Realms however I want it to be.
I do too. I just think it's funny that the major reason they "had" to "nuke" the setting is already happening again in 4e in less than 4 novels and 3 supplements.
I do too. I just think it's funny that the major reason they "had" to "nuke" the setting is already happening again in 4e in less than 4 novels and 3 supplements.
I assure you, WotC has everything under control.
Please give me your address so I can send you a thug--I mean, a newsletter--to better keep you informed on things.
