As dedicated fans of the Forgotten Realms we could not sit idle and watch something we've enjoyed, some of us since we were young children, simply fade away. So we've come together to create the Fanon Realms Project.
Since the very early days the Forgotten Realms has been a shared world. Through its creator Ed Greenwood, and the many great authors and source book creators that have contributed to the setting over the years we've had the pleasure of experiencing the Realms from a distance. It has always been a passive experience, in which others generated content and we consumed it.
One of the primary objectives of the Fanon Realms Project is to change that. Where in the past we've relied on others to generate content for the Realms, we now look to each other. Where once the fate of the Realms was just in the hands of a few, we now hope to place its fate into the hands of the many.
It should be strongly noted that this project is entirely fan created and maintained. It is in no way authorized or supported by Wizards of the Coast. We prefer it this way, as it gives each of us complete authority over what happens to our shared version of the Forgotten Realms.
FAQ: General Overview
What is the Fanon Realms Project?
It is a collaborative venture created, maintained, and sustained by fans of the Forgotten Realms. It's mission is to tap into the creative imagination of fans of the setting, and generate content that people can incorporate into their own version of the Forgotten Realms.
What does "Fanon" mean?
The word Fanon is a play off the word canon, which is an adjective derived from the greek word κανών kanon, which means "rule." In the context of a work of fiction, the term canon denotes a material that is officially published by the creators or owners of a fictional universe's license.
Since the work we do here is not officially part of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, we call it Fanon, which is a combination of the words Fan and Canon.
How does the Fanon Realms interact with the Forgotten Realms Canon?
The Fanon Realms only officially recognizes the Grand History of the Realms as our primary source book. Every single event described within the Grand History of the Realms is considered to be canonical for the Fanon. The Fanon picks up after the year 1385 DR the Year of Blue Fire, and then skips ahead five years, making the first official date for the Fanon Realms 1390 DR the Year of the Walking Man.
Does this mean that the Fanon Realms recognizes the events of the Spellplague?
We only recognize the events described in the Grand History of the Realms. Since the Spellplague was not detailed in the Grand History of the Realms, the Fanon Realms has come up with its own interpretation of those events which differ from the established canon.
Who owns the Fanon Realms?
Everyone. There is no "owner" of the Fanon Realms, it is a project entirely open to the public. It is administrated and maintained by its contributors; all of whom are fans of the Forgotten Realms.
Who can contribute to the Fanon Realms?
Anyone. Though it is generally expected that those who contribute are knowledgeable about the Forgotten Realms, this need not be the case. Long time fans are always willing to help newcomers and help them get oriented and immersed in the setting.
How do I contribute to the Fanon Realms Project?
First, you should read this thread. This is the master thread of the project. It details what it is about, our goals and intentions, as well as other important details. Everything you need to know is here.
Second, once you've familiarized yourself with the project you can submit something by posting in the Forgotten Realms: Running the Realms forum. Your thread title should be in the following format: "[FRP: Shard Name] Thread Subject". People will then view your thread and comment on it, giving feedback if requested.
What is a Shard?
One of the issues we faced at the beginning of the project was how to weave everything together. We've constructed a metaplot event that took place during the Spellplague which resulted in the creation of mirror worlds. These mirror worlds are called shards, and were a result of attempts by powerful arcanists to hold time itself together as magic ran wild after the death of Mystra.
Shards are self-contained versions of the Forgotten Realms, and all campaigns take place on their own separate shard. We felt that this was necessary to bring together the broadest community possible, as each shard has the ability to have traveled radically different timelines. If you're running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms, and you want to ignore the events of the Time of Troubles or Spellplague, you can simply state that these events did not take place on your shard. If you want to remove certain NPC's or regions from your version of the Realms, or radically alter nation states or world leaders; this concept empowers you and your group to do exactly that.
In addition, you have the ability to travel between shards. Travel between shards is done through fissures, which are wounds in time, and function effectively as a two way portal. These fissures typically happen naturally (and rarely), but they can also be created through powerful magic.
The canonical Realms (4E) is known as the Canonical Shard. The fanonical Realms is known as the Fanonical Shard.
We encourage the sharing of information in your campaigns and your changes to the Realms. You are encouraged to create a campaign shard, calling it whatever you wish.
I do not play D&D or roleplay in the Forgotten Realms, I just read the novels or source books, can I still get involved?
Absolutely! We strongly encourage anyone who has a passion about the Realms to get involved, and there are many ways that you can do it. You can generate your own lore for your own shard, or you can attempt to participate in helping build up the lore for the Fanonical Shard. Alternatively, you can contribute through artwork, music, short stories, and anything else that you can dream up. So long as it is related to the Realms in one shape or another, it is welcomed here.
It is a collaborative venture created, maintained, and sustained by fans of the Forgotten Realms. It's mission is to tap into the creative imagination of fans of the setting, and generate content that people can incorporate into their own version of the Forgotten Realms.
What does "Fanon" mean?
The word Fanon is a play off the word canon, which is an adjective derived from the greek word κανών kanon, which means "rule." In the context of a work of fiction, the term canon denotes a material that is officially published by the creators or owners of a fictional universe's license.
Since the work we do here is not officially part of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, we call it Fanon, which is a combination of the words Fan and Canon.
How does the Fanon Realms interact with the Forgotten Realms Canon?
The Fanon Realms only officially recognizes the Grand History of the Realms as our primary source book. Every single event described within the Grand History of the Realms is considered to be canonical for the Fanon. The Fanon picks up after the year 1385 DR the Year of Blue Fire, and then skips ahead five years, making the first official date for the Fanon Realms 1390 DR the Year of the Walking Man.
Does this mean that the Fanon Realms recognizes the events of the Spellplague?
We only recognize the events described in the Grand History of the Realms. Since the Spellplague was not detailed in the Grand History of the Realms, the Fanon Realms has come up with its own interpretation of those events which differ from the established canon.
Who owns the Fanon Realms?
Everyone. There is no "owner" of the Fanon Realms, it is a project entirely open to the public. It is administrated and maintained by its contributors; all of whom are fans of the Forgotten Realms.
Who can contribute to the Fanon Realms?
Anyone. Though it is generally expected that those who contribute are knowledgeable about the Forgotten Realms, this need not be the case. Long time fans are always willing to help newcomers and help them get oriented and immersed in the setting.
How do I contribute to the Fanon Realms Project?
First, you should read this thread. This is the master thread of the project. It details what it is about, our goals and intentions, as well as other important details. Everything you need to know is here.
Second, once you've familiarized yourself with the project you can submit something by posting in the Forgotten Realms: Running the Realms forum. Your thread title should be in the following format: "[FRP: Shard Name] Thread Subject". People will then view your thread and comment on it, giving feedback if requested.
What is a Shard?
One of the issues we faced at the beginning of the project was how to weave everything together. We've constructed a metaplot event that took place during the Spellplague which resulted in the creation of mirror worlds. These mirror worlds are called shards, and were a result of attempts by powerful arcanists to hold time itself together as magic ran wild after the death of Mystra.
Shards are self-contained versions of the Forgotten Realms, and all campaigns take place on their own separate shard. We felt that this was necessary to bring together the broadest community possible, as each shard has the ability to have traveled radically different timelines. If you're running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms, and you want to ignore the events of the Time of Troubles or Spellplague, you can simply state that these events did not take place on your shard. If you want to remove certain NPC's or regions from your version of the Realms, or radically alter nation states or world leaders; this concept empowers you and your group to do exactly that.
In addition, you have the ability to travel between shards. Travel between shards is done through fissures, which are wounds in time, and function effectively as a two way portal. These fissures typically happen naturally (and rarely), but they can also be created through powerful magic.
The canonical Realms (4E) is known as the Canonical Shard. The fanonical Realms is known as the Fanonical Shard.
We encourage the sharing of information in your campaigns and your changes to the Realms. You are encouraged to create a campaign shard, calling it whatever you wish.
I do not play D&D or roleplay in the Forgotten Realms, I just read the novels or source books, can I still get involved?
Absolutely! We strongly encourage anyone who has a passion about the Realms to get involved, and there are many ways that you can do it. You can generate your own lore for your own shard, or you can attempt to participate in helping build up the lore for the Fanonical Shard. Alternatively, you can contribute through artwork, music, short stories, and anything else that you can dream up. So long as it is related to the Realms in one shape or another, it is welcomed here.
I'm going to create a separate FAQ in the original post once we've worked out more details about the project.
In case it wasn't clear, one of the intentions I'd like the FRP to have is to create an alternate Realms that differs from that offered by WotC. One of the biggest complaints that I've continuously heard is that the 100 year time jump was the worst part of the 4E changes.
As such, I've proposed that we only move the fanon forward five years after the Spellplague (1390 DR). We can fill in details and then proceed forward over time, assuming the project generates sufficient interest.
Please, give honest and helpful feedback.
There are basically three types of "shards" - the canon shard, the fanon shard, and the personal shards. The canon shard is obviously in the domain of WotC, and the personal shards are for campaigns. One of my main focuses at the moment is on the fanon shard.
The fanon shard I envision as being a collaborative and community administered version of the Realms. It evolves and changes over time just like the canon Realms. It sets as its starting date 1390 DR, five years after the Spellplague, and considers everything in the Grand History of the Realms to be a list of canonical events.
However, since it is collaborative it needs some basic ground rules. I don't want to create a ton of rules or anything or even create a formal submission process. I'd prefer to keep everything as informal as possible. However, there are obvious issues that arise when working with other people.
Let's set aside discussions of quality at the moment, because those discussions are entirely subjective. The primary focus I have is ensuring that things don't get chaotic or ridiculous, and to ensure that submissions adhere closely to the fanon.
As a result, I could see high scrutiny being placed on major RSE's that do major damage to the setting. I can see restrictions on using deities as part of events, and things of this nature.
Ultimately, I'd like to see each submission to the fanon voted on by the community and given a rating between 0 and 10 in certain key areas. Submissions that at least get a 5.0 average total would become part of the fanon version of the Realms.
I'm looking specifically for thoughts, questions, comments, and suggestions on this process. I want to ensure that it's open to as many people as possible, but has a sensible guideline that provides a great deal of freedom - while also curtailing the most obvious problems that would arise from multiple people working on the same project.
I'm in complete agreement with regards to the evaluation of submissions to the Fanon Shard on a 0-10 scale, and I feel a 5.0 is respectable as the make-or-break value. My concern is in the number of people evaluating; if the process is set for a specific stretch of time, rather than a set number of appointed members, - for example, those contributors to the project have 72 hours to evaluate Submission X - then it would be more inclusive as to encouraging contributors to be active. However, if we go that route, we run the risk of having vascillating numbers of people evaluating each project; for example, Submission X may have 4 people evaluate it, whereas Submission Y has 7. This creates a messiness that I think we would be better off avoiding.
Thus, though I recognize it's technically less inclusive to the body of contributors as a whole, I feel that, once we have a general idea of how many people are interested, we settle on a set number of members who will evaluate each submission, the identities of these members being different for each submission. I figure 5 evaluators should be a strong enough pool, but that's up to the majority to decide.
I also share the opinion that using deities will be frowned upon by most people; I can also see a whole host of problems arising if someone submits a piece in which an NPC is elevated to a divine status. I personally feel that submissions directly involving deities will naturally receive the proper (intense) amount of scrutiny, but I can't say whether or not it's likely to be effective in weeding out the controversial pieces (though it should be).
I've been mulling over the possibility that certain areas/NPCs/organizations will draw mass attention (for example, say we get five submissions for the Harpers right off the bat), and whether it's wise to possibly discourage people from touching on subjects that several others have discussed. It goes without saying that Harper Submission B couldn't get the nod if it directly conflicted with previously accepted Harper Submission A, and I feel that the more a topic is brought up, the more likely it is that people will focus their efforts on other subjects. All in all, I don't think there would be a need to dissuade people from writing about what interests them, even if it means we get 10 submissions on Waterdeep and find another area dry, so long as we stress that people who submit pieces on topics previously covered need to pay strict attention to what has come before them and been accepted.
One development tool these veteran designers mentioned is the unreliable narrator or historian. I think this will be a useful method given the fanon nature of this project. Ideally, all events and information should have a touch of unreliability or even blatant bias (if it serves the purpose of the development). It keeps things flexible so groups can change it without moving the very cosmos. This approach can often serve as a backdoor escape clause to facilitate ease of adaptation and modification by others.
We can learn a lot by observing what worked and didn’t work, particularly from the Realms’ many incarnations and FR’s sister settings such as Eberron (which has gained a loyal following in a short time) and Dark Sun (another example of an older setting making a reintroduction to fans). Also Pathfinder’s Golarion for a setting that is taking a different introduction approach but fills a similar in niche. For instance, formatting for fanon entries can be drawn from these other settings and their books, also general length of entries (a nation write up is about this long, an organization is usually this length, etc.). Points covered in other settings materials that helped explain or describe the main themes or genre of the setting could serve as a template for the fanon Realms.
By being observant of praise for and criticisms against the Realms we can also figure out what aspects need developing or elaborating. Many ideas where discussed around the time of the transition, ideas that proposed alternative ways to work 4E aspects into the setting without major disruption. Off the top of my head:
- The Weave as a deity independent, silent, sentient construct after absorbing the Shadow Weave.
- Dragonborn arising from the Dragonfall War.
- Incrimental changes to the Old Empires to update them. For any region really.
- Gradually phasing out deities to remold the pantheon to the desired members.
- Shift certain NPCs into the background. Select deaths due to separate incidents for the big bang story factor.
I’ve followed the usual points and counterpoints against the Realms for years now, some persistent issues come up each time. They come up so often I’m beginning to think there is something lacking in the official material to address them. These might serve as discussion good points to generate areas that need focus on. These include but are not limited to:
- “What are the Realms about?” What makes it more than the generic/core/points-of-light setting? What sets it apart from the other settings offered? What genres does the setting work best with? Any suggested books/movies for inspiration?
- “Black and White.” Alignment issues. The Realms is has many shades of grey, always had. I vaguely remember FR laxed some alignment restrictions in 2e beyond what the core allowed for at the time, which was significant for that era. Many of the major NPCs also do not fall clearly on one side or the other but some continuum in the middle. How do we express this while still giving players a good guys vs. bad guys situation when they want it?
- “I’m a monster, rawr!” The Realms is a very racially diverse setting. If a player wanted to play something other than human or a standard demi-human where would they find the place to allow that? Full blooded orcs, goblinoids, ogres, monstrous humanoids, etc.
- “A Matter of Faith.” The pantheons of the Realms have take a lot of flak for their meddling and overt machinations. How do we preserve their mystique and semblance of near-omnipotence while maintaining their obviously classical (polytheistic, pagan) roots? How do the churches and clergy take center-stage rather than avatars roaming the face of Toril?
- “A High School Pantheon” A related topic to above. Between the focus on the human-ish interactions of the deities, how do we keep them from being overgrown NPCs?
- “Respect brings Fear.” For years, some of the supposed villains of the Realms have been portrayed as incompetent. How do we put the fear of these classic Realms villains and threat organizations back into the players while maintaining a status quo to start the campaign with. How do we accomplish this while keeping some areas of the Realms relatively safe for heroes to start from? What new bad guys will we bring to the table?
“Empires and Wilderness” How do we put a bit of points-of-light into the setting, that unknown wilderness the original Realms had, without breaking the feeling of an interconnected trade-based civilization.
- “The Dark Beyond.” A sliver of the otherworldly is a healthy thing for a setting. The Realms are not without inscrutable beings from elsewhere native to the setting. What will be their place in the fanon Realms? What new terrors from places beyond our comprehension would benefit the setting?
- “Hey, I read about that … in a history book.” Like the approach or not, the Realms had much of its development follow close Earth culture analogues. Which ones work, which ones don’t and how do we fix them without dropping bits of another planet on them?
- “Beam me up, Vangy.” Sensible, practical magic in the Realms. Why does the Realms get the reputation that only weird old men with beards have magic and all they do is blast each other with it. How do we work descriptions of practical magic into the Realms that at once makes them more apparent to the reader, but not too far beyond the existing prevalence of utility magic. I picture the magical economy as similar to the Renaissance (as opposed to Eberron’s early modern/industrial/steampunk take on it), wealthy patrons and guilds have access to personal magic which is very “hands-on” people-resource intensive. Public use is more public works related.
- “Mom, Elminster is farming the spawn points again!” The preceived NPC problem, who are the blatant causes of this? Who do we fix and by how much? How to we reinterpret NPC levels to help repair this image? The most abrasive NPCs, how do we scale down their vanguard role while keeping their personalities and positions the same or similar?
- “The Story ‘til now.” How do we tie things together in the short number of years we have.
LordManshoon -
When it comes to rating the submissions, I've given that some degree of thought. You're absolutely correct, and here is my opinion. I don't really want to limit the number of voters on a submission - I believe that as many people as possible should get a chance to have their voice heard.
Something I think really should be at the heart of this project is a strong focus on community - everyone should have a voice. Obviously, there will be disagreements at times, but I feel the more we allow opinions to be voiced - and the more opinions that are voiced - the better the end result will be...
One of my concerns is dealing with people who may want to submit something but don't want their work criticized by others. Having something that you've really poured a lot of yourself into, think is really awesome, and watching it be rejected by the community can be greatly discouraging - especially to people who'd be new to the process.
I've alternated back and forth on the issue of anonymous ranking vs non-anonymous ranking. You'd certainly see MORE people ranking submissions if they could do it anonymously, and thus get a better picture of where the community as a whole stands, but on the other hand it becomes difficult to tell what the community really thinks. You deprive the individual who makes submissions from critical (ideally constructive) feedback. Constructive feedback would ideally improve their future submissions, or allow them to make some minor tweaks to their existing submission and re-submit it for ranking once again.
I also have some concerns about certain members having low quality work approved simply based on their personal popularity. Just imagine, for example, that Ed Greenwood decides to submit something and it's totally horrific. He decides that Elminster teleports in the Autobots and the Decepticons and have them duke it out in Cormyr, utterly destroying the nation. How would you basically reject Ed Greenwood? Now imagine that the person you're rejecting is someone you have a pretty good relationship with - someone you communicate with on the forums regularly, have a great deal of respect and admiration for... and they're the very sensitive type. How do you break it to them that you're going to basically rank what they've put forward a zero, when they're touting it as the most awesome thing ever?
One of the things I think needs to be in place immediately from the beginning is a sense that it is okay to offer constructive criticism to other peoples work, and people who have their work critiqued shouldn't take it as a personal rejection. We need to create an environment in which people feel comfortable submitting their work to be judged by others, because those that judge it do so with tact, respect for the individual, respect for their effort, and a respect for their work - offering clear and concise ways to improve things.
Another issue with voting / ranking, one of the main issues you touched on, is how to ensure that things are fairly judged. I agree with everything you said, and feel that instituting a minimum number of votes to be approved is necessary. However, I also think there needs to be a minimum amount of time voting needs to remain open. In the beginning, my gut is telling me 5 people minimum voting / ranking a submission, and one week open for voting. Over time, if the project gains enough support from the community, I'd expect both the minimum number of people and time that it is left open to expand. ...because, again, as I said in the beginning, I believe it is critical to make sure everyone has a voice.
Touching upon your point regarding people continuously focusing on a single organization / region / faction... I'm in agreement, but I also come to the same conclusion that you come too. The more people who submit stuff for that particular region or faction, the more others may look elsewhere to add. One of the real drives in a shared work setting is to have your work make an impact on the setting. It's more difficult to do that when you're traveling a road others have traveled many times before, but it's very easy to do it when you seek out the areas that have been left relatively untouched.
So, as a general rule, I believe people should be encouraged to submit what makes them passionate. I don't really want to have us saying, 'No, you can't write about the Harpers because five other people have already done so in the past month.' I think the community will naturally find its own equilibrium.
In regard to deities and major NPC's, I largely agree. My preference is to have this project shy away from major RSE. I'd like to see our focus primarily on local and regional events - the more local the better.
In Realms canon , even as detailed as it is, most of what is there is in very broad strokes. The most development of the Realms easily takes place on the local and regional level.
I'm not opposed to having conflicts between faiths - on the contrary I'm very much in favor of it - I'm just against involving the deities directly.
Something I'd really like to see in the Realms is a more broader view of the various faiths. How do Banites in say Amn differ from Banites in the Moonsea region? Geographical and cultural difference has a strong impact on how people perceive and interact with various religions. A custom that may be appalling - even heretical - to Banites in the Moonsea region, may be common and celebrated in Amn. Little details like that, and the conflicts it creates between the faiths and within the faiths themselves.
For example, how many people know that the church of Oghma became very deeply divided after the Time of Troubles when the Grand Patriarch went missing? The schism was so deep that there were two separate faiths of Oghma, each of them refusing to recognize the other. To me it's the little things like this that make the Realms interesting and appealing.
All that being said, unfortunately right from the start we WILL have to tackle some major issues regarding the deities. The events of the Spellplague force us to confront the consequences of Mystra's death and the resulting aftermath. This discussion alone is going to require its own thread, but it's my hope that we can tackle these big and difficult issues first and get them out of the way as soon as possible so we can move on...
Dark Wizard -
I agree entirely with you on the fact that we should assume the mentality of designer. I also think being a fan and highly passionate about the setting helps a great deal rather than detracting. Some of the best designers over the years, in my opinion, are people who genuinely care for the setting - Ed Greenwood, obviously, being chief among them.
I think one of the things that has made the Realms strong all these years has been the influence of Ed Greenwood. Despite the fact that there have been many different contributors to the setting, he's always been a sort of spiritual figurehead. In that role he's been able to lend continuity to the setting, so while it may not have been his work, it blended in well... of course, there are some glaring examples in which things were simply tacked on. In those areas, you could clearly tell that Ed's influence was lacking.
This is one concern that I have about the project. However, I do feel that if we can get a sufficient number of people involved, then it easily makes up for it. As fans of the setting you get a somewhat intuitive feel of what belongs and what doesn't... and of course, if the majority of people think it's pretty good then hopefully you're doing something right.
Regarding your point about the unreliable narrator, I've given that some thought, and in my opinion it's really what made a lot of the 2E products seem so much better than their 3E counterparts. Sometimes reading a 3E sourcebook about the Realms, it felt more like they were trying to relay as much information as possible in as little space as possible. In some cases, it was almost like reading a text book. Just the facts. Some of the 2E sourcebooks had a certain character about them.
I'm not saying that I'd like to see everything submitted sound or look like one of Volo's guides. I think there is a pretty decent middle ground that could be staked out.
You touch on a lot of good points that need to be brought up, individually, for consideration.
I'll touch on the big ones.
- I'm obviously a huge proponent of making the Weave deity independent. In the previous thread, I suggested that the original incarnation of Mystryl be brought back and placed merely as "guardian" of the Weave. She'd then have the same control of the Weave that Talos has over storms, and thus for some inexplicable reason should she die again the effect would be less dramatic.
- Dragonborn and other races... this is certainly going to be a hotly contested issue. My personal opinion is that any race introduced to the Realms should be introduced through the lore. They must have a strong grounding in the setting. Just as an example, we've discussed how to import Warforged in the Realms via the lore in the past. A fanon write-up for each race that isn't fully established in the lore already should be required to make it an "official" fanon race. That's just my opinion, of course.
- When it comes to Deities and major NPC's, while I may have a strong personal preference here and there, for this project I think my preference will be addition over subtraction. Simply because I think the community itself will deal effectively with the use of certain NPC's. For example, I think high scrutiny would be placed on anyone who attempted to incorporate Elminster into something. When it comes to deities, the less favored and interesting ones would naturally fade into the background.
I know from experience on these forums that sometimes people view things differently, and you walk away surprised and feeling different than when you first walked in... one memory that immediately comes to my mind deals with Beshaba. I really wasn't all that interested in her as a deity, but when people began to discuss their unconventional uses for her in their game... she suddenly took on a new spin.
So, from my experience, people who are passionate about certain things, and do a good job of explaining it to others - what once may have disinterested you could suddenly gain your attention and favor.
Obviously, though... this topic alone could spawn its own thread.
I find it hard to answer your question: "What are the Realms about?" However, I do believe it is an important question to be answered.
For me, I'd rephrase the question as: "What makes the Realms FEEL like the Realms?" I think the Realms is simply too vast to be about any one particular thing. It is, obviously, a generic fantasy world, but it's also much more than that.
The Realms - when done well - feels like a place that's been lived in... it's not so much about what is written about the setting, as what is implied. When you read a good sourcebook dealing with the Realms, you walk away with the feeling that it's a place with generations upon generations of history and events. It feels alive. You walk away with a sense of wanting to experience it even more.
Yet, at the same time, the Realms feels familiar and comfortable. I'd compare the Realms to an old pair of shoes. The new shoes you have may look better, but they're also more uncomfortable on your feet. The older pair, however, have been used to the point where it's practically molded to fit your foot. It just "feels" right when you slip it on. That's the Realms, when done right, you know it - you can feel it.
While the history and the depth of the lore is part of what makes the Realms what it is... it's also the factions. You're presented with many different organizations that range from the secretive and criminal, to the widely known and pious.
When it comes to your point about gray morality, I think you're spot on. Ed Greenwood has constantly said that he's attempted to portray the Realms (and in particular his characters) through such a lens. We can debate elsewhere whether or not he's been successful at that, but one thing that I personally feel strongly about is realistic motivations. I am not a fan of kick-the-dog villains. If the villain is going to kick the dog, that dog better be attacking him - he needs to have a good reason... not simply to prove how mean / bad he is...
I agree on most of your other points as well, but this is already getting WAY to long for a single post.
All -
The above being said... I'd like for both of you (and everyone else) to touch upon this topic: How do you think submissions should be rated? I've proposed a form of range voting, in which different aspects of a submission are analyzed and tallied together for a final total score. For example, a submission may be rated on Continuity, Interest, Structure, etc. Then you'd grant them an overall rating. All ratings would range from 0 to 10. Once voting closes, everything is tallied together to give a final total score in each category, and then if the overall score reaches or exceeds 5.0 it is added to the fanon.
However, this method may simply be too complex. We could always do a traditional up or down vote, and encourage constructive criticism in certain key and important areas. However, what areas should those be? That's a major question that I'm putting toward everyone.
@Silversword: one of the reasons Candlekeep hasn’t moved forward with another Candlekeep Compendium is because WotC hasn’t clarified their fansite policy.
We should be very careful how we proceed and consider what attitude we project while we work on creating fanon material, as we don’t want to antagonize WotC or push them to shut us down.
It’s far wiser, in my opinion, to avoid PDFs and stick with a Wiki—especially a Wiki created here on the Wizards website and not under another domain.
Don’t get me wrong, I like your attitude. Let’s just try to have our cake and eat it too. 
Wizards has a blog section and at the end of every month Wrecan puts out a recommendation for blogs to read. I have no doubt that if you aren't the spineless wimps that Mr. Miscellany claims you are that you would make it onto such an esteemed list.
However, I think it's important to touch on a few things.
First, I believe that this project will ultimately be beneficial to WotC and the Forgotten Realms as a whole. If we get people interested and motivated, then it strengthens the community, which is positive for Wizards when they want to sell more products. Additionally, it provides Wizards a clear insight into what the fans of the Realms are looking for in their products.
Second, I've already done some basic research when it comes to copyright. When it comes to copyrighted works it's important to understand that the law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information itself. Therefore, it is legal to read a book or other work, reformulate the concept in your own words, and submit it to another site, so long as you don't follow the source too closely. This is how Wikipedia and the FR Wiki avoid being sued into oblivion.
Third, the Fan Site Policy is regarding the Fan Site Kit only. It is largely irrelevant since I intend to have the project use the WotC website (forums and the wiki they provide). However, just to be clear the Policy governs the trademarks, logos, product images, artwork, their copyrighted material (see my second point), and other such things - as it relates to the kit. In essence, the Fan Site Kit was designed to allow people to use the various logos and stuff on their website with restrictions and stuff from WotC. Regardless, the only reason I could foresee us moving off site is if WotC attempted the undermine to project by preventing stat blocks for non-D&D games (such as Pathfinder).
The only downside to using the WotC website is that the material published on the site is governed under their code of conduct and terms of service, but I don't foresee either of those undermining anything we do... unless there is something I overlooked.
Forth, I am hoping that this project would primarily be based on these forums. If we use the wiki it would be primarily for organizational purposes.
Fifth and finally, just to touch on copyright again - anything you write is legally copyrighted to you. However, by agreeing to the WotC Terms of Service you've released your work to WotC for them to use however they see fit - including potentially having something you create appear within the Realms or another product. Since one of the main goals behind the product is to create material usable by others, I don't think this would bother anyone – if anything, it'd most likely be flattering.
Unless, of course your Stigger. Then your teeth begin to hurt and you begin to have homicidal urges.
You'll have your own wiki, People can sign up to the group so you know who is actively interested, you can blog, etc...
If youw ant to stickt o using these forums (to avoid making just another splinter group), you could just restrict yourself to using the wiki/blog elements.
Gomez
I've never created a group before, but decided to give it a go and fiddle around. It looks handy and useful, thanks for the suggestion.
The group is located here: community.wizards.com/frp
We'll see how useful it is - at least everything can be organized from a single spot. Though I still think we should use these forums to communicate, at least for the time being.
As the forum traffic in general seems slow, further dividing into a specific group may be limit participants. We should keep major discussions here on the main FR boards for now.
Time to go through the discussion points in the Aftermath thread attentively.
The group is a good way to consolidate fanonized information and entries. Some discussions for fine-tuning would probably take place there as well.
As the forum traffic in general seems slow, further dividing into a specific group may be limit participants. We should keep major discussions here on the main FR boards for now.
Time to go through the discussion points in the Aftermath thread attentively.
That's certainly true. It would probably be pretty tricky encouraging people to participate and contribute if they don't see any noticeable activity on the main forums here. The group would be best served as a means of collectively organizing and recording our efforts, as well as the fine-tuning you mentioned.
Yes, that's my view and intention as well regarding the group. The wiki will obviously be handy when it comes to organizing things we establish as fanon, and it can be updated by any member of the group. I don't see any other feature being useful to us yet, except maybe the broadcast feature.
I'm also going to once again point to this thread. It's rather essential that people begin making proposals and voting on what has been proposed. There is also an issue that has arisen, that is requires immediate attention - just to make sure everyone gets on the same page.
However, as long as this is part of the Terms of Use for the Wizards Community, I do not recommend posting such content here.
As part of your use of the Services, you can create, include, refer to, transfer, upload, stream, display, host, promote, disseminate, post, make available, distribute, link to or transmit messages, artwork, text, displays, images, photographs, names, characters, items, graphics, screenshots, data, databases, information, files, pictures, video, audio, music, software and other files, items, materials and content, whether in written, digital, oral, machine-readable, electronic or visual form, to Wizards or our third-party servers of websites, or to other Users and/or their computers or networks, in various forms, such as in the selections you make for a service, posts, chat, and in forums and message boards, via a friends network and similar user-to-user areas, features and services which are not owned by Wizards, or to which Wizards does own rights or manages (collectively, your "User Content"). By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Sites or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction.
The bolded part means that everything you post here is their property and they do not have to pay you any royalties if they use it in a book (or even have an author write up a novel based on the idea). Which is why I've encouraged people to post their ideas at Candlekeep instead. You also get the benefit of having some of the most talented minds in the industry glancing through it.
The bolded part means that everything you post here is their property and they do not have to pay you any royalties if they use it in a book (or even have an author write up a novel based on the idea). Which is why I've encouraged people to post their ideas at Candlekeep instead.
Hi Matt. Nice to see you around the forums.
I guess my first response to Matt’s statements is “So what?”
And since I’m a forum troll, I want to make clear I don’t mean my statement to come across with any snark. What I’m getting at is this: if WotC has license to what we all of us might write, where’s the harm to us or to the Realms?
Consider:
1) There’s not all that much Realms content out there beyond the DDI articles. If we’re creating fan content, that helps to fill the void.
2) If fan interest causes the Wiki to grow in popularity, WotC just might notice. If they end up using some of the fan generated material, well that means the Realms are getting published and that we made the right choices (through Meldread’s voting process) to elevate great content onto the project Wiki page, because that content ended up getting published by professionals.
3) Material I’ve written for the Realms as part of a one-shot/similar WotC forum member project has been borrowed and published by WotC. The author was nice enough to ask to use what I wrote, but even if he didn’t I’d have had no problem with it. Also, I have to tell you from experience that seeing something you created get published—even if it was just a name and even if I was uncredited—feels really, REALLY good.
Besides, I love the Realms for the Realms. Playing entertaining and rewarding D&D games in the Realms and writing fanfic for the setting it is a hobby; it’s not how I (and I imagine, 99.99% of the rest of us) make money.
Giving something back to the game that’s rewarded me far more then I’ve ever paid for is a good thing, in my opinion. I’m not going to lose sleep if WotC uses what I write, whether they use 1% or even 100% of it.
We shouldn’t cross-post between forums (aka here and Candlekeep.com) too much because the project is just getting under way. Chopping up what little traffic we have between two forums would limit communication and also is one reason why we’re limiting chatter on the Group Page for the project.
In my experience, the Candlekeep.com forums are and will always be a great resource for Realms fans. For those of us working on the project, Matt is right to say you can expect to get some great feedback on your project ideas (I suggest posting on Candlekeep's Running the Realms and Adventuring sub-forums, as well as their Chamber of Sages forum). Actual game designers and novel authors might even chime in on the first two forums, while the later is the home for Question and Answer sessions between authors/designers and the fans. Just beware Non Discolsure Agreements can limit their responses to certain questions and the actual responses can be long in coming.
In Candlekeep.com’s current form, and despite all the awesome it has going for it, that site is exactly not the place to host a fanon project that has anything to do with the Spellplague. There are people there who won’t support such a project because they hate the Spellplague and its aftermath with a passion like you wouldn’t believe. An attempt to restart their otherwise successful fan project (the Candlekeep Compendium) and open it to material from all eras/game editions of the Realms was met with people stating they would not support any project that hosted 4E Realms content.
It would be far better for the project, in my opinion, if it drew Candlekeep.com members over to the WotC Realms forums to share their ideas, useful criticism and content.
I wonder if Meldread (as de facto project leader) might post an invitation on their General forum to invite people over to these forums and participate? Or assign that task to someone?
Ultimately we’re all Realms fans.
But the project’s home base is and should remain here.
A moment for Full Disclosure: I rage-quit the Candlekeep.com forums because I have a personality conflict with one of the moderators and I have a massive, no: HUGE, problem with the very small number of established CK forum members who make dark insinuations about Realms game designers, novel authors and staff, and lie about the design history of the Realms between editions to portray it as negatively as possible.
In light of these statements, what I want to make clear to you, dear reader, is this: My comments about Candlekeep.com aren’t being posted out of hate and frustration with that website and its membership.
Rather, my comments are based on my experiences at that website and what affect I think it will have, both good and bad, on the Fanon Wiki Project.
Knowing that, I’m in agreement with Mr. Miscellany in regards to posting on the Wizard Community boards. With Candlekeep’s unique position as a resource of near-canon and outright Ed-canon lore but also as a privately run site, they’ve had to (wisely) approach such activities with an abundance of caution. This seems to be a major reason to delay the Candlekeep Compendium.
This is not to say that Wizards is some control-crazy corporate boogyman. Far from it. Every commercial forum relating to use of intellectual property and copyrighted material has such user agreements. Wizards has to put such clauses on their site and their licenses in order to protect their copyrights and trademarks. If they are too lax regarding their intellectual property, or even appear as such, it can be used as grounds to dissolve copyrights and exclusivity in court. Similar reasons prevent authors from looking over fiction by most other authors. Similar legalese absolving slush readers of infringement lawsuits is standard for allowing editors and agents to look at creative works. These statements and agreements are put up to protect Wizards from lawsuits more than to snatch up good ideas from fans without giving credit or compensation.
I believe it unlikely Wizards and its designers would take an idea from a fan without credit or at least permission. Even if the user agreement allows them to, it is simply poor form and bad business to do so. The fan might have no legal backing to force the issue, but they still have ample ability to complain and generally raise a big stink. This will reflect terribly on the company. It is far easier for Wizards to credit the fan. They have the existing DDI submission system, it is not a new process for them to accept freelance and fan submissions. Also, most of the designers are fans as well, many from freelance backgrounds, even the in-house designers. I feel they would do right by the community.
What fan material I create is (theoretically, ideally) tied into the Realms. If I were to adapt what I contribute here for my own writings and settings, it would have to be thoroughly rewritten. The material would no longer be the same and the rights issue does not come up. As a fan of the Realms I’m not opposed to putting in some effort, time, and ideas into the fan community. I think all of us realize we throw a lot of energy into this without expectations for compensation or credit.
I'm already aware of the WotC Terms of Service, and largely agree with Mr. Miscellany on that point. My general feeling is that we're posting stuff to be used by other fans of the Realms, and if WotC likes an idea and they want to adapt it to the cannon setting - then that's great!
However, the truth of the matter is due to the way copyright law works WotC could still poach ideas from Candlekeep and add it to official material. So even if we were to post at Candlekeep (or some other forum) it wouldn't make that large of a difference. That bit in the ToS is just a CYA (Cover Your Ass) statement to protect WotC.
Nothing in copyright law - the way I understand it - prevents them from (as an example) taking a war wizard NPC someone makes (and writes a detailed history about), changing the NPC's name, a few minor details, and publishing a rewritten (in their own words) version of the same history. Simply doing that small bit allows WotC to avoid any accusations of copyright infringement.
I'd certainly hope that people from Candlekeep.com would get involved if they're so inclined.
The only thing I'd dispute in Mr. Miscellany's post is his assumption that I am the projects de facto leader. I consider the project entirely collaborative and leaderless. I'm just more of a... initiator. Someone trying to get the ball rolling. I'd like to think that other people would step up and begin doing the same.
Hey Matt!
I'm already aware of the WotC Terms of Service, and largely agree with Mr. Miscellany on that point. My general feeling is that we're posting stuff to be used by other fans of the Realms, and if that WotC likes an idea and they want to adapt it to the cannon setting - then that's great!
However, the truth of the matter is due to the way copyright law works WotC could still poach ideas from Candlekeep and add it to official material. So even if we were to post at Candlekeep (or some other forum) it wouldn't make that large of a difference. That bit in the ToS is just a CYA (Cover Your Ass) statement to protect WotC should they blatantly lift anything into the setting.
Nothing in copyright law - the way I understand it - prevents them from (as an example) taking a war wizard NPC someone makes (and writes a detailed history about), changing the NPC's name, a few minor details, and publishing a rewritten (in their own words) version of the same history. Simply doing that small bit allows WotC to avoid any accusations of copyright infringement.
I'd certainly hope that people from Candlekeep.com would get involved if they're so inclined.
The only thing I'd dispute in Mr. Miscellany's post is his assumption that I am the projects de facto leader. I consider the project entirely collaborative and leaderless. I'm just more of a... initiator. Someone trying to get the ball rolling. I'd like to think that other people would step up and begin doing the same.
My intention wasn't to "put brakes" on the project, per se. But I did want to make sure everyone understood where they stand on the material. As I said before, I love to see the fans get involved and produce more Realmslore, but I also don't those same fans to then feel as if they were betrayed if something they write up appears in DDi article or a new novel and they don't see a royalty check.
Also, I brought up Candlekeep both because I love the site and because if someone really does want to produce "Fanon", but doesn't like the ToU, then they know they have an alternative.
What if we approached this as a gaming anthology, made by the fans based around a theme, say an area or a race or something. So, for instance, 4E fans might work up stuff on Abeir, others might work on their favorite race like halflings or others might work on a historical event like the Horde invasion. So if I work on a piece about the halflings of Toril this might be grouped with stats on a halfling NPC or a halfling themed adventure.
I like it, I think its a good idea but, do you think all of us could agree on a theme? That and I dont want people feeling tied down to a particular area or what ever.
Over the next couple of months, I will be producing something qutie similar to a new boxed set of the city. I will have old maps and pictures along with new encounter maps, NPCs, organizations and of course plots.
Once I have a litte more material to share, I will find a place to post it. Maybe there is a wiki or Obsidian Portal that I can use.
Just know that this material is coming, for sure.
Since the very early days the Forgotten Realms has been a shared world. Through its creator Ed Greenwood, and the many great authors and source book creators that have contributed to the setting over the years we've had the pleasure of experiencing the Realms from a distance. It has always been a passive experience, in which others generated content and we consumed it.
One of the primary objectives of the Fanon Realms Project is to change that. Where in the past we've relied on others to generate content for the Realms, we now look to each other. Where once the fate of the Realms was just in the hands of a few, we now hope to place its fate into the hands of the many.
It should be strongly noted that this project is entirely fan created and maintained. It is in no way authorized or supported by Wizards of the Coast. We prefer it this way, as it gives each of us complete authority over what happens to our shared version of the Forgotten Realms.
First of all, Cool idea! and Go for it!
I like the imagery and set-up that the Shards concept creates. Shards^TM
(Also, Selune told me in a dream that she has decided not to sue you for trademark violation. 
She & the Shards wish your project well.)
She & the Shards wish your project well.)