| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 20:49:01
How do you feel about this article?
http://wizards.com/dnd/files/409_Outsider.pdf
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 05:58:04
Actually, the article Matt links is not specifically D&D or Realms based (it does mention Greyhawk), and it's not written in a comedic tone ... but I thought it was still an excellent read, even though I question the validity of a few of the assumed generalizations. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 05:49:35
Yes, thanks Ayrik.
I hadn't realized we strayed from the topic. 
Considering the exchange between you and Matt, I will save myself (and the rest of you) another rant and not even bother to read the second link - something I know ahead of time will just piss me off.
I've already made my decision about 5e Erased huge rant here - guess I didn't need to read it after all.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 01:31:35
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Wooly Rupert
Um... I'm referring to the article Matt James linked to earlier today. Not sure what you're referring to.
*ahem*
... the Crossing the Grand Canon article linked in this scroll's OP ...
Wooly is so dedicated to being off-topic that he often finds it confusing when scribes post something relevant to the title and initial post in a scroll.  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 01:20:23
quote:
Wooly Rupert
Um... I'm referring to the article Matt James linked to earlier today. Not sure what you're referring to.
*ahem*
... the Crossing the Grand Canon article linked in this scroll's OP ... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 00:19:44
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
It was an excellent and on-the-money read.
And his name - Jared Von Hindman - is going on my next Steampunk character.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not a bad article, but it does make me hope the author doesn't have anything to do with the Realms. The Realms has already suffered from too many creators disregarding canon.
Actually wooly, he seems to be saying he wanted to be as thorough with his research as possible while writing a piece - something he should be applauded for.
And then he specifically says that he ran into the 'Spellplague wall', and realized all the cool characters were dead.
He sounded pretty bummed when he realized all his research lead to a dead-end (literally). Sounds to me like he's on our side.
The advice he gave - ignore canon, or twist it any way you like - was aimed at DMs, which is precisely the same recommendation I (and many others) give. The canon should only be important to those that write more canon - his FB quote of Ed Greenwood also says as much.
"Don't let canon be a burden" - sounds like sage advice to me. I love FR's canon - it's a tool thats there when we need it, and can be ignored when we don't. Its like your dad running alongside your bike right after the training wheels came off - its there to prop-you-up if you need help.
As Icelander points out - what we do with canon, and what the designers should do are two very different things. I can choose to ignore Einstein's theory of relativity, but a physicist can't, or at least shouldn't, or he wouldn't be much of a scientist at all (and in that analogy, designers are FR's physicists). I don't need to know why the tides happen, or the seasons change, or why the sky is blue, but someone making a living from those subjects better. Like all of those phenomena, the canon is there, and comforting, but I can just ignore it when I want. Its not my job to keep track of it all.
Um... I'm referring to the article Matt James linked to earlier today. Not sure what you're referring to. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 23:03:40
It was an excellent and on-the-money read.
And his name - Jared Von Hindman - is going on my next Steampunk character.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not a bad article, but it does make me hope the author doesn't have anything to do with the Realms. The Realms has already suffered from too many creators disregarding canon.
Actually wooly, he seems to be saying he wanted to be as thorough with his research as possible while writing a piece - something he should be applauded for.
And then he specifically says that he ran into the 'Spellplague wall', and realized all the cool characters were dead.
He sounded pretty bummed when he realized all his research lead to a dead-end (literally). Sounds to me like he's on our side.
The advice he gave - ignore canon, or twist it any way you like - was aimed at DMs, which is precisely the same recommendation I (and many others) give. The canon should only be important to those that write more canon - his FB quote of Ed Greenwood also says as much.
"Don't let canon be a burden" - sounds like sage advice to me. I love FR's canon - it's a tool thats there when we need it, and can be ignored when we don't. Its like your dad running alongside your bike right after the training wheels came off - its there to prop-you-up if you need help.
As Icelander points out - what we do with canon, and what the designers should do are two very different things. I can choose to ignore Einstein's theory of relativity, but a physicist can't, or at least shouldn't, or he wouldn't be much of a scientist at all (and in that analogy, designers are FR's physicists). I don't need to know why the tides happen, or the seasons change, or why the sky is blue, but someone making a living from those subjects better. Like all of those phenomena, the canon is there, and comforting, but I can just ignore it when I want. Its not my job to keep track of it all. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 21:53:35
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I can appreciate the sentiment. Seeing things that you care a lot about get changed isn’t always fun.
For me, when I read “willful” I think “deliberate”.
Regarding 3rd Edition, I think many of the deliberate decisions that flew in the face of canon (as it stood at the time) were really good decisions.
Altering the map so it fits on one poster-sized printout: smart, money-saving idea.
Punting on any in-game explanation as to why dwarves have always been able to employ arcane magic (so the race fits with 3E’s concept that all classes are open to all races): sly, smart and easy idea. (I recognize some would prefer an in-setting blurb as to the “why” on this, though I wasn’t personally bothered by the lack of one.)
Giving the Realms its own planar structure so the Realms were independent of the Great Mess (err, Wheel): absofrigin brilliant idea.
This talk may be somewhat outside the context of this thread, but I think it’s important to recognize that sometimes the Realms gets in its own way. It should receive tweaks from time to time, even if that means jettisoning prior lore for new lore.
If we contrast 3E to 4E, though, I think (hope!) we can agree it is always better when changes are minor and not major; the changes are explained in-setting as much as possible; the explanations should be quick, simple and concise.
I'm not even talking about the map, though it and the planar shuffle are good examples. The thing with dwarven magic use was an excellent example, though, since the material was there for an explanation, and they still opted not to explain it. But I was also thinking of things like where an NPC was changed from good to evil, because the author in question felt more evil people were needed. A new NPC could have been created, but it was easier to disregard prior canon.
I object to things like that because in my mind, a well-defined continuity is one of the things that always defined the Realms. Getting away from that gets away from one of the setting's key elements. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 20:33:30
I can appreciate the sentiment. Seeing things that you care a lot about get changed isn’t always fun.
For me, when I read “willful” I think “deliberate”.
Regarding 3rd Edition, I think many of the deliberate decisions that flew in the face of canon (as it stood at the time) were really good decisions.
Altering the map so it fits on one poster-sized printout: smart, money-saving idea.
Punting on any in-game explanation as to why dwarves have always been able to employ arcane magic (so the race fits with 3E’s concept that all classes are open to all races): sly, smart and easy idea. (I recognize some would prefer an in-setting blurb as to the “why” on this, though I wasn’t personally bothered by the lack of one.)
Giving the Realms its own planar structure so the Realms were independent of the Great Mess (err, Wheel): absofrigin brilliant idea.
This talk may be somewhat outside the context of this thread, but I think it’s important to recognize that sometimes the Realms gets in its own way. It should receive tweaks from time to time, even if that means jettisoning prior lore for new lore.
If we contrast 3E to 4E, though, I think (hope!) we can agree it is always better when changes are minor and not major; the changes are explained in-setting as much as possible; the explanations should be quick, simple and concise. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 19:15:32
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I liked Sernett’s blog post. I think it illustrates some of the concerns Wizards had, in a way, with moving into the 4E Realms.
I especially liked this, “Even if you have canon gatekeepers employed full-time, something will slip through, and then thanks to the power of crowdsourcing on the internet, someone will notice. When you have that canon issue, your consumers who notice won’t care that it’s hard (or impossible, if your property is large enough) for you to avoid it.”
That pretty much explains 99% of the vitriolic complaints about Realmslore errors, not to mention the flaw in the thinking of those who are up in arms.
I do like his ideas about keeping things small, in terms of telling stories that are character driven, and avoiding big calamitous events. I don’t agree about not advancing the timeline, but I see where he’s coming from on that point.
Well, the issue comes in when canon is willfully ignored, and we've seen that since 3E came out. I can deal with an error, it's when it's deliberate that I get irked. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 18:36:39
I liked Sernett’s blog post. I think it illustrates some of the concerns Wizards had, in a way, with moving into the 4E Realms.
I especially liked this, “Even if you have canon gatekeepers employed full-time, something will slip through, and then thanks to the power of crowdsourcing on the internet, someone will notice. When you have that canon issue, your consumers who notice won’t care that it’s hard (or impossible, if your property is large enough) for you to avoid it.”
That pretty much explains 99% of the vitriolic complaints about Realmslore errors, not to mention the flaw in the thinking of those who are up in arms.
I do like his ideas about keeping things small, in terms of telling stories that are character driven, and avoiding big calamitous events. I don’t agree about not advancing the timeline, but I see where he’s coming from on that point.
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 11:42:09
Hm, I actually liked this article now that I bothered to read it. Amusing, and I agree with quite a bit of it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 10:49:34
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not a bad article, but it does make me hope the author doesn't have anything to do with the Realms. The Realms has already suffered from too many creators disregarding canon.
I'm pretty sure he's the lead on all Realms products. His last being the Neverwinter book.
That's not reassuring... |
| Matt James |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 10:18:24
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not a bad article, but it does make me hope the author doesn't have anything to do with the Realms. The Realms has already suffered from too many creators disregarding canon.
I'm pretty sure he's the lead on all Realms products. His last being the Neverwinter book. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 06:38:46
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Someone on twitter just pointed out this older blog post by Matthew Sernett. I suggest not reading it if you are prone to seizures or migraines :p
http://sernett.com/world-building/game-flaw-canon/
That reads as a primer on what WotC didn't do in relation to the Realms. Scary.
Some of his suggestions are perfectly valid I think. Others, not so much.
-- George Krashos
|
| George Krashos |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 06:29:05
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The example given for Eric's annotated draft City of Splendors: Waterdeep promotes him slightly above Christopher Rowe (but not quite as high on the list of numinaries as Grandmaster George Krashos) in my mind when ranking neurotically and exhaustively hyperaccurate Realms authors. I, too, am morbidly intrigued by the offhanded mention of "Steven Schend's unpublished Khelben timeline" - how much of this sort of stuff is floating around?
Lots.
Eric always was (and is) in my mind the greatest Realms details man in the business. Of course, I like to think of myself as his oft-time partner in crime and really miss the out of the blue e-mails which would politely ask me if I had the time to provide him with every single FR reference to ... say ... dragons in the published canon.
His annotated CoS:W manuscript is only a single example of what he did each and every time he was given a freelance gig. I have the annotated copies of DDGttU, SK, his bits from Champions of Ruin, Valor, Dragons of Faerûn, etc. etc. He was also the absolute master at weaving together disparate bits of realmslore into a coherent whole.
Steven has an even more-detailed Khelben family tree which maps out his spouses and descendants in greater detail. The links provided show only the skeleton.
The thing to keep in mind about these bits of random realmslore is that they exist because the people who created them cared enough about the setting to do MORE than was required of them, rather than simply handing in a manuscript and getting a cheque sent their way. There's a reason I've long collected lists of different "stuff" from the Realms for future reference (foods, drinks, sages, nobles houses, plays, books, etc. etc.). Someday someone might need them - even if it's only to enhance a single play session set in the Realms.
The big stuff (i.e. Khelben's family tree, the Cormyr lineage, my original North Timeline etc.) exists because someone thought that this kind of information might be important one day for future generations of future FR gamers. They had no guarantee that it would be, but considered the exercise a worthwhile one. It showed and shows the love they hold for Ed's creation and the respect and admiration they have for him. Nothing can ever beat the feeling of sharing some realmslore creation of your own with Ed to be told "Consider it canon. I now do."
I found the article hilarious. I do feel sorry for those who dive headfirst into the Realms. It's a bit like being one of those Russian Ice Divers. You know it's going to be good, but you'll sure struggle at first. I respect the effort Jared von Hindman made - it shows that he's got all the tools to write in the Realms. The article might have made it seem like he was saying that you didn't need to do all that stuff. But he did it. And next time round, he'd likely do it all over again. He's clearly someone who fell in love with the Realms, just that little bit.
It happens to the best of us.
-- George Krashos |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 06:24:07
-Why would continuity be a bad thing? That boggles my mind. How to "tell" an open-ended "story" and not have continuity, maybe even more. In the sense that by defining certain things as 'real', and other things as 'not real', you're starting to open up cans of worms, I get, but outside of that... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 04:34:45
It's not a bad article, but it does make me hope the author doesn't have anything to do with the Realms. The Realms has already suffered from too many creators disregarding canon. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 01:13:09
Someone on twitter just pointed out this older blog post by Matthew Sernett. I suggest not reading it if you are prone to seizures or migraines :p
http://sernett.com/world-building/game-flaw-canon/ |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 01 Apr 2012 : 08:02:26
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
It's somewhat different when you're actually writing an actual article for the Forgotten Realms Intellectual Property, where indeed, you have to take the facts and flavor of the world into account because THAT'S YOUR JOB as a designer. If you don't want to steep your work in Realmslore, DON'T WORK IN THE FORGOTTEN REALMS. 
+1 million.
It's both a point of professional pride to know the material that you're writing for, and a default assumption that someone getting paid to work on a shared world setting is either going to know the material or do the needed research before putting pen to paper. When that doesn't happen it really, really shows in what gets printed.
I haven't written for FR*, but Planescape and Golarion (Pathfinder) I'm downright obsessive about making sure that I don't miss something buried in the lore, and that I don't contradict anything if at all possible. I like it when people writing for a given setting have the same approach and write both as professionals and also out of appreciation and enjoyment of that world as well.
*one writeup of Artemis Entreri in Dragon, and inclusion of a cleric of Lathander in a Planescape article probably doesn't count |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 04:32:08
quote:
Jakk
I also want Steven Schend's Khelben timeline (and genealogy, if that also exists...).
It's been linked several times in this scroll. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 30 Mar 2012 : 02:25:12
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
quote:
"My editor and Eric L. Boyd got together, decided that they didn’t like me anymore, and gave me exactly what I was looking for—the fully annotated draft of City of Splendors: Waterdeep. And when I say “fully
annotated,” I mean fully annotated. Containing citations for every tiny detail that came from a previously published novel, web page, comic book, supplement, or canonical t-shirt meticulously organized by Eric."
I want this!
I strongly agree with you on that one.
As do I. I also want Steven Schend's Khelben timeline (and genealogy, if that also exists...).
quote:
Originally posted by Thieran
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I found the article funny. Overly long, which takes the wind out of the comedic timing, but something that still provoked a couple chuckles.
Overall, I can't help thinking, "wow, why is Jared surprised, here?" This is, after all, a highly detailed SHARED fantasy world (i.e. multiple authors, lots of research, etc). I say "highly" rather than "fully," because you could fit as much data as he found here into describing my bedroom at home with just me and two cats in it. What does he think world building is all about?
This data is there for DMs to use, if they want to. If you're building a campaign and you find things that don't make sense to you or are frustrating you, then by all means, ignore them.
It's somewhat different when you're actually writing an actual article for the Forgotten Realms Intellectual Property, where indeed, you have to take the facts and flavor of the world into account because THAT'S YOUR JOB as a designer. If you don't want to steep your work in Realmslore, DON'T WORK IN THE FORGOTTEN REALMS.
Cheers
Well said, Erik!
Agreed! |
| Thieran |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 16:44:14
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I found the article funny. Overly long, which takes the wind out of the comedic timing, but something that still provoked a couple chuckles.
Overall, I can't help thinking, "wow, why is Jared surprised, here?" This is, after all, a highly detailed SHARED fantasy world (i.e. multiple authors, lots of research, etc). I say "highly" rather than "fully," because you could fit as much data as he found here into describing my bedroom at home with just me and two cats in it. What does he think world building is all about?
This data is there for DMs to use, if they want to. If you're building a campaign and you find things that don't make sense to you or are frustrating you, then by all means, ignore them.
It's somewhat different when you're actually writing an actual article for the Forgotten Realms Intellectual Property, where indeed, you have to take the facts and flavor of the world into account because THAT'S YOUR JOB as a designer. If you don't want to steep your work in Realmslore, DON'T WORK IN THE FORGOTTEN REALMS.
Cheers
Well said, Erik! |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 15:17:28
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Overall, I can't help thinking, "wow, why is Jared surprised, here?" This is, after all, a highly detailed SHARED fantasy world (i.e. multiple authors, lots of research, etc). I say "highly" rather than "fully," because you could fit as much data as he found here into describing my bedroom at home with just me and two cats in it. What does he think world building is all about?
This data is there for DMs to use, if they want to. If you're building a campaign and you find things that don't make sense to you or are frustrating you, then by all means, ignore them.
It's somewhat different when you're actually writing an actual article for the Forgotten Realms Intellectual Property, where indeed, you have to take the facts and flavor of the world into account because THAT'S YOUR JOB as a designer. If you don't want to steep your work in Realmslore, DON'T WORK IN THE FORGOTTEN REALMS.
Cheers
-I don't know if irony is the most appropriate term to be used here, but as mentioned by yourself and a few other people, it's his job. He's being paid to do so. From the point of view of a person looking things up willy-nilly for their own personal enjoyment, as agreed upon by all, looking up every little niggling detail would indeed be difficult, time consuming, and whatever else- though, as someone who regularly did so for Elves of Faerûn, because I am a fan, I did not see such research as tedious and difficult, but rather, fun and interesting. If someone had that attitude for their own personal games or whatever else, it definitley could be a pain in the ass. If you're being paid, though, you're being paid. You're getting money to, presumably, research and write about a topic/topics you enjoy (if not the Forgotten Realms themselves, generic fantasy adventures). A tenured professor who has a research grant to research information in his field of expertise, why would he complain? He is being paid to investigate stuff he already has expressed a great deal of interest and live about. Seems silly that he would complain about having to pour over so many different sources when the subject is something he has dedicated his profession to. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 02:45:05
I thought it was sorta funny at times, and mostly true from a Player, DM, and (I'm assuming) writer's standpoint with the Realms. But as Erik says, that's sorta the task one takes when officially writing in the Realms. That's the job that goes with the title of FR-Author! And really, most writers or publishers of Realmslore often enjoy that kind of immersion into the setting.
What puzzles me is why he felt the need to delve so deeply into ALL the parts of Waterdeep as it's seen from a post-Spellplague view. Does Laeral's possession of the Crown of Horns matter if it has nothing to do with the plot/story of what he's attempting to accomplish? Or the Grey Hand enforcers?
As for Canon itself, I freely admit I was one person who didn't like the Realms being specifically tied to Canon and had wished it to be divorced from novels. With the advent of 4th Edition, the Spellplague, and some of the opinions of the great scribes here, that opinion is now changed. I like Canon as I like how it makes it a shared world. I also like using it as a Old Town Buffet to pilfer, plunder, and mix with how I feel my dinner....er Campaign should be. I still feel that the high detail of the Realms could be knocked down just a tad but thats only because I'd like to see more allocation of resources to other parts and not just the "hot spots".
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 01:36:18
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I firmly believe that the more your character is defined by the rules, the less your character is defined by you. Moreover, the same applies to the setting; sometimes it's good to get back to basics.
I'm not sure I understand.
To me, at least, this seems counter-intuitive. The rules system for an RPG is supposed to work like a language. You use it to express a given character in mechanical terms. His background, nature, pecularities, etc. are all reflected in the different odds he has to perform a given task.
If what you mean is that the rule system shouldn't impose characteristics on the character that does not fit the concept of the character, as proposed by the player and accepted by the DM and other players for that campaign, I agree completely. If, instead, you think that the more descriptive the language which defines the character is, the less input the player has*, I disagree. That's like saying that the more words there are in a language, the less possible it's to write poetry in it.
As for settings, I don't quite follow you either. Are you saying that settings being defined by rules is a bad thing or are you saying that the more settings are detailed, the less the DM has to do?
If the former, pretty much the same thing goes. I don't want a clumsy, antiquated rules system which imposes all sorts of odd artistic considerations on the setting by bringing unneeded baggage to it. On the other hand, I do want a rules system that is capable of defining the setting in a mechanical way, i.e. reflect the nature of unique metaphysics, creatures, conditions, characters and abilities found in it within the mechanical structure of the game and produce a distribution of probabilities that allows me and my players to intuitively make decisions in game-play without forcing metagame thinking.**
If you mean the other, I guess that you're right. I mean, it is, I suppose, axiomatic that the less a setting is detailed, the more the DM has to do. So by that standard, ultimate creative freedom consists of an empty page. Which, I'll add, is always available.
Since a DM can decide on his own whether he'll include a given detail or even whether he'll bother finding out about it, ultimate creative freedom actually exists with or without a published setting and with and without a lot of details for it, though. You can run a WWII game in the real world and include Godzilla, even though he wasn't there in reality and even if no Godzilla movie exists showing him there***. And you can run a Realms game with any changes to the published world that you'd like, too.
Given that a DM can choose not to use details he doesn't like, but if details aren't there, he has no choice but to make them up himself, I'd prefer the option which actually gives me options and makes the product I'm paying for worth anything. That is, the one with details that I can use or not use, depending on whether I like them, rather than the one without them, which amounts to selling me some artwork, a couple of maps and a few ideas which I could have had while doing my daily round of chess with His Nibs, bless his name.
*Which, I'll have to admit, is the way I'd interpret your statement if I were to go purely by the words you wrote. The only reason I doubt that interpretation is that I can't see how that would work.
**I want things to work plausibly enough so that players can think: "What would my character do if he were real, in a world which worked like the setting?" and get answers that make sense and don't penalise them. This demands that the task resolution system has to reflect character capabilities as understood by the player and DM, not to mention being plausible enough to pass for what ought to happen in reality if it had magic and dragons. Needless to say, D&D hasn't done this so far and I doubt it ever will, but that doesn't stop me from playing in settings made for D&D, just using more advanced systems.
***Which I doubt, but what do I know? In any event, if there is such a movie, let Godzilla grognards substitute the War of the Roses. And if they've already made a War of the MegaHouses: Godzilla vs. Lancaster vs. York, all I want to know if why I have not been notified of this atrocity and at what time the destruction of Earth by Vorlons is scheduled. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 01:21:54
I found the article funny. Overly long, which takes the wind out of the comedic timing, but something that still provoked a couple chuckles.
Overall, I can't help thinking, "wow, why is Jared surprised, here?" This is, after all, a highly detailed SHARED fantasy world (i.e. multiple authors, lots of research, etc). I say "highly" rather than "fully," because you could fit as much data as he found here into describing my bedroom at home with just me and two cats in it. What does he think world building is all about?
This data is there for DMs to use, if they want to. If you're building a campaign and you find things that don't make sense to you or are frustrating you, then by all means, ignore them.
It's somewhat different when you're actually writing an actual article for the Forgotten Realms Intellectual Property, where indeed, you have to take the facts and flavor of the world into account because THAT'S YOUR JOB as a designer. If you don't want to steep your work in Realmslore, DON'T WORK IN THE FORGOTTEN REALMS.
Cheers |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 00:54:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I, too, am morbidly intrigued by the offhanded mention of "Steven Schend's unpublished Khelben timeline" - how much of this sort of stuff is floating around?
I think SES has done a great job with Khelben's timeline, it hosted on Candlekeep.
http://www.candlekeep.com/library/articles/misc_lore_2004.htm
I particularly like the on/off relationship that he and Laeral have, all those missed opportunities and duty getting in their way stopping them from getting together earlier. A really excellent view of love over hundreds of years
Cheers
Damian |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 00:20:43
I firmly believe that the more your character is defined by the rules, the less your character is defined by you. Moreover, the same applies to the setting; sometimes it's good to get back to basics. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 00:13:51
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
It seems you already have shared it, mister Wooly Blue, in this scroll, which also links to this REALMS-L page. But is that the complete document?
Well, yes and no... Yes, that's all the unpublished info Steven shared with us, concerning Khelben's timeline. No, because Blackstaff had more info in it, and that novel came out a while after Steven so kindly shared that in. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 00:03:15
It seems you already have shared it, mister Wooly Blue, in this scroll, which also links to this REALMS-L page. But is that the complete document? |
|
|
