| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 19:49:16
Would it have been better if they kept the canon events from the novels separate from the campaign setting?
I honestly believe the one and only reason we don't see a reboot is Drizzt. This one lone character has the influence to possibly keep the Realms from a reboot because of how the stories and setting are kept together.
I wonder if this would have been better. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 04:01:42
As someone who mainly reads the novels, I'm going to have to say that the novels should be canon, and what happens in both the campaign setting and novels affect one another. You have people who are mainly readers, some who are mainly players, and some who are both (I wish I could be both sometimes). I believe the novels help advance the setting, just as the setting advances the novels. They work off of each other. There are continuity issues sometimes, which can happen in a shared setting (one novel claims something different from another), but it doesn't mean they shouldn't work off one another. The Realms is agame sesetting first and foremost, yes, but that doesn't mean the novels shouls diverge completely from it. They move the setting forward, just as the CS moves the novels forward. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 02:02:07
How can creating two (or more) continuities solve more problems than having one?
Splitting the novels and the game settings then means you have the issue of "was this a novel, or a game book?" And authors have to track both.
You also get the issue of people wanting some events to happen in game, and not wanting other events to happen in game -- which we already have, so that's not a problem solved.
And all of this comes with the bonus of a game setting that is utterly stagnant and has nothing at all happen. Kinda hard to have adventures and such without changing anything.
Sure, favorite characters will never die... They'll also never change, never get older, never get more powerful, never reach their goals...
In-game plotlines will never be resolved. We will be forever wondering if Bahb Nounsilver manages to save Cormyr from the machinations of the evil Tahm Verbsilver. We will never know what Temm the evil mage was planning to do with those magic gems he stole. We will never know if Bigandbad the dragon managed to avenge his slain mate.
I don't know about anyone else, but I came to the Realms because the timeline advanced, not because one story was told and then nothing else ever happened again. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 01:42:47
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
More to the point: I've seen plenty of novels-only readers complain about the sourcebook events ruining things, and gamers complain that the novels screw things up.
If the novels and CS aren't linked, then those complaints don't happen. And just maybe sales improve.
Thank you. Better said than I could have. 
It's not that I don't understand the opposing point of view. It's just that breaking the link between the novels and the game content solves problems and quite possibly evaporates the basis for the opposing points of view.
Novels need to be independent so that authors can explore past and present. The setting needs to be independent so that it can develop (edit: by which I mean expand to other lands, not advance along the timeline, so "two continuities to keep track of is a non-issue) without being dragged along on a hopscotch trip through time.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 00:38:25
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
No?
No.
In the scenario I'm thinking of, a Realms campaign setting that is separate from the novels doesn't advance the timeline. That's for the novels to do.
If you have Volo's Guide to Cormyr--which you can quite easily have in this scenario, minus historical references like the Tuigan conflict, for example--you've got a wealth of information, NPCs, locations, etc., all of which could find its way into a novel.
If an NPC mentioned in VGtC dies in a novel, then that's for the novels to keep track of. The sourcebooks don't care.
Now if a novel introduces a character that isn't in a sourcebook, and that character proves popular, and the novel is not sufficiently removed from the time point around which the CS is based, then you might still see an entry for the NPC in a future sourcebook, you'll just get that NPC in a canned way: basic info, stats, what they were known for, etc., with no mention of novel events.
More to the point: I've seen plenty of novels-only readers complain about the sourcebook events ruining things, and gamers complain that the novels screw things up.
If the novels and CS aren't linked, then those complaints don't happen. And just maybe sales improve. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 20:33:31
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
It's also more likely that the campaign setting and novels sharing canon brings more revenue to both than they would have in separate.
How so?
For real you're asking? Logically, it is reasonable to assume someone who is an avid reader of the books may follow that with a source book of an area that caught his interest, especially if a novel's character's detailed stats and info were in a particular book. Lots of nerds (like me) enjoy numbers to accompany our literature.
And vice versa, if you love the setting for playing games, novels that follow the source material are more interesting to players and DMs than novels that are completely removed from the source books and campaign guides.
No? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 19:52:48
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
It's also more likely that the campaign setting and novels sharing canon brings more revenue to both than they would have in separate.
How so? |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 19:28:07
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
To me it seems like a convenient judgment to make after the fact and not much else.
Sure, but on the other hand, saying that keeping the campaign setting separate from novels would be better is mere conjecture.
The point of view of the people that want a reset assumes that the majority of the playerbase wants a reset AND a reset to the same era that they like. That's very far from being proven.
It's also more likely that the campaign setting and novels sharing canon brings more revenue to both than they would have in separate. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 06:54:19
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
It's not the official story if the published campaign world ignores it. If DotD says Azoun dies in 1371 and the published campaign world has him hale and hearty in the next Cormyr sourcebook in 1378 there's a big problem.
That would be a problem.
Which is why I think for the idea of separating the novels from the Campaign Setting (CS) to work, the CS would have needed to be static, like a snapshot.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Then we have a dead campaign setting. Boring.
A lot of people on different forums talk about a reset to the OGB era of the Realms. There’s a feel to it that people like and remember.
If the Realms had been introduced with the OGB, and the novels separate, and the follow up sourcebooks were Volo’s style products, or books written by the likes of Schend and a few others, I don’t think anyone would think of the CS as boring, much less dead.
Given how well he early Realms novels were received, it seems entirely plausible to me that people would have enjoyed them and demanded more even if the CS wasn’t linked to them. That, and there are tons of people who read Realms novels and other world-setting fiction without picking up a world sourcebook and playing D&D in those worlds.
To me it doesn’t seem like it would have been an exercise in cognitive dissonance if at the start TSR asked fans to think of the CS and novels as separate. The CS would have had to have been presented differently in terms of TSR explaining through the rulebooks just what their intentions were and what they needed to tell gamers to expect going forward.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Just look how well Eberron did fare with this.
It’s also possible that Eberron’s discontinuation had nothing to do with the novels and CS being separate.
Is there anything you can point to in order to corroborate the idea that Eberron failed in whole or in part because the novels were separate from the setting?
To me it seems like a convenient judgment to make after the fact and not much else. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 00:46:17
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Why would an author need to know Campaign Setting continuity?
Well, if it's canon that it's the year 1357 and Azoun IV is King of Cormyr, there's going to be an issue if an author decides to write a book where it's 1358 and Cormyr has been under the iron fist of a halfling lich for the last 7 generations.
An author has to know the setting he's writing in.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It seems to me that you are assuming the CS would have a continuity to begin with. The CS would have some history as part of its introduction to readers, but that's about it. A CS that is not connected to novel events is not concerned with advancing its own multilayered story and timeline.
Yes, I'm assuming that the campaign setting has its own continuity. The alternative is that every single bit of source material is set on the exact same day, forever and ever, amen.
And even if the game setting is utterly stagnant like that, authors still need to know what happened before that one day.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
All it is concerned with is presenting material OGB style. Here's the world, here's what it's about, etc., go have fun.
And authors need to know that. They have to know the setting they're writing in and adhere to its continuity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
To be clear, I am talking about a scenario as the OP described, where novels and setting are separated from the get go. I am not talking about how a reboot to the OGB era that included novels now being divorced from the CS would work.
I'm talking about the same scenario: two or more separate continuities that have to be tracked by each author. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 23:45:12
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If the novel "Death of the Dragon" is the official story--and it is, because the owner of the IP published it--and we're dealing with a situation where it's also official that the published campaign world explicitly ignores the novels, and we know from experience that the only way to get the story of the Realms is to look to the novels, then anyone wanting to know the story will find the novels important.
But it's not the official story if the published campaign world ignores it. If DotD says Azoun dies in 1371 and the published campaign world has him hale and hearty in the next Cormyr sourcebook in 1378 there's a big problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It seems to me that you are assuming the CS would have a continuity to begin with. The CS would have some history as part of its introduction to readers, but that's about it. A CS that is not connected to novel events is not concerned with advancing its own multilayered story and timeline.
Then we have a dead campaign setting. Boring.
Just look how well Eberron did fare with this
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
Metaplot is still a thing in GH. GH has next to no novels, and the continuity of the setting has never been connected with those few books.
Which might be the reason it's novels never took of
|
| combatmedic |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 22:32:57
Metaplot is still a thing in GH. GH has next to no novels, and the continuity of the setting has never been connected with those few books.
If the designers want to make changes in order to stir up interest in a new iteration of setting materials, they don't need a fiction line to justify that.
GH wars came from an idea by Jeff Grubb. Blow it up. And TSR made a boxed set. The history is given as is, no novels. None of the several changes were novel related or novel driven in GH. But I have seen GH fans argue about metaplot. Some guys are preWars only. Some post Wars FtA fans. Some like the late 90s development. Some followed and enjoyed LG. Others, like me, never had any interest in the RPGA.
I do have to say-- and this is only anecdotal --the rifts seem deeper in FR fandom. I suspect the nature and scale of the metaplot changes is one reason. In GH circles people tend to argue about questions like whether the Scarlet Brotherhood is more fun as a secretive organization or an imperial power. Stuff like that. The world changes have generally been political. Some states get conquered. Rulers change.
But very little of that prevents a DM from picking up newer GH materials and using them in an older era game, or in his game if it has progressed past the " official" date with different events.
GH modules are typically location based. Not all, but most.
Realms has gods dying or coming back with every new edition, and major geographical changes in 4E. And again in 5E , it gets major world altering changes. Like whole continents swapping, yeah?
That's huge.
And some FR modules seem very plot driven. Yet the outcomes of these never matter in the official setting because the heroes always win and nothing is really at risk. Risk is illusory because the arbitrary call of the designers settles what happens in the official timeline, not the outcome of actual play.
The Avatar modules are a pretty good example of this, I think. Midnight cannot die. Cyric must kill Mask. Etc. Sure, it could turn out differently at your table. But if it does turn out differently, why would you buy new version of the Gray Box that really only differs in metaplot you aren't even using?
Now, if the new materials offer a lot of new stuff, like Forgotten Realms Adventures did, then that's a different story. You might buy that hardback even if there never wee any Avatar Crisis in your campaign, because it has speciality priests, city maps, guns, and lots of other cool stuff.
It expands the setting. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 21:40:37
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
How would that make them fanfiction? They would still be authorized novels in the Realms canon. They just wouldn't have any impact on the game part.
If all novels would have strong continuity, but the game side won't? Like computer games were? That would kind of work. But... the obvious next step is to play in that continuity.
Not having to deal with the result of pointless shoehorning (like Class Chronicles) or treating FR as dumping grounds would be a change to the better.
Now the question: once there would be nothing to cover the mental bankrupcy of RSE plotlines... why would they release these short series of modules to begin with? Theoretically, this could create demand for higher quality. Practically, that's exactly why it's not going to happen. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 19:58:44
Why would an author need to know Campaign Setting continuity?
It seems to me that you are assuming the CS would have a continuity to begin with. The CS would have some history as part of its introduction to readers, but that's about it. A CS that is not connected to novel events is not concerned with advancing its own multilayered story and timeline.
All it is concerned with is presenting material OGB style. Here's the world, here's what it's about, etc., go have fun.
To be clear, I am talking about a scenario as the OP described, where novels and setting are separated from the get go. I am not talking about how a reboot to the OGB era that included novels now being divorced from the CS would work. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 19:48:11
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Would it have been better if they kept the canon events from the novels separate from the campaign setting?
Not really. However it's stressed, multiple times, that your own personal games are/should be separate from Canon. If Ed's games aren't even related to the Canon lore, why should anyone else feel it necessary to do it?
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I honestly believe the one and only reason we don't see a reboot is Drizzt. This one lone character has the influence to possibly keep the Realms from a reboot because of how the stories and setting are kept together.
I believe that there are a LOT of reasons, besides Drizzt, that are pointed to the negates a reboot. For starters when and why? Pick any era/year and tell me why that is better than another. Secondly, why would you want to refute the HUGE plethora of gaming material that's currently available? Third, a LOT of people have never moved onto Era/Year X, Y, or Z and have MANY campaigns based on what's in the books of their particular area, thus slighting them if you simply wipe all of that away.
I don't know if you're a Star Trek fan or not but put this into perspective: The Star Trek universe has had 40+ years of canon material, from the founding of the Federation to the exploration of the Delta quadrant, including the creation of hundreds of species and events, from the Borg to even parallel universes. Along comes J.J. Abrams and null-and-voids ALL of it. 40+ years (besides the events in Enterprise series) all gone and none of it "existed". Sure, they understood how much this would upset fans so they put Prime Spock into the new universe to sort of nod that this is different than the original version, but that still didn't go over well with a LOT of Trekkies.
I don't see how a reboot NOW will help cause anything other than more divisive attitude on the setting.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 19:40:20
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And disconnecting novel continuity from game continuity would increase, not fix, the issue of authors not being on the same page.
How does this follow? The only thing novel writers need to know is the basic information about the campaign world, which at the time of the OGB was not that much information (Ed's numerous behind the scenes info packets sent to TSR notwithstanding).
Going forward, if you're writing novels you only need to be familiar with later novels, and then only if they touch on an area you're writing about. You don't need to worry about the campaign setting advancing the timeline, nor about sourcebooks that incorporate "future" events, because the CS never followed the timeline to begin with and it was never concerned with advancing its own timeline.
With a disconnected continuity, the authors would need to know two continuities: the novel continuity, and the game one. This would increase the odds of continuity issues, because something from the game continuity could be mistaken for novel continuity, and vice-versa. We've had enough problems sticking with one continuity; two would obviously be more problematic.
Even if the novels didn't have any continuity at all, the author would still need to know the game continuity and what had come before so that he or she doesn't do the same thing as a prior novelist. |
| Seravin |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 19:35:24
I just wish the novels would be set in all the time settings, rather than just in the "current" time period, the way Ed did with the Knights of series (not that I liked those much other than Knights of Eveningstar, the concept was great though!). For me, the peak of the setting is 13040-1360 DR, so novels set in that time period are the most fun to read. I get however that if WotC wants to push a module, tying a novel from the current Realms period to that module (Rage of Demonzzz!11!!) is how to go. A novel that makes pre-ToT era seem fun and interesting won't sell many game books that are set in the 1480s era. Which is why era neutral lore books like Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms are so good.
Hope that made sense.Keep novels tied to setting, but set more novels in the good eras before the (ill-conceived, not popular) massive time skip, which was a reboot in a way if you think of it.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 19:20:39
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And disconnecting novel continuity from game continuity would increase, not fix, the issue of authors not being on the same page.
How does this follow? The only thing novel writers need to know is the basic information about the campaign world, which at the time of the OGB was not that much information (Ed's numerous behind the scenes info packets sent to TSR notwithstanding).
Going forward, if you're writing novels you only need to be familiar with later novels, and then only if they touch on an area you're writing about. You don't need to worry about the campaign setting advancing the timeline, nor about sourcebooks that incorporate "future" events, because the CS never followed the timeline to begin with and it was never concerned with advancing its own timeline. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 19:15:37
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
If they no longer effect the game world they become no better than well written fan fiction.
To you, perhaps. But objectivey? No, they don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Well, it's the main point that differentiates them from fan fiction.
For someone who's used to thinking of the Realms as a place where what's written in novels and sourcebooks reflect the same thing, sure.
But if we follow the OP's question, and ask ourselves if things wouldn't have been better from the start if TSR had kept the campaign setting and the novels separate, then it follows that readers (whether they also played D&D in the Realms or not) would view the novels as the only thing of any importance when it comes to the story of the Forgotten Realms.
In this scenario, the campaign setting is a somewhat static place. There's tons of information on it, but it's not there to tell you an ongoing story in addition to its primary job of serving as the background in which you tell your own stories via D&D campaigns.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
If WotC's novels where Azoun dies no longer means he's dead in the next Cormyr game supplement, than the novels is not any more important than any piece if Cormyr fan fiction in the Internet.
Can you demonstrate how this is true? Also, when you say "important," what do you mean? Important to who?
If the novel "Death of the Dragon" is the official story--and it is, because the owner of the IP published it--and we're dealing with a situation where it's also official that the published campaign world explicitly ignores the novels, and we know from experience that the only way to get the story of the Realms is to look to the novels, then anyone wanting to know the story will find the novels important.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Because that's not WotC's goal/arrangement
It's not as though WotC (and TSR) hasn't tried to tell smaller stories before. From what I've seen, they've had some success. The problem is that WotC moves in the direction of the most money.
What I'm saying is that WotC does not appear to know how to tell smaller-scale stories while maximizing profits (which to me is synonymous with attracting the most readers)
They seem to be trying again with 5E now that the Sundering is over, so I hope they've hit on a formula that brings in readers in the same numbers that their "let's blow something up and make more money" formula does. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 18:12:10
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Authors don't blow up cities in the Realms unless WotC tells them to.
That, and even the most out of touch author knows he or she is working in a shared world.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure authors pitch their ideas to WoTc. I don't imagine they just sit there waiting on Wizards to give them something to write about.
They might, but WotC would probably never even read them. It's standard practice for companies who have an IP franchise (be it Forgotten Realms, Star Trek, or others) to never even accept author-pitched stories, unless they have requested the author to do so (and after signing a contract setting out terms & conditions), to avoid litigation on "stolen ideas". |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 17:08:14
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Authors don't blow up cities in the Realms unless WotC tells them to.
That, and even the most out of touch author knows he or she is working in a shared world.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure authors pitch their ideas to WoTc. I don't imagine they just sit there waiting on Wizards to give them something to write about. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 16:56:49
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, have never understood why there is this perceived issue with novels driving canon. Most novels either go way large-scale, or they are very small-scale.
If a DM wants the PCs to be the ones doing the large-scale stuff, then they handwave the novels out of the way. And the smaller-scale stuff wouldn't have an appreciable impact on anything the PCs did, unless a novel focuses on how Bahb Nounsilver solves the murder of Random Shopkeep #3 in Generic Cormyrean Village #17 and the DM had built his own elaborate plot on that same event.
And deviating from canon is not that big a deal. Unless a DM picks some entirely undetailed area of the Realms and the PCs never leave, at some point, there is going to be a deviation from canon.
And that's fine. Make the Realms your own.
As for big-name NPCs overshadowing the PCs... Unless you're starting your PCs at level 15 or higher, there's going to be a lot of game time before the PCs can operate on the same level as the big names. There's plenty for them to do in that interval. Even when they get to that point, the mere existence of big names does not mean that PCs can't do anything. There are always threats to deal with, and a score of high-level named PCs can't be everywhere at once.
Mystra's Chosen are often referred to as the Justice League, by detractors... But look at the world of comics: crime still happens in Metropolis and Gotham, despite everything Superman and Batman do. Despite having those guys there, the cities still need cops and firefighters and paramedics.
Clearly, even having an invulnerable superfast, superstrong guy flying around isn't enough. So if Superman can't do everything in one city, how can a dozen people cover an entire continent?
And it's also not like there's a Level 20 Club, where everyone in the Realms goes once they hit a certain level. Unless the PCs are in Shadowdale looking for Elminster, chances are they'll never even see him, much less bump into him on a quest.
The problem with novels is that different authors are not always on the same page and it can take one author to cause future products to come out completely different. What if one author decides to destroy Waterdeep in one of his novels and gets WoTc to go along with it because he pitched them a really "kewl" idea. Well all future products for the game have Waterdeep in ruins.
If we are going to pitch the whole "well you can keep it that way in your games", well then I pitch this "then why bother future products and just use all the old stuff along with all the old rules."
WotC decides the plots and finds authors to write them -- not the other way around.
And if authors aren't all on the same page, that's an editorial issue. And sourcebooks are no more immune to that than novels -- look at the 17,043,826.3 ways the Shadow Weave was presented in 3E, or the fact that they couldn't even get the story of Shade's survival straight.
And disconnecting novel continuity from game continuity would increase, not fix, the issue of authors not being on the same page. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 16:47:20
In which case, BLEEP them with a vuvuzela. Ha, had to look that one up. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 16:44:12
Authors don't blow up cities in the Realms unless WotC tells them to.
That, and even the most out of touch author knows he or she is working in a shared world. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 16:38:11
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
If the two were separated, it does not follow that the novels would be fan fiction.
If they no longer effect the game world they become no better than well written fan fiction.
quote:
You could argue they'd be like fan fiction, in that they have no bearing on what's presented in a sourcebook, but that's about it.
well, it's the main point that differentiates them from fan fiction.
If WotC's novels where Azoun dies no longer means he's dead in the next Cormyr game supplement, than the novels is not any more important than any piece if Cormyr fan fiction in the Internet
quote:
If one has a goal of keeping the Realms static,
[...]
In this arrangement,[...]
WotC's problem is that they don't seem to know how to do this.
Because that's not WotC's goal/arrangement |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 16:33:18
Let's say your guys encounter Drizzt. He's only, what. A 7th level ranger in his first game appearance? Experienced, yes, but not even yet name level. The PCs certainly do not need to be 15th level to kick his butt. Not even if he has his buddies with him.
"A dark elf! Attack!"
They kill the Drow and steal his stuff.
Now everything that he does in the novel continuity that might happen in the future will not occur in the game continuity at your table.
Of course, Drizzt may not be the best example. Does he actually have any big impact on the world?
The Knights of MythDrannor are mostly not super high level, as they appear in the Gray Box.
Let's say the party fights these guys and kills several of them. Does that change future canon history?
I think the problem is not that novels affected game design, but that some DMs assign plot immunity to NPCs and privilege official metaplot over emergent story. That could be a problem in a setting with no fiction line tied to it. It could be a problem with a DM who never read a novel.
And it might not be a problem at all for some groups with quite different gaming styles than mine.
|
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 16:25:30
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, have never understood why there is this perceived issue with novels driving canon. Most novels either go way large-scale, or they are very small-scale.
If a DM wants the PCs to be the ones doing the large-scale stuff, then they handwave the novels out of the way. And the smaller-scale stuff wouldn't have an appreciable impact on anything the PCs did, unless a novel focuses on how Bahb Nounsilver solves the murder of Random Shopkeep #3 in Generic Cormyrean Village #17 and the DM had built his own elaborate plot on that same event.
And deviating from canon is not that big a deal. Unless a DM picks some entirely undetailed area of the Realms and the PCs never leave, at some point, there is going to be a deviation from canon.
And that's fine. Make the Realms your own.
As for big-name NPCs overshadowing the PCs... Unless you're starting your PCs at level 15 or higher, there's going to be a lot of game time before the PCs can operate on the same level as the big names. There's plenty for them to do in that interval. Even when they get to that point, the mere existence of big names does not mean that PCs can't do anything. There are always threats to deal with, and a score of high-level named PCs can't be everywhere at once.
Mystra's Chosen are often referred to as the Justice League, by detractors... But look at the world of comics: crime still happens in Metropolis and Gotham, despite everything Superman and Batman do. Despite having those guys there, the cities still need cops and firefighters and paramedics.
Clearly, even having an invulnerable superfast, superstrong guy flying around isn't enough. So if Superman can't do everything in one city, how can a dozen people cover an entire continent?
And it's also not like there's a Level 20 Club, where everyone in the Realms goes once they hit a certain level. Unless the PCs are in Shadowdale looking for Elminster, chances are they'll never even see him, much less bump into him on a quest.
The problem with novels is that different authors are not always on the same page and it can take one author to cause future products to come out completely different. What if one author decides to destroy Waterdeep in one of his novels and gets WoTc to go along with it because he pitched them a really "kewl" idea. Well all future products for the game have Waterdeep in ruins.
If we are going to pitch the whole "well you can keep it that way in your games", well then I pitch this "then why bother future products and just use all the old stuff along with all the old rules."
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 15:55:14
I, personally, have never understood why there is this perceived issue with novels driving canon. Most novels either go way large-scale, or they are very small-scale.
If a DM wants the PCs to be the ones doing the large-scale stuff, then they handwave the novels out of the way. And the smaller-scale stuff wouldn't have an appreciable impact on anything the PCs did, unless a novel focuses on how Bahb Nounsilver solves the murder of Random Shopkeep #3 in Generic Cormyrean Village #17 and the DM had built his own elaborate plot on that same event.
And deviating from canon is not that big a deal. Unless a DM picks some entirely undetailed area of the Realms and the PCs never leave, at some point, there is going to be a deviation from canon.
And that's fine. Make the Realms your own.
As for big-name NPCs overshadowing the PCs... Unless you're starting your PCs at level 15 or higher, there's going to be a lot of game time before the PCs can operate on the same level as the big names. There's plenty for them to do in that interval. Even when they get to that point, the mere existence of big names does not mean that PCs can't do anything. There are always threats to deal with, and a score of high-level named PCs can't be everywhere at once.
Mystra's Chosen are often referred to as the Justice League, by detractors... But look at the world of comics: crime still happens in Metropolis and Gotham, despite everything Superman and Batman do. Despite having those guys there, the cities still need cops and firefighters and paramedics.
Clearly, even having an invulnerable superfast, superstrong guy flying around isn't enough. So if Superman can't do everything in one city, how can a dozen people cover an entire continent?
And it's also not like there's a Level 20 Club, where everyone in the Realms goes once they hit a certain level. Unless the PCs are in Shadowdale looking for Elminster, chances are they'll never even see him, much less bump into him on a quest. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 15:41:38
If the two were separated, it does not follow that the novels would be fan fiction.
You could argue they'd be like fan fiction, in that they have no bearing on what's presented in a sourcebook, but that's about it.
If one has a goal of keeping the Realms static, then separating the CS from the novels makes sense. If you have an ongoing novels-based storyline, that storyline can't drastically change the setting. Otherwise your game products don't match up.
In this arrangement, no matter what happens in a novel, Cormyr must still remain Cormyr, Waterdeep remains Waterdeep, and so on. No swapping of nations and continents, unless you make the swap and resolve it in the same novel.
WotC's problem is that they don't seem to know how to do this. If they aren't blowing things up, they aren't selling books. ...but that might mean gaming consumers are the problem; I am not sure who to point the finger at. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 15:29:23
Games are not novels. Novels are not games.
A scripted , NPC centric module may be less useful for many DMs than a looser module that focuses on the PCs going through locations and encountering game challenges. I know which style I prefer.
A novel that reads like a transcript of a D&D session is probably going to be pretty weak fiction.
When people discuss the ties between the game line and the ancillary fiction line, do they mean the setting, characters, or storylines?
The setting has been affected by the novel line since before the Gray Box went to print. Moonshaes, yo.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 15:09:18
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
No. That would make the novels glorified fanfiction and me having absolutely no more interest in reading them
How would that make them fanfiction? They would still be authorized novels in the Realms canon. They just wouldn't have any impact on the game part.
That's not fanfiction.
Ah, but that's the rub: if the novels don't affect the game setting, they are not canon. You would have, at best, two separated and different canons, essentially making two different versions of the Realms (because at some point, one will deviate from the other, otherwise, there is no point to the separation). At worst, you'd have the game canon and then a bunch of novels disconnected from game canon and each novel ignoring the others, so there would be no novel continuity at all.
Either way, if novels are not canon for the game setting, then from the perspective of the game canon, the novels are fanfiction. |
|
|
