| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Caolin |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 01:59:09
I just got done reading the prologue from The Orc King and I was kind of affected by the enormity of changes that are coming to this world which I have grown to love over the past 20 years. It got me thinking about the relationship between the novels and the PnP side of the Forgotten Realms and how each new edition ends up totally changing the world in which the novels exist in. I count myself as someone who rarely plays the PnP game (once a year at best), plays the NWN PC games, and who reads the novels faithfully. A big part of me is really sad to know that certain aspects of this world are going away. But I will admit that I am excited for the change because it opens up a ton of new oportunities to tell a good story. And isn't that what we are all here for whether it be PnP players or novel readers?
Anyways, I wanted to give my thoughts on the coming changes as a person who just reads the novels. I'm not sure how many people are like me but it seems like we are a minority who are always under the sway of rules and edition changes. Yes I am upset that Mystra and some of the Chosen will die. But I have faith that it is for the best. I read other novel series as well such as Battletech (now Mechwarrior) and Star Wars. Both have gone thru huge world shaking changes and timeline shifts and both have come out the other end with a much richer environment for story telling.....although I'll admit that Star Wars tends to shake things up much too often. But the bottom line for me is this; The powers that be can make whatever changes they want to the game and its world, as long as they keep pumping out the great stories that they have in the past.
Just my 2 cents and cheers to all of the great Realms novelists out there, keep up the great work!!
Caolin |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 18 Oct 2007 : 16:47:25
Also, when authors write about the past, there is less worry about how it would affect a realms campaign because you know its in the past. Authors would know they can't cave in Undermountain in a story taking place in the year 1208.
Tales in the past = Less RSE unless story is about an already known RSE  |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 18 Oct 2007 : 16:44:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Two things:
1) We still don't know for certain that it is a 100 year jump.
2) With very rare exceptions, all of the Realms stories have been set in the here-and-now. We've had what, 150 Realms novels? And only about 9 of them have been set in the past. Of those 9, six (which includes one upcoming one) were by Ed, exploring the not-too-distant past, and the other trilogy was set in the same time frame as a recent supplement (the Netheril stuff). So, if the jump is indeed 100 years, then they are simply going to move on, and only Ed with have the opportunity to write about what is now the current time -- and even that opportunity will, I think, be limited.
My mistake on the false assumption about the 100 year jump
*spoiler (The Orc King)* The mention in the prologue made me think that
Anyways, I agree they will 99% likely limit any stories of the past. I just think that doing so is a mistake in that good stories can be written about the past. A lot can be learned about the future when looking at the past  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Oct 2007 : 13:58:49
Two things:
1) We still don't know for certain that it is a 100 year jump.
2) With very rare exceptions, all of the Realms stories have been set in the here-and-now. We've had what, 150 Realms novels? And only about 9 of them have been set in the past. Of those 9, six (which includes one upcoming one) were by Ed, exploring the not-too-distant past, and the other trilogy was set in the same time frame as a recent supplement (the Netheril stuff). So, if the jump is indeed 100 years, then they are simply going to move on, and only Ed with have the opportunity to write about what is now the current time -- and even that opportunity will, I think, be limited. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 18 Oct 2007 : 13:44:51
In my opinion, the grand change taking place in the realms shouldn't really affect any current storylines all that much, while at the same time opening up many possible avenues for more stories.
Existing storylines can keep on going. The only difference is that they would become instant stories of the past instead of stories of the present. Take for instance a mortal such as Danilo Thann. He will likely die of old age before the realms present time of 4E arrives (barring his small ammount of elf blood extending his lifespan). But that doesn't mean Elaine Cunningham can't write about him. Obviously, new RSEs of the past would be out of the question (can't have the "Destruction of Waterdeep" storyline if the 4E realms has it intact. But good storylines that have an impact on the characters more than anything can still thrive.
Heck, Ed Greenwood is writing about the past at the moment with the Knights of Myth Drannor. Why should any character be different and exempt from this? Personally, I think there is a whole lot of potential stories to be written based on the current past as well (just flip through The Grand History of the Realms and a lot of past events can have great stories be told.
Anyways that's my two cents.
P.S. I also would love to read a Steven Schend story of Doctor Strange. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 17 Oct 2007 : 18:48:44
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
Anyways, I wanted to give my thoughts on the coming changes as a person who just reads the novels. I'm not sure how many people are like me but it seems like we are a minority who are always under the sway of rules and edition changes. Yes I am upset that Mystra and some of the Chosen will die. But I have faith that it is for the best.
I don't "have faith" that these changes will be for the best, because I've disliked so many other recent changes.
And that's coming from someone who is a heavy reader of the novels, as well. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 17 Oct 2007 : 18:46:22
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
I agree that making these changes often opens up richer territories for writers to mine for ideas. However, there's also the risk of closing doors on storylines that still had life and potential.
I agree--storylines in the Realms have been nipped in the bud before in the Realms, and I see it happening again now. |
| Halidan |
Posted - 16 Oct 2007 : 00:47:56
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Lol. I have GMed a few Realms games, I did not just buy the books for the lore. However, I do wish I could be part of a years-spanning Realms game. I have not had much luck with finding a group near me though, and I find the idea of play-by-post weird. I am skeptical as to its ability to actually feel like a P&P game.
Don't give up on PbP games Hawkins. It takes the right group of people to do a RPG than spans more than a couple of years (in game time). Having played and DM'd a lot of Pendragon ove the years, I can honestly say that most RPG players aren't looking for a game that covers multiple generations. It's a tough story line to write/DM and I think it's even tougher to play in. Once you've got the right people, it's a gem. Treasure it.
As for the honorable Mr. Schend's points, I'd like to wax peotic on just a couple of them...
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
I agree that making these changes often opens up richer territories for writers to mine for ideas. However, there's also the risk of closing doors on storylines that still had life and potential.
Is this something that's inherent to shared worlds and/or cross-media-properties? Does the need for change often derail a property or change it too much?
I think it's been pretty well established that most literary shared worlds have a serious problem once the storyline has experienced too much change. Take a look at the original Thieves World or Merovingen Nights series of the 1980's. Both had strong starts, but as the books moved beyond the structures of the initial world outlines and experienced both plot resolution and the introduction of new plots, the wheels eventually fell off.
The problem is that most plots can't be spread over more than 2 or 3 books before the reader (and the writer) get's board. That's also one of the reasons that trilogies are so prevelant in today's SF/Fantasy world of books.
Now, when you open up from a single city to whole world, there are more stories to tell, and more lands to tell them in. Both you and Ed Greenwood have highlighted the problem of determining when to advance the plotline of a shared world. In other words, "Do you move the world ahead while their are still stories left to tell in other, lesser explored parts of the globe?"
I don't think there's any real answer for this, since every reader and every player/DM has a difference tolerance for change and a defferent desire for details on any given region.
As an example, after "Beyone the High Road," I was overwhelmed by Cormyrian stories and wanted no more. "Death of the Dragon" and all of the RPG material that came out on post-devil dragon Cormyr was overkill to me. Mostly, I ignored it and I'm just cathcing up on it now. Yet I know many others who were clamering for more info on Cormy at every turn.
Since it's making a decision on when it's right to advance a literary worlds timeline is so subjective, it's always a gamble. The publisher takes a serious risk.
Despite claims to the contrary, I don't feel that any focus group or feedback does anything to really guide that decision. Unless they're done double-blind with scientific controlls, focus groups just add scattered opinions to the mix - they can't fortell the future. It's still a gut feeling on the publisher's part. Nothing more.
And now, WotC is taking that risk with the Realms yet again. And most of us are waiting with baited breath to see what comes from that decision. Personally, I hope they occassionaly let authors to "go back" and tell stories like Ed is doing right now with the Knights of Myth Drannor.
Personally, I feel that there are still many stories left behind the front-edge of the time-line that are worth telling. It would be a shame to see never materialize. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 23:53:54
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Anyone on here willing to take these novel-only folk under their wings and lead them to a nice P&P table and showing them how to play the game? Getting them away from only consuming the FR, but being part of them?
Lol. I have GMed a few Realms games, I did not just buy the books for the lore. However, I do wish I could be part of a years-spanning Realms game. I have not had much luck with finding a group near me though, and I find the idea of play-by-post weird. I am skeptical as to its ability to actually feel like a P&P game. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 23:39:36
Anyone on here willing to take these novel-only folk under their wings and lead them to a nice P&P table and showing them how to play the game? Getting them away from only consuming the FR, but being part of them? |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 18:02:29
I also began as (and still am) primarily a reader of the novels. I also played the BG and NWN games because it is nice to be able to play in the world that I so love in the novels. Then I began buying the Realms D&D supplements to read the lore in them. The new changes worry me, and that is why I began the poll in the General Realms chat forums so we had a way to tell the designers how we really feel with numbers. Yes, I know that the poll is not perfect, but I am trying to do something to help, rather than running around screaming about the changes which is what most of the Realms fans on the D&D Forums seem to be doing. I also began a thread on the D&D Forums for people to tell the designers why (and what makes them) love the Realms. As for my poll, I fall into the option 2 category because I do not like the changes, but if they can explain them in a way that makes sense (rather than the rather large omission of details in the snippets given at the end of the GHotR), then I will be able to live with them.
P.S. I did not vote on my poll because I thought that would be an improper way to conduct the study. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 17:36:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The recent focus on RSEs has left me feeling much the same about the Realms. Not that I'm about to bail, but the irritation over RSEs is the same as the irritation over the constant stream of uber-BBEGs and their world/cosmic plots.
Ditto, Wooly - on both the Realms and MW:DA.
In fact, there's been many a time I've flirted with making "Oh God, not another RSE!!!" my sig. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 17:17:39
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
Being a long-time comics fan, I can say there is such a thing as "too much change," but then, comics have been far more chaotic (monthly release schedules focused on micro-niches and characters) and far more flexible (reality resets--twice at least for DC, who knows how often for Marvel). Whether that's bad or good is in the eye of the beholder.
That's actually part of the reason I bailed on superhero comics: I got tired of the Weekly Threat To All of Existence trend. The recent focus on RSEs has left me feeling much the same about the Realms. Not that I'm about to bail, but the irritation over RSEs is the same as the irritation over the constant stream of uber-BBEGs and their world/cosmic plots. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 16:12:31
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
Steven
who'd dearly love to write Doctor Strange and actually work some continuity into his magic systems....
The Sage
who's dearly love to read Doctor Strange as written by Steven Schend....
|
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 14:07:06
Then again, this is an interesting angle and topic to explore, for those who're worried about the impact of change on the Realms.
I agree that making these changes often opens up richer territories for writers to mine for ideas. However, there's also the risk of closing doors on storylines that still had life and potential.
Is this something that's inherent to shared worlds and/or cross-media-properties? Does the need for change often derail a property or change it too much?
Being a long-time comics fan, I can say there is such a thing as "too much change," but then, comics have been far more chaotic (monthly release schedules focused on micro-niches and characters) and far more flexible (reality resets--twice at least for DC, who knows how often for Marvel). Whether that's bad or good is in the eye of the beholder.
Lastly, there's the tricky detail of "consumer ownership." When you buy a novel or a game product, you invest a certain amount of personal "ownership" of the material, something that becomes stronger if you put work into developing that material for your game. That's one of the reasons I think many have strong reactions to changes in the game--While it's a shared world, the owning company still controls and "owns more" of the world than the consumer, and if it changes a fact that affects your game, you feel that change more keenly than others.
So, do we discuss how to do "illusion of change" instead of actual change in shared worlds? Comics have done that for years....
Apologies if this takes the discussion away from its original intent. I preemptively accept abuse from the moderators and the original posters for having done so, but ask to splinter off this discussion if folks want to continue it.
Steven
who'd dearly love to write Doctor Strange and actually work some continuity into his magic systems....although he'd be happy to write Doctor Fate or Doctor Occult as well....(and what is it about doctoral degrees and the occult in comics anyways?) |
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 14:05:30
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
... Star Wars ... gone thru huge world shaking changes and timeline shifts and ... have come out the other end with a much richer environment for story telling.....
I have one (compound) word for you: "Midi-chlorians".
love,
nathan. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 06:30:50
Since Wooly was allowed to complain a little bit I am to. The recent Star Wars changes were... No I don't ind words polite enough to describe them. Then again I am strongly negative to changes in the Realms also. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 05:45:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
But I have faith that it is for the best. I read other novel series as well such as Battletech (now Mechwarrior) and Star Wars. Both have gone thru huge world shaking changes and timeline shifts and both have come out the other end with a much richer environment for story telling.....
I'll disagree with you, in reference to BattleTech. I can't stand the Dark Ages. But that's not really a topic for this forum. 
HAH HAH!! Not the first time I heard that ;) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 03:58:35
I would also advise the OP to be directed to prior existing thread. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Oct 2007 : 03:11:44
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
But I have faith that it is for the best. I read other novel series as well such as Battletech (now Mechwarrior) and Star Wars. Both have gone thru huge world shaking changes and timeline shifts and both have come out the other end with a much richer environment for story telling.....
I'll disagree with you, in reference to BattleTech. I can't stand the Dark Ages. But that's not really a topic for this forum. |
|
|
