| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Matt James |
Posted - 25 Mar 2010 : 16:01:52
Do you guys want me to use one of my own domains to host a Candlekeep Compedium 2010 project? This would shield Candlekeep.com should any issues arise- though I don't feel any would- and would keep the project going. I am willing to invest the time and effort if there is interest in the community. Its a shame that one has not come out in such a long while. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jakk |
Posted - 10 Apr 2010 : 02:17:16
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
(2) You can write on ANY era of the Forgotten Realms.
(3) I want to focus on the stories. If you want to steer-clear of the Spellplague- by all means. If you want to write about the formation of Faerun and the creator-races- by all means.
I would be happy to submit my material on Sharess, which would have been written down initially in the few decades after the Time of Troubles then compiled & edited in the early 1400s.
As written, my material is incompatible with 4e's cosmology (what little of it I know), but as a historical document penned prior to the Spellplague it is compatible with 4e - it's just wrong now (i.e in 1470 or whenever).  No doubt Sharessin/Sunites later in the 4e timeline would rewrite it to be compatible with post-Spellplague events; as a historical document, it is of course subject to being rewritten, just as it came to be in the first place as a rewriting of oral lore and poetry.
I just want people to read my stuff and have fun with it.
I'd love to see your Sharess lore... I'm making Sharess a bigger player in the pantheon in my Realms, and she's taking a new name, making a decisive split from her Shar-influenced past. What that new name is, I have no idea... but I'm working on it... and no, it's not Bast. In my Realms, the Mulhorandi and Untheric pantheons, with the exceptions of Hoar and "the goddess formerly known as Sharess," have ceased to exist, as have the nations who worshipped them. The Spellplague happened, but took a much different form from that described in canon; Halruaa is still around, and Evermeet has been obliterated. I'm still ironing out the details; it's been a long, slow process.  |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 09 Apr 2010 : 20:32:30
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
The moment we start gaming in the Realms we deviate from the official timeline, so this whole edition neutrality is crap the moment we introduce stuff from our own campaign, or plans we have for it. Take my approach to War of the Spider Queen (on my lj) it started out by me thinking how to involve my players... and well, the more I thought the affair through to its conclusion the more this article took shape.
So, whenever a GM runs a game in the Realms, and lets his PCs meet some high-up (be it Elminster, or Khelben) he deviates from the official Realms, because...well... Elminster never met soandso in the official timeline, the best official example would be the Avatar modules... there never were any additional folks involved in it all, and the modules say there were... so any officiality is shot out the window anyways.
You're right, but I think the point of the debate here is not so much about sticking to the timeline in our own games, but about how close one should stick to canon when writing an article for use by others.
In my own games, I have shifted the timeline around, wiped one empire (Jhaamdath) from the timeline altogether, and shifted the history of Unther, Calimshan, and Netheril around to position them for a long-ish war leading up to the Fall of Netheril. Plus, in "current" Realms, I have shifted events around.
The thing is - if I want to write something that would be useful to a sizeable number of others, then I would stick to some form of common denominator. If there is to be a Realms-community, then there needs to be some common ground that everyone more or less agrees on...
And to be entirely nitpicky  - your example of so-and-so meeting Elminster is not really the best, because the Timeline was never meant to cover every event in every NPC's life; it would be one thing to write that Elminster met Jake in 1353, with the timeline not mentioning anything about that, and writing that Elminster had never set a foot in Shadowdale. I could not resist the temptation to pick nits. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 08 Apr 2010 : 12:00:14
I know a lot of people are saying Matt is overreacting and quoting lots from this thread, but I wonder if there were some PMs exchanged that may have been the cause for him leaving. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 08 Apr 2010 : 07:17:38
The moment we start gaming in the Realms we deviate from the official timeline, so this whole edition neutrality is crap the moment we introduce stuff from our own campaign, or plans we have for it. Take my approach to War of the Spider Queen (on my lj) it started out by me thinking how to involve my players... and well, the more I thought the affair through to its conclusion the more this article took shape.
So, whenever a GM runs a game in the Realms, and lets his PCs meet some high-up (be it Elminster, or Khelben) he deviates from the official Realms, because...well... Elminster never met soandso in the official timeline, the best official example would be the Avatar modules... there never were any additional folks involved in it all, and the modules say there were... so any officiality is shot out the window anyways. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 08 Apr 2010 : 04:38:10
When the 4E Realms were published I made the decision to set aside my dislike of its many disagreeable aspects and support the Realms for the sake of the Realms.
If I can write something that helps bridge the timeline gap, keeps people playing D&D and thinking about the Realms, then that's a good thing.
This is why I started my War Wizard A Week thread on the WotC forums. And as it happens there are a few NPCs in that thread with "linking past to present" information in their write-ups that I'd like to further flesh out and maybe submit for consideration for any new Compendium project.
Now not everyone feels as I do, and that's fine because if someone does not like the 4E Realms then they can write only 3E and earlier material for this project. They could also skip over anything in the compendium that was 4E and just enjoy the earlier era material written by their peers.
Which, when you think about it, is basically what we're all doing here on Candlekeep in one form or another already.
And this is where it gets confusing. If the concept of edition neutrality here at the 'keep stems (or rather, is based on) a "live and let live" approach, then why would anyone with an interest in furthering the lore of the pre-Spellplague Realms or in writing fan generated content to share with the community choose to opt out of contributing to the project just because something they write might sit next to something someone else wrote about the current era of the Realms?
I think it's unfortunate that certain scribes are choosing to discard the "live and let live" concept in favor or their dislike for the 4E Realms. They're missing an opportunity to support the Realms as a whole and breathe new life into the otherwise languishing compendium project.
This kind of "at any cost" attitude is what I believe Matt perceived before he wrote his last post on page 4 of the thread (note I haven't spoken to Matt personally on this subject).
Nobody is being forced to write anything, of course. But if you are interested in writing, and you're able to move about on the 'keep forums without pre or post-Spellplague content tripping you up, then you ought to be able to let your Compendium work stand next to everyone else's work without issue.
 |
| xaviera |
Posted - 07 Apr 2010 : 20:54:05
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
(2) You can write on ANY era of the Forgotten Realms.
(3) I want to focus on the stories. If you want to steer-clear of the Spellplague- by all means. If you want to write about the formation of Faerun and the creator-races- by all means.
I would be happy to submit my material on Sharess, which would have been written down initially in the few decades after the Time of Troubles then compiled & edited in the early 1400s.
As written, my material is incompatible with 4e's cosmology (what little of it I know), but as a historical document penned prior to the Spellplague it is compatible with 4e - it's just wrong now (i.e in 1470 or whenever). No doubt Sharessin/Sunites later in the 4e timeline would rewrite it to be compatible with post-Spellplague events; as a historical document, it is of course subject to being rewritten, just as it came to be in the first place as a rewriting of oral lore and poetry.
I just want people to read my stuff and have fun with it.
|
| Jakk |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 18:55:12
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And yes, I know I am over-thinking about something that is not that important in the first place, especially not for me, but I got myself into this discussion for some reason and don't seem to be able to stop.
Oh, that's easy enough. Just re-focus on a more important subject. For example: in a fight between Drizzt and Jaime Lannister, who would win?
See how easy it is?
Oh, that's an easy question. The winner? Two of them: Wizbro and Bantam Books.
I'd try to get this scroll back on topic, but I can't think of anything that hasn't already been said... and I'm notorious for not leaving things alone, so I'll leave this one alone now and go back to my musings on the deities... no, nothing canon, but you all already suspected that, right? |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 18:50:02
Ok, before Wooly sees me.
The comment was ment to be about both Slade`s the band is dumb and at times enjoyable, the designer I don't know, but I don't care for his work. Dont get me started on the Gillan villages again.
Just some problems with the scenario. Shoon? This is in the middle of their empire. Netheril in the wrong time-period(I think). A tethen culture, both modern and anchient, something that really doesn't fit with the "mix of everything" version of the 3ed. The Talfir in the wrong era. Fire giants in an area that is not inhabited by that race. hobbit-like halflings. A couple of deity names not mentioned earlier. The curse of Tethyr. The Hidden Queens. Some of these go directly against major elements of canon history and others would need quite a bit of explanation. It might not change anything by itself, but if you try to rationalize it with canon you will have to do some major work.
And who in the name of vinyl is Jaime Lannister. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 18:29:05
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I must be the first person accused of over-thinking when including a sentence about Slade.
Actually, I started over-thinking it. I was wondering if this was some kind of clever take on both Slade (the band) and Dale "slade" Henson, of TSR fame.
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And you know perfectly well that those are ducks masquerading as bunnies. They are waiting out there, its only a matter of time.
OK, a reply on this, before the Mods storm in with the Big Sticks (even though the Staff of the Irritated Moderator +5 is currently held by Big Al, who's AWOL). Reminds me of that episode in the first season of Babylon 5.
Londo Mollari: But this
this, this, this is like
being nibbled to death by, uh
Pah! What are those Earth creatures called? Feathers, long bill, webbed feet
go "quack".
Vir Cotto: Cats.
Londo: Cats! I'm being nibbled to death by cats.
So actually, we have now established beyond doubt that it's cats. Back to our regular programming.
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Now, first of all I agree with more or less everything you say, but that's me. I hate the idea of canon in a roleplaying game.
(snippety snip)
Now, if the rule was that the timeline up until The Grand History was to be followed I probably would have had half a dozen "mistakes" here, even if they are not major. But by the 1ed. I cant think of to many problems. So, if it was edition neutral would this be a glaring bunch of ramblings from a bearded mind or a personal take on a lightly detailed region in that edition?
My benchmark for "respecting canon" is this: a) do the changes have an influence on the current state of the setting (either 1E/2E/3E, or 4E)? If not, then the story may very well be as true as the retrospective explanations cooked up by, amongst others, Krash, for the Impiltur discrepancies. If it is something for publication for a wider audience, I'd add in a second test: b) does it contradict a major event in the GHotR, which, in my view, is the ultimate authoritative source for the timeline of the Realms?
The way I see it, your story concerns a realm that no one has ever heard of before, two thousand years ago. Records of trading with existing empires might have been lost, either by accident (fire, bookworms, you name it) or by design. There are more than enough blanks in Faerūn both past and present.
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And yes, I know I am over-thinking about something that is not that important in the first place, especially not for me, but I got myself into this discussion for some reason and don't seem to be able to stop.
Oh, that's easy enough. Just re-focus on a more important subject. For example: in a fight between Drizzt and Jaime Lannister, who would win?
See how easy it is? |
| Varl |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 17:20:16
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Filling in blank spots in previous timeframes -- again, like my Lords of Waterdeep articles -- has absolutely nothing in common with creating a timeline where events happen differently. The two things are so unrelated that I'm wondering if I'm somehow misreading your question.
Well, I wasn't thinking of filling in the blank spots, but adding in new spots to any timeline much like when you see a new spell and decide "hmmm, do I want to add that to my game or not?" Think of the Everwinking Eye articles in Dragon magazine written by Ed Greenwood. They're official lore because he wrote them, but they do not have to be used simply because they were written by Ed. Same deal here. If someone writes alternative events, say in 1366, that single piece of lore could be used or rejected as seen fit by each individual DM. That's all I meant. I don't know if this would be beyond the scope of the CC, but it would be nice to see nonetheless. It's one of the primary reasons I purchased Grand History,despite being a 2e FR DM. Something about having possible event projections of the future laid out before me is intriguing. Do I want that to occur when the time comes or not? It's all about the options. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 17:17:06
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
neutral as long as it doesnt go against the grand history of the Realms.
Which means at least 3.5 ed. Anyone writing from their knowledge of 1st or 2nd edition books and knowledge, would most likely to contradict this book. Its not Neutral if knowledge of the latest edition is demanded, and in many ways most important.
Slade never existed as anything but a pretty good band with bad spelling and taste in clothes in those days, so Netheril would be written from comments made in various early products. And that would most likely be an improvement. Shoon is barely mentioned until Steven Schend; anyone writing an article about a ruin in Tehtyr might easily contradict that lore.
I should add that I am not sure it would be the best idea to make a product completely edition neutral, unless each article contained a short comment on edition and products ignored. But if the term edition neutral is used it should be (at least to a degree) defined.
Sorry, Jorkens, but aren't we "overthinking" this all a little bit? Let's not forget, we are not writing material that will be canon. I don't see how writing about a ruin in Tethyr (to take your example) would invalidate canon lore. Lest we forget, even with the body of lore that already exists, that covers only an infinitely small tip of an infinitely big iceberg. Not every day (heck, not every year or even every century) of every square inch of the Realms has been defined.
And we should also not forget another thing: it's not exactly as if canon material is always, one hundred percent, cohesive and coherent. One word: Impiltur. Until, in the latter years of FR, some people (including our own George Krashos, I think) got their hands on it, the timeline of impiltur was all over the place. Quoting from memory: the Kingdom of Impiltur was founded in the 900s, and yet the Obarskyrs had come from that very same kingdom (900 years earlier, before it supposedly existed).
Unless you are planning on rewriting the major events of Realms history (Netheril never existed, ToT, Spellplague, the whole world is run by a conspiracy led by pink fluffy bunnies), I would not worry too much. I have established an alternative timeline, where Netheril, a precursor to the Shoon empire, and an enlarged Untheric empire all coexisted around -400 DR, Jhaamdath never existed, and the conflict between the three empires led to the downfall of Netheril, and a crisis in Unther, all of which ultimately led to a situation identical to current day OGB. To get back to your example, who's to say that the Shoon empire was not in disarray for some time, during which "other" things could have happened? The Shoon might just have suppressed all existing records. It has happened quite often in RL ancient empires...
As far as I am concerned, Articles should probably be separatedb into three categories: ancient history (where only the big outlines are established), current-day 1E/2E/3E, and current-day 4E. I would not include wildly variant timeline articles, but only because I am assuming that such items tend to be very personal for each author, and usefulness for others might be limited (much like alternate history non-fiction tends to be a bit of a niche market in RL).
Let's all keep in mind an often-overlooked paragraph from the Introduction to the Old Grey Box: "The information presented herein is as known to myself, those about me in the lands north and west of the Sea of Fallen Stars, and those I have encountered in my travels. On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. All stories presented are as I have heard them and had them recorded, all information is checked as best as possible given the limited resources of an old man in a small town (even if that old man has the power to flatten mountains, mind you). As you adventure in this fantasy world, be warned that not all things are as they appear, and trust to your wits, your weapons, and your
common sense in surviving and profiting from the Forgotten Realms."
I must be the first person accused of over-thinking when including a sentence about Slade.
And you know perfectly well that those are ducks masquerading as bunnies. They are waiting out there, its only a matter of time.
Now, first of all I agree with more or less everything you say, but that's me. I hate the idea of canon in a roleplaying game.
But let us look at the ruin example. I am now a 1.edition fan writing about a ruined city in Tethyr. Sorry, but this is improvized here.
Well, it was the centre of an old kingdom called Catharaz about -1000 DR, that was ruined by Tethen raiders following the calling of the War Crow of the Talfir, Hshaedar after their defeat by the Seven near Westgate. Before that time the king sand his dynasty were known to have traded with the wizards of Netheril and warred with the Hidden Queens of Turmish. The Fire Giants of the Giants Run paid homage to him and the Seventh was said to be his advisor. Now, it was said that the king lost his kingdom after the halflings of the Purple Hills refused to come to his aid, reportedly because of a holy day. The bitter stories told about the halflings in the following centuries, and all the jokes about their feet, can be followed back to this time. Now the ruins are said to be the home of savage killers following the cult of the Fanged One of Westgate and demons guarding netherillian magics. Among the tethen Bird callers of the Chionthar valley it is said even today, that the Crows tell of the curse they put on the lands that became Tethyr and how not even Almander was able to lift it with the help of foreign Wizards.
Now, if the rule was that the timeline up until The Grand History was to be followed I probably would have had half a dozen "mistakes" here, even if they are not major. But by the 1ed. I cant think of to many problems. So, if it was edition neutral would this be a glaring bunch of ramblings from a bearded mind or a personal take on a lightly detailed region in that edition?
And yes, I know I am over-thinking about something that is not that important in the first place, especially not for me, but I got myself into this discussion for some reason and don't seem to be able to stop.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 17:02:18
That's exactly the point I was trying to make Thauramarth! Canon can only be written by those that are hired to write it. Anything fan-made is automatically non-canonical and, therefore, should be able to be about anything at all. The quote from the OGB fits it perfectly. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 14:08:24
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
Let's all keep in mind an often-overlooked paragraph from the Introduction to the Old Grey Box: "The information presented herein is as known to myself, those about me in the lands north and west of the Sea of Fallen Stars, and those I have encountered in my travels. On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. All stories presented are as I have heard them and had them recorded, all information is checked as best as possible given the limited resources of an old man in a small town (even if that old man has the power to flatten mountains, mind you). As you adventure in this fantasy world, be warned that not all things are as they appear, and trust to your wits, your weapons, and your
common sense in surviving and profiting from the Forgotten Realms."
Amen!
|
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 13:15:55
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
neutral as long as it doesnt go against the grand history of the Realms.
Which means at least 3.5 ed. Anyone writing from their knowledge of 1st or 2nd edition books and knowledge, would most likely to contradict this book. Its not Neutral if knowledge of the latest edition is demanded, and in many ways most important.
Slade never existed as anything but a pretty good band with bad spelling and taste in clothes in those days, so Netheril would be written from comments made in various early products. And that would most likely be an improvement. Shoon is barely mentioned until Steven Schend; anyone writing an article about a ruin in Tehtyr might easily contradict that lore.
I should add that I am not sure it would be the best idea to make a product completely edition neutral, unless each article contained a short comment on edition and products ignored. But if the term edition neutral is used it should be (at least to a degree) defined.
Sorry, Jorkens, but aren't we "overthinking" this all a little bit? Let's not forget, we are not writing material that will be canon. I don't see how writing about a ruin in Tethyr (to take your example) would invalidate canon lore. Lest we forget, even with the body of lore that already exists, that covers only an infinitely small tip of an infinitely big iceberg. Not every day (heck, not every year or even every century) of every square inch of the Realms has been defined.
And we should also not forget another thing: it's not exactly as if canon material is always, one hundred percent, cohesive and coherent. One word: Impiltur. Until, in the latter years of FR, some people (including our own George Krashos, I think) got their hands on it, the timeline of impiltur was all over the place. Quoting from memory: the Kingdom of Impiltur was founded in the 900s, and yet the Obarskyrs had come from that very same kingdom (900 years earlier, before it supposedly existed).
Unless you are planning on rewriting the major events of Realms history (Netheril never existed, ToT, Spellplague, the whole world is run by a conspiracy led by pink fluffy bunnies), I would not worry too much. I have established an alternative timeline, where Netheril, a precursor to the Shoon empire, and an enlarged Untheric empire all coexisted around -400 DR, Jhaamdath never existed, and the conflict between the three empires led to the downfall of Netheril, and a crisis in Unther, all of which ultimately led to a situation identical to current day OGB. To get back to your example, who's to say that the Shoon empire was not in disarray for some time, during which "other" things could have happened? The Shoon might just have suppressed all existing records. It has happened quite often in RL ancient empires...
As far as I am concerned, Articles should probably be separatedb into three categories: ancient history (where only the big outlines are established), current-day 1E/2E/3E, and current-day 4E. I would not include wildly variant timeline articles, but only because I am assuming that such items tend to be very personal for each author, and usefulness for others might be limited (much like alternate history non-fiction tends to be a bit of a niche market in RL).
Let's all keep in mind an often-overlooked paragraph from the Introduction to the Old Grey Box: "The information presented herein is as known to myself, those about me in the lands north and west of the Sea of Fallen Stars, and those I have encountered in my travels. On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. All stories presented are as I have heard them and had them recorded, all information is checked as best as possible given the limited resources of an old man in a small town (even if that old man has the power to flatten mountains, mind you). As you adventure in this fantasy world, be warned that not all things are as they appear, and trust to your wits, your weapons, and your
common sense in surviving and profiting from the Forgotten Realms."
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 11:48:59
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
neutral as long as it doesnt go against the grand history of the Realms.
Which means at least 3.5 ed. Anyone writing from their knowledge of 1st or 2nd edition books and knowledge, would most likely to contradict this book. Its not Neutral if knowledge of the latest edition is demanded, and in many ways most important.
Slade never existed as anything but a pretty good band with bad spelling and taste in clothes in those days, so Netheril would be written from comments made in various early products. And that would most likely be an improvement. Shoon is barely mentioned until Steven Schend; anyone writing an article about a ruin in Tehtyr might easily contradict that lore.
I should add that I am not sure it would be the best idea to make a product completely edition neutral, unless each article contained a short comment on edition and products ignored. But if the term edition neutral is used it should be (at least to a degree) defined. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 10:13:27
I probably oughta keep my nose out of this, because I've never contributed to any compendium, here or elsewhere, but in my view, up to a certain point, the whole debate on alternatives to the current established timeline is a bit, well, superfluous.
I've quickly gone through the tables of content of the Candlekeep Compendiums, and I have not seen any article that makes fundamental changes contradicting the established timeline (as it then was). Speaking for myself - in my games, I've tried to stick to paths that lead to all things ending up being more or less equal to the situation of the current date of the 2nd Edition boxed set (i.e., the Time of Troubles took place, with Bane, Myrkul, et al. biting the dust; discovery of Maztica, Tuigan invasion). I say 2nd Edition boxed set, because for various reasons I never made the shift to 3rd Edition FR.
But. But but but. Despite everything, I think that it will be difficult (or outright impossible) for any given article to be completely edition-neutral (i.e., working equally well for 1E/2E/3E, on the one hand, and 4E on the other).
One of my favourite bits has always been creating, or developing existing NPCs, or adapting NPCs from non-FR sources to fit the setting. For me, NPCs are defined, to a large extent, by the relations to other NPCs of the setting (call it the FRacebook approach, if you want ). And that's where the main difference between 1E/2E/3E and 4E kicks in - complete change of the NPCs. I am not just talking about the "Justice League" NPCs, I am talking about, more or less, each and every NPC ever published in NPC canon. Waterdeep is still there, but Jannaxil, Halaster, Mirt, Danilo Thann, Khelben (especially...) - no longer there. Never mind the disappearance of a good bit of the Pantheon.
So, for something to be completely edition-neutral, the article would have to describe an isolated item (say, a new village to be located somewhere in the Western Heartlands), with no specific ties to the rest of Faerūn. And that would diminish the value of such an article.
I can see a Compendium as being edition-neutral in the sense that it covers articles for every edition (keeping in mind that, as far as I am concerned, other than the game mechanics, there's no real fundamental incompatibility between 1E/2E/3E), but I do not see how it's possible to get an article that fits both 1E/2E/3E on the one hand and 4E on the other hand, without making it so generic that, well, it becomes generic (in which case, what's the point of putting it in a Forgotten Realms compendium?).
As for such a mixed compendium - I've read Wooly's posts, on not collaborating on such a project... I respect the Hamster's point of view, and it's in line with his long-standing views, but I would not care less. I certainly do not see inserting an article in a compendium which also contains 4E as an endorsement of 4E. My take on it is that the "endorsement" or lack thereof by any individual (unless you're talking about BIG players, and I'm sure none of us here really think that we are) is going to make one whit difference in the grand scheme of things, except this: we'll be deprived of some of the Woolster's good work. So I would say - to Baator with endorsement / non-endorsement. It don't mean a thang.
As for naming the collection - I would not want any compendium not also hosted on CK to be called "Candlekeep Compendium". Call it "FR compendium, volume 6" (or 7 - I don't have the old netbooks available, as I cut them up and spread them through my overall database). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 03:14:34
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I welcome older lore, I just like to stay away from alternate timelines that rewrite what the FR designers have created. I believe if WotC has any issue- it would be with things such as this.
Hmmm. What's the difference between welcoming older lore from staying away from alternate timelines? That seems contradictory. Wouldn't creating older lore for the Compendium and those interested in such lore automatically be creating an alternate timeline?
Filling in blank spots in previous timeframes -- again, like my Lords of Waterdeep articles -- has absolutely nothing in common with creating a timeline where events happen differently. The two things are so unrelated that I'm wondering if I'm somehow misreading your question.
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
I'm also curious as to why? If lore for lore's sake is written with the intent to offer alternatives for individual DMs to use or not use, how would that differ in any way from, say, new spells that fans create for each other? I thought that's what sites like this one were for.
Sites like this one do encourage that. However, this is a project Matt was pushing, and wanting to host on his own site -- so he is therefore quite entitled to set whatever parameters he wants. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 02:23:45
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
neutral as long as it doesnt go against the grand history of the Realms.
You do realize the irony of that statement, don't you? |
| Varl |
Posted - 04 Apr 2010 : 01:14:39
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I welcome older lore, I just like to stay away from alternate timelines that rewrite what the FR designers have created. I believe if WotC has any issue- it would be with things such as this.
Hmmm. What's the difference between welcoming older lore from staying away from alternate timelines? That seems contradictory. Wouldn't creating older lore for the Compendium and those interested in such lore automatically be creating an alternate timeline?
I'm also curious as to why? If lore for lore's sake is written with the intent to offer alternatives for individual DMs to use or not use, how would that differ in any way from, say, new spells that fans create for each other? I thought that's what sites like this one were for. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 23:33:20
neutral as long as it doesnt go against the grand history of the Realms.
|
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 22:09:44
Aye, being NEUTRAL by all accounts meaning choosing no one time/era to write about. Being neutral to me means that I can write about any time...without considering that the "future" has already happened. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 21:37:07
It doesn't sound very "edition neutral" to deny that certain RSE's took place. That sounds edition-negative.
One could write a tale set in at a past time before the RSE took place, which does not mention the RSE--yet. But passively failing to acknowledge is not the same thing as actively denying. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 20:15:51
How about we just write what we want as long as it is based on the edition we want to use?
Why can't we do that?
Write lore...scratch mechanics...and simply write.
Just because most American Christians go by the King James organization of the Bible, doesn't mean that an American Historian would even get that the Book of Revelations should be placed in the back of the book instead of listed in chronological order...this just being an example of how the real world is...and so why can't the Realms be the same?
I see no reason why Jorkens can't write about the Forgotten Realms any way he sees fit I guess is what I'm saying. Write what you feel would be interesting, and let others decide if they want to use what you have presented.
There is no true need for the LORE to be about a particular edition; just don't worry about mechanics.
I don't see a problem with a Forgotten Realms Apocrypha being done.
On top of that, we could have Edition Chapters of the book.
Anyone wanting to write for 1st Edition, simply place your writing (mechanics and all) in that chapter. Then for the 2nd and so forth.
Little reason for a hold up or even debate on what edition we should use, or even if it does contradict later lore if you are only writing based on things "as they were at the time" so to speak.
It's what I do. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 16:49:43
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
it was edition neutral as long as it did not go against canon, that means you could write up a module, of a group of pcs attempting doing just about anything, you just can do it and ahve them twart mystra's fatal spanking
And, thus, Jorkens would be cut out.
To put it in a rough context (and please, correct me if I'm wrong):
1st Edition: pre-Time of Troubles
2nd Edition: pre-Return of Shade
3rd Edition: pre-Spellplague
So, if it's truly edition-neutral by Jorkens' definition, a 1st edition fan could come in and write an article where the Tablets of Fate were never stolen, a 2nd-Edition fan could say that Shade never returned and a 3rd edition fan could kvetch like me and Jakk...
Or simply write before these actions happened, but it goes deeper than that to. What about information on cultures/history given later in the editions? The large events are really the main focuses when talking about the difference between editions, but the product differences can be just as major.
I am not making any comments on quality or like/dislike here, I am just showing a couple of examples. A 1ed. writer is not writing about Amn with Steven's work on the empire Shoon in the background and a 2ed. article on the Shining South can pretty much design Halruaa as he sees fit, as the 3ed. version, with the heavy input from the Counsellors and Kings is not part of that editions lore.
And to make it even worse, how about the mess of The Brotherhood of the Arcane. I never got the Volo guide version to fit that well with the Salvatore version, so even within 2ed. it would be a matter of choice. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 16:32:11
...heck, if I were given that kind of opportunity, I'd probably just settle for all of the above. No ToT, no Shade returning (although I'd probably still have that happen, just in vastly different circumstances), and the Spellplague... well, anyone who's read my scroll knows what I'd do there... 
Ashe? I didn't see you cast Summon Troll this time... maybe that means I'm a major demon... you spoke my name, and...
And yes, Ashe, that's how I delimit the editions. I'm actually less a fan of 3E than I am of 1E and 2E, but the cartography got steadily more attractive through the first three editions... if they hadn't shrunk the world in 3E, and if they'd explored more of it... extending the map to the east would have been brilliant... 
Seriously: If I were given the opportunity to do whatever I wanted with the Realms as a publisher, I'd roll it right back to Ed's original, but with the Torilian world map as outlined in the 3E FRCS (keeping pre-3E distances and scaling), and go from there. There would be a new regional supplement every other month until Faerun was fleshed out (providing adventure hooks and lore, not big-NPC stats), then proceed in order to the Hordelands, Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Anchorome (the islands; the continent north of Maztica would still exist, and that would be detailed next), the isthmus formerly known as Maztica, Katashaka, and (of course) Laerakond (the addition of which would be the biggest RSE in the "modern" Realms).
Then, once we have a baseline for the world, release periodic supplements that advance the timeline by region, covering major events. All RSEs will remain in the past; as has already been mentioned, this was something that was done well with Greyhawk, at least up until Greyhawk Wars... 
Re: Jorkens' earlier post: I'm not sure that it's possible to call a project "edition-neutral" if it needs to be compatible with current lore; the RSEs (particularly the ToT and the Spellplague) have entangled major lore with mechanics so completely that any attempt to be consistent with major lore automatically associates with the edition that lore is from.  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 15:38:32
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
it was edition neutral as long as it did not go against canon, that means you could write up a module, of a group of pcs attempting doing just about anything, you just can do it and ahve them twart mystra's fatal spanking
And, thus, Jorkens would be cut out.
To put it in a rough context (and please, correct me if I'm wrong):
1st Edition: pre-Time of Troubles
2nd Edition: pre-Return of Shade
3rd Edition: pre-Spellplague
So, if it's truly edition-neutral by Jorkens' definition, a 1st edition fan could come in and write an article where the Tablets of Fate were never stolen, a 2nd-Edition fan could say that Shade never returned and a 3rd edition fan could kvetch like me and Jakk... |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 14:23:20
it was edition neutral as long as it did not go against canon, that means you could write up a module, of a group of pcs attempting doing just about anything, you just can do it and ahve them twart mystra's fatal spanking |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 11:54:51
quote:
Originally posted by Cleric Generic
As I understand it, 'neutral' in this context means that you can submit material from any edition (that is setting version or rules wise) provided. As for contradiction of lore, there are a lot of very knowledgeable and helpful sages lurking around here, so if anyone's not all that familiar with one edition's lore, I'm sure we can all give each other a hand with that.
Hopefully that's a vaguely useful answer.
I think you misunderstand me a bit here. And I am talking for my own part here. Its more a case of not wanting to use 3.5 lore. I read it and didn't like it. When I say edition neutral lore-wize I mean that what happens after that specific edition you are not using is not part of the big picture and not part of the background for the writing. If you only go by 2ed. lore you will probably contradict things from 3ed. and willingly. If you clear up these things and bring it up to date with 3.5 lore its no longer neutral where lore is concerned. There is a tendency to look at things from a Pre- Spellplague /post-Spellplague viewpoint, but one could just as well talk about changes made (mostly filling out details) between editions where areas like The Shining South or Empires of Sands are concerned. Take halflings or gnomes for example; if I described them as hairy-footed and big-nosed I would go against the 3ed. canon, but would be within my right from a 2ed. perspective; if the lore is edition neutral that is. Or I could say that the Uthgard were not Ed's, nor were they part of the Grey box or Waterdeep and the North, and I go by the earliest products; would I have to include them in an article set in the North or could I refer to the Snowcat tribe, which is only mentioned in Waterdeep, instead?
I am rambling a bit here, I know, but as long as the term is used it would be useful to get a clearer definition. I can see the point if its desirable to have the product being up-to-date, but that's not the same as edition neutral in my opinion.
If I post here at the forums or at the main site I know that I am free to write it how I want and these are edition neutral areas. At the same time Matt called the project edition neutral, but (as I understood him)with up-to-date lore. Same term, but with quite different interpretations.
OK, I will shut up now. |
| Cleric Generic |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 10:20:08
As I understand it, 'neutral' in this context means that you can submit material from any edition (that is setting version or rules wise) provided. As for contradiction of lore, there are a lot of very knowledgeable and helpful sages lurking around here, so if anyone's not all that familiar with one edition's lore, I'm sure we can all give each other a hand with that.
Hopefully that's a vaguely useful answer. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 03 Apr 2010 : 08:59:21
Just one thing that struck me all of a sudden and that is a problem with the word "edition neutral". Now, making the rules neutral is one thing (and mostly of little importance), but each edition also carried with it its own "canon". When I say I am a 1-2 ed. Realms fan I am not talking just about the rules, but also about the information given about the setting. I have as limited a knowledge about the 3ed. lore as I do about the rules of the game, so with a "neutral" Compendium there would have to be some leeway given where the lore was concerned also, if I were to be able to contribute.
In my earlier articles I tried to respect the established rules of the Realms, but I went by the 1ed. and early 2ed. setting, with choices made. The result was mostly canon if you go by the neutral in all forms definition, but completely sidetracked if the idea was a rules-neutral product with up-to-date lore.
In any form I think a Compendium/other Collection should be clear on where it stand on this issue and define the term Neutral. |
|
|
