| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Chyron |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 08:19:29
I need to rant for a minute…so please forgive me… (you may scroll down direct to my questions if you like).
I once posted a question to Sean Reynolds about the book Cloak and Dagger. My query was about the Iron Throne and the fact that none of the major players from the Baldur’s Gate PC game were listed or even mentioned in the Iron Throne listing of that book. In fact nothing of the event or its disruption appeared at all. Mr. Reynolds was kind enough to reply and stated that basically in the games division things are overlooked or flat out changed to try and make an enjoyable game. I thought ok, understandable but considering that the game founded a novel series as well I was really surprised at this knowledgeable nod to the fact the left had doesn’t know (or in this case doesn’t care) what the right hand is doing. I have noticed this becoming the case more and more lately. Anyone played Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance or Hordes of the Underdark? The writers of these games seem to blatantly overlook details that have been clearly put forth in PNP.
Ok, some of you may think…hey! They’re video games and this is PNP, apples and oranges right? But what bugs me is that it was not always like this. Look at the early gold box SSI games. “Pool of Radiance” helped define Phlan, but it did so following what had been previously written about the area in the original Grey Box and added to it. Same for “Curse of the Azure Bonds”. Like Baldur’s Gate all of these were set in the Realms and all had supporting novels come out as well. So why has the writing (or at the very least the research ability) of the writing staff taken on such a lazy attitude towards PNP literature in recent times. And it would seem that the reverse applies now as well as shown by my Iron Throne question. When the realms was still young (by edition standards) the three areas (novels, PNP books, PC games) seemed to take an active interest in remaining true across the board. Now it seems like this is no longer the case and anything goes.
For example: Hordes of the Underdark. Swarms of drow attacking Waterdeep. No mention of Khelban, Laeral, or any of the Lords, let alone the special reserve defenders the city supports. All we are given is a few clumsy guards who seem inept at combating drow and duergar. Now I can understand if a writer misses a small hard to find piece of info on an NPC here or a little known location there…but to me this utter lack of attention shows really poor writing. You don’t have to look far (Citysystem or Waterdeep & North) to find major details such as those I talked about. I they see they can’t really pull off what they want, make it another city, but don’t stomp all over what most players know. And for those gamers who don’t, well they are not like to know the difference between Waterdeep, Baldur’s Gate and the City of Joe Shmoe. Sure I know editions have changed but that’s just crunchie stuff, is does not (or should not) mean such drastic environment changes as well.
Anyway…I have ranted too long…
What I am really interested to know is do DMs consider the events in these PC games (anything with a FR tag on it) to be part of the PNP world and timeline or not? If you take exception to one, then what are your criteria? And how do you explain them off to your players?
|
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Chyron |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 11:21:28
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
First, I doubt anyone's "thumbing their nose" at us. More likely they think they're doing what we want -- after all, we keep buying the stuff, right? 
Master Bookwyrm, your wisdom shows through... In this aspect I must confess I am most guilty |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 10:53:23
First, I doubt anyone's "thumbing their nose" at us. More likely they think they're doing what we want -- after all, we keep buying the stuff, right?
Second, Mr. Greenwood mentioned in his thread that contrary to popular opinion (though I would say "hope" since he deserves it so much) he doesn't get a royalty on everything. He's paid for the work he himself writes, and if he got royalties he wouldn't be working at the library. (Or so he says. I think he likes working at the library more than he's let us know.) |
| Chyron |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 10:40:53
I appreciate your input Kuje31. I apologize to the Sages if I missed a similar post here on the candlekeep boards, it was not intentional. As for WOTC…well, I got my one novel warning so I won’t be back there again. Personally I don’t think I can reasonably discuss the realms without mention of the supporting novels (but that’s just me).
I understand your reasoning behind saying that novels and sourcebooks are canon while games are not. But for me sourcebooks, novels, games….they all have that official FR logo on the box, so officially they all “represent” the realms. But I know we all don’t agree with that and it is obvious that the realms name has become a marketing device more than anything. Just slap the old FR label up there and forget conflicting literature or timelines and loyal players. Somebody somewhere in the WOTC pantheon is giving the OKs for this stuff and at the same time thumbing their nose at the fan base.
I imagine Mr. Greenwood is laughing all the way to the bank (at least I hope he is), but I often wonder what he thinks when he comes across some of this stuff that ignores his early writings.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 10:31:28
The Pools games were certainly cannon, or so far as I can tell without having played them. Curse of the Azure Bonds didn't seem so much, but it didn't actually interfere with anything -- again, so far as I can tell.
Next we have the Beholder trilogy. The first one was . . . plausible. The second one, same. The third . . . well, the third wasn't completely clear, but it seemed like Myth Drannor was cleared of all evil. Which, of course, wasn't and isn't canon. However, overlooking that little detail, nothing was changed that couldn't be changed in an official campaign.
The next one I can speak about is Dungeon Hack. The only reason that one had "The Forgotten Realms" on the cover was for sales; a nice collection of randomly generated dungeon levels, but nowhere did I ever find any mention of the Realms.
And now we get to Menzoberranzan, the first one I played.  Nice game, but hardly canon. It actually had a potential book script there, and I toyed with the idea of writing one. I could think of ways to explain away the inconsistancies, as well as add characterization. The only thing was, you simply can't get around the ending.
Menzo was probably the start of the whole thing. I'm just laying out a guess, but that game was successful, so I think it looked like you didn't need to stay too true for things to go over well. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 May 2004 : 09:08:30
Grin I guess you haven't seen the threads both over here and on the WOTC FR boards (there's one there currently) about this topic.
To me the novels and the sourcebooks are canon and there is overwhelming evidence that makes them so, but the games are a little harder for me to say they are canon, just because as you pointed out the games themselves take a lot of liberties with the setting. |
|
|
