| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 04:22:41
So as not to hijack the Amn/Tethyr thread I thought I'd start up another regarding this topic.
The only positive 'canon' FR lore is found in the official products published by WotC/TSR. Everything else is, not to put too fine a point on it, up for grabs.
As Faraer pointed out there are many recent examples (especially in 3E) where FR Dragon articles have been superseded or ignored by FR designers. Heck, 3E outranks 2E and 1E so that we can have Xara Tantlor of Silverymoon suddenly turn out to be an evil NPC and give Silverymoon a mythal.
I don't speak for WotC and have never claimed to, but just because someone gets something published, that's set in the Realms, doesn't mean that it won't be ignored or superseded by future material when some author/freelancer is asked to write about a topic. Seriously, will the freelancer who ends up doing "Impiltur: The Forgotten Kingdom" in 2008 (and no, this isn't happening - it's an example) going to research all the way back to Dragon #277 and dig up my "Soargar's Legacy" article and incorporate it into his work? Highly doubtful.
The reason Dragon, Dungeon and Polyhedron material can't be considered to be canon is that there is no expectation that future FR authors use these sources when the time comes to do so. Good FR authors (such as Eric Boyd & Thomas Reid of the current crop) will go that bit extra or ask others to do so on their behalf. Mediocre FR authors (such as good old Slade) will come up with a great "idea" and ignore such material or people's work/suggestions (like Slade did when he ignored the notes Ed gave him prior to writing the Netheril boxed set) or think that a Dragon article published 10 years ago means nothing. The "idea" is all.
Hence, at the highest, Dragon material can be considered quasi-canon until ignored, superseded or re-written in a future "official" product.
Long ago, when I was into comics, there was a DC comic line called "All Star Squadron" set in WWII. It was effectively re-writing and adding to the Earth 2 comic books published in the 40s and 50s (old Justice Society of America comics). The process was labelled "retroactive continuity". Everything they wrote had to match what had previously been published and new material had to be moulded around the core old material and old loose ends dealt with by the new stuff.
It was great comic book writing and something that I've always kept in mind when I have had whatever minor input into published FR material. Eric Boyd and his efforts for FR over the years is the embodiment of this concept - but just because he, I and others subscribe to it doesn't mean that it will hold sway - now or in the future.
I know for a fact that Rich Baker is making a sterling effort to keep to what has gone before, but he is also a pragmatist and realises that he has to do what is best to sell FR products. I can assure you, if that means ignoring "Soargar's Legacy" when the time comes, he will do so without batting an eyelid - and won't get a peep out of me. I like to think that my work would be considered and incorporated into future FR products but as the concept of "canon" stretches more and more, and there is a greater amount and type of material to consider when writing something "definitive" on an FR topic, there will come a time when the FR designers will have to simply say, "No, we're going with this ..." and whether it's been published in Dragon, Polyhedron or National Geographic won't make a lick of difference.
-- George Krashos
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 16 Jun 2004 : 17:06:05
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
My big problem with the whole BG series was the Iron Throne and is takeover by Sarevok. Supposed top level members were replaced by doppelgangers and not a single mention of any of that in the 2E Cloak and Dagger or 3E Lords of Darkness. Let¡¦s not even get into the events at Candlekeep.
If they did not want to make it Official, why use an officially published organization? They could just have easily made it Joe's Trading Guild. You see Realms RPG Fans will know the Iron Throne, non gamers will not, so to them it is not a significant name regardless. But in choosing a 'canon' based name then not placing the events within the sourcebook then the rest of us are left with no choice but to whine and look on dumbstruck at the lack of coordination among departments. Maybe I am making mountains out of molehills, but continuity has always been an important issue to fans of any subject be it film, TV shows, novels, etc. Sure we are all smart enough to resolve the problem ourselves..."ok, this guy was actually here, at this time, and this happened here, etc" but when we are paying good money for sourcebooks, books, and games, I think we all feel frustrated to find such blatant errors among products that all bear the Forgotten Realms label. 
Perhaps the realms have grown too large over the years with too many authors wanting to make their own significant mark on the world. Perhaps too this is one of the major reasons for the big push of products for Eberron. It must be very attractive to WOTC to start with a clean slate with no "eddtional" baggage. 
I agree with a lot of what you said.
However, I think one of the strengths of the Realms is its vastness - and the willingness of the masses (i.e. the editiors, including Ed, and us) to incorporate and work around discrepencies.
For example - with the Iron Throne's role in BG, as no specific mention was made of the NPC leaders, just assume that it was a lot of lower-hierarchy leader-types replaced - and Sarevok's whirlwind rule was allowed to happen because Sfira was busy dealing with scout's of her father (see LoD) and wanted to wait and see how things panned out. Or something like that. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 16 Jun 2004 : 05:26:17
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
but when we are paying good money for sourcebooks, books, and games, I think we all feel frustrated to find such blatant errors among products that all bear the Forgotten Realms label.
Well said!  |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 16 Jun 2004 : 04:37:43
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
Perhaps the realms have grown too large over the years with too many authors wanting to make their own significant mark on the world.
Last time I checked that's why there was something called an editor and a fiction department to handle such circumstances. I don't think instances where there are conflicts in canon are examples of the Realms being too large. Rather, I think it's an example of a lack of communication on one or many levels.
quote:
Perhaps too this is one of the major reasons for the big push of products for Eberron. It must be very attractive to WOTC to start with a clean slate with no ¡§eddtional¡¨ baggage.
Good joke. There is a reason for the big Eberron push, but I think it's safe to say that's not the reason. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 16 Jun 2004 : 03:46:52
My big problem with the whole BG series was the Iron Throne and is takeover by Sarevok. Supposed top level members were replaced by doppelgangers and not a single mention of any of that in the 2E Cloak and Dagger or 3E Lords of Darkness. Let¡¦s not even get into the events at Candlekeep.
If they did not want to make it Official, why use an officially published organization? They could just have easily made it Joe's Trading Guild. You see Realms RPG Fans will know the Iron Throne, non gamers will not, so to them it is not a significant name regardless. But in choosing a 'canon' based name then not placing the events within the sourcebook then the rest of us are left with no choice but to whine and look on dumbstruck at the lack of coordination among departments. Maybe I am making mountains out of molehills, but continuity has always been an important issue to fans of any subject be it film, TV shows, novels, etc. Sure we are all smart enough to resolve the problem ourselves..."ok, this guy was actually here, at this time, and this happened here, etc" but when we are paying good money for sourcebooks, books, and games, I think we all feel frustrated to find such blatant errors among products that all bear the Forgotten Realms label.
Perhaps the realms have grown too large over the years with too many authors wanting to make their own significant mark on the world. Perhaps too this is one of the major reasons for the big push of products for Eberron. It must be very attractive to WOTC to start with a clean slate with no "eddtional" baggage. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 16 Jun 2004 : 00:06:58
quote:
Originally posted by Sarelle
It only features two books, though, and if ToB was released in 2001, then the BGII mentioned it SoA:
Baldur's Gate II Philip Athans 2000 1369 1369 Interplay Computer Game tie-in
Baldur's Gate Philip Athans 1999 1368 1368 Interplay Computer Game tie-in
But if it mentions the date in the Throne of Bhaal novel - meh! Just shows, once again, that I should buy more FR books before I start getting all Fr loremaster-y. 
Certainly, I didn't know that Adrian abdicated and that takes away the most dangerously un-seating aspect of the novel.
Well I was assuming the last novel took place right after the 1369 one, but could be wrong there. However, yes Bhaal's essance was scattered, so Adrian no longer had the powers of a Bhaalspawn and he never became a deity. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 23:27:15
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Well see this is the problem because according to the timeline on the WOTC site it lists them as taking place in 1368 and 1369 and in the novels themselves it says they also take place in 1368/1369. However, Adrian gave up his deity status at the end of the novels, so there is no reason to believe he is a deity. Bhaal's essance was taken from him and he returned to Faerun as a normal mortal.
And hogwash is the closest thing I can say publically on the boards without getting yelled at. :)
It only features two books, though, and if ToB was released in 2001, then the BGII mentioned it SoA:
Baldur's Gate II Philip Athans 2000 1369 1369 Interplay Computer Game tie-in
Baldur's Gate Philip Athans 1999 1368 1368 Interplay Computer Game tie-in
But if it mentions the date in the Throne of Bhaal novel - meh! Just shows, once again, that I should buy more FR books before I start getting all Fr loremaster-y.
Certainly, I didn't know that Adrian abdicated and that takes away the most dangerously un-seating aspect of the novel. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 22:24:43
quote:
Originally posted by Sarelle
Does no one ever listen to me?
I've said many times before, that the events in the novel of BGII:ToB can be explained by them having not happened yet. Afterall, the Double Diamond saga is set in 1377, I believe. Indications that it hasn't happened yet: Saradush has not been detailed as being partially destroyed (as you said), Bhaalspawn war not really mentioned, risen deity, IT NOT FEATURING IN THE TIMELINE, UNLIKE BG and BGII:SoA. As a novel it is canon, so either you can say it hasn't happened yet, or you can say it has - and explain the events away individually (Saradush was given aid, and has begun to recover quite well; the Bhaalspawn war was insulated and didn't affect the sword coast as much as it affected one another; Adrian is not truly a deity yet for some reason).
Either way, I feel that stating 'novels aren't canon' is incredibly harsh on the authors who put so much time and effort into researching and writing them (I'm pretty sure Ms. Cunningham, Mr. Salvatore, Ms. Whitney-Robinson and co. would be displeased to hear that the details in their novels not mentioned in other sourcebooks are not actually canon).
Kuje - I notice you say 'hogwash' a lot! How very Victorian England of you. 
Well see this is the problem because according to the timeline on the WOTC site it lists them as taking place in 1368 and 1369 and in the novels themselves it says they also take place in 1368/1369. However, Adrian gave up his deity status at the end of the novels, so there is no reason to believe he is a deity. Bhaal's essance was taken from him and he returned to Faerun as a normal mortal.
And hogwash is the closest thing I can say publically on the boards without getting yelled at. :) |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 21:49:17
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
What Wizards says and what Wizards does are 2 different things
To bring up our old arguement "Are the BG games Canon?" Wizards says they are Canon but if there Canon why arent the events in the BG series covered in the RPG side? Why isnt Saradush destroyed (it isnt even an option in he game it is 100% guarranteed that the Fire Giant Bhaalspawn will destroy the city with his army)
Does no one ever listen to me?
I've said many times before, that the events in the novel of BGII:ToB can be explained by them having not happened yet. Afterall, the Double Diamond saga is set in 1377, I believe. Indications that it hasn't happened yet: Saradush has not been detailed as being partially destroyed (as you said), Bhaalspawn war not really mentioned, risen deity, IT NOT FEATURING IN THE TIMELINE, UNLIKE BG and BGII:SoA. As a novel it is canon, so either you can say it hasn't happened yet, or you can say it has - and explain the events away individually (Saradush was given aid, and has begun to recover quite well; the Bhaalspawn war was insulated and didn't affect the sword coast as much as it affected one another; Adrian is not truly a deity yet for some reason).
Either way, I feel that stating 'novels aren't canon' is incredibly harsh on the authors who put so much time and effort into researching and writing them (I'm pretty sure Ms. Cunningham, Mr. Salvatore, Ms. Whitney-Robinson and co. would be displeased to hear that the details in their novels not mentioned in other sourcebooks are not actually canon).
Kuje - I notice you say 'hogwash' a lot! How very Victorian England of you. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 18:03:24
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
If you mean Eilistraee, no, we haven't. Thus, me clinging to my hope/belief regarding the WOTSQ series. I feel like Linus.
I think your post highlights the biggest problem when it comes to canon and 3.0/3.5 products, a lack of explanation or silly ones when such is provided. Take for example, the reason given for changing canon on drow skin color. 
No I don't just mean Eilistraee. I mean ALL of the planes. :) Going back through Ed's sourcebooks there are clear references he makes to planes that no longer exist, like the Beastlands. If by his contract WOTC cannot change canon without giving a ingame explanation, then the new planes should not be canon, since we have yet to see a ingame explaination. Ditto on the drow skin tones, no ingame explaination.
"What I can say is that, although gamers and fans hold many different personal positions on what is and what is not canon, the original Realms agreement is pretty clear on this: anything I write or say about the Realms IS official canon (hmm, sounds almost papal, doesn’t it?), although future in-print products can “fix” things I write or say and then the revision becomes canon, AS LONG AS it’s an in-the-Realms explanation. (To make up a hypothetical but entirely fictitious example, if a BATTLESYSTEM --remember that? -- product came out that changed the class and stats of an established Realms character, that alteration would NOT be a canon change, because it’s a rules sytem detail that can be ascribed as being unique to BATTLESYSTEM: “Well, in your AD&D game King Thog is still a 7th level barbarian, but in BATTLESYSTEM terms, he’s a YY” UNLESS the BATTLESYSTEM product stated that King Thog was transformed by a god into a YY.)"
See what I'm saying there?
As I said I can over look the Mythal because 1) Ed's name is on the 3e sourcebook and 2) he wrote back in 2e that it was rumored to exist. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 17:51:36
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Well so much for Ed's contract, since he said back in 2e that they are ONLY ebony, in Drow of the Underdark. So another change WOTC made without an explaination, and now that that has been brought up, did we get one for the planes? I don't believe we have.
If you mean Eilistraee, no, we haven't. Thus, me clinging to my hope/belief regarding the WOTSQ series. I feel like Linus.
I think your post highlights the biggest problem when it comes to canon and 3.0/3.5 products, a lack of explanation or silly ones when such is provided. Take for example, the reason given for changing canon on drow skin color. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 17:50:25
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Yes, for example, how do you deal with the fact a certain dancing Goddess now resides in Arvandor? That development is something a DM of any homebrew FR campaign might wish to know no matter his/her view on canon.
I don't. :) Since I burned the Tree to the ground and keep my beloved Wheel/Ring. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 17:46:45
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
The only difference I see and this is pure personal opinion, is a magazine/web article has a smaller audience than a gaming sourcebook. I'm not saying this should or should not make a difference. However, I think WOTC would hesitate less in changing something that is canon and has only appeared in a magazine/web article versus something that has appeared in a gaming sourcebook.
Again, only a personal opinion.
True, but WOTC has shown over and over that they DO NOT hesitate to change material from one 3/3.5e sourcebook to the next. Must I bring up the drow skin tones that, up to, Underdark were always ebony. This includes the FRCS, Races of Faerun, both 3 and 3.5'S Monster Manual, and probably another source or two I'm forgetting. Then Underdark came out and BAM now they are not just ebony, but they have two NEW skin tones.
Well so much for Ed's contract, since he said back in 2e that they are ONLY ebony, in Drow of the Underdark. So another change WOTC made without an ingame explaination, and now that that has been brought up, did we get an ingame explaination for the planes? I don't believe we have.
The Mythal of Silverymoon I can overlook because he wrote back in 2e that it was rumored to exist. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 17:43:05
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Same here on how my version is so different, but I still keep track of the changes WOTC does so I can decide what to add into my canon version. But the different lack of continuity also bother me to no end as well.
Yes, for example, how do you deal with the fact a certain dancing Goddess now resides in Arvandor? That development is something a DM of any homebrew FR campaign might wish to know no matter his/her view on canon.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 17:40:37
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
And no one has answered my question still. How is changing what is in a canon magazine or web article any different then changing what is in a canon sourcebook?
The only difference I see and this is pure personal opinion, is a magazine/web article has a smaller audience than a gaming sourcebook. I'm not saying this should or should not make a difference. However, I think WOTC would hesitate less in changing something that is canon and has only appeared in a magazine/web article versus something that has appeared in a gaming sourcebook.
Again, only a personal opinion. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 17:40:35
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Yeah, I'm at the point where a lack of continuity does annoy the heck out of me. However, my Realms is so different at this point, it simply means sometimes I won't be keeping a FR product I purchase.
Same here on how my version is so different, but I still keep track of the changes WOTC does so I can decide what to add into my canon version. But the different lack of continuity also bother me to no end as well.
However I assumed, as usual, that we were discussion TSR/WOTC's official canon version and how the material from other sources affect that version. :) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 17:35:49
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Secondly, I actually agree with Kuje (believe it or not) that everything should be canon - Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron, novels - even all the hideous computer games. But the problem is that too much FR design work in non-core areas (ala the computer games) is done in a vacuum. Their stuff revolves around creative decisions that are not rooted in the FR firmament or in FR continuity. WotC/TSR, in trying to run a successful and profitable business, keeps going to the well - if little Joe loved playing BG he'll probably buy a novel on the computer game. If he sees his computer game featured in Dragon magazine, he'll likely buy an issue which might make him buy another novel or game product or a million HASBRO shares - well, you get the idea.
-- George Krashos
Not should be canon, they are canon according to WOTC and even TSR because TSR used to use them to print official canon rules, as well as official canon FR articles.
And no one has answered my question still. How is changing what is in a canon magazine or web article any different then changing what is in a canon sourcebook?
There is no quasi-canon, either it is or it is not and clearly by WOTC and TSR they believe it is, unless they specificallhy say, like the Double Diamond books, that that material is not. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 16:09:09
quote:
Originally posted by Fireheart
Sorry, I meant general consensus of the people on the board. I was getting that impression from the conversation. I should have been clearer. My apologies.
No need to apologize. A General consenus from this board? That might be possible.
quote:
Thanks all for the clarification. I think I'll have to go with SiriusBlack and Chyron...decide how to deal with it within my game and go from there.
Yeah, I'm at the point where a lack of continuity does annoy the heck out of me. However, my Realms is so different at this point, it simply means sometimes I won't be keeping a FR product I purchase. |
| Fireheart |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 15:54:52
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
General consensus of who? Fans? WOTC? If the former, you'll never get a consensus in my opinion. If the latter, I think, with all due respect to everyone involved, it's safe to say that if Ed Greenwood say something in his thread, WOTC doesn't automatically hold that to be canon.
Sorry, I meant general consensus of the people on the board. I was getting that impression from the conversation. I should have been clearer. My apologies.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Fireheart, 'canon' actually has two often-conflated senses. The theoretical sense is the information that's authoritative and 'true' if we imagine the Realms is a real place. (What sources are authoritative is a subjective and somewhat philosophical question.) The practical sense is the body of lore that we can expect Wizards (or other publishers) not to contradict in the future. As has been discussed, this is fuzzy, and magazine and web articles and Ed's postings are more likely to be contradicted than, for sure, recent sourcebooks -- but as Ed has said, they're to be taken as canon unless contradicted, and if they do get contradicted through carelessness then Wizards is not honouring the spirit of their agreement with Ed.
Thanks. I guess I was going more with the second version. Understanding that changes made in the future can change what was considered canon in the past.
Thanks all for the clarification. I think I'll have to go with SiriusBlack and Chyron...decide how to deal with it within my game and go from there.
Thanks.
~Fireheart |
| Faraer |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 15:37:56
If only inviolable stuff is full canon then almost everything is provisional canon. (Yes, a later author is more likely to try to reconcile a recent sourcebook with an older sourcebook than with an article, but that relative nuance doesn't persuade me that one is canon and t'other isn't.) And Ed has always made sure to write so that nothing is fully reliable Truth. If someone asks a lore question and I cite "Soargar's Legacy", or "The Adventures of Volo: Quotations of the Realms", 'But that's not canon' won't be a productive response. It should be understood that an article is not certain to be honoured (though for me, it's the authority of the new sourcebook that loses if it doesn't bother to): but pragmatically, labelling the articles non-canon or quasi-canon is going to decrease respect for older lore. The label 'qualified canon' -- canon but subject to revision -- is descriptive and hard to object to. It makes particularly little sense to consider lore of the 'probably won't be contradicted even if the new author doesn't know about it' type as anything other than canonical (again with the understanding that everything is non-absolute and subject to unreliable narration).
As for the games, though I've argued against the 'everyone knows' assumption that they're not canon, I don't think they should be, not because of the medium per se but just because they're not much in the spirit of the Realms and shared creation. That, for me, is the crux: the sourcebooks that fail by that standard I ignore and would be happy if WotC did.
Fireheart, 'canon' actually has two often-conflated senses. The theoretical sense is the information that's authoritative and 'true' if we imagine the Realms is a real place. (What sources are authoritative is a subjective and somewhat philosophical question.) The practical sense is the body of lore that we can expect Wizards (or other publishers) not to contradict in the future. As has been discussed, this is fuzzy, and magazine and web articles and Ed's postings are more likely to be contradicted than, for sure, recent sourcebooks -- but as Ed has said, they're to be taken as canon unless contradicted, and if they do get contradicted through carelessness then Wizards is not honouring the spirit of their agreement with Ed. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 15:37:51
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
Another factor that I will add here however is my players. They often dictate what I use as canon in my world.
Yes, to each his/her own campaign is the only way to not get a headache somewhat regarding this issue. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 15:31:37
No you are absolutely right Sirius, I have lived through the decline of one major manufacturing company that suffered largely as a result of that very problem. I guess WOTC is larger than TSR in terms of things on their plate and I do forget that at times.
Another factor that I will add here however is my players. They often dictate what I use as canon in my world. A few of my players are CRPG gamers while another is an avid reader. I can use the BG/NWN storyline as background material because they can respond to it¡K.They might hear someone discussing the Iron Throne being rumored to be overrun by Shapeshifters or about a deadly plague in the north and I know it will spark some role-playing among them, etc¡K. The realms has lots of sourcebook canon material which I never ever get to¡K.and I have complete sets of Al-qadim, Hordelands, Maztica, Kara-tur which I have yet to use in any depth as my players prefer to stay in the ¡§more well known regions¡¨¡K.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 15:26:38
quote:
Originally posted by Fireheart
I thought 'canon' was considered to be that which is officially published by WOTC or given the appropriate nod (aka, Dragon or the novels) or what Ed says? Is this the general consensus?
General consensus of who? Fans? WOTC? If the former, you'll never get a consensus in my opinion. If the latter, I think, with all due respect to everyone involved, it's safe to say that if Ed Greenwood say something in his thread, WOTC doesn't automatically hold that to be canon. |
| Fireheart |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 15:18:10
Help!! In desperate need of clarification...I'm confused. (Now, remember I'm a newbie to FR but not to gaming!)
I thought 'canon' was considered to be that which is officially published by WOTC or given the appropriate nod (aka, Dragon or the novels) or what Ed says? Is this the general consensus?
What I am reading George (and in Ed's comment) say (and I apologize if this is wrong) is that if something FR is published in one of those sources, it's considered canon UNTIL someone else comes around and changes it - preferably giving an FR reason for it.
I may be confused but I don't think George and Kuje are really areguing different points just different timelines. It's canon until it get's changed, then the new canon takes over.
Does that make sense? Or am I completely missing the actually argument?
~Fireheart
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 14:13:20
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
For me, as has been posted by some others, the big issue is not, whether or not this mag, or that book, or these games are canon... but rather how can the company behind the game world continues to run under a policy where the left hand does not know (or care) what the right hand is doing. I don’t know where the fault lies, (only an insider could say) but it's either lazy writing or poor management of a cross platform product that is at the core of all this “Canon: To be or not to be” debating.
In their defense, sort of, if there is a lack of communication, as your post alludes to above, then WOTC will not be the only company in the history of the world to suffer from this. In fact, IMNSHO, it's something that plagues many companies in many fields. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 14:11:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's all about consistency. Any shared world suffers when there is a lack of consistency. If the publishers want to ruin their cash cow, sure, don't worry about the inconsistencies. If they want it to be around for a long time and remain profitable, then they need to keep things straight.
Unless the company believes that dedicated fans will purchase future products no matter what amount of inconsistencies exist with previous canon. |
| Tethtoril |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 11:18:48
 Leave for a few hours come back to an intense conversation on yet another topic that has no end. 
I am not locking this away as of this moment as I believe the individuals in the discussion are well aware there is no end to the topic and will allow this to be one of those "we agree to disagree" items.
However if this does not wind down and continues in this fashion I will return and clamp this scroll into the vaults.
As Elminster is so fond of stating: "Ye have been warned." |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 10:47:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Until Paizo came along, Dragon was published by TSR/WotC. And they used it as a vehicle to either interest us in particular game worlds and their products, or to share with us more info about those worlds and products. How can that not be canon? Or should the magazine not be canon because some hypothetical writer is too lazy to do proper research, and WotC doesn't care enough about the fans to keep things straight?
Firstly, I didn't intend this thread to be a bash of WotC/TSR, so it really shouldn't be heading in that direction.
Secondly, I actually agree with Kuje (believe it or not) that everything should be canon - Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron, novels - even all the hideous computer games. But the problem is that too much FR design work in non-core areas (ala the computer games) is done in a vacuum. Their stuff revolves around creative decisions that are not rooted in the FR firmament or in FR continuity. WotC/TSR, in trying to run a successful and profitable business, keeps going to the well - if little Joe loved playing BG he'll probably buy a novel on the computer game. If he sees his computer game featured in Dragon magazine, he'll likely buy an issue which might make him buy another novel or game product or a million HASBRO shares - well, you get the idea.
I personally think that WotC isn't tough enough on Bioware and other game companies regarding FR computer games. They don't vet them as they would a gaming product or novel. Why? Well, who knows. Perhaps because they know that when it comes to writing up a future gaming product or novel not directly linked with the computer game that they are simply going to ignore it. I'd bet anything that if we got another "North" boxed set or "Lands of Intrigue" that neither would reference or include material from BG or NWN. And, IMHO, they would be the poorer if they did.
I admire Kuje's zeal and passion for including everything that is produced with the FR moniker on it as "canon". However, I'll tell him straight out - from hard experience - that decisions regarding integrating creativity with previous material is hard enough as it is when focusing on gaming products dating back to 1987, without having to include "everything". Sometimes it's just not 'do-able' - especially when you have outlier 'canon' sources such as Dragon or computer games that don't fit snugly into 'what has gone before'.
That's why I believe in "qualified canon": if I can fit it in, no matter the source, it's good. If I can't then I have to explain why I can't and go with what does fit. If Kuje doesn't believe me, he can provide me with his idea of how the Fallen Kingdom fits into the history of the Realms and in doing so reconcile all the FR sources he considers so dear to "canon". That's not being nasty or arrogant - it's being pragmatic.
Hats off to you, Kuje. You remind me of me - 10 years ago.
-- George Krashos
|
| George Krashos |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 10:19:59
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
[quote]
Again any one who wants to write to WOTC will recieve the same answer. BOTH magazines are official canon lore for the core setting, the planes, FR, Planescape, Dark Sun, Zakhara, Maztica, etc.
I don't necessarily agree with this point but I think it's moot anyway - I know for a fact that Dragon is not interested in FR-based articles.
-- George Krashos
|
| Chyron |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 08:40:28
For me, as has been posted by some others, the big issue is not, whether or not this mag, or that book, or these games are canon... but rather how can the company behind the game world continues to run under a policy where the left hand does not know (or care) what the right hand is doing. I don’t know where the fault lies, (only an insider could say) but it's either lazy writing or poor management of a cross platform product that is at the core of all this “Canon: To be or not to be” debating. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 08:20:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Until Paizo came along, Dragon was published by TSR/WotC. And they used it as a vehicle to either interest us in particular game worlds and their products, or to share with us more info about those worlds and products. How can that not be canon?
This is partly what I'm wondering. How can someone claim that when it was produced by TSR/WOTC that it was not canon... It just really stretches my suspension of belief and makes absolutely no sense to me. |
|
|
