| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 12 Jan 2005 : 23:33:17
This was recently posted on the 'Boards That Shall Not Be Named' in terms of a Q&A with Rich Baker:
Q. Should everything that Ed writes down and publishes (even if "published" means "posted on an internet forum") be considered canonical? I am not a canon freak by any means of that word, but this is important for the sake of arguments. What if you (or any other FR designer) wrote something that contradicted something Ed wrote? Does Ed have to coordinate his writings with R&D?
A. Is everything Ed says canon? No. Canon is the assemblage of information in the current edition of the rulebooks. Beyond that is a much larger sphere of "we thinks" and "when we get tos" in which Ed's never-ending font of creative energy is quite prominent. For example, if Ed writes a couple of thousand words on Rethmar in the course of a bunch of posts to a message board, it's as good as anything until something else gets into print. In a perfect world, we'd know all about Ed's previous speculation on the topic and make sure it was part and parcel of any other designer's work on that city. Sometimes, it doesn't work out that way. Ed doesn't monitor all RPGs, novels, and PC games being worked on, and we don't keep track of everything he says. Heck, I don't *want* to. I don't want Ed to have to be afraid to speak from the heart about anything he cares to talk about, and I don't want to have to approve what he says before it goes in the public eye. Seems like that would make us both miserable.
In any event, I'm not sure that the whole concept of canon is worth the fuss we seem to invest in it. If something isn't in print, I don't treat it as canon. Even then, I'm willing to "evolve" canon when the situation calls for it (for instance, an edition shift in the D&D game). I know that some fans don't like that, but that's the way the business works.
Interesting, no?
-- George Krashos
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Faraer |
Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 11:48:22
Maybe half circle.
Maybe the explanation for Xara Tantlor is that she woke up on the wrong side of the bed in the morning.
I've already argued that the 3E changes to the Realms aren't significant in a discussion with Jim Lowder, and have decided that I don't have to do it again for at least a year. Some of the same as what George has said.
As a drill, I will now use the word """""""""*****""""""""", but only with a lot of protection. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 00:24:06
You're correct that there have been changes to the Realms in the transition from 2E to 3E, but what we are discussing here is using events in the Realms to describe changes in the D&D game rules - like the ToT did for the 1E to 2E changes.
The examples you cite (Threat from the Sea and Return of the Archwizards stuff) were driven by the FR fiction crew, not the change from 2E to 3E. Threat from the Sea wasn't much of a Realms-changing event anyway (although it was pretty big in Seros) and occurred before the advent of 3E.
The return of Shade is a one I'm not sure on: as in, it's a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum. Did the change to the rules in 3E bring about the Shadow Weave, Shade, Netherese-refugees plot thread, or did the edition change give designers a bit of free rein to make changes to the Realms because they now had a vehicle (the FRCS) to do so? The answer might be "yes" and "yes", but we'll probably never know.
And as noted before, the only thing that changed regarding NPCs from edition to edition were their game stats. To me that's like giving your house a new coat of paint in a different colour. Sure it looks different, but it's still the same house. Oh, and I can't recall if any cultures of the Realms changed from edition to edition - although Eric's sterling efforts gave a heck of a lot more info and meat regarding the humans of Faerun in 3E. But again, that had nothing to do with rule changes.
As for the "crunch" v. "fluff" debate, I think the wheel is coming fll circle now.
-- George Krashos
|
| Haman |
Posted - 07 Mar 2005 : 20:04:57
Hey all,
Okay, I could be gettin over my head in all of this, but I can't resist threads of this nature. It's not that "Most Dangerous Man in Faerun" isn't interesting, just not my cup of tea, I'm more of the lore gathering/analyzing data sorta guy. And with that, on to my 'opinion' (and believe me, I use that word as loose as possible, I mean I have most every book put out by FR, just haven't read them in much detail as I've seen from some of you guys, bravo for that by the way!).
quote:
The Realms didn't change at all from 1E through to 2E through to 3E.
Sure they did, and they were purposly changed to conform to the new editions, not just the system, but the world, NPC's, cultures, you name it. I am loathe to do it, but I gotta pull out the "Because Ed Greenwood told me so" card, once when we were chatting up in Ontario. And when the creator for the Realms tells you that it has changed, I tend to just nod my head and say "okay".
From 1st to 2nd, we saw the Time of Troubles that was intentionally devised to herald in 2nd edition. Psionics was officially out, All of the assassins were gone, Bardic magic was completely altered (which led to the final demise of I think two of the past infamous Barding colleges), so that it was basically just arcane magic. The Chosen truly came into being, we saw new gods with expanded portfolios and the new process by which the Gods recieved their power and status. And I could go on and on.... Can you really say that these changes did not change the world, it's people, it's culture, it's very existence?
2nd edition to 3rd edition saw the "Threat from the Sea" (Which I was to understand from Greenwood was the true big change, and not the re-entry of Shade), and once again major things rocked the world. The new format that Wizards implemented (making things more "crunchy", and less detailed), completely altered the world as I saw it. No more was there pages and pages of material devoted to weather conditions in the North, and such, but now you got to see Larloch's stats (I still groan at this), the number bonuses to a tiefling instead of what a tiefling really is (it's culture, way of life, etc..), and more time spent on world destruction than world building (Cormyr & Tilverton ravaged, but what happened to the brilliant concept of a new second home for the elves that Cunningham devised?) Gods again start springing up, bards get their magic back, assassins get their cool prestige class, the map is changed, etc....etc... All of these are things that will change the world in staggering ways, the Gods alone swapping in and out would do that!
Please do not think I am slamming WotC for their current view and plan for the Realms, anything that sells more books and keeps it alive I love, and I'll continue buying said books and encourage others to do so. But saying that there haven't been changes to the world between editions is not correct at all in my humble (and probably wrong) opinion.
Thanks for your time, and great thread! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Mar 2005 : 02:41:37
Three points:
1) We do have something we could use to explain dwarven spellcasters: the Thunder Blessing.
2) Steven Schend's changes: The changes Steven wrought were in-game changes, advancement of the overall plot. It wasn't a "hey, I don't like this, so I'm changing it" thing or changes to the characters.
3) Xara Tantlor: Agreed, this is a huge mistake, especially Rich Baker's response of why she was changed: "Silverymoon needed more evil NPCs, so I changed her." Even better than an in-game explanation would have been him taking the time to create a new NPC, but that was apparently too much effort for him.
Yeah, it's not constructive for us to just sit here and complain about changes. But the people making the changes should have more respect for the setting and for us than to make arbitrary and unexplained changes.
As I used to tell my co-workers: Don't give me something to complain about, and I won't complain. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 07 Mar 2005 : 01:20:07
quote:
Originally posted by Realmslore
Ummm George, have you looked at the map of Faerūn lately? The changed made during the transition to 2nd-Edition were a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction left behind in the wake of 3rd-Edition. And those few changes that were made during the Time of Troubles were at least given an in-setting explanation.
Yep, they trimmed the map, chopped out wilderness territory (now someone is going to pipe up and tell me that Erlkazar isn't wilderness but we won't go into that now ...) and made it fit their two-page spread maps in FRCS and other places. And the effect on the FR continuum? Negligible I would say, except for that 0.1 % of DMs who were running a campaign in the area that got chopped. Sure your 2E maps now look different from your 3E maps just like many 1E maps look different to the 2E maps - but I didn't hear anyone complaining back then ...) but if it in any way affects your gaming in the Realms, then fix it! If I had $1 for every retro-fit I've had to do in the Realms to make things quasi-consistent I would have bought the setting from WotC by now.
I know, I know - why should we have to 'fix it'. A valid and worthy point. But not entirely constructive. In fact, not constructive at all. If the FR fans of this world spent as much energy writing up something new and wonderful about the Realms as they do b*&%#ing about Silverymoon's mythal, Larloch's "proper" stats, the changes to the map, the return (or departure) of Bane, the fact that drow now see different in the Realms, the changes to a planar cosmology that shouldn't even affect a campaign set IN the Realms, the fact that dwarves can now cast arcane magic - I could go on and on. We have to deal with the changes and react positively: they're done now. Complaining doesn't help.
quote:
The changes to the geography of Faerūn and the complete abandonment of the Great Wheel are not "wholesale changes to a game setting"? How about the great purging of the monster pantheons? Anyone care to explain to the drow why they are now colorblind?
With all due respect Brian, aside from the geography of Faerun part - which I think isn't as catastrophic as people make it out to be - the problems you mention above are game-related first, Realms-related second. Why does it matter in the Realms that drow are now colorblind? How does the purging of the monster pantheons affect my PC party travelling through Amphail? Does Thorbard the Warrior care that the planes are now tree-shaped instead of wheel-shaped? I don't think so - and neither do many FR DMs. Those with a planar bent and a campaign that was running before the changes might care, but I wouldn't think there are too many of those people out there - if any.
quote:
Did Ptah lead the manifestation of the Mulhorandi pantheon through wildspace or the Astral as 3rd-Edition revisionist history suggests? Does Ptah even exist in 3rd-Edition?
Well Brian, I can't recall you complaining when he started 'existing' in 2E after not 'existing' in the 1E Realms. And again, for the gamers and likely more than a few DMs, the abovementioned points are totally irrelevant to their gaming experience in the Realms.
Of course, people such as you and I who collect, collate and bring together Realms material get lots of headaches, but in this, I think WE are in the minority.
quote:
All these changes have had great impact on the Realms, its people and its history.
All of these changes have had NO impact on the Realms, its people and its history. Gaming stats have not changed who the Simbul is. The fact that she now learns spells differently is a game mechanic (and one that happens off-stage for Ao's sake!) and hasn't got anything to do with the Simbul as a person or construct of the imagination.
3E material that has changed the Forgotten Realms quite simply has to be explained and retro-fitted like it always has been. The shared world part of being involved in the Realms means that changes are inevitable as your or my particular creative vision won't always match up with a designer or writer's vision. People as respected as Steven Schend copped a huge amount of flak for the changes they wrought in "Cloak & Dagger". The evil NPC change re Xara Tantlor in Silverymoon is a classic example. The mistake wasn't that she was suddenly evil, the mistake was that the change wasn't given an in-Realms explanation (i.e she donned a helm of opposite alignment or somesuch).
Changes that affect people, places and history of the Realms (and again with respect, monster pantheons, affairs of gods, wheels and trees, do not count unless they affect Faerun directly in terms of mortal-discernable events) should be explained in the FR products. Changes to game mechanics that change stat-related aspects of people and places do not need an explanation because that's the way it is if you play 3E D&D. If you stick to 1E then your Simbul is different again, as she is when you play 2E. I would argue that the damage done to the Realms by the ToT being a game-related change that was attempted as a Realms-related change, was such that it dissuaded WotC from undertaking such a course of action in the transition from 2E to 3E.
What I'm basically saying in a very convoluted and annoyingly circular way (for which I apologise) is that changes in game mechanics are not a good reason to change information in the Realms that has nothing to do with the game rules. I much prefer the "they were always like that" rationale to the "and a group of renegade High Mages have cast a titanic ritual of myriad that has changed practically everything we knew about the Realms, changed the landscapes, let dwarves cast spells, changed the way drow see, re-shaped the cosmology and ...  ... made the Simbul change the way she learns her spells ..."
Such wholesale changes to the game, if they'd attempted to explain them in-Realms, would have caused more harm than good, IMHO.
-- George Krashos
|
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 19:15:01
My personal favorite is the great "disappearing, reappearing assassin." First they exist, and there are lots of them, and they have secret guilds and training halls. Then comes the ToT, and a pair of uncaring gods kill them all for their own ends. OK so far. But with them goes most of the knowledge of "true assassinhood" if you will, the secrets and techniques that had been honed since the fall of Netheril. Thus an "assassin" is just someone who kills for money, not someone who has had in-depth training in this special art of killing, because everyone who could have provided such training (including their god) is dead.
And then, a decade goes by, and viola, all the assassins are back. How? Uhh, I dunno. There's no one to train them, or to teach them spells, or anything else. Their god is still dead (Baldur's Gate games notwithstanding). And yet, suddenly there are hordes of assassins again. And absolutely no reason behind it, other than the fact 3e wandered along.
Argh! |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 06:19:08
Ummm George, have you looked at the map of Faerūn lately? The changed made during the transition to 2nd-Edition were a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction left behind in the wake of 3rd-Edition. And those few changes that were made during the Time of Troubles were at least given an in-setting explanation.
The changes to the geography of Faerūn and the complete abandonment of the Great Wheel are not "wholesale changes to a game setting"? How about the great purging of the monster pantheons? Anyone care to explain to the drow why they are now colorblind?
Did Ptah lead the manifestation of the Mulhorandi pantheon through wildspace or the Astral as 3rd-Edition revisionist history suggests? Does Ptah even exist in 3rd-Edition?
All these changes have had great impact on the Realms, its people and its history. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 05:43:21
And the rules changes do sometimes affect the characters -- look at sorcerers and wizards. In 2E, if you cast arcane spells, you had to pick them out before hand and then memorize them. Now you can do that or just pick and chose as you cast. So, some characters that we know in the past had to prepare magic one way are now doing it another way, and now any new characters have a way with magic that 2E characters didn't have. Sure, it's a case of the fiction reflecting the rules, but now the rules have changed -- why does the fiction not go into why something that was universal now no longer is?
I'm not big on applying the rules to the fiction... But I do want consistency, and if there is inconsistency, I want it explained. I can ignore things like your Laeral example, but when something basic like methods of spellcasting is changed, it should be explained... Ditto for the case Rinonalyrna Fathomlin pointed out -- someone felt that Silverymoon needed more evil NPCs. Rather than do the right thing and create a new NPC, an existing one was changed with no explanation. That's not being true to the lore...
You also mention changing the landscape, which is something they did do with 3E, again with only a lame explanation...
Let's face it -- despite the love many of us have for the pure flavor and lore present in the Realms, the fact remains that it is a game setting. Of course we're going to look at it with a rules-tinted lens... I'll be the first to say I general ignore things like stat blocks, and I do feel that the rules should reflect the lore and not vice versa. But when a rules change invalidates a previous bit of lore, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know why. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 03:25:55
Hear hear, George. But some of the things we are arguing about *do* have to do with character history rather than rule mechanics. Yes, it really isn't a huge deal what the alignment of a minor NPC in Silverymoon is (or is it?). But what *is* the point of completely changing around the character and making her evil, as opposed to just creating a new character? |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 00:12:41
The Realms didn't change at all from 1E through to 2E through to 3E. The D&D game changed. Whether the Simbul is described as a magic-user, wizard or sorceror, she is still the Simbul. PCs need stats. NPCs (that the PCs will interact with in terms of combat) need stats. Unless your PC group is intending to "take out the Simbul" (as described in the laughable thread on the WotC Boards), what in-game difference do her stats have at all? This can be applied to the Realms as a whole. People get in high dudgeon about the fact that Laeral had a hand in the creation of a mythal for Silverymoon and she doesn't ... *gasp* ... have the Epic Spellcasting Feat. Or that Drizzt Do'Urden's stats don't match his abilities in the novels. Or the NPC X doesn't match the pre-reqs for the PrC class Y which he has 5 levels of, etc. etc. etc.
The trend I'm seeing, especially with 3.X edition is that people aren't seeing the Realms for the Rules. And changing the landscape of the Realms to explain away rules changes is something that I find particularly annoying. The ToT added nothing to the Realms other than headaches. I'm so very glad that 3E didn't see wholesale changes to a game setting just for the sake of explaining stats, feats, PrCs and skills - all of which are incidental to the bedrock of the Realms which is the people, the places, the history and the connecting strands between them ("realmslore").
If the only way you can appreciate the Forgotten Realms is through the oily lens of the contents of the DMG, the PH and the MM then you are missing out on a whole vista of opportunities that require a bit of storytelling and imagination, not a calculator.
-- George Krashos
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 16:37:34
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Good point. Love, hate, or be indifferent to the Time of Troubles, it sure provided a solid, in-game explanation for why all the game-mechanics changed. Not, oh, we needed to change editions, so now the Realms is different, and no, nobody really noticed anything.
Exactly. When the change to 3E happened, the opportunity was there to do something similar with the Shades but it wasn't taken.
Indeed! I wasn't sure how it was going to play out, but as soon as I saw in the previews that Shade was coming back, I figured they'd somehow use that to explain all the changes wrought by 3E. The fact that the trilogy did nothing of the kind, however, was to me a very large missed opportunity. So that trilogy failed on two levels.
As I've said before, I can accept changes in the setting, so long as there's an in-game reason for why it happened. The Return of Shade, for example, have caused some sort of ripple that forever altered the Weave, just a bit, which would explain how sorcerers could suddenly appear. Instead, we got "oh, they've always been around, but no one knew about it."
WotC missed a lot of good opportunities when they decided to transition the Realms to 3E. And now they're unwilling to even admit to making a mistake, much less go back and correct it... |
| Reefy |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 14:17:03
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Good point. Love, hate, or be indifferent to the Time of Troubles, it sure provided a solid, in-game explanation for why all the game-mechanics changed. Not, oh, we needed to change editions, so now the Realms is different, and no, nobody really noticed anything.
Exactly. When the change to 3E happened, the opportunity was there to do something similar with the Shades but it wasn't taken. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 04 Mar 2005 : 22:09:15
Good point. Love, hate, or be indifferent to the Time of Troubles, it sure provided a solid, in-game explanation for why all the game-mechanics changed. Not, oh, we needed to change editions, so now the Realms is different, and no, nobody really noticed anything. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 16 Feb 2005 : 00:03:47
I don't know what's in Ed's WotC contract, but whatever is in there, anything Ed says will take priority (for me) over any other Realms source, period. Ed created the Realms and continues to create it, detail it, and bring it to life, so who else would truly know it as well as he does?
I've mentioned before how I agree that changing Realmslore "just because" is annoying. Why? Because it feels like cheating. If you are going to change something, shouldn't you take the time to come up with plausible reasons for that change? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 18:14:27
Aha, I was looking under 'Feb' rather than 'Jan'.
In Rich's second paragraph, I agree about canon and fuss, and I'm prepared to understand the reasons and even need for retconning, but each change is a choice, not an impersonal 'way the business works' inevitability, and I regret the use of 'evolve', which claims spuriously that the latest official line is fittest to survive, even in quotes. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 17:58:10
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
(I note that the post George quoted does not, just now, seem to exist.)
Yes it does, page 19 on the, "Ask the Game Designers," thread on the main FR boards, near the bottom. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 17:18:08
What usually scuppers discussion of canon is people conflating its metaphysical sense, which is about artistic legitimacy, with its practical sense, which is about what's in the latest books (and what they try not to conflict with).
Seems to me Rich's statement is similar to the way magazine articles are said to be less than entirely canonical, because there's less pressure on new designers to check them. They may not go out of their way to check Ed's posts to REALMS-L, either.
Unfortunately, Rich is *also* conflating the two senses of canon by disrespectfully (perhaps inadvertently) referring to Ed's un-print-published writing as 'speculation'. He's also confusing the situation of which published works are canon by apparently restricting them to 'the rulebooks', meaning presumably the sourcebooks. It does also sound as though he might want to review Ed's contract with TSR, with which Ed is presumably far more familiar.
As well, the limited, practical 'what's in the latest books' canon is a much smaller set than, and is not the answer to, 'what is true about the Forgotten Realms'.
Regardless of any conceivable legal situation, or any WotC statement, anyone who thinks any of Ed's writing about the Realms is not authoritative because it isn't published in a book has misunderstood the Realms, and the creation of stories and worlds, as drastically as could be. And can anyone imagine Wizards publishing a different staff- or freelance-written discourse on art in the Realms, or the oaths of Tempus, or a detailed description of Firefall Vale or Tantras, (a) at all or (b) that isn't plainly inferior to those Ed has posted for us here?
(I note that the post George quoted does not, just now, seem to exist.) |
| Lysander |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 16:02:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, for one, don't expect something to be error-free. But I do expect something better than "oh, I just felt like changing that, so I did."
The other thing Kuje31 pointed out, the reason that drow skin tones changed... As I recall, the explanation was something like "Well, the artists kept flubbing it, so we changed the racial description to match the artowrk."
C'mon, what kind of excuse is that? I'm sorry, but for someone who cares about the setting, he's doing a good job of not showing it.
I know it's difficult to stick with every single detail ever printed... And if something that was in Polyhedron gets overlooked, or this footnote in that Dragon article is unintentionally contradicted, then that's one thing. Deliberately changing things on a whim is not showing respect to the setting.
It was precicely the attitude Wooly mentions that contributed to me not wanting to make the leap from 2E too 3E. My thought was: why bother learning all new rules, if I'm going to have to correct all of the fluffy stuff? For any campaign I run, the map from the FRCS is deemed not to exist - anything good will be retrofitted to it's 'proper' place per the Interactive Atlas and so forth. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 15:32:26
quote:
Originally posted by Eremite
Frex, wouldn't we all like to read about the rise and fall and rise again of Fzoul? What about the novel of Bane's return?
No and no.
quote:
There's more than enough material in the recent past of FR that would make for some great novels without having to, frex, take the orc horde campaign hook from Silver Marches and turn it into a trilogy.
The trend clearly shows that the books detailing Faerun's past have slowed down if not ended. I'd rather see novels tackle the future and gaming products detail histories of various areas.
quote:
Also, I think that there would be less damage to "canon" if the novels were written about the past/recent past rather than advancing the timeline.
And what damage have the novels done? |
| Eremite |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 14:21:58
Personally, I have no problem with the changes made in gaming products, per se, but the wholesale changes inflicted by the novels is what irks me.
This is not supposed to be an anti-FR novel rant rather an appeal to use the novels to flesh out the backstory of the game books. Frex, wouldn't we all like to read about the rise and fall and rise again of Fzoul? What about the novel of Bane's return?
There's more than enough material in the recent past of FR that would make for some great novels without having to, frex, take the orc horde campaign hook from Silver Marches and turn it into a trilogy.
Also, I think that there would be less damage to "canon" if the novels were written about the past/recent past rather than advancing the timeline. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 03:23:48
I, for one, don't expect something to be error-free. But I do expect something better than "oh, I just felt like changing that, so I did."
The other thing Kuje31 pointed out, the reason that drow skin tones changed... As I recall, the explanation was something like "Well, the artists kept flubbing it, so we changed the racial description to match the artowrk."
C'mon, what kind of excuse is that? I'm sorry, but for someone who cares about the setting, he's doing a good job of not showing it.
I know it's difficult to stick with every single detail ever printed... And if something that was in Polyhedron gets overlooked, or this footnote in that Dragon article is unintentionally contradicted, then that's one thing. Deliberately changing things on a whim is not showing respect to the setting. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 02:00:46
quote:
Originally posted by Realmslore
I hold a full time job, have a wife and three children, and have other hobbies that take my time away from studying Realmslore. Why is it then, that many professional designers miss realmslore references that are glaringly obvious to me and many others here at Candlekeep. This is their job afterall. They are paid to know this stuff. I just don't get it sometimes. Perhaps WotC is just not interviewing their designers thoroughly before hiring them.
They are good designers, Brian. They just haven't been eating, sleeping, breathing the Realms for the last 15 years like you, myself and many others have. If I was a designer and someone asked me to write a DL product, I'd take on the job - because it was a job and paid $$ - and research with due diligence. But within my deadline framework and with the resources at my disposal, I'm sure I'd miss something or lots of somethings because DL isn't my 'homeworld'. It's that grounding I mentioned in a previous post. And despite what might sometimes appear to be the case, my experience with the current crop of FR designers is that they all want to do their best for the setting, research hard and ask many, many questions of Ed and others who can help them out. There is no such thing as the perfect, error-free FR product. It simply hasn't been written yet and likely never will be.
-- George Krashos
|
| Melfius |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:55:32
While I can understand the point that all things Ed has posted here, there, and everywhere cannot possibly be made canon (they would have to hire an additional staffer at WotC who's sole task would be to monitor all boards Ed posts on, which, as much as he posts, would be impossible), I do think they should give a bit more credence to his thoughts, at least as far as not changing what he already has put in print.
By changing (or 'retconning', whatever that means) that which we have already seen in print, he is doing a great disservice to not only Ed, but the rest of us as well.
Case #1: Changes to the map of the Realms. On one hand, they insist they want to refrain from over-detailing the Realms to leave room for us 'home-brewers' to work our magic. But on the other hand, they just basically deleted the largest tracks of open land for us to work with.
Case #2: Changes to Drow Racial Abilities. Don't get me wrong, Elaine's 'novel' explaination (pun DEFINATELY intended) was marvelous. One has to wonder if this was the original intention, or if it just luckily worked out well. I believe the former, but I've been wrong before. However, the drow are a powerful race who, while chaotic and not prone to work well together, still find a way to muster patrols and armies to lay waste to outsiders. As powerful as they are, the biggest drawback for them has been their inability to function on the surface. Consider the battles described in the Drizzt novels. Do we all remember the fact that one of the major battles was won by the forces of good due to the fact that the sun came up? Now, this is no longer a hinderance. Do we really think that the basic chaotic nature of drow will be enough to prevent them from becoming a dominant power?
Which brings up another good point: This has become a mantra for WotC to explain why good always seem to triumph over evil: "Evil cannot work well together, so they fall apart short of their goal." C'mon. How many times can they use the same excuse? Even over in DL, the Knights of Takhesis become world powers because they proved evil CAN work together given a powerful enough leader (and, of course, if good hands it over to them!  ). I still remember Ed's likening the Zhentarim to the Keystone Cops. This seems to be the way they handle too many 'bad guys'. I for one am fed up with the forces of evil and chaos disintegrating just short of their goals. I do not think the likes of Manshoon, Fzoul, or Sememmon are REALLY that stupid. If they can be given high Wisdom and Intelligence scores, why do they never seem to be shown using them?
A good idea would be this: Since they have already dipped their toes into the water of 'Adult Material' with the Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds, why not try their hand at a series of adult novels. Not lewd or pornographic, but ones that show evil as being REALLY evil, and potentially winning once in a while. I game with a group who's average age is about 34, and while DMing I found that, as adults, if the 'bad guy' is played with adult themes, doing really vile stuff, they begin to really loathe the man (or woman) and it adds a dose of realism to the game.
Wow, does it seem like I'm ranting? 
In any event, the topic was the apparent lack of unchangeable, 'canon' material. It's bad, m'kay?  |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:27:51
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Other FR writers, especially novice ones, haven't got that grounding and background. This is what I think Rich was alluding to. We've got FR products from 1987. Dragon articles from way before that. I suppose it's easy to say that a professional writer should do the thorough and all-encompassing research needed to write great FR products and novels, but it isn't always that simple, and it certainly isn't easy.
I hold a full time job, have a wife and three children, and have other hobbies that take my time away from studying Realmslore. Why is it then, that many professional designers miss realmslore references that are glaringly obvious to me and many others here at Candlekeep. This is their job afterall. They are paid to know this stuff. I just don't get it sometimes. Perhaps WotC is just not interviewing their designers thoroughly before hiring them. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:11:56
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Or how drow are not longer ebony/obsidian since Underdark changed thier skin tone even though EVERY 1e/2e/3e/3.5e, except for that one, says they are obsidian/ebony.
Err I missed this one, however THO has posted for things like Elven hair there is a general quideline, that exceptions can occur. Even under 2nd (varient rules) I have met albino Drow/
Also IIRC Ed of Greenwood has indicated that not all he writes is canon, based on business relasionship he established withTSR, perhaps changed with WotC and/or Hasbro (I do know at least the former of these two made new deals with some founders of D&D). |
| Kuje |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:03:55
I was the one that asked about that Silver Marches, Silverymoon NPC. :)
And another example is the sad queen's hair color or even the fey'ri's son/cousin. Rich has changed all these at a whim. Yes the sad queen's hair color isn't that big of a deal but it's still annoying. Or how drow are not longer ebony/obsidian since Underdark changed thier skin tone even though EVERY 1e/2e/3e/3.5e, except for that one, says they are obsidian/ebony. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 23:27:03
Krash is indeed correct in that it is hard to stay on top of most Realmslore. However, Rich Baker has shown a willingness to intentionally depart from established lore. I don't recall the specifics, but someone on those other forums asked about an NPC in Silverymoon. The NPC, in 2E, had been good. In 3E, she (I think it was a she) was now evil, and had a totally different familiar. Rich was asked about this, and his response was basically "there's not enough evil people in Silverymoon, so I decided to change her alignment."
I'm sorry, but he knew the lore and deliberately chose to go against it... Not only was no in-game explanation offered, but there was no RL explanation for why he couldn't have simply created a new NPC, and made him or her be evil (which is essentially what he did with his arbitrary change).
With precedents like that one in mind, it's clear to me that the previous 20 years of established Realmslore is not important to him. He is choosing to discard that, and doing so in a peremptory manner. This does not show respect for the setting's creator, the other loresmiths, or the fans whose dollars have kept first TSR and now WotC afloat. He's not simply following the the footsteps of those who have gone before, he's catching up and pushing them off of the path. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 22:54:34
I'm not sure that Rich was intending to be disrespectful to Ed with his answer, more like pointing out the difficulties inherent in meshing the WotC Realms (which is all about business and profitability - as it should be) with Ed's Realms that we get such a great insight into, here at Candlekeep.
Ed is free to do what he wants with his Realms - he always has done. More to the point, he has the talent to seamlessly integrate other people's FR work with his FR strivings, making it seem that they were there the whole time. The only FR writer I've seen who approaches and even surpasses Ed in this regard is Eric Boyd. The Realms are Ed's love and passion, so he makes it his business to be "on top" of the Realms, keeping track of other people's work and making it all 'fit'.
Other FR writers, especially novice ones, haven't got that grounding and background. This is what I think Rich was alluding to. We've got FR products from 1987. Dragon articles from way before that. I suppose it's easy to say that a professional writer should do the thorough and all-encompassing research needed to write great FR products and novels, but it isn't always that simple, and it certainly isn't easy.
I've been doing the research caper for near on 6 years now and you still miss stuff, forget references, realise you should've linked X with Y. It's hard to keep it all together and that's what I think Rich was saying witn specific reference to Ed.
-- George Krashos
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 18:51:32
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You know, the more I think about this statement, the more irked I get by it.
For one thing, it's an extremely arrogant statement. He's saying that the creator of the setting and one of its most prolific writers is no more important than any other writer. He's also forgetting that much of the success of the setting is due to Ed's incredibly detailed work. Lastly, he's forgetting that Ed is the creator of the most successful setting they've ever had...
It's an insult to Ed.
And I can't help but notice that this statement came from the same person who has changed canon just because he felt like changing things...
Felt the same way when I read it earlier. I was going to ask Ed about it but then just shook my head and moved on. It annoyed me though, deeply. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 13:18:11
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Well met
I have removed a number of pennings herein, please let us try to discuss this more amicably Thank ye.
Heh, sorry Alaundo.  |
|
|
