| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kianna |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 02:32:47
1. Would you publish a lot of stuff, like in FR, so that poeple would have the world absolutely laid out for them and they would not need to create a thing...?
or
2. Would you publish the basics and let your players take the world and run with it? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| CarolinaPaladin |
Posted - 19 Oct 2005 : 19:52:04
I would probably publish my own world laid out for the DMs and players. However, the players and DMs would be able to have an impact on my world. |
| Kianna |
Posted - 19 Oct 2005 : 04:17:12
:)
I would summon my horde of evil faerie dragons to slay those who changed my worlds in their games....
Seriously, I know that if the world got big enough (i.e. FR) you would have to have multiple people working on it. Obviously since we are here and debating the details of the realms and what Ed really meant by this and that, it seems to me that there is a lot of stuff that people were not on the same page for. I'll give the example of the hair color change for moon elves and leave it at that.
I would make sure people were on the same page. Otherwise it looks sloppy. Not bashing here but merely saying that a new player/reader/whatever to the Realms may be a tad confused if half their sources said one thing and half the other. Some gamers are confused enough as it is *grin* |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 18 Oct 2005 : 22:23:26
That's true... it would be neat to visit conventions and the like and see what people have done with just a snippet of information.
And I think Ed knew what was going to happen when he sold the rights to develop FR to TSR back in the 80s. The floodgates were opened for all sorts of input.
C-Fb |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Oct 2005 : 19:33:32
quote:
Originally posted by Kianna
Any thoughts? I wonder if Ed is ticked or happy that people change his world around in their games.
I think he mostly goes with the flow--he's said that he likes the fact that having other people work on his world means he can be surprised now and then. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 18 Oct 2005 : 14:54:29
If and when I publish my world - I plan on it just being a backdrop for characters to play in - I wouldn't mind if they changed anything, so long as they were having fun. Well, I might mind if they beat up on my Drow, since they are the ruling class.
C-Fb |
| Kianna |
Posted - 18 Oct 2005 : 02:17:34
Going back to the original question though, I wonder if I would be upset that people were butchering my world (that is, if I published it). I think its one of those things that you can't really answer until you are in the position. I like to think I would be happy that people liked my ideas and worlds enough to 1. buy the books, and 2. put the effort into playing in them and changing as they sought fit....but I wonder if I would get ticked that they were changing stuff.
Hmmmm....
Any thoughts? I wonder if Ed is ticked or happy that people change his world around in their games. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 18 Oct 2005 : 02:12:38
Exactly. I agree with you RF.
In fact, house rules around here remove the whole Return of the Archwizards events (and no, not just because I despise Takari Moonsnow). It got to be that everything bad in the universe that could happen, has happened.
I work within the Realms system, but a lot of stuff I don't. And I think that what the Realms gives us is a backdrop for adventure, that if we, as DMs, want to remove or change something we can.
C-Fb |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 17 Oct 2005 : 21:01:06
There is certainly truth to the idea that working within parameters can foster creativity rather than stifle it. Years back, one of my English teachers was teaching about sonnets, a type of poem that requires the poet to follow certain rules. I remember she said "imagine how creative you have to be to stay within the rules".
But as I've said elsewhere, I now hate the word "canon". It is a religious term, and to violate "canon" by believing in something different is said to endanger the soul. I seriously doubt that "going against 'canon'" in a gameworld will do harm to anyone's soul or spirit (whatever your definition of that may be).
Like Kuje when I answer people's questions I'll tell them what's official, but at the same time I am no longer as gravely concerned about what's "offical" and what isn't. If people want to create something different from what's in the sourcebooks and or novels (and they don't always fit together perfectly!) who cares? Besides, consistancy is important, but it isn't everything. I'm content to accept that different versions of a story may flourish without adhering slavishly to one version over another, or worrying about how perfectly that fit together. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Oct 2005 : 01:42:46
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Now if it was in character knowledge, I'd ask the DM and go by what he/she, and the dice, decide.
I've actually asked the DM before if my character would know something, and/or made an intelligence check to see if my character would think of something. And yes, the dice have sometimes dictated that my character didn't know something, forcing me to keep quiet... |
| Kuje |
Posted - 17 Oct 2005 : 01:08:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
While I prefer to stick to canon, I do recognize that if I'm not the DM, I'm in someone else's playground. I might not like finding out that the ToT didn't happen, or that Saerloon was wiped off the map by a freak spelljammer accident, but if I'm in someone else's campaign, then it's their call what happens. I can't argue about it. Bringing outside knowledge into a game is not good roleplaying.
True, it's not good roleplaying but it still happens at times as OOC conversation or discussion, which is what I meant when I said I've done that a time or two. Now if it was in character knowledge, I'd ask the DM and go by what he/she, and the dice, decide. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Oct 2005 : 00:37:46
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Actually there is a 3rd type. :)
Those who follow the sourcebooks as canon on message boards and in most discussions and then toss what they don't when they are DMing. (BTW, this is what I do because most people, when they ask questions, don't want your homebrew versions, they want the official canon answers.)
As for people knowing about game world... Well that happens for all published settings, no matter what. But when I DM, I just say, "Look my version is different and you can say that that isn't what it is in the official material and that's fine, but I have my own reasons for ignoring the official material."
Yes, there are times people slip and still say, "That's not what it is in the material!" and I've even done it once or twice but the DM said, "Yeah? So? Don't say that to me ever again."
But I'd never kick a player for doing that unless it got to be something that player said every time I changed something.
While I prefer to stick to canon, I do recognize that if I'm not the DM, I'm in someone else's playground. I might not like finding out that the ToT didn't happen, or that Saerloon was wiped off the map by a freak spelljammer accident, but if I'm in someone else's campaign, then it's their call what happens. I can't argue about it. Bringing outside knowledge into a game is not good roleplaying. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Oct 2005 : 00:34:00
quote:
Originally posted by Kianna
Ok. Here's the thing. Three are two types of people when it comes to sourcebooks and novels. Those that follow all the sourcebooks and novels as if they were law...and those who flip through stuff and take what they like and discard the rest.
The first group annoys me. They read all the literature then play the RPG according to all they have read and if the GM tries to go out of the box a bit for the game they end up bashing the GM and making stupid statements such as "that's not what the book says" or "that's not what happened in such-and such novel". I have had this happen and sent people home for this crime. :)
In fact, all of the sourcebooks I have flipped through say that if you don't like a rule or something you don't have to use it. And I like that. I don't like all the rules and I don't like all the storylines that are written in novels. I don't read fantasy novels to get my "canon" though I know some people do. In fact, I completely separate my games from the novels because I agree with Rinonalyrna Fathomlin, I don't like having my worlds completely defined for me.
It is simply a matter of choice I guess, though I also think its a matter of creativity, confidence, and control. How much control do you want when you are the GM? How much creativity are you willing to put forth and how confident in your storytelling abilities are you to step out of the box of what is already published for you?
I guess I just don't always like my hand being held, though I will admit it is nice to have it there if I did need it. :)
Now see, I can't agree with this... For one thing, I don't see closely sticking to canon as limiting creativity. I think it provides more opportunities for creativity. Why? Because it throws more ideas out there. Even if I don't agree with something, being presented with these events gives me more material to work with. I can come up with lots of ideas on my own, but seeing the ideas of other people spurs on my own creativity. It's a variation on something Ed has said: when he was the only one doing the Realms, he knew everything. Now, with other people in his playground, he can be surprised by everything that happens.
I'm willing to go outside the box somewhat, just not a lot. I think that even with sticking to canon, there are still countless opportunities for roleplaying and for DM creativity. Look at Waterdeep. There's been countless supplements telling us how things are in Waterdeep. There have been comics, modules, and numerous short stories set in Waterdeep. Novels have been set, either whole or in part, in Waterdeep. In short, there is no place in the Realms that has been as detailed or as well explored as the City of Splendors. And yet, Ed and Elaine still managed to take us on a fun romp thru the city. We still got new characters, saw new places or new sides of existing ones, and we still learned more things about the city.
I've done things to make Waterdeep my own. I've created five additional Lords (four of which will eventually grace this website, I hope). I've picked unlisted buildings and made them residences of NPCs, or, in one case, a haunted tavern. I've stuck to canon, and yet I can still used the built-in wiggle room to make the city my own.
As for Realms-wide events... Maybe I'm lazy, but to me, it's easier to stick with canon events, and figure out how to put my own spin on them, rather than ignore them. And I don't see how being creative within parameters is limiting... If anything, it forces more creativity, because you've got to think of how to do it within limits. It's easy to be creative with no boundaries; working within boundaries forces you to work harder.
There has not been a single event in the Realms that I've been inclined to ignore. Even things I've not liked -- like the abrupt ending of the Manshoon Wars or the return of Bane -- I still will run with. I may have to figure out how to work around them, but that's the price of playing in a shared setting. If I wanted to cherry pick or ignore canon, I'd come up with my own world.
I am not a world-builder. I've neither the time nor the inclination (at present) to do that. That's why I'm happy with a shared setting...
It reminds me of children in a playground. The playground may have rigidly delineated borders, such as a fence or some other barrier. It's got specific playground equipment. That tall slide will always be a tall slide, and it will always sit 10 feet from the fence in the northeast corner of the lot. The regular square jungle gym will never move, nor will the round one with the multiple humps. The swingset will always be a swingset... And yet, watch the children playing there. They are still creating their own games and fantasies, within someone else's parameters. The jungle gym was erected before the kids ever got there, but it's their imagination that turns it into a fortress, or a school, or the Death Star. The merry-go-round can be headquarters, a space craft, a school bus, or an office. The space between could be grass, molten lava, deep space, or the streets of LA... In short, imagination and creativity makes it what they want it to be.
So, that's my point: creativity is not limited by parameters. You can work around them or put your own spin on them. Some people are happy with these boundaries, but they are no less creative for sticking to them. |
| Kianna |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 21:53:23
It was something the player said a few times and then refused to work with the group dynamics because they swore up and down it would never happeni n the books. It was a long time ago but really ticked me off, you know?
I think there is a time and a place for everything in gaming. It's a shame when the session turns into bickering. :) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 21:07:01
Actually there is a 3rd type. :)
Those who follow the sourcebooks as canon on message boards and in most discussions and then toss, or change, what they don't like when they are DMing. (BTW, this is what I do because most people, when they ask questions, don't want your homebrew versions, they want the official canon answers.)
As for people knowing about game world... Well that happens for all published settings, no matter what. But when I DM, I just say, "Look my version is different and you can say that that isn't what it is in the official material and that's fine, but I have my own reasons for ignoring the official material."
Yes, there are times people slip and still say, "That's not what it is in the material!" and I've even done it once or twice but the DM said, "Yeah? So? Don't say that to me ever again."
But I'd never kick a player for doing that unless it got to be something that player said every time I changed something. |
| Kianna |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 20:47:24
Ok. Here's the thing. Three are two types of people when it comes to sourcebooks and novels. Those that follow all the sourcebooks and novels as if they were law...and those who flip through stuff and take what they like and discard the rest.
The first group annoys me. They read all the literature then play the RPG according to all they have read and if the GM tries to go out of the box a bit for the game they end up bashing the GM and making stupid statements such as "that's not what the book says" or "that's not what happened in such-and such novel". I have had this happen and sent people home for this crime. :)
In fact, all of the sourcebooks I have flipped through say that if you don't like a rule or something you don't have to use it. And I like that. I don't like all the rules and I don't like all the storylines that are written in novels. I don't read fantasy novels to get my "canon" though I know some people do. In fact, I completely separate my games from the novels because I agree with Rinonalyrna Fathomlin, I don't like having my worlds completely defined for me.
It is simply a matter of choice I guess, though I also think its a matter of creativity, confidence, and control. How much control do you want when you are the GM? How much creativity are you willing to put forth and how confident in your storytelling abilities are you to step out of the box of what is already published for you?
I guess I just don't always like my hand being held, though I will admit it is nice to have it there if I did need it. :) |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 19:45:48
True... I guess the crux of it all is that you have to have one complete vision shared by both the novelists and the developers. They have to know what is going to be supported and what is not going to be supported, you know?
Oh well, when I win the lotto, I will hire you all to work in our publishing company. 
C-Fb |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 17:37:11
quote:
Originally posted by CrennenFaerieBane
The problem I have with novels moving the campaign world forward is that everyone you bring to a group would have to be on the same page. For example - if you had a group that composed of people who had all read the sourcebooks, and one had read all the novels and the others hadn't - you have a prime source for that person to try to tell the others "how it really is."
I've had many games (in other genres) where people are like, "That's not how it is" even though the cardinal rule of GMing is that it's your creation - every gaming book I've ever seen has said that.
Oh well, there's my 2 cents.
C-Fb
Yeah, but with sourcebooks supporting novels, reading one or the other would be sufficient. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 17:06:13
The problem I have with novels moving the campaign world forward is that everyone you bring to a group would have to be on the same page. For example - if you had a group that composed of people who had all read the sourcebooks, and one had read all the novels and the others hadn't - you have a prime source for that person to try to tell the others "how it really is."
I've had many games (in other genres) where people are like, "That's not how it is" even though the cardinal rule of GMing is that it's your creation - every gaming book I've ever seen has said that.
Oh well, there's my 2 cents.
C-Fb |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 06:38:54
*nods* For me, it's the age-old conflict of wanting a world to move forward, and wanting to do it my way.
But then again, more recently I've let go of slavishly worrying *too* much about inconsistancy and what's "official" and what isn't. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 06:28:25
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I would have a world with the richness and detail of the Realms with everything noted and catalogued. However, I'd also have two specific apects to my world: Firstly, any fiction/novels in my world would not be considered 'canon' save when dealing with historical, past events. Secondly, all of my sourcebooks, adventures etc. would be set at the same time (i.e. a baseline of "Year X") allowing DMs and players to move forward and shape the world in accordance with their wishes.
-- George Krashos
Ack! The "C" word! Get it away, get it away!
But yes, I like the idea of not having the novels aways define things. Authors and designers are human and no less fallible than the people who read the novels and play the games.
I guess I'm the opposite... I think a campaign world should always be moving forward, and that novels and supplements are the ways to do it. I'd let the novels advance the timeline, and then follow up with sourcebooks that explain it all and apply it all, and also translate it to rules. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 16 Oct 2005 : 05:20:23
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I would have a world with the richness and detail of the Realms with everything noted and catalogued. However, I'd also have two specific apects to my world: Firstly, any fiction/novels in my world would not be considered 'canon' save when dealing with historical, past events. Secondly, all of my sourcebooks, adventures etc. would be set at the same time (i.e. a baseline of "Year X") allowing DMs and players to move forward and shape the world in accordance with their wishes.
-- George Krashos
Ack! The "C" word! Get it away, get it away!
But yes, I like the idea of not having the novels aways define things. Authors and designers are human and no less fallible than the people who read the novels and play the games. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 14 Oct 2005 : 02:42:44
Cough,
Back on topic people. :) This is a FR forum not a WoD forum. :) |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 14 Oct 2005 : 02:35:54
I loved the World of Darkness. It has so much opportunity - but I think trying to tie in every source book with an overall story got kind of wild.
I mean, they tried to make it cross-over, but somethings just did not work.
C-Fb |
| Arivia |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 21:18:36
quote:
Originally posted by khorne
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by CrennenFaerieBane
Wooly - for an easy example of a shared setting that got way out of control - see the World of Darkness. What the heck was going on with half of those sourcebooks? People obviously were not talking to themselves in Atlanta.
I think that's what led to the apocalyptic books and the new formation of the WOD.
C-Fb
On the other hand, you have to admit the running death totals in most every supplement was pretty cool.
Actually it was quite depressive.
This was the World of Darkness, not Mappy's Super Bunny Sun Funny RPG.  |
| khorne |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 18:29:55
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by CrennenFaerieBane
Wooly - for an easy example of a shared setting that got way out of control - see the World of Darkness. What the heck was going on with half of those sourcebooks? People obviously were not talking to themselves in Atlanta.
I think that's what led to the apocalyptic books and the new formation of the WOD.
C-Fb
On the other hand, you have to admit the running death totals in most every supplement was pretty cool.
Actually it was quite depressive. |
| Silvfana |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 12:00:26
I'd come crazy if I had to have every single detail in my head to write them down accurately (I love writing but I'm emotional with it; I hardly ever plan things and when I try it just doesn't work)... So I'd go with number 2. Outlining things is much easier to me, leave things to one's imagination.
Of course it's much easier when you have a lot of facts to refer to, as would be with number 1. I personally like that sort of things, neat piles of facts on everything, but I'd never have the energy to do something like that. One has to appreciate people that can...
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 10:38:22
quote:
Originally posted by CrennenFaerieBane
Wooly - for an easy example of a shared setting that got way out of control - see the World of Darkness. What the heck was going on with half of those sourcebooks? People obviously were not talking to themselves in Atlanta.
I think that's what led to the apocalyptic books and the new formation of the WOD.
C-Fb
On the other hand, you have to admit the running death totals in most every supplement was pretty cool. |
| Kianna |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 02:46:37
I agree that from a simple business perspective the "let's write as many books as possible so we can make money" approach is obviously the one to go with.
I was just fantasizing about what direction would make me happiest and realistically how I could handle it. I am the type of GM who makes her own worlds and I have never used a campaign setting or published module. I do own a lot of sourcebooks and I do pick and choose what I like from where I like for my worlds and games. FR is the first setting I have actually ever run games and played in. And its a little hard for me because I can't stick to/remember all the history and established characters. I don't like others doing the bulk of the work for me.
I do like the Realms though. They are thorough and richly developed and easy to play in on those nights when I don't have ideas or characters rolled up. And Crennen loves to play in the Realms so I run in the Realms and I do enjoy it.
But when it comes to my own preference and if it was my own publishings I would say this would be the motto: Let me give you the basics...and you go run with it. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 02:44:39
Wooly - for an easy example of a shared setting that got way out of control - see the World of Darkness. What the heck was going on with half of those sourcebooks? People obviously were not talking to themselves in Atlanta.
I think that's what led to the apocalyptic books and the new formation of the WOD.
C-Fb |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 01:29:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Krash, are you saying you would prefer a static setting, with no official changes? (Simple question, not an attack)
Well, yes and no. If I was writing every single sourcebook and novel, I'd be happy to have the 'progressive' world. In a 'shared world' environment with a bunch of authors, the static concept leads to far less hassles. I'm not saying it's a 'better' way but if you had the entire Realms (regionally, economically, historically and politically) mapped out for Mirtul, 1354 DR, you would have a multiplicity of options available to YOU in terms of gaming and writing fiction in 1355 DR onwards.
I'm not saying that I don't like the way the Realms has developed since 1987, I do. But I'm one of the more rare fans of FR that don't game. If I was a gamer or DM trying to run a campaign in the Realms, I might have a different opinion. As an example, if I was a player running my 'cool' Bhaalist 1E assassin I would likely be mighty peeved by the events of the ToT and my character's subsequent in-game demise. If I was a DM using FR3 Empires of the Sands to plan and build a great campaign set around the reunification of Tethyr, I might be just a little flustered by the release of LOI which nixes everything and forces me back to square one (if I want to stay 'canon' that is - and I suspect most do).
Of course, I love the Realms no matter how it's showcased so I'll take what I can get. With a smile.
-- George Krashos
|
|
|
