| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Astinex |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 03:15:35
The black cover series of books, Cult of the Dragon, Seven Sisters, Giantcraft, Draconomicon, etc. has a series designation FOR#. Anyone know what FOR is an acronym for? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 29 Jul 2009 : 15:58:04
Ummmmm.... Jakk?
The topic was about the abbreviation/prefixs used to denote older products... 
Which lead to some of waxing nostalgic about them, and then the artists that contributed to them. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 29 Jul 2009 : 15:23:47
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
As for DiTerlizzi's Monstrous manual work. The illustrations in that book is what keeps me going back to the two 1ed. books and the 2ed.Compendiums. How can you top the Killmoulis in Compendium 2?
I have to agree with you there, on all counts... but the one that immediately springs to my mind is the Orc from Compendium 1.
Anyway, returning to topic... in response to BEAST: You must remember that it's Drizzt we're talking about here. The rules (at least prior to 3E) had always gone out the window for him, and will probably resume doing so under 4E. I don't actually dislike the character, despite some earlier (~6 months to a year ago) posts on the topic, but when I think about the characters who should have survived into 4E, his name does not appear on the list. If 4E is about putting the spotlight on new NPCs, then logic dictates that Drizzt had to die. The same could be said of Elminster, if we're talking novels... but it's my understanding that Elminster is still alive because if he dies, the rights to the Realms revert back to Ed... imho, that's another compelling reason to kill him off in Wizbro canon (whatever that means now).  Then we can have a real Realms reboot back to circa DR 1369... or, better yet, go right back to 1357 and kill off Ao before the RSE that started them all.  |
| BEAST |
Posted - 29 Jul 2009 : 07:42:10
What's WOTC's reasoning for retaining long numeric sequences with "The Legend of Drizzt, Book I" through "XIII", and the recent re-release of "The Cleric Quintet", then?
They actually increased the numbering in order to throw so many of the Drizzt books into one single series. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 28 Jul 2009 : 16:50:09
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
We seem to have drifted.
I regard DiTerlizzi's 'otherworldly' style both perfect for Planescapes, and all things 'Fey' (his illustrations in the 2e Montrous manual are among my favorite of all time - they actually made me like Gnomes!)
Gotta mention Brom - I'm no big Darksun fan, but his stuff really set the mood and flavor of that setting.
OK just one more. I agree that Brom was perfect for the look of Darksun, but that might also have been a major factor in it being the only one of the older settings that I didn't like.
As for DiTerlizzi's Monstrous manual work. The illustrations in that book is what keeps me going back to the two 1ed. books and the 2ed.Compendiums. How can you top the Killmoulis in Compendium 2? |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Jul 2009 : 16:37:53
Oh, I've noticed the whole movie thing, especially in the last 20 years. I think Batman Returns was one of the first of the crop (Addams Family Value comes to mind as well for some reason).
Even movies that were 'known' for the roman numeral sequels had moved away from it (Rocky Balboa, Rambo, Star Trek, etc.). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Jul 2009 : 16:17:57
We seem to have drifted.
I regard DiTerlizzi's 'otherworldly' style both perfect for Planescapes, and all things 'Fey' (his illustrations in the 2e Montrous manual are among my favorite of all time - they actually made me like Gnomes!)
Gotta mention Brom - I'm no big Darksun fan, but his stuff really set the mood and flavor of that setting.
Anyway, just to post something on-topic: maybe the 'FOR' means "This book is FOR fans of good supplements" 
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
You can also see the move away from numbered series in movie and computer game sequels, and in the tendency to reset comic issue numbers -- there's a consensus about it.
You know... I hadn't noticed this until you've mentioned it.
This plays-into WotC's arguments about "a sense of entitlement", which do make some sense (although I think the reasoning sound, I think the steps taken were NOT).
By eliminating any 'numbers' from products, older fans can't argue they are 'better fans' because they've been around since such-and-such.
I really hate that, because it proves that corporations use social-engineers to swing opinions of products and manipulate human responses. I realize that has been around for centuries, but now the marketing guys are actually turning it into a science -
"Entitlement? What entitlement? We just just re-booted the continuity as #1! Its all brand-new again"
<sigh> |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 28 Jul 2009 : 15:17:56
The only Holloway credits among my FR products that I can think of, are Kara-Tur releases. I must admit that my collection is far from complete though. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 28 Jul 2009 : 13:01:26
You can also see the move away from numbered series in movie and computer game sequels, and in the tendency to reset comic issue numbers -- there's a consensus about it.
I recognize good work in Planescape, but I've no great fondness for it mainly because it was published in place both of both Gary's vision of the Planes (which never fully saw print, but can be seen further in his novels) and Ed's, including the worlds-and-gates manoeuvrings that underlie so much of the Realms and is fundamental to understanding its high-level politics. After the 2008 setting's relegation of most of the Realms fiction I've patiently waited for for 20 years to to ancient history, I think this is the biggest loss to Realmslore of all these publishing accidents.
Did Jim Holloway do any work in the Realms? I'm thinking in the LC modules. He'd have been a good fit -- far more so than the interchangeable, cheap, bland and preeningly, garishly 'cool'. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 27 Jul 2009 : 09:46:41
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I have the same problem with Baxa's work for Ravenloft, it just didn't match my mental picture.
Ah. I find Baxa's art is an acquired taste, and depends heavily on the setting. For example, I don't particularly have much love for his imagery on some of the cards in the Magic: The Gathering game, but I did like his RAVENLOFT stuff -- mostly because it admirably captures the "dark" and "gothic" feel that permeates the land.
That's the fun of this game, the huge differences in how we imagine all the elements it contains. To me Baxa becomes to much fangs and grimaces for my taste, although there are some illustrations in the collected Ravenloft Monstrous Compendiums that I like.
I am starting to sound really nostalgic here, and this is really a derailment of the subject of the thread, but I would just like to give Jim Holloway an honourable mention when we are talking about the older artists. I wonder if my reaction to 3ed. would have been much different if they kept the old artist on board. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Jul 2009 : 00:49:44
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I have the same problem with Baxa's work for Ravenloft, it just didn't match my mental picture.
Ah. I find Baxa's art is an acquired taste, and depends heavily on the setting. For example, I don't particularly have much love for his imagery on some of the cards in the Magic: The Gathering game, but I did like his RAVENLOFT stuff -- mostly because it admirably captures the "dark" and "gothic" feel that permeates the land. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 21:27:51
I agree that he did give a very individual feel to the setting, but that was the feel that didn't appeal to me. Exept for the Planescape monstrous appendix, for some reason I really like his work in that book. But at the same time that book has no appeal to me gamewise.
I have the same problem with Baxa's work for Ravenloft, it just didn't match my mental picture. DiTerlizzi's style became gritty instead of mystical, I imagine the planes as more strangely "psychedelic" and dreamy. The Fabian illustrations in Manual of the Planes were more inspiring to me, but that could of course be a result of me really liking Fabians work for TSR.
Oh, and I am not a fan of Lockwood either, I actually prefer the old covers for the Cunningham books. And Drizzt as an old man. In other words I am slightly weird. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 15:38:05
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And the fact that I hated the illustrations and "look" of the setting didn't help.
You mean DiTerlizzi's art? Interesting. Tony DiTerlizzi's conceptional artistic style for the PLANESCAPE campaign setting is usually regarded as one of the strengths of the main work -- ably conveying both the majesty and grittiness of the planes. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 11:53:08
I have no problem seeing your point, but the problem to me was that with Planescape, the planes (which in my head should be the great unknown) became a campaign setting. It was interesting and different, but it became to concrete for me personally. I owned a couple of the boxes (which were stolen I think) and I enjoyed reading them, but it never tempted me to actually use it in gaming. Its the same reason why I never cared all that much for the D&D demons and devils, they became to categorized and similar to other monsters. Even though I cant stand Lovecraft (for his racist, anti-Semitic, and general idiotic ramblings), chuthulu (sp?) is nearer to how I like demons to work.
When it comes to scope and imagination Planescape is among the best products TSR made, but as the presentation afterlife, unknowns and other dimensions it seemed all wrong to me. Everything became to logical and "clean". And the fact that I hated the illustrations and "look" of the setting didn't help. I wonder if it would have been different for me with Fabian illustrations? There are things about Manual of the Planes that I would never use, but that book got my imagination flowing in a way Planescape never did.
And I am still speaking for myself of course. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 08:57:41
"Rationalised the planes?" Sorry Jorkens. I can't quite agree with you there. I've long been a fan of the planes from the earliest editions of the D&D game, to the grandeur that was the evolution of PLANESCAPE. I had exactly the opposite interpretation when I first opened the PLANESCAPE boxed set. I was left pleasantly scratching my head in both awe and confusion. Because a lot of my pre-conceived notions about the Outer Planes, that I'd cherished since the first Manual of the Planes, were twisted inside and out. After that initial shock, I was left with a feeling of just how much depth and mystery the planes could still offer one's campaign.
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 08:26:23
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You did yourself a favor. I recently re-read them (for the locales), and I have to say the first one is way better then the next two.
If you can believe it.
The sourcebook wasn't half-bad, but it conflicted a bit with The Great Glacier, as well as some core 'Giant Lore' (If ALL the giant-races were created on Toril, why are there Giants everywhere in the multiverse? It's the Drow problem all over again).
That logic you can use about almost any lore concerning evolvement of creatures. The multiverse can bee a tool or a hindrance when it comes to explaining and adding lore. How about the creatures that are supposed to have been created by specific wizards and cultures, how can it be explained that they exist in the same form in several other worlds?
As you might guess I never cared for Planescape. It rationalised far to much and took the whole mystery out of the planes.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 05:32:42
You did yourself a favor. I recently re-read them (for the locales), and I have to say the first one is way better then the next two.
If you can believe it.
The sourcebook wasn't half-bad, but it conflicted a bit with The Great Glacier, as well as some core 'Giant Lore' (If ALL the giant-races were created on Toril, why are there Giants everywhere in the multiverse? It's the Drow problem all over again).
I just wish there was a better attempt at doing something with the Giants in FR (Eberron got some awesome stuff - I guess they save the best bits for their 'preferred' setting). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 03:52:21
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've never had much use for giants, and I disliked the first book of the Twlight Giants trilogy so much that it kept me away from Giantcraft. It was actually one of my last FR purchases before everything got burned, and even then, it was more for completeness than anything else.
Giants actually form a crucial part of the history in my Realms, so 'twas a necessary resource for me. And strangely enough, I actually enjoyed the "Twilight Giants" trilogy.
I couldn't stand the first book, so I've never bothered with the rest of them. I don't think I've even replaced it. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 01:18:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've never had much use for giants, and I disliked the first book of the Twlight Giants trilogy so much that it kept me away from Giantcraft. It was actually one of my last FR purchases before everything got burned, and even then, it was more for completeness than anything else.
Giants actually form a crucial part of the history in my Realms, so 'twas a necessary resource for me. And strangely enough, I actually enjoyed the "Twilight Giants" trilogy. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 19:49:49
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Markustay is correct; "FOR" stood for "For(gotten Realms)." The system was abandoned because an incoming head of marketing opined that having series with "high numbers" discouraged purchases of later books, because a customer in a store would examine, say, FOR6, see no copies of FOR 1 through 5 in the store, and conclude they shouldn't buy 6 without the others, and so walk out without making the purchase.
That's why the Harpers series of novels was ended (an open-ended and very loose "series," but numbered, so the argument applied), and only SPECIAL series, like the War of the Spider-Queen, were long. Even then, marketing types reported that chain booksellers said the covers of later books (for SQ and for the Sembia series, in its first release) were too similar (thanks to a "line look" being striven for) to avoid customers thinking they might already have a particular book, or being overwhelmed with how much they "had to buy." So, away with the codes and numberings, and in with quartets or trilogies or stand-alones.
love,
THO
Well, in those marketing types' defence - I've heard people say they stopped buying Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time-novels or Katherine Kerr's Deverry-series not because they didn't like them, but because there were too many of them (their loss, the last three Wheel of Time novels are the best of the series in my opinion, and as for the Deverry-series you can even start at book 5 or 9 if you want) |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 19:45:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I count Giantcraft among my favourite Realms sources. It features some quality reference material on giants that's yet to be included elsewhere.
I've never had much use for giants, and I disliked the first book of the Twlight Giants trilogy so much that it kept me away from Giantcraft. It was actually one of my last FR purchases before everything got burned, and even then, it was more for completeness than anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I think I got PDFs for them as well. All except the Draconomicon. I never really bothered, because it was never a source I referenced all that much.
Yeah, that's one of the ones I've not gotten the pdf for.
Giantcraft is mostly OK, except for the language chapter, but then I actually liked the first book of the Giants series. I would have wished though, that the book had discussed the giants of the Realms in general to a larger degree. I am still curious about the giants around the Dalelands and Cormyr.
Come to think of it Draconomicon is the only one of the series I lack myself. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 18:21:12
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I count Giantcraft among my favourite Realms sources. It features some quality reference material on giants that's yet to be included elsewhere.
I've never had much use for giants, and I disliked the first book of the Twlight Giants trilogy so much that it kept me away from Giantcraft. It was actually one of my last FR purchases before everything got burned, and even then, it was more for completeness than anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I think I got PDFs for them as well. All except the Draconomicon. I never really bothered, because it was never a source I referenced all that much.
Yeah, that's one of the ones I've not gotten the pdf for. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 17:50:32
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Agreed. There's a reason I purchased two of each, after all. 
I purchased two of each, as well. But not for the same reason! 
I've actually never really been a fan of Pirates of the Fallen Stars or Giantcraft. I did make a point of getting pdfs of six of the books, though, when that was still an option. 
Ah.
I count Giantcraft among my favourite Realms sources. It features some quality reference material on giants that's yet to be included elsewhere.
I think I got PDFs for them as well. All except the Draconomicon. I never really bothered, because it was never a source I referenced all that much. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 17:41:58
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Agreed. There's a reason I purchased two of each, after all.
I purchased two of each, as well. But not for the same reason!
I've actually never really been a fan of Pirates of the Fallen Stars or Giantcraft. I did make a point of getting pdfs of six of the books, though, when that was still an option. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 17:19:53
Agreed. There's a reason I purchased two of each, after all. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 15:09:25
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Hmm. I always thought it stood for "Flukin', Ornbelievable Realmslore". My bad.
-- George Krashos
Those were some of the better books for lore. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 06:29:05
Hmm. I always thought it stood for "Flukin', Ornbelievable Realmslore". My bad.
-- George Krashos
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 16:29:53
I've seen the same thing (from a buyer's perspective, that is) for other novels as well. There's a lot of books by authors that are 'grouped' into trilogies, even though the stories and characters continue through 6, 9 or more books. It's very rare that series go more than three books without an 'ending' (Jordan, of course, comes to mind). Interesting how the market works. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 16:21:33
Markustay is correct; "FOR" stood for "For(gotten Realms)." The system was abandoned because an incoming head of marketing opined that having series with "high numbers" discouraged purchases of later books, because a customer in a store would examine, say, FOR6, see no copies of FOR 1 through 5 in the store, and conclude they shouldn't buy 6 without the others, and so walk out without making the purchase.
That's why the Harpers series of novels was ended (an open-ended and very loose "series," but numbered, so the argument applied), and only SPECIAL series, like the War of the Spider-Queen, were long. Even then, marketing types reported that chain booksellers said the covers of later books (for SQ and for the Sembia series, in its first release) were too similar (thanks to a "line look" being striven for) to avoid customers thinking they might already have a particular book, or being overwhelmed with how much they "had to buy." So, away with the codes and numberings, and in with quartets or trilogies or stand-alones.
love,
THO |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 15:02:30
Ironically, I still miss those letter codes. Makes organizing the PDFs that much easier! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 15:01:12
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
The letter code convention was carried over from the days of OD&D and 1st Edition AD&D, where all modules and whatever supplements there were carried codes, which were usually an indication of their nature. For instance, in 0D&D, the letter code was an indication of the boxed set that was required for it (and therefore, of the experience level): B for Basic, EX for Expert, M for Master, CM for Companion, IM for Immortal. In AD&D, N was used for "Novice" (low-level; this series included N5 "Under Illefarn), I for "intermediate" (I3-5, "Desert of Desolation" comes to mind, as well as I6 "Ravenloft"), H for High-Level (The Bloodstone Pass series of modules).
When TSR started developing world-specific modules, they adopted a letter code for the individual worlds: WG for World of Greyhawk, DL for Dragonlance, ALQ for Al-Qadim, SJ for Spelljammer, R for Ravenloft and, yes, FR for Forgotten Realms. Initially, "FR' (1-16) was used for the stapled regional sourcebooks (starting with "Waterdeep and the North" and ending with "The Shining South"). Adventurs usually got a three-letter code, starting with FR (two exceptions thoug, the FA modules). The FOR were of a different type than the staple-bound sourcebooks, so, hoppa, a different code was used.
I do not remember exactly when the system was abandoned, but it was even before the WotC takeover (Planescape was the first world line that did not have the letter codes at all).
It's only the first 4 of the FOR books that have the code on them. The latter ones do not. It appears that it was around 1994 when TSR (I think it was still them, at that point) decided to stop running with the letter codes. |
|
|
