| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 17 May 2006 : 11:12:15
I'm just curious. Obould, for example, is a villain in the setting with Gerrti but also a villain in the novels. Is RA forbidden from offing Obould because of it?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 18:13:59
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
And to keep this on topic.
To me, both novels and sourcebooks dictate FR especially since the first official printed item, except for what was in Dragon, was a novel and it beat the box set by a month. So, I use ALL material I can get my hands on to run FR since sometimes sourcebooks only give passing references to what happened in novels. Look at the BG discussion above, for example. :)
I'd say that's pretty much the same for me as well.
I'll switch back and forth mostly... if there's only basic references in the sourcebooks... I'll head back to the novels and utilise that lore as a basis for my campaigns.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 18:07:30
And to keep this on topic.
To me, both novels and sourcebooks dictate FR especially since the first official printed item, except for what was in Dragon, was a novel and it beat the box set by a month. So, I use ALL material I can get my hands on to run FR since sometimes sourcebooks only give passing references to what happened in novels. Look at the BG discussion above, for example. :) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 18:05:54
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
No mention of the Iron Throne’s attempt to spark war a war between Amn or poisoning the mines of Nashkell. Is not this not considered to be one of their major plots?
If one were to argue that perhaps Sarevok (as a Bhaalspawn) simply claimed to be The Iron Throne, you would think that even that might be mentioned in the histories, but it is not.
So I am confused…it does not appear in two major references for both 2e and 3e….an oversight? Does PoF rectify these entries?
The mines reference is what is in Power of Faerun. :)
As for references not being mentioned in other 2e/3e sourcebooks, sometimes that happens but there's enough official canon material about the BG novels to make them official canon. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 16:34:13
Sage, sometimes you do frighten me...then again if someone asked me which line-up of Black Sabbath played "Headless Cross" or on which album Whitesnake first performed "Here I go again" I would have the answer also... hehehe |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 15:46:27
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
Thanks for the info Kuje and Sage. Perhaps, I am in error in my assumptions...but that happens allot 
Can you give me the specific reference pages for LEoF. (Sadly my copy of PoF is still in the snail mail).
It's referenced in Bhaal's entry on pgs. 41-42.
quote:
I will also have to try and track down Dragon # 262 and 288.
Both nobleknight.com and paizo.com have these issues available for purchase.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 15:33:40
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Hmmmm, most interesting. Tell me, Sage, where was this particular post? I assume "Drew2_Bio" to be Drew Karpyshyn? I have been wanting to contact him for some time.
Two places actually. It was originally posted on the Bioware Boards -- and cross-posted on the FR Mailing List. It was also referenced on the WotC boards.
Drew fielded a number of questions regarding his work on the novel and the issue of whether it was canon or not. There was an WotC representative who also chimed in on that discussion. I've got the original thread saved somewhere here.
|
| Chyron |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 15:26:22
Thanks for the info Kuje and Sage. Perhaps, I am in error in my assumptions...but that happens allot
Can you give me the specific reference pages for LEoF. (Sadly my copy of PoF is still in the snail mail). I will also have to try and track down Dragon # 262 and 288.
My question then however is, does PoF dictate a new (or alternate) history and hierarchy for The Iron Throne? Because based on the entries in both the 2e 'Cloak and Dagger' accessory (page 119 - 127) and the 3e Lords of Darkness accessory (page 141-145) there is no mention of Sarevok, the doppleganer takeover, and the slaying of the 'key' members that occurred. The Iron Throne, itself being led by a rather motley crew of individuals, includes a tiefling (Sfena - who disappears in 1371 DR), a storm giant (Krakosh), and a half elf (Maready).
Also no mention of anyone named Reiltar (the supposed leader of The Iron Throne in both the game and novel) even among the minor players listed in CaD.
“This Reiltar,” Abdel asked finally, “he leads the Iron Throne?”
“What are you here for son if you don’t know that?”
“He runs his gang from Sembia.”
The dwarf did not answer, just smiled. (From Baldur’s Gate pg.139)
No mention of the Iron Throne’s attempt to spark war a war between Amn or poisoning the mines of Nashkell. Is not this not considered to be one of their major plots?
If one were to argue that perhaps Sarevok (as a Bhaalspawn) simply claimed to be The Iron Throne, you would think that even that might be mentioned in the histories, but it is not.
So I am confused…it does not appear in two major references for both 2e and 3e….an oversight? Does PoF rectify these entries?
|
| Alaundo |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 13:48:53
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
The author of the last novel also chimed in on the topic -
"<Ulairi> <Howdy> Are the BG games considered canon Forgotten Realms history by WotC?
<Drew2_Bio> Because of our multiple endings, the BG games can't be considered "official" in the FR world. However, the novels (including the upcoming TOB novel - another free plug for me!) are considered canon."
Well met
Hmmmm, most interesting. Tell me, Sage, where was this particular post? I assume "Drew2_Bio" to be Drew Karpyshyn? I have been wanting to contact him for some time. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 13:06:30
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
In the second example however the main villain and ‘supposed’ leaders of The Iron Throne, appear in both the BG pc-game and novel, but do not even get a single line of mention in any of the official accessories.
This is untrue. Those novels were given mention in official canon sources in 2e, namely Dragon. Then the events of those novels are also mentioned in recent 3.5e sourcebooks and Power of Faerun is one of them.
Indeed.
The novels are in fact canon. We know WotC has listed them as taking place in 1368 DR and 1369 DR. As well, the characters from the novels were given 2e stats in DRAGON #262 for 2e. There was also a Bhaalspawn template for 3e published in DRAGON #288. Ed wrote a sourcebook that complements the novels -- Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate II. And finally, along with the more recent mention in PoF, LEoF also references the events. We also have comments from Ed, Ed Bonny, and Rich Baker all confirming this as well.
The author of the last novel also chimed in on the topic -
"<Ulairi> <Howdy> Are the BG games considered canon Forgotten Realms history by WotC?
<Drew2_Bio> Because of our multiple endings, the BG games can't be considered "official" in the FR world. However, the novels (including the upcoming TOB novel - another free plug for me!) are considered canon."
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 08:06:36
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
In the second example however the main villain and ‘supposed’ leaders of The Iron Throne, appear in both the BG pc-game and novel, but do not even get a single line of mention in any of the official accessories.
This is untrue. Those novels were given mention in official canon sources in 2e, namely Dragon. Then the events of those novels are also mentioned in recent 3.5e sourcebooks and Power of Faerun is one of them. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 23 May 2006 : 07:22:45
If I can, I would just like to give two examples of success and (what I see as) failure in the cross-media coordination of the realms:
Example 1:
Subject: Alias and Dragonbait.
Novel : Curse of the Azure Bonds
PC game: Curse of the Azure Bonds
Accessories: various (Hall of Heroes being one of my favorite)
Example 2:
Subject: Sarevok and the Iron Throne
Novel: Baldur’s Gate
PC Game: Baldur’s Gate
Accessories: various (2nd Ed. Cloak and Dagger being the current one at the time)
In example one, the relevant characters were equally well integrated across the board. And while it was not necessary to be familiar with all of the products to enjoy a single aspect of them, the fact that they were ‘in-sync’ left me with a very good impression on the quality and time spent on research and planning.
In the second example however the main villain and ‘supposed’ leaders of The Iron Throne, appear in both the BG pc-game and novel, but do not even get a single line of mention in any of the official accessories. The Iron Throne members from the book and game do not even appear in the hierarchy, nor does the doppelganger incident that throws the organization into chaos (at least in the BG region).
I once posted about this on Mr. Reynolds’ forums and he very graciously explained that the pc-game devs were granted liberty with the BG story. But since the book also followed that plotline, it made me start questioning, where does so called ‘game canon’ really come from and why had standards changed from the days of old (as per the first example)? Is it that the Realms has become too big now and ‘the left hand does not know what the right hand did’?
I know that many people only read the novels, or only play the video games or only play PnP. I also know that some combinations of these exist and that there is an even smaller group of people out there, like myself, who interact with the realms on all three levels. I understand there is a commercial angle. I understand there is a need to be creative. I just wish that the ‘deciders’ on high would realize that when they don’t do the research fully or they go beyond what has been established in an effort to stake out their own creative claim, it really rattles against some of us who really try to envision the realms as a ‘living and breathing’ place.
|
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 21 May 2006 : 21:55:19
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Interesting the rehearsal/play reference... for me, personally, I learn more about the 'feel' of the realms from the novels, much more. Then again I am a hairsplitter and perfectionist (in my own twisted way).
When I first decided to DM in the Realms, or DragonLance before that, and Star Wars even before that, I tried to put as much information on the world into my brain before I would actually run a game. Sourcebooks, in most instances, didn't do that for me, I need to experience a world "firsthand", and on an intimate basis. Sourcebooks never really did that for me. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I never really GMed V:DA, because although I am interested in history I did not want to fill my mind with historical dates to such a degree like a friend of mine who ran our V:DA campaign did. Then again he studied history :-P
When I read about a score Realms novels and got a general feel from the campaign setting, especially geography-wise, and most importantly the Faiths&Avatars line of products I ran my own Realms game... 5 years after deciding that I wanted to run it...
While it's not a perfect analogy, I see the sourcebooks as being something like a non-fiction encyclopedia of the regions, topics, major people, significant groups, and events. The novels are like "based on a true story" movies or books where the background from the sourcebooks is often used and acknowledged, but not exclusively. The major different here is that FR novels are not based on true stories. As far as the Realms is concerned, they are true stories.
I think Richard is right that the novels need to be something entertaining even if the readers have never played (or even heard of) the RPG. That said, I know that many (probably most) novelists do check up on details in the sourcebooks (or among learned designes & authors like Eric Boyd and Ed Greenwood among others) when they want certain specific lore or more background. While most writers want to create their own characters with their own story foci, certain minor characters (or occasionally major) that crop up such as high priests or royalty are already set for a region. Thus, a novelist would try not to completely invalidate what's written in a sourcebook, but doesn't let the sourcebook dictate their story. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 21 May 2006 : 20:58:53
Interesting the rehearsal/play reference... for me, personally, I learn more about the 'feel' of the realms from the novels, much more. Then again I am a hairsplitter and perfectionist (in my own twisted way).
When I first decided to DM in the Realms, or DragonLance before that, and Star Wars even before that, I tried to put as much information on the world into my brain before I would actually run a game. Sourcebooks, in most instances, didn't do that for me, I need to experience a world "firsthand", and on an intimate basis. Sourcebooks never really did that for me. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I never really GMed V:DA, because although I am interested in history I did not want to fill my mind with historical dates to such a degree like a friend of mine who ran our V:DA campaign did. Then again he studied history :-P
When I read about a score Realms novels and got a general feel from the campaign setting, especially geography-wise, and most importantly the Faiths&Avatars line of products I ran my own Realms game... 5 years after deciding that I wanted to run it... |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 21 May 2006 : 20:16:30
Speaking as one person who's written on both sides of the fence, I have to say neither side drives the other in any measured way. When I was on staff (and bear in mind I've not been for more than 6 years), RPG worked with Books to balance big and small events among the books and game products. In general, the larger, broader events played out in the novels, as they helped sell the novels and also it's more exciting and dramatic to see things play out in novels than in games. (While I think there's great potential in a game product where heroes face off vs. Sarya's demonfae armies, I'm more excited in some ways to read how Rich is making this happen.)
Think of it like this--RPGs build the stage and hold rehearsals while Books put on plays within and on the stages built. Sometimes one helps build the other and vice-versa.
Even so, I feel we've failed you if the Realms didn't come alive for you in gaming products vs. fictional narratives/books. However, think of the game products as pseudo-travel books where we have to tell you about the big picture, whereas the novels get to focus on people, not places or things. If that's what you mean by why it comes alive, no game product by their very nature can give you that, I'm afraid.
Still, I hope that I can manage the transition and start again with the Realms as a novelist. Time will tell..... |
| Reefy |
Posted - 20 May 2006 : 01:16:19
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Gotcha. We're in complete agreement, then.
And that's usually a good thing coming from our authors. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 22:13:07
Gotcha. We're in complete agreement, then. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 22:00:20
Oh no -- I see how that reads now. Oop.
We don't disagree, RLB. I think we're on the same tightrope, actually.
I wasn't meaning to imply that the novels in some sense need or build off the sourcebooks, or vice versa. The best Realms novels are quite self-contained -- they just form these kind of symbiotic connections, and mean something different (key: not "superior") to readers familiar with the setting than to those who aren't.
I absolutely write in a style meant to work for people who've never picked up a Realms novel before (or, in some cases, fantasy at all). But my style is ALSO meant to work for fans of the setting.
I agree with you assessment: I think that most of the FR writers (if not all) write so as well.
My answer was meant as an expansion of the general topic: that is, do the sourcebooks determine the novels or vice versa. My answer: Nope. Does each inform the other? Sure.
I mean to EXPAND our audience, not limit it, in any way, to either 1) sourcebook readers or 2) everyone else.
Though I can see how my post could imply otherwise. I'll leave it as is for reference.
Cheers |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 20:38:59
Erik, I'm going to mildly, gently, respectfully kinda sorta disagree with you. I think that for the novels to be worthy, well-constructed pieces of fiction, they need to stand up on their own and be comprehensible and enjoyable to readers who've never so much as glanced at the sourcebooks.
I don't know if I always succeed, but I try hard to present every story in such a way that it will work for readers who've never visited the Realms before. I may be dead wrong, but I suspect that most FR writers do the same. Otherwise, we're artificially limiting our audience and diminishing the potential of the franchise. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 19:00:54
It also seems, to me at least, that the sourcebooks provide that framework Wolly mentioned -- a bird's eye view -- while the novels provide a perspective -- a man's eye view, if you will.
The sourcebooks let you build it: they tell you who's there, where, what, and why. The novels let you live it: they show you what the Realms are really like, through more than information.
I personally think, to derive a full understanding (if such a thing is possible outside the divinity that is the epic Ed of the Greenwood's mind) of the Realms, one needs both sourcebooks and novels. Neither determines or restricts, fundamentally, the other, but both are indispensible, in their own way, and inextricably linked.
I think what this boils down to is that the Realms *succeeds* as a campaign world. It, to use a philosopher's coinage, *obtains* -- it's *valid* as a shared world. Sure it has its flaws and inconsistencies (fewer than our own world, really), but it's still first and foremost of its kind, as shared world for writers, gamers, and readers.
Cheers
P.S. Much better than Star Wars.
Couldn't resist. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 17:31:47
I have to throw in my support to what Wooly said . . . between Waterdeep and the North and Volo's Guide to Waterdeep, I really grew to love the City of Splendors, and as a result, Elaine's books immediately found a place in my heart because her portrayal of Waterdeep matched the feel of the city that I had gotten from those sourcebooks.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 17:26:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
but the Realms do not really come alive when I read sourcebooks. They give me a general idea, but it is the novels that breathe life into the dots on the map.
I'll agree, but with a couple exceptions: the various Volo's Guides, especially the Waterdeep one, did make parts of the Realms come alive for me. As for other sourcebooks, sometimes the NPCs make it come more alive for me, and the adventure hooks often add life to the sourcebooks.
I'll agree with that also... though I will note that what Wooly just described has really only been something I've picked up from 1e/2e FR sourcebooks.
You're almost aways assured a grand Realmslore feast when you pick-up a 1e/2e FR tome. The only times I felt the same with 3e resources was by reading SK and LEoF.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 17:24:59
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
Do characters within the novels reflect what is written in the sourcebooks, or do the characters written in sourcebooks, reflect what happens within the novels. I think both actually
That's the aim, anyway.
Which comes first, the novel or the game, like the chicken or the egg?
I like to think the fiction's more important, and thus takes precedence, but. . . not necessarily. It's all up to Wizards.
Cheers
My spin on it is that the sourcebooks provide the details and the background, while the novels build on and add to it. It's like a house: the sourcebooks are the foundation and framework, the novels add the walls, the paint, the furniture, and all the other stuff that makes the raw material into a home. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 17:22:14
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
but the Realms do not really come alive when I read sourcebooks. They give me a general idea, but it is the novels that breathe life into the dots on the map.
I'll agree, but with a couple exceptions: the various Volo's Guides, especially the Waterdeep one, did make parts of the Realms come alive for me. As for other sourcebooks, sometimes the NPCs make it come more alive for me, and the adventure hooks often add life to the sourcebooks. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 15:59:27
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
That's the aim, anyway.
Which comes first, the novel or the game, like the chicken or the egg?
I like to think the fiction's more important, and thus takes precedence, but. . . not necessarily. It's all up to Wizards.
Cheers
I'd agree.
As I have never written any RPG sourcebooks, I cannot judge the artistic value... but the Realms do not really come alive when I read sourcebooks. They give me a general idea, but it is the novels that breathe life into the dots on the map.
I would like to see more novel related sourcebooks/-material, not just a sidebar here or there, but something similar to the old WEG Star Wars supplements for the various novels WITHOUT the continuous repetitions. This would manage to actually improve on the novel experience...
But that's just me... |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 15:34:46
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
Do characters within the novels reflect what is written in the sourcebooks, or do the characters written in sourcebooks, reflect what happens within the novels. I think both actually
That's the aim, anyway.
Which comes first, the novel or the game, like the chicken or the egg?
I like to think the fiction's more important, and thus takes precedence, but. . . not necessarily. It's all up to Wizards.
Cheers |
| scererar |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 05:00:16
I think this is a kind of chase your tail type thread. Do characters within the novels reflect what is written in the sourcebooks, or do the characters written in sourcebooks, reflect what happens within the novels. I think both actually |
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 06:06:56
I haven't been involved in writing any realms fiction yet, but I wouldn't mind if one of the novel authors used one of the new NPCs I mentioned in Dragons of Faerun. When detailing certain aspects and areas of the realms, you need to indicate who has leadership, thus when novelists write in those areas - as Richard mentioned - they are quite likely to use existing high priests, kings, or other leaders as minor characters in the novels.
Not only would I not mind if they did this, I'd welcome it. If something I wrote in a supplement inspired an aspect of a story or enhanced it in some way, that would be great. I am nowhere near as emotionally invested in an NPC I spent a few hours (or even a few days) considering than a novelist is with a brand new protagonist. I hope that the RPG supplements provide interesting information to work with for novelists. Obviously, they are going to want to create their own heroes, but if anything helps, that's fantastic.
I know that Bruce Cordell found Unapproachable East to be very handy when he wrote Lady of Poison. I believe he even thanked the designers - Richard Baker, Matt Forbeck, & Sean K. Reynolds - in his dedication. I'm sure there are times when a writer really develops the majority of known information about a region (Douglas Niles, for example, in the Moonshae sets), but other times, I'd imagine that the settings of the books borrow a lot of information from existing RPG supplements. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 04:26:21
Rod: Thanks for the kind words.
Inquisitor: I used (and in some cases, whacked) established characters in Year of Rogue Dragons because I thought the story would be the better for it. As I said previously, you give the story what you think it needs. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 03:46:41
This kind of reminds me of another type of shared world. A few years back I remember reading about how Denny O'Neil at DC Comics ran the Batman comics. Basically, once a year, all the writers and editors would get together at a "summit" and map out what storylines they wanted to do, and if there was going to be a major crossover event.
If something major was going to happen to, say, Joker, Denny would have to approve it. If someone wanted to use someone that was under another editor's umbrella, say, Lex Luthor, they would have to go to the managing editor of the Superman group and make sure this wasn't going to mess anything up, and generally unless it was some kind of company wide directive, Lex wasn't going to bite the dust in Gotham City, for example.
I really have to hand it to anyone that writes in any kind of shared world, because I think it takes a kind of dedication and mental dicipline that some authors never really have to develop. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 01:24:01
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Indeed. In fact, Dragonlance ::ducks from scribe's thrown missiles:: often uses characters from a trilogy in other books. Perhaps this was the intention of the Dragonlance "saga" however, and on the downside, it does make the reading order tighter and harder to keep track of.
And while it is something I enjoy with the DL novel line myself... it should also be noted that there are those who do not like such a trend.
There's a want, in DL fiction, for fresh, new and interesting characters that begin with mysterious backgrounds and where their own motives and choices are still largely unknown.
So while having characters from certain stories face new and varied situations in subsequent tales may be an intriguing development... it does have the tendancy to reduce fan interest because of the fact that so few new characters are being introduced in favor of, perhaps, overdeveloping existing characters.
|
|
|
