| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 03:21:01
On Ed's forum Faraer wrote:
quote:
Compare the 'shrubby' image, and by contradistinction a forest of widely spaced straight trees, to that of the Weave -- an echo of the cosmic spider's web, noosphere, etc. Big gap between the interrelated, deferred, social, holographic world implied by the sourcebooks and some of the novels and the egocentric, A–B stories the novels tend toward. Without the former, the Realms wouldn't exist artistically and commercially as we know it. Do the book editors really need to distort it into the latter? Is it impossible to sell involved fat fantasy alongside (to be uncharitable) short stories written at novel length? Well, if you train readers to expect the latter, maybe so. (He's talking to himself again.)
I disagree. So long as the stories feature emotionally involving characters I do not mind mistakes in the setting continuity and such. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 05 Nov 2006 : 13:06:44
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
I don't mean to offend the writer or fans of "Blackstaff" but apart from the first few chapters I didn't enjoy the book at all. I found it a confusing jumble of events and characters. It was frustrating to me as a fan because something clearly important to the mythology was going on, but I couldn't follow what was happening.
There are several realms novels like that, but Blackstaff wasn;t as bad as others. In fact, I enjoyed it. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 02:21:39
I have to throw this one out there . . . for a LONG time DragonLance held pretty steady with the timeline just after the Dark Lady's War, and it REALLY felt like the setting, as a whole, was spinning its wheels. The more prequels they published, the more contradictions they came up with, and the more it felt like the setting had stagnated.
Granted, part of the problem was you had a lot of people that weren't Hickman and Weis writting about the setting, and unable to pick their brains as well, but there are even internal consistancies by some of the main authors when they try to keep writing about the same timeline over and over again.
To take this completely out of the venue of Fantasy/Game Related fiction, I loved David Brin's first "Uplift" novel, and got the second one. I was interested in it, but it was set at the same time as the first one. When I read another story by him, and it was still set at the same time, and didn't move forward in time, just showed another part of the same universe at the same time, I pretty much lost my enthusiasm for the books. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 02:06:34
I'd like to see some kind of 'involved fat fantasy'* for the Realms, if only because it'd let Ed do more than give us a paragraph or half-page sized bits of plot/story that are easily forgotten about and then become maddening later when (I) won't be able remember them as the story progresses and touches on these tidbits again.
I'll confess to not having read all the Realms fiction of late, but evenso I'm not left with the feeling that things are moving along too fast or have changed too much in the last 3-4 RL years; certainly not on the level of the only true RSE that's ever seen print (Time of Troubles).
Thus I don't mind the big, but localized (IMNSHO) events that've occurred of late. More of the same is fine with me (and if they can write it in Cormyr and make it a fat fantasy book with lots of interesting characters and information about the place, all the better).
I wouldn’t particularly care to see the Realms ‘step back’ to the Gray Box days and then be ‘filled in’ with tons of non-game lore ; quite frankly it’d suck to be stuck with lots of overly detailed lore that for the most part isn’t useful to but a handful of DMs, not to mention missing out on a lot of the cool stories and events that’ve happened in the setting.
Contradictory? Maybe. See if you can parse the difference.
J. Grenemyer
*Faerar, I didn't know you had it in you. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 01:44:21
quote:
Originally posted by Kalin Agrivar
for everyone, I never meant to say it would be a bad thing to be still at the Gray Box stage...I just meant that IMO it has been the novel storylines that have been advancing the canon of the Realms, the gray box was placed in 1356 and if the novels were never written I doubt we would be in the 1360's yet
What I'm trying to say is, why should it be taken for granted that being back in the 1350s would somehow be "bad"?
Not to say I despise changes (far from it), but in general I feel there have been too many RSEs all at once...or at least, it feels that way. |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 00:04:26
I don't mean to offend the writer or fans of "Blackstaff" but apart from the first few chapters I didn't enjoy the book at all. I found it a confusing jumble of events and characters. It was frustrating to me as a fan because something clearly important to the mythology was going on, but I couldn't follow what was happening. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 23:25:34
So we're divided about the merits of ongoing timelines in general, and the one we've got in particular. Jim Butler admitted candidly in 2000 that 'Every book series you purchase has to convince you that the events happening in its pages are ten times better than what has gone on before', and the same downward spiral applies to the current timeline itself: once readers are used to reading about the latest and greatest, it becomes harder to sell anything else. But Wizards does publish both the large-scale and the more intimate.
Readers are likewise divided on whether they enjoy shrubbily complex or straightforward: hence the comments that Blackstaff or Ed's novels or the Realms have 'too many' characters, gods, subplots, references, etc. The main point of my original quoted post is that long, interwoven, allusive, densely plotted fantasy novels are among the best-selling. |
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 22:25:58
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
And I say again, this is a bad thing why exactly? If it was still that early, we'd have more lore about the setting, hopefully. Instead of having the setting blown up every year. :)
 for me it is nethor good or bad, just an observation...without the novels the game world would still be like Ed Greenwood's original vision of the Realms...some may think this would be great. others may have lost interest in the Realms
but I agree with you, if the result of a slower evolution of the campaign world would have been more lore overall, of the whole Realms, I would be happy with that  |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 22:18:37
quote:
Originally posted by Kalin Agrivar
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Kalin Agrivar
the novels are now the "engine" of the Realms and without the RSEs created in the novels (wether or not there are too many RSEs lately) the Realms would still be at the "state" of the Gray Box
This would be a bad thing, why exactly? I'd prefer this then having to toss out yearly RSE's.
for everyone, I never meant to say it would be a bad thing to be still at the Gray Box stage...I just meant that IMO it has been the novel storylines that have been advancing the canon of the Realms, the gray box was placed in 1356 and if the novels were never written I doubt we would be in the 1360's yet
And I say again, this is a bad thing why exactly? If it was still that early, we'd have more lore about the setting, hopefully. Instead of having the setting blown up every year. :) |
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 22:04:09
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Kalin Agrivar
the novels are now the "engine" of the Realms and without the RSEs created in the novels (wether or not there are too many RSEs lately) the Realms would still be at the "state" of the Gray Box
This would be a bad thing, why exactly? I'd prefer this then having to toss out yearly RSE's.
for everyone, I never meant to say it would be a bad thing to be still at the Gray Box stage...I just meant that IMO it has been the novel storylines that have been advancing the canon of the Realms, the gray box was placed in 1356 and if the novels were never written I doubt we would be in the 1360's yet |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 21:58:41
I said it before (in some other thread, but I'll say it again:
WOTC should look toward how the Perry Rhodan editors handle things here in Germany. They plot the arc/timeline, say what will occur and hack it into pieces and assign stuff. Even if the hack it part is dropped, a concerted effort to keep the timeline clean would help immensely, since evry author would know what was happening in the future of a certain area and stop before he messes up something or other |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 21:49:28
I agree that we've had too many RSEs... But it's still better than the way the Dragginglance setting was, for a while: after the War of the Lance and the Battle of Palanthas, nobody advanced the timeline for several years. They continuously went either sideways or backwards. It wasn't until Weis and Hickman started doing more novels that the timeline moved again...
I will say, though, that I agree with the other points: "lesser" stories are just as good as, if not better, than RSEs. A story doesn't need to be grand and large in scope to be interesting or compelling, and as long as the timeline continues to move forward, I'm a happy hamster. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 19:14:14
quote:
originally posted by Kalin Agrivar
the novels are now the "engine" of the Realms and without the RSEs created in the novels (wether or not there are too many RSEs lately) the Realms would still be at the "state" of the Gray Box
As a mere twenty years have passed since the timeline in the Gray Box this would be more natural than the extreme changes done to the realms by now. It is possible to move a setting forward without the major changes we see constantly done. But then again I still claim vinyl as the ultimate format for music, so I have never been much for change. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 18:14:58
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Kalin Agrivar
the novels are now the "engine" of the Realms and without the RSEs created in the novels (wether or not there are too many RSEs lately) the Realms would still be at the "state" of the Gray Box
This would be a bad thing, why exactly? I'd prefer this then having to toss out yearly RSE's.
I kind of agree...how is the current Realms somehow "better" than the older editions of the Realms?
Also, I agree that the novels that feature more localized, personal stories interest me more than the novels featuring RSEs. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 18:03:27
quote:
Originally posted by Kalin Agrivar
the novels are now the "engine" of the Realms and without the RSEs created in the novels (wether or not there are too many RSEs lately) the Realms would still be at the "state" of the Gray Box
This would be a bad thing, why exactly? I'd prefer this then having to toss out yearly RSE's. |
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 14:03:16
quote:
Originally posted by Eremite
Perhaps it's becoming a bit like Dragonlance: how are the PCs to feel like they're accomplishing something if the novels tell the largest stories?
I find that funny as the dragonlance novels were based on a homebrewed campaign where the players were the initiators and were involved in the "biggest" story that perhaps any RPG has ever offered, "bigger" than any Realms or Grayhawk story I can think of...
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
I don't have the feeling the novels overshadow my own games, because ignoring the novels doesn't detract much from the FR.
why do the players have to be in "the largest stories" to me there is the smell of power gaming and munchkinism in that...
of course your players should be in "big" stories (Halaster's Harvestide and the rescue of Waukeen come to mind, as the core 2E box set Night Below, where you practically save the world) especially as they go into the higher levels (that is the point of the game) but to have your players involved eithor causing or ending every one of "the largest stories" is just as cheesy as having a whole pile of RSE in a year or two of game time...
IMO it can be just as rewarding (to fullfill the players sense of accomplishment) to be part of the Round Table as it is the be at the "head" of the Round Table...I have ran the Avatar moduale trilogy twice (the players being the friends and bodyguards of Adon, Midnight, etc.) and no one ever complained that their PC didn't become the god in the end, while they did like to brag how they were at the heart of the Time of Troubles. Frankly I feel (like most acts of power gaming and munchkinism) to always be the biggest movers-and-shakers in the Realms will just increase the chance of the player disintrest
the simple fact is the Realms are a living, evolving realistic world and for the world to advance/evolve/develop it cannot be designed to "orbit" around your players (which is exactly what the Dragonlance campaign orginally was designed for)...
I do agree with you though that many of the RSE novel storylines are weak, but I blame that on editing and the lack of space (i.e. word count and the "trilogy" rule) for the writers to fully expand on the RSE storyline, let alone describe in any detail the reprecussions of the RSE
and like I stated before, without the novels the canon/storyline would not be evolving...almost every bit of new 3E Realms material and canon is linked to a novel line...the novels are now the "engine" of the Realms and without the RSEs created in the novels (wether or not there are too many RSEs lately) the Realms would still be at the "state" of the Gray Box |
| Faraer |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 13:58:52
quote:
Originally posted by Eremite
Then again, the novels all too often resolve interesting hooks from game products...
A necessary partial fix to this recurring problem is to make sure authors *always* replace an equal or greater amount of material.quote:
Perhaps it's becoming a bit like Dragonlance: how are the PCs to feel like they're accomplishing something if the novels tell the largest stories?
The answer here, other than leaving the Realms the hell alone with stlarning RSEs, is for Wizards to stress more than they do that many, many unpublished 'important' things happen in the Realms apart from the big novel events.quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom
IMO the big-event trilogies is where the FR franchise is weakest.
They're among the weakest novels in terms of not having enough content (interesting content, not pointless incident) to fill three books, especially when an author is carrying out someone else's concept handed down from above. |
| Eremite |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 11:09:38
quote:
Originally posted by RodOdom (snip) IMO the big-event trilogies is where the FR franchise is weakest. It seems like many of us dislike the continuity problems that arise from those stories. I don't know why, but I find the big-events (Avatar,Threat from the Sea, Archwizards, Last Mythal, etc.) poorer reads than the rest of the FR novels, and that bothers me the most.
I most definitely agree with you there and essentially that is part of what I was trying to get at. My favourite books are typically the "smaller stories" as they are the ones that enlarge the sense of the world without trampling all over it. Also, I would much rather read about Ed's adventuring group's exploits in the proto-Realms than yet another RSE. Elaine Cunningham and Paul S Kemp are also very much to my own taste.
Of course, that's just my opinion and I can understand that some people wants RSEs. |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 04:22:37
"Perhaps it's becoming a bit like Dragonlance: how are the PCs to feel like they're accomplishing something if the novels tell the largest stories?"
I think where FR succeeds is that it is such a great platform for roleplaying as well as stories. Ed and the game designers have created such a detailed, varied world. Yet it is open to whatever kind of D&D game we want to play. I don't have the feeling the novels overshadow my own games, because ignoring the novels doesn't detract much from the FR.
IMO the big-event trilogies is where the FR franchise is weakest. It seems like many of us dislike the continuity problems that arise from those stories. I don't know why, but I find the big-events (Avatar,Threat from the Sea, Archwizards, Last Mythal, etc.) poorer reads than the rest of the FR novels, and that bothers me the most. |
| Eremite |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 03:39:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert Oh, gods, I hope not... Having novels and game supplements interact does allow for possible continuity errors, but, at the same time, is an excellent way to keep the timeline moving forward. And the fact that things keep happening is, for me, a large part of the appeal of the Realms. Settings that go stagnant (as Dragginglance did, for a long time) are quick to lose their appeal.
Then again, the novels all too often resolve interesting hooks from game products (frex, Silver Marches and the subsequent Drizzt series that saw the establishment of Obould's kingdom) or so re-work the world that it seems that the PCs are just bit-players.
Perhaps it's becoming a bit like Dragonlance: how are the PCs to feel like they're accomplishing something if the novels tell the largest stories?
I'm also not sure if this is the right way to go. What I would like to see is a proper alignment between the game books and the novels where game books even include spoilers for future novels so that it makes it easier to use those events in play. WotSQ soured me for good: it took something like four years IRL to resolve these events during which time several game products were published that should have included the resolution of this plotline but did not.
Speaking personally, I decided some time ago that none of the events depicted in the novels after the publication of 3E's FRCS have taken place. The way I would like to see the world move forward is a big book of plot hooks and events detailed month by month for the next five or ten years of game time. Of course, it wouldn't sell... but I would buy it. |
| RodOdom |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 02:24:09
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
.To which I say that that policy is not fixed or inevitable, but the decision of a few people
I must admit my ignorance of this. |
| Gellion |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 02:13:37
On a side note, the novels being connected to the supplements is a complaint I sometimes hear at other forums. Most of these comments have something to say about the quality of FR novels so I will not say anything further on the subject. |
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 14:58:17
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Oh, gods, I hope not... Having novels and game supplements interact does allow for possible continuity errors, but, at the same time, is an excellent way to keep the timeline moving forward. And the fact that things keep happening is, for me, a large part of the appeal of the Realms. Settings that go stagnant (as Dragginglance did, for a long time) are quick to lose their appeal.
I agree, and more bluntly...IMO the novels are becoming the source of canon for the Realms anymore...most Realms products are now eithor crunch or 2E/3.0 conversion products
without the novels linked to the RPG there would be practically no new canon in the Realms and like Wolly said, no way to keep the timeline moving forward |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 14:54:48
quote:
Originally posted by Eremite
Perhaps another option is for the novels to be separated completely from the game books? Perhaps future game books could be set in, frex, 1375 and totally ignore all novel events?
Maybe this is an option?
Oh, gods, I hope not... Having novels and game supplements interact does allow for possible continuity errors, but, at the same time, is an excellent way to keep the timeline moving forward. And the fact that things keep happening is, for me, a large part of the appeal of the Realms. Settings that go stagnant (as Dragginglance did, for a long time) are quick to lose their appeal. |
| Eremite |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 14:08:25
Perhaps another option is for the novels to be separated completely from the game books? Perhaps future game books could be set in, frex, 1375 and totally ignore all novel events?
Maybe this is an option?
|
| Gellion |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 01:35:58
I agree 110% RodOdom. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 30 Oct 2006 : 21:55:11
whihc books exactly are short stories expanded to novel length? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 30 Oct 2006 : 14:18:11
My point wasn't about literal continuity. (I think that's important, that it's worth letting the editors and designers know that it's important to us, that they do know and it isn't worth moaning about for recreation, that publishing schedules make perfect continuity very difficult and it's been up and down for 20 years, and that we should wait and see what the effect will be of the recentish merging of the game and book teams.)
Rod's point in his second post seems to be that he's resigned to the editorial policy of the novels being at odds with (the rest of) the setting, in terms of shrubbiness and its lack. To which I say that that policy is not fixed or inevitable, but the decision of a few people. Note that I originally wrote 'alongside', not 'instead of'. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 22:15:20
As such the problem seems to be that some people have the liberty to run around naked in the auditorium and no one seems to bother. Back during the "Grubb-days" continuity seemed to be an important issue it apparently is not, any more. (see the Loth and FC1 thread I started)
I wonder if that is because of the necessary money that needs to be carted into Wizards OHL at Hasbro. Quality goes out the window when cash can be made... which is ironic because quality in the end makes more cash... |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 22:09:11
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Oooh, dear Lady Rino, you are so...well...dear to me, your mind shatters the mist of nonsense like a ray of sunlight...
Heh.
quote:
Of course there also has to be a story... as for Realms-feeling...I think that is difficult to capture and to maintain since that is quite subjective...
True, but I always respect an author when I get the sense that he (or she) respects earlier builders of the setting (esp. Greenwood, since it's his world) and tries to conform at least a little to their "visions" of the Realms. Of course, much of this does go hand in hand with actually respecting lore, and by extent getting continuity right. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 29 Oct 2006 : 22:02:09
Oooh, dear Lady Rino, you are so...well...dear to me, your mind shatters the mist of nonsense like a ray of sunlight...
OK, enough of the blathering, continuity should be the first and foremost thing in the minds of every writer doing the two step in a shared world. If they cannot do that they should not write for a shared world. (reads PERIOD!!!)
Of course there also has to be a story... as for Realms-feeling...I think that is difficult to capture and to maintain since that is quite subjective...
ok....brain needs time...reboot to continue later |
|
|
