| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 10 Sep 2007 : 04:32:40
It took me a few days to realize this one. I've been arguing with people on various sites across the internet about the Realms and the apparent direction its going in. One of the arguments that I have seen over and over again is that people like the setting, but they stopped using it because they didn't want to have to follow the books.
Now, the more I pried into these arguments, the more it seems apparent to me that its not that the novels are canon that really causes the problems. Its the number of major events that are covered primarily in the novels that causes problems. Which got me to thinking about this. Many of these "fair weather" Realms fans complained because they perceived various authors changing the Realms left and right.
Now, what we know really happens is that nothing major happens to the Realms that WOTC hasn't decided on. The authors are told what their books will focus on, and what the outcome should be, and they get to fill in the details (most of them in an extremely entertaining and engrossing way). But the point is that Troy Denning didn't wake up one morning while writing Realms novels and say, "I think I'll kill King Azoun," or, "I think the Netherese should come back." Those are big setting issues worked out by the "powers that be."
So really, the novels being canon issue really isn't the issue. Its that there is a problem with how frequently major changes happen, and how those major changes are presented to the fan base.
One of the most glaring problems with this is the fact that while WOTC was deciding what should be happening to the setting in its RSEs, they were not presenting sourcebooks that could serve as proper summaries of what was going on. Underdark could have been an excellent summary of what was going on in the War of the Spider Queen series, for example, but instead of waiting until the books were done, the book instead assumed that Lolth's silence was still going on. Meaning the most logical source you would have to look for a summary of the books if you don't read the novels doesn't have any solid information at all.
I'm actually pretty sympathetic to this now that I've analyzed it, I just think that there are a lot of people that "feel" what the problem was, but didn't really have frame it properly. If a given region that might have had some form of change occur had a well laid out sourcebook that looked at all angles of the change and gave good campaign hooks for using the region, and you could be reasonably assured that you weren't going to have any other major changes to that region for nearly a decade, then I doubt there would be this feeling that the novels were "ruining" the Realms, or that the Realms had a massive meta plot that was constantly causing problems for campaigns set there.
So the real problem works out to the fact that sourcebooks were used for too much "number crunching" in recent years, and that there wasn't enough follow through between what sourcebooks were released as opposed to the novels that should naturally be a complementary piece to them, not as separate products.
Heck, some of the best updates we got in FR Sourcebooks seemed to be information that was "slipped in" to a sourcebook that was envisioned by the "powers that be" as something other than a pure sourcebook.
I know this argument isn't one often heard at the keep, but I've seen it so often recently, and yet something didn't quite ring true about it. So I really wanted to see if this makes any sense to anyone else. I am of the opinion, not that people don't have their "feelings" in the right place, but that they sometimes look for the simplest argument to make rather than really getting at the core of the problem.
So to summarize, when I see people argue that "the novels shouldn't be canon as it make the setting too hard to track," my opinion is that what the real problem is that, "there are too many RSEs, and even the few that might be good to keep the setting moving forward are not properly supported with game material. There should be more game support and more follow through with the novels, and fewer, but better integrated, RSEs."
Does this whole thing make any sense to anyone? |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Xysma |
Posted - 13 Sep 2007 : 04:41:50
quote:
Originally posted by sirreus
it's a very complicated issue to say the least, however i would not enjoy our campaignes near as much were the novels not at my disposal. the descriptions of these places and the events that transspire greatly influence both, our campaine and our pc's histories.
i guess my point is that i read both the novels and the source books which are inseperable and unsufferably isolated from one another.
I guess you know I agree since our DM styles are nearly identical, but for me, and I am sure it's because I read both the novels and the sourcebooks, I view the discrepancies between sourcebooks and novels as an opportunity to fill in the gaps on my own. |
| sirreus |
Posted - 12 Sep 2007 : 15:21:55
it's a very complicated issue to say the least, however i would not enjoy our campaignes near as much were the novels not at my disposal. the descriptions of these places and the events that transspire greatly influence both, our campaine and our pc's histories.
i guess my point is that i read both the novels and the source books which are inseperable and unsufferably isolated from one another. |
| freyar |
Posted - 11 Sep 2007 : 20:13:49
Heh, or the money or shelf-space to get all the novels (when the public library doesn't have them)!
I've been frustrated with the high number of RSEs, also. I haven't read Last Mythal even, but I'm frustrated that apparently the timeline calls for the fey'ri to be released and then all the daemonfey to move to Myth Drannor rather quickly. 'Course, I'm ignring all this in my campaign. 
I also begin to wonder if some of the recent RSEs in novels have been preludes to 4e. The end of Blackstaff, for instance, makes a lot more sense to me now that it looks like WotC is nuking the Realms. Might just ignore that, too.  |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Sep 2007 : 16:42:09
quote:
I'm not saying that the novels shouldn't have lore, far from it, but that the primary role of the novel shouldn't be to impart new lore, but to tell a good story with existing lore, and perhaps expand lore a bit here or there.
I agree, and I've said before that I read novels to read stories. I don't see them as a different type of sourcebook, or instruments of moving the setting forward, I see them as stories. Indeed, isn't the whole point of a novel to tell a story?
I definitely feel sympathy for the view that WotC doesn't seem to just want to let authors tell stories anymore. There have always been RSEs, and there still are smaller, more personal stories being published. But the key difference is the frequency of RSEs. There seems to be no end to them, and they usually don't seem to be very well thought out. The Twilight War series seems to pay attention to "cause and effect", but I don't think most novels (or sourcebooks, for that matter) do.
As for sourcebooks, I've found that novels can very quickly make them out of date. I loved the Blackstaff novel, but it also made the section on Blackstaff Tower in the City of Splendors sourcebook (released very shortly before the novel) somewhat obsolete. So I can understand why many people throw up their hands and say "don't have the novels be canon anymore!". RSEs and other "important events" happen so frequently that people can't keep up with them anymore. And not everyone has the time to spare to always be reading the novels simply to keep up with Realmslore. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 11 Sep 2007 : 14:05:31
I think that they are trapped in that they have deadlines that are way too short to properly get everything right and complete because they want to get everything out there ASAP to bring in the $$$$$$ which causes all these problems. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 10 Sep 2007 : 22:56:06
Well that's been the problem as of late with the Realms. They come up with a theme and then the actual supplement has nothing to do with the novels being put out.
Silver Marches - A Thousand Orcs were a disaster.
Underdark & City of the Spider Queen - War of the Spider Queen had nothing to do with eachother.
Dragons of Faerun & Rage of the Dragon - Hmm kinda.. but not really. Rage didn't effect the Realms.
Mysteries of the Moonsea - Last Mythal really didn't happen did it?
I hate Rage because everything about the novel screams to me, "Lets sell supplements!" The character races/templates were right out of the a supplements, the dragons were tied to a recent supplement, but there was no supplement or adventure or any kind of product support for the novel.
The problem really comes down to is they don't let authors just tell stories in the Realms anymore. That's why I like Drizzt, that's why I like Arilyn, they're just heros doing their thing and weren't major players in the grand scheme of things (until A Thousand Orcs with Drizzt.) They were having their own adventures, typical of the regions they "lived" in.
Swords of Dragonsfire is the perfect example of that. If any other authors was writing it, the Knights would have taken on Manshoon directly and probably defeated him at that. Instead Manshoon was put in check by his proper "equal" and the Knights had to deal with the minions like it's supposed to be, leaving the super powers to the super powers.
Now every book tries to make "the next Elminster", or quality hero that saves the day on his own no matter what the odds (or how many levels lower then his enemy he/she really is.)
We could debate this all we like but 1 of 2 things needs to change IMHO...
1) The novels are all delayed in release by 1 year. Meaning when book 2 is "finished" book 1 is just hitting the store shelves. That way when book 3 is "finished" we are just getting book 2. Wizards has time to make a supplement/adventure/something to release 8-12 months later with book 3.
2) Wizards releases supplements with book 2 and spoils the out come of novels.
Option 2 is easiest and quickest way to go. There are certain things that could be done, like communicating with the author, to ensure continuity doesn't get screwed up in this case. But since TSR screwed up and Wizards did the same thing, I doubt that'll happen again. Bob was clearly asked for this, this, and this to happen during his novels, so it won't be an issue this time around. But for a supplement to come out about the region he was writing and working on, and for him to not know or see the supplement until it was on store shelves just testifies to many things about the internal workings of the game developers and novel departments.
|
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 10 Sep 2007 : 16:59:51
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I'm not saying that the novels shouldn't have lore, far from it, but that the primary role of the novel shouldn't be to impart new lore, but to tell a good story with existing lore, and perhaps expand lore a bit here or there. The primary thing the sourcebooks should be doing is providing lore, i.e. campaign building blocks, instead of mechanical rules for things like PrCs.
I think that because we have gotten a lot of authors that are very good at spinning lore, and because WOTC has decided to advance the years and the "meta plot" through the novels, the novels serve a function that they shouldn't have to.
If that makes any sense.
It does. Sadly, it does. It does explain why no one has been able to explain the percieved rule tweaking that has been pointed out in some of the other threads. Maybe the authors were given different guidelines than the rest of us, guidelines more in keeping with 4e. It is very frustrating, as a reader, not to have the same set of rules to refer to as the authors.
Than again, what rules did they give Salvatore, I wonder?!?!
Now, to the topic, I agree with you KEJR. I am first and foremost a gamer in the FR. Therefore I always complained about the lack of lore in the recent 3rd Ed. FR books compared to the 2nd Ed. To compensate for that I tried to keep up with reading the novels but I cound not really keep up. Furthermore, I got very frustrated about the many events that were directly or indirectly influenced my own game.
Therefore I decided to "freeze" Realmstime in my own campaign telling my players to ignore any news are books or whatever FR lore they stumbled across. That way I was able to introduce only those RSEs I wanted to add and keep those out that I disliked. (e.g. I ignored the last mythal while I picked up the Rage of the dragons even though modified to my own needs.)
I believe that this is actually the best way to handle a "living" world as the FR. Take what you like, leave aside things you don't like. THe only ennoying thing a DM has to cope with than, is players screaming out loud during game lay: "But I thought that...., and according to this......!" Luckily I don't have to play with myself as a player! 
Now, if the lorewould be covered in books, I would not neccissarily change my approach because I still believe that some RSEs are good but too many are hindering the gameflow of ongoing gameplay. I would e.g. like to see regional "SEs" instead. Covering those events in a following lorebook would be a great thing to cover the lore and it might actually motivate gamers to buy novels and novel readers to by the sourcebooks...........
I don't know if all I said is topic related. got lost while typing. 
|
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 10 Sep 2007 : 07:10:19
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I'm not saying that the novels shouldn't have lore, far from it, but that the primary role of the novel shouldn't be to impart new lore, but to tell a good story with existing lore, and perhaps expand lore a bit here or there. The primary thing the sourcebooks should be doing is providing lore, i.e. campaign building blocks, instead of mechanical rules for things like PrCs.
I think that because we have gotten a lot of authors that are very good at spinning lore, and because WOTC has decided to advance the years and the "meta plot" through the novels, the novels serve a function that they shouldn't have to.
If that makes any sense.
It does. Sadly, it does. It does explain why no one has been able to explain the percieved rule tweaking that has been pointed out in some of the other threads. Maybe the authors were given different guidelines than the rest of us, guidelines more in keeping with 4e. It is very frustrating, as a reader, not to have the same set of rules to refer to as the authors. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 10 Sep 2007 : 04:47:15
quote:
Originally posted by Darkmeer
You think too much 
I can see their point, and I agree about Underdark whole-heartedly, as I thought Lolth's silence was much longer than it was (I don't do the novels much). There really is a lot going on in the realms, and if one wants to be canon fodder, then sure the novels can make the games much more interesting. Oddly, you can not follow the novels & still have a great game in the Realms because the detail is so great. Maybe that's just me.
/d
Oh, I know what you are saying, and actually that's sort of my point. I think some people may have gotten disenfranchised because they hear about this or that novel and what happened in it, and they just bought a sourcebook about that region and nothing references that event.
To use a 2nd edition analogy, when The Parched Sea came out, not only did the Anauroch sourcebook cover the tribes and the Harpers and Zhents involved, it game a larger view of all sorts of this tangentially tied to various aspects of the story, as well as presenting a whole bunch of other things that were way beyond the scope of the story.
In other words, the novel showed the lore in action, the sourcebook showed tons of lore that could be used to run campaigns, and had a lot more lore than the novel did.
But because recent sourcebooks haven't been designed in such a way to present the definitive amount of lore that they should, the novels have become the primary source of lore, instead of taking good bits of lore and using them to tell an entertaining story.
I'm not saying that the novels shouldn't have lore, far from it, but that the primary role of the novel shouldn't be to impart new lore, but to tell a good story with existing lore, and perhaps expand lore a bit here or there. The primary thing the sourcebooks should be doing is providing lore, i.e. campaign building blocks, instead of mechanical rules for things like PrCs.
I think that because we have gotten a lot of authors that are very good at spinning lore, and because WOTC has decided to advance the years and the "meta plot" through the novels, the novels serve a function that they shouldn't have to.
If that makes any sense. |
| Darkmeer |
Posted - 10 Sep 2007 : 04:39:17
You think too much
I can see their point, and I agree about Underdark whole-heartedly, as I thought Lolth's silence was much longer than it was (I don't do the novels much). There really is a lot going on in the realms, and if one wants to be canon fodder, then sure the novels can make the games much more interesting. Oddly, you can not follow the novels & still have a great game in the Realms because the detail is so great. Maybe that's just me.
/d |
|
|
