| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gerath Hoan |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 12:41:02
Here's a call to all the great sages of Realmslore on these forums...
Since i've been posting here i've heard numerous times that the Silver Marches sourcebook has numerous errors. Now this isn't my favoured part of the Realms. I've read few Drizzt books and did not collect the old 2nd Ed sourcebooks 'back in the day' so i have nothing to compare it to. What i was wondering if in this thread people could post what they see to be the problems with this work (and i'm not talking so much about rules issues, as the setting ones).
One that i'm aware of is that Xara Tantholor is made into a villain in this book, changing from NG to NE. However given the supposed concealment of her identity i can accept this as merely revealing another layer of her character to the DM. In my opinion, no bad thing.
And so, i open the floor to all you other sages.
GH |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 15:16:40
Great Reader Brimstone,
I appreciate it. I've been bringing them up for three reasons:
1) They are great material! :) I love the 3.0/3.5 era.
2) I knew that people would want to discuss that still very relevant material. :)
3) Knowledge is never too old. :)
I appreciate the response!
Best regards as always,
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
It's like a greatest hits tour of cool old scrolls! I'm enjoying reading them.
Indeed! I have been enjoying these old dusty scrolls!
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 22 Feb 2020 : 13:55:57
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
It's like a greatest hits tour of cool old scrolls! I'm enjoying reading them.
Indeed! I have been enjoying these old dusty scrolls! |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 16 Feb 2020 : 06:51:02
Hey Eric!
I generally refer to everyone by their title and name on here, but I wasn't sure if you would like that, so I am going with Eric. I hope that is ok, and not overly formal?
I am glad that you enjoy these old scrolls as well! I think they are quite relevant and fun, as well!
If you're possibly interested by the way, I created a new scroll for "Explanatory Ethical Modeling for DM's and Players ." I'd love to have some input if you're interested?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by ericlboyd
It's like a greatest hits tour of cool old scrolls! I'm enjoying reading them.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 16 Feb 2020 : 06:47:52
Master Rupert,
A pleasure as always to find you in these hallowed Halls of Oghma!
I can certainly appreciate the age of this scroll. Most definitely.
I felt it apropos in light of the time since Great Reader Fathomlin last made a response in that scroll, to identify that her concerns 15 years ago are not only still valid now, but in fact, in my view, worse with what has happened. In 2005, her complaints of canon consistency were legitimate. However, looking at what has transpired since 2007 and on, that makes this scroll very relative again. In fact, I was going to start something up like this as a topic and then remembered that the Code of Conduct politely asks that we keep it together on the same topic if it is already there.
My apologies for any frustrations. I just didn't have access to the 'Keep back in 2005, and am very interested in all of these much older scrolls.
I even have taken note that I get a decent response from people.
Why, even Designer Eric Boyd has joined in! :)
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Again, you're responding to someone that's not been here in years... Eight years, in this case.
|
| ericlboyd |
Posted - 16 Feb 2020 : 02:53:26
It's like a greatest hits tour of cool old scrolls! I'm enjoying reading them. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Feb 2020 : 02:50:28
Again, you're responding to someone that's not been here in years... Eight years, in this case. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 15 Feb 2020 : 23:05:35
Great Reader Fathomlin,
I get your point here, for sure. Going on (15) years later, we've seen WotC move from 3.5, Pathfinder has been added in, and now we find ourselves with the debacle of 4e that has had an emergency fire crew roll in to try and put it out with a mechanically fine 5e, and Leira like version for the Realms. In other words, to this day, I don't trust them on the moves they have made. WotC is certainly an abusive overlord of control when it comes to making you take your medicine.
Now that they've dropped the nuke, we'll see if they fix things. However, when you see how they've nuked all of the archives, etc., they are basically not wanting people to look back and would prefer people to just start over with the 5e restart on the Realms.
That's my 2.59080982340 cents worth [don't round up, then it isn't two cents].
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
In any case, in-game or not, the changes happen only if you want them to happen in your campaigns, people.
That's true, but the published Realmslore of the future is going to be built upon all the things that are changed now, right? I realize that a lot of people (including Ed Greenwood, himself) deviate strongly from what is published, but not everyone is equally confident about doing that. They don't want their campaigns to be changed so drastically that it no longer feels like The Realms--something Ed Greenwood probably doesn't need to worry about, since it's his world!
And I still don't see what is so difficult about simply creating a new character as desired rather than totally changing around an old one. Obviously, we can just pretend Xara never turned evil and was always NG, but it makes me wonder about things when a Realms designer decides to scrap the design of an old character just to add some moral darkness into an area. As said before, aren't there thousands of people in the metropolis of Silverymoon? It's the perfect chance to add a new character (a villian) into the mix, IMO.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 06 Feb 2005 : 00:06:38
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
In any case, in-game or not, the changes happen only if you want them to happen in your campaigns, people.
That's true, but the published Realmslore of the future is going to be built upon all the things that are changed now, right? I realize that a lot of people (including Ed Greenwood, himself) deviate strongly from what is published, but not everyone is equally confident about doing that. They don't want their campaigns to be changed so drastically that it no longer feels like The Realms--something Ed Greenwood probably doesn't need to worry about, since it's his world!
And I still don't see what is so difficult about simply creating a new character as desired rather than totally changing around an old one. Obviously, we can just pretend Xara never turned evil and was always NG, but it makes me wonder about things when a Realms designer decides to scrap the design of an old character just to add some moral darkness into an area. As said before, aren't there thousands of people in the metropolis of Silverymoon? It's the perfect chance to add a new character (a villian) into the mix, IMO. |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 05 Feb 2005 : 21:51:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
Exactly. Or at least give an in-game explanation of how she fell from grace or whatever, even if it was a sentence or two. I'd have no complaints about that but the random change just destroys consistency.
That would work, too. But in my opinion, that's where WotC has let down their long-time supporters. As I've said elsewhere, we had the ToT to offer an in-game explanation for the relatively minor changes from 1E to 2E, and none of that stuff really invalidated established lore.
But then 3E came along, with an entire host of rule changes, and not only did we not get any in-game explanation (or a lame explanation at best), they exacerbated it by making all sorts of arbitrary tweaks and changes.
I can understand what their stated goal at the time was: attract new customers. What I can't understand is why that goal involved angering and deliberating ignoring the fan base they'd built up over the previous 20 years. 
Well, I'm totally talking out of school here, but a suggestion for those who want to make changes and/or want an "in-world" explanation for the changes...
What if the Time of Troubles worked like an earthquake and the shifts and tinkering and changes and muffed lore bits are results of a multiplanar after-shock of sorts?
If people wanted to, their campaigns could have reshuffled and shifted however they wanted. Don't want Lliira back or let Bane take his son's place again? It didn't happen for your Realms. 
Then again, you could also explain a lot of things away re: 3E changes by making them after-effects of Bane's ripping his son in twain and sending loads of power across Toril as well.... 
In any case, in-game or not, the changes happen only if you want them to happen in your campaigns, people. In my FR campaign (if I ever get it started again), the Manshoon Wars still rage aplenty, Xvim's faithful are branding every heretic they can with the green-flamed hand, and something's going to have to be done about those pesky Arcane Brothers in Luskan SOON. And my "Silver Marches" still goes by the name "Moonlands of Luruar" and resembles what we set in The North box more than SM (though what lore I wanted to scavenge from there, I did gleefully). But that's just me. 
Remember, Ed and THO have yet to deal with the Time of Troubles at all in their game (so the campaigns from which 18 years of published material sprang is VASTLY different from what's in print). That, if nothing else, should show you you're all lock-stepped into having to accept every last little detail. 
Steven
One of these days, I'm going ot have to meet the people whose characters faced Iyachtu Xvim in Waterdeep...or simply be a fly on the wall during one of their games... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Feb 2005 : 20:26:49
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
Exactly. Or at least give an in-game explanation of how she fell from grace or whatever, even if it was a sentence or two. I'd have no complaints about that but the random change just destroys consistency.
That would work, too. But in my opinion, that's where WotC has let down their long-time supporters. As I've said elsewhere, we had the ToT to offer an in-game explanation for the relatively minor changes from 1E to 2E, and none of that stuff really invalidated established lore.
But then 3E came along, with an entire host of rule changes, and not only did we not get any in-game explanation (or a lame explanation at best), they exacerbated it by making all sorts of arbitrary tweaks and changes.
I can understand what their stated goal at the time was: attract new customers. What I can't understand is why that goal involved angering and deliberating ignoring the fan base they'd built up over the previous 20 years. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 05 Feb 2005 : 19:50:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I personally didn't like seeing Xara Tantlor made evil, with little explanation as to the why or how. I can understand wanting to make Silverymoon a darker place, but why not just create a new villian for that? Surely there are other shopkeepers in Silverymoon besides Xara (how about some new characters, already?).
Yeah, that really bugged me, too. Doing a minor tweak on a character is one thing, but totally changing one? Nope, I don't see a reason for it. Especially something like this -- it would have been just as simple, and more consistent with established Realmslore, to simply create a new character. It's not like it's that difficult a process...
Exactly. Or at least give an in-game explanation of how she fell from grace or whatever, even if it was a sentence or two. I'd have no complaints about that but the random change just destroys consistency. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Feb 2005 : 16:36:53
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I personally didn't like seeing Xara Tantlor made evil, with little explanation as to the why or how. I can understand wanting to make Silverymoon a darker place, but why not just create a new villian for that? Surely there are other shopkeepers in Silverymoon besides Xara (how about some new characters, already?).
Yeah, that really bugged me, too. Doing a minor tweak on a character is one thing, but totally changing one? Nope, I don't see a reason for it. Especially something like this -- it would have been just as simple, and more consistent with established Realmslore, to simply create a new character. It's not like it's that difficult a process... |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 05 Feb 2005 : 05:36:52
I personally didn't like seeing Xara Tantlor made evil, with little explanation as to the why or how. I can understand wanting to make Silverymoon a darker place, but why not just create a new villian for that? Surely there are other shopkeepers in Silverymoon besides Xara (how about some new characters, already?). |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 18:36:39
Wulfgar marries Catti according to Silver Marches. No he doesn't, in a novel published atleast 1 year before the 3e PHB was released, he married a tavern wench! Catti's off adventuring with Drizzt.
Bruenor has 1 eye according to Silver Marches. Again, before the release of the PHB, he gets his eye healed.
So although minor, it's very obvious that the people writing and editing Silver Marches did not read the last 2 Drizzt novels before putting Silver Marches to print. And they had more then a year to read them too!
On top of that, the even build up/consolidation that's being geared up for in 1372 Silver Marches, already happened in 1369-1370 in the most recent Hunter's Blades trilogy.
This happened because the people incharge didn't cooperate to find out that RA Salvatore was NOT advancing the timeline in his novels. Many speculate the outcome of the Hunter's Blades was effected by the Silver Marches becaus RA Salvatore had no knowledge of Silver Marches until after Thousand Orcs was published.
|
| Gerath Hoan |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 10:52:04
Ah, i see. Now i know WHY people get so touchy about this book then. I myself don't have the Drizzt bug, but i can understand that if you do then you'll be concerned that everyone gets their facts straight.
Perhaps that's why i haven't been able to see these faults people have refered to as though they're in plain sight. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 10:26:46
Something about Bruenor losing or regaining an eye and Wulfgar being married or somesuch. Nothing I would consider as terribly, super-important in the annals of the North. But I'm sure I'm in the minority when it comes to this given the huge fanbase Drizzt and co. have in the FR community.
-- George Krashos
|
| Gerath Hoan |
Posted - 01 Feb 2005 : 09:41:37
Thanks George, i hadn't known that.
Are there not any more? I'm sure i've heard that there are a lot of conflicts with the ongoing plotline of the Drizzt series. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 30 Jan 2005 : 22:57:48
They made Tulrun of the Tent a tiefling - when Eric Boyd had written him up in a two-part Polyhedron article as an Uthgardt barbarian weretiger of the Red Tiger tribe. I'm hoping this one will be 'fixed' in future work.
-- George Krashos
|
|
|
