| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 14:26:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wait... You're saying that when a published setting is changed by its designers, and previously impossible things are now not only allowed but utterly unremarkable, that it doesn't need an explanation from those who made the change? 
Yeah. That pretty much sums up my point. Continuity in these matters is highly overrated. What matters is storytelling, and enjoying the game. If the DM needs an explanation, though, he can surely supply one from his fertile imagination. The one he comes up with will be better for him and his players, because it was designed to fit his campaign.
Well, I can't agree with you. Continuity is very important, and it's one of the things that drew me to the setting. I want continuity in just about every story-based entertainment I peruse. Only in shows like The Family Guy can I ignore the lack of continuity.
Besides, I'm also one that thinks setting designers shouldn't leave questions like that unanswered -- if the guys in charge change something, they should explain it. Why should the DM have to do their job? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 17:52:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Keep in mind, the setting is not just a D&D setting. And, regardless, even if it was, it should still follow the rules of internal consistency.
Well the gaming community could use some consistency as well. I distinctly recall there being a huge, collective sigh of relief when we were told that there would be no ToT to explain the changes in 3.0. Leading up to the release of 3.0, there had been a major chorus of voices shouting "No RSEs!" and the designers listened.
I hear people saying now that that was a mistake. Yet, I also hear people complaining about the massive changes that were made to introduce 4th edition. It sounds like people want explanations sufficient to explain the changes, but not so radical as to upset their campaigns. Who knows better, though, what will upset a DM's campaign than the DM himself? That's why I say let the DM invent his own explanations.
As far as the novels, in 1999 DMs were also complaining very loudly that FR was not just a D&D setting, i.e., they were tired of major changes taking place in the Realms every time a new novel came out. My policy with regard to the books is that the events in them only happened if I can use them.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 18:23:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Keep in mind, the setting is not just a D&D setting. And, regardless, even if it was, it should still follow the rules of internal consistency.
Well the gaming community could use some consistency as well. I distinctly recall there being a huge, collective sigh of relief when we were told that there would be no ToT to explain the changes in 3.0. Leading up to the release of 3.0, there had been a major chorus of voices shouting "No RSEs!" and the designers listened.
I'm not convinced they listened... Because 3E was nothing but RSE after RSE. They didn't use an RSE to intro it, but that was all we got afterward. The cynic in me wants to say making an RSE to explain the changes was too much effort.
I mean, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but when they immediately break statements that they said they were going to stick to...
Besides, if we really didn't want one for 3E, why did we get one for 4E? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 18:25:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Well, I can't agree with you. Continuity is very important, and it's one of the things that drew me to the setting. I want continuity in just about every story-based entertainment I peruse.
I understand that. Everyone has their pet peeves. Ask me sometime about 300 and its rape of Greek history. :)
No one in my group really cared to know why dwarves could suddenly cast magic though. Some Realms Shattering Event that left half the world in shambles would have been a ridiculous, unnecessary, and hamfisted way of explaining something that no one had a problem with in the first place.
quote:
Besides, I'm also one that thinks setting designers shouldn't leave questions like that unanswered -- if the guys in charge change something, they should explain it. Why should the DM have to do their job?
I see it exactly the opposite. Why should they do the DM's job? What I want from a setting is a highly detailed geography, lots of NPCs, a rich history, and a steady stream of adventures that I can run. Determining the future of the place is a job for the players and the DM, not the designers.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 18:31:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
Well the gaming community could use some consistency as well. I distinctly recall there being a huge, collective sigh of relief when we were told that there would be no ToT to explain the changes in 3.0. Leading up to the release of 3.0, there had been a major chorus of voices shouting "No RSEs!" and the designers listened.
-Explanations don't equate to RSEs. People can not want RSEs, but want explanations for things concurrently. I do not know any rulesets other than 3e, but I know that, in 2e, Darkvision did not exist, and instead, Infravision existed. The 2e to 3e transition gave races with Infravision Darkvision, suddenly. Is this an RSE? No. Does this warrant some kind of explanation? Yes. Otherwise, suddenly, Narbondel makes no sense whatsoever...
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
I hear people saying now that that was a mistake. Yet, I also hear people complaining about the massive changes that were made to introduce 4th edition. It sounds like people want explanations sufficient to explain the changes, but not so radical as to upset their campaigns.
-Change need not be major, as the 3e to 4e transition is/was. When change exists, people want explanations. How big that change is, that's another story all together. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 23 Dec 2008 18:31:39 |
|
|
|
Nerfed2Hell
Senior Scribe
USA
387 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 18:58:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Keep in mind, the setting is not just a D&D setting. And, regardless, even if it was, it should still follow the rules of internal consistency.
Well the gaming community could use some consistency as well. I distinctly recall there being a huge, collective sigh of relief when we were told that there would be no ToT to explain the changes in 3.0. Leading up to the release of 3.0, there had been a major chorus of voices shouting "No RSEs!" and the designers listened.
I hear people saying now that that was a mistake. Yet, I also hear people complaining about the massive changes that were made to introduce 4th edition. It sounds like people want explanations sufficient to explain the changes, but not so radical as to upset their campaigns. Who knows better, though, what will upset a DM's campaign than the DM himself? That's why I say let the DM invent his own explanations.
See, to me, this just means come up with a reasonable official explanation for the changes that can be left up to the DM whether or not to use it... "reasonable" being defined as something that can explain but can also be altered or ignored altogether at the DM's discretion.
Unfortunately, the drastic changes to 4e don't lend well to simpler explanations. Of course, many of those big changes were demanded by a percentage of fans and the only way some of those demands could be met would be through catastrophic change --such as killing off Mystra you can't kill off a greater goddess of magic and blow it off like some hobo was knifed in an alley. |
Some people are like a slinky... not good for much, but when you push them down the stairs, it makes you smile. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 19:09:17
|
| -Of course, in the end, the DM has the right to "veto" whatever it is. The DM has the right to do that with everything. Thus, why *I* personally want official explanations. Those who want them, then, will have them, and those that don't, don't have to adhere to them. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 19:32:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not convinced they listened... Because 3E was nothing but RSE after RSE. They didn't use an RSE to intro it, but that was all we got afterward. The cynic in me wants to say making an RSE to explain the changes was too much effort.
I remember them saying back then that they had minor RSEs in store, but nothing that was really Realms-wide. My purchase of Realms products has fallen off dramitcally over the past eight years, though, and I'm not sure how well they kept to that. Blowing up Tilverton was a bummer, but the Shades are kinda cool.
quote:
I mean, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but when they immediately break statements that they said they were going to stick to...
I know. I'm just pointing out that in some cases trying to please gamers is like trying to hit a moving target.
quote:
Besides, if we really didn't want one for 3E, why did we get one for 4E?
In one sense we didn't. What we got was an entirely new campaign setting. It has the FR logo, a common history, and a few similarities, but it is not the campaign setting that we have been using. The real FR will be forever frozen in c.1372.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Brynweir
Senior Scribe
USA
436 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 19:35:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Of course, in the end, the DM has the right to "veto" whatever it is. The DM has the right to do that with everything. Thus, why *I* personally want official explanations. Those who want them, then, will have them, and those that don't, don't have to adhere to them.
As a person who is motivated by "Why?" and a desperate need to understand - which often goes unfulfilled - I really would prefer an official explanation for changes. Of course it would still be up to interpretaion by the DM, just as everything else is. That's why so many people have house rules. It would just be nice to have and "official" answer to fall back on - especially if that answer were to actually make sense  . |
Anyone who likes to read something that's really dark and gritty and completely awesome ought to read The Night Angel Trilogy by Brent Weeks. You can check out a little taste at www.BrentWeeks.com I should probably warn you, though, that it is definitely not PG-13 :-D
He also started a new Trilogy with Black Prism, which may even surpass the Night Angel Trilogy in its awesomeness. 
|
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 20:02:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Explanations don't equate to RSEs. People can not want RSEs, but want explanations for things concurrently. I do not know any rulesets other than 3e, but I know that, in 2e, Darkvision did not exist, and instead, Infravision existed. The 2e to 3e transition gave races with Infravision Darkvision, suddenly. Is this an RSE? No. Does this warrant some kind of explanation? Yes. Otherwise, suddenly, Narbondel makes no sense whatsoever...
That's a very good example of a seemingly minor change that alters a well established bit of Realms lore. But how would one go about explaining it? I can't think of any way than some sort of magical transformation that would affect all infravision-using creatures across the Realms. If it simply happens by Mystra's decree, a literal deus ex machina, then how different is that from just rewriting the way Narbondel functions in Realms lore? Isn't it easier for most DMs to ignore Narbondel, especially if they have no current characters who were ever in Menzo, and just say that's how it always was? Won't that generate a lot less eyerolling than some specious explanation about a change in the Weave that affects just how infravision functions? To my eye, the discontinuity is a lot less esthetically jarring than any strained explanation could be.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 20:39:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brynweir
It would just be nice to have and "official" answer to fall back on - especially if that answer were to actually make sense .
But any explanation they came up with would be criticized as nonsense by most of the people on any Realms forum. If I were a designer, the demand for explanations would sound like: "Give me something I can publicly denounce, and then completely alter for my own campaign." lol.
Think about how this works though. The suits decide that sales are down and it's time to come out with a new edition to get people buying books again. They set up a design team to tweak the rules, and then they set up another team of Realms-gurus to rewrite the campaign setting using the new rules.
If you're on that second design team, how do you respond? One legitimate response would be to say, "Alright, we'll rewrite it, but let's not come up with a bunch of silly in-game explanations for why they've gone and changed how everything works. DMs can just reset their games and go from there with the new rules." Another legitimate reaction would be, "Alright, we'll rewrite it, but rather than screwing up everyone's current campaigns, we're going to push it out a hundred years into the future. They can move forward in time, or stay where they're at."
Really, though, I just don't think there's a way the designer can win in that situation. If the rules change enough to warrant a new edition, then the changes to the campaign setting are going to be substantial enough to piss people off, no matter how the designer tries to integrate them into the setting.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 21:14:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
That's a very good example of a seemingly minor change that alters a well established bit of Realms lore. But how would one go about explaining it?
-That's why they get paid, to be designers. I'd sit back and think on this one, but I am leaving shortly (to play D&D, coincidentally). Later tonight, or tomorrow, I'll see what I can come up with.
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
Isn't it easier for most DMs to ignore Narbondel, especially if they have no current characters who were ever in Menzo, and just say that's how it always was? Won't that generate a lot less eyerolling than some specious explanation about a change in the Weave that affects just how infravision functions? To my eye, the discontinuity is a lot less esthetically jarring than any strained explanation could be.
-To which I respond with what I said earlier: The Forgotten Realms are more than just a D&D setting. It needs to follow rules of internal consistency. If Narbondel always used to be related to heat-sensing Infravision, and suddenly isn't, with a hand wave, internal consistency is not being followed, and problems begin arising. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 23 Dec 2008 21:14:43 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 21:18:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
But any explanation they came up with would be criticized as nonsense by most of the people on any Realms forum. If I were a designer, the demand for explanations would sound like: "Give me something I can publicly denounce, and then completely alter for my own campaign." lol.
-I completely disagree. While there may be some out there who like to complain for the sake of complaining- I know a few- most are not like that. Most people complain when they find a reason for complaining: This doesn't match, this doesn't line up, here is says one thing, and here another. Most of the time, there is a reason. If a designer gives an answer that is fundamentally sound and makes sense, unless people have agendas, most people leave such things be. Case in point, look at all of the back-and-forth with most authors and designers here. How often does Ed Greenwood, or George K, Steve Schend, or Erik De Bie, or whoever else get a lot of flack? Keep in mind how they design/write. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 22:45:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
That's why they get paid, to be designers. I'd sit back and think on this one, but I am leaving shortly (to play D&D, coincidentally). Later tonight, or tomorrow, I'll see what I can come up with.
Have fun storming the castle! (As my wife always tells me when I leave to go game.) :)
quote:
If Narbondel always used to be related to heat-sensing Infravision, and suddenly isn't, with a hand wave, internal consistency is not being followed, and problems begin arising.
Speaking for myself, I can come up with a much better retroactive explanation that saves Narbondel, than I could come up with for changing the biological functioning of the eyeballs of dozens of different species across the Realms. I look forward to seeing what you can come up with though.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 23:08:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
I completely disagree. While there may be some out there who like to complain for the sake of complaining- I know a few- most are not like that.
I don't see it as complaining for the sake of complaining, but because opinion are so varied, it's inevitable that most people are going to be unhappy with whatever is done.
quote:
How often does Ed Greenwood, or George K, Steve Schend, or Erik De Bie, or whoever else get a lot of flack? Keep in mind how they design/write.
They are well loved gods, and no one wants to blaspheme against them. They also have a nice firewall between them the guys who make the business decisions that cause us so much agony. 
There was another guy, though, who headed up the rewrite for 3.0. He wasn't so lucky.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2008 : 23:43:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
... or whoever else get a lot of flack?
It's flak ... or rather Flak*. No insult intented, but since it is one of the few German words used in New West Saxon, I had to step in here 
*Flak ... Flug-Abwehr-Kanone, i.e. anti-aircraft canon. And it is of course the fire the authors have to take, not the device used to send it into the air. |
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gęš a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerūn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 02:54:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
They are well loved gods, and no one wants to blaspheme against them. They also have a nice firewall between them the guys who make the business decisions that cause us so much agony.
-I have no problem expressing my disinterest and dislike of plenty of Ed Greenwood's novels and/or themes in the setting. I do so often, whenever I encounter something that I don't like. I'm not bashful in expressing my dislike of things.
-Anyway, about Infravision --> Darkvision: Moradin went forth and blessed the Dwarves with the Thunder Blessing, which caused the Dwarves to reproduce quicker, and let them "access" magic*. Lolth, seeing this, wished to do the same for her Drow. In her paranoia, she believed that Moradin's blessing was secretly some kind of harbinger of doom for the Drow. Thus, she went about attempting to bless the Drow. Her magics had an unforeseen consequence, however. The Faerzress energy- created, as we now know, by Elven Selu'Taar during the Descent of the Drow- permeating all through the Underdark "morphed" Lolth's blessing. Indeed, Faerzress' warp, and do funny things to certain magics, and Lolth being a Dark Elf deity, her blessing "attracted" the Faerzress energy, so to speak. Lolth succeeded in blessing her "children"- The Drow race gained Darkvision. The unforeseen consequence was thus, however: The Faezress' began emitting the same magical blessings, and, within days/weeks/months, all races in the Underdark "shared" in Lolth's blessing, as the Faezress energy bathing all of the Underdark spread it all around.
-It's a rough draft, but...
* This was discussed earlier. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 24 Dec 2008 02:55:19 |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 03:14:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-I have no problem expressing my disinterest and dislike of plenty of Ed Greenwood's novels and/or themes in the setting.
He's such a sweet guy, though. How could you risk hurting his feelings?
quote:
The Faezress' began emitting the same magical blessings, and, within days/weeks/months, all races in the Underdark "shared" in Lolth's blessing, as the Faezress energy bathing all of the Underdark spread it all around.
That's very good, but it doesn't cover those races with darkvision who dwell outside the Underdark.
But perhaps the blessing spread to other infravision-using creatures kind of like a virus, a magically transmitted disease... a umm, a sort of spell plague... that's it! A spellplague! lol.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 03:28:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
He's such a sweet guy, though. How could you risk hurting his feelings?
-I don't "go after him", posting in his thread about how I don't like X, Y, or Z. When the topic comes up, though, I'm not shy in mentioning that I don't like a lot of his literature, or many of the themes he imparts in the setting. Same thing with other authors/designers.
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
But perhaps the blessing spread to other infravision-using creatures kind of like a virus, a magically transmitted disease... a umm, a sort of spell plague... that's it! A spellplague! lol.
-The Spellplague was originally slated to be something akin to that. A psionic "virus". |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 05:10:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Besides, I'm also one that thinks setting designers shouldn't leave questions like that unanswered -- if the guys in charge change something, they should explain it. Why should the DM have to do their job?
I see it exactly the opposite. Why should they do the DM's job? What I want from a setting is a highly detailed geography, lots of NPCs, a rich history, and a steady stream of adventures that I can run. Determining the future of the place is a job for the players and the DM, not the designers.
If I want to explain everything myself, I'm going to go with my own setting. If I choose to play in another setting, then the designer(s)/publisher(s) of that setting need to explain it when they change things.
Isn't it a little inconsistent to want a setting with a rich history, but then not care when that history is changed, or when new information directly contradicts that history? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 05:13:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
They are well loved gods, and no one wants to blaspheme against them. They also have a nice firewall between them the guys who make the business decisions that cause us so much agony.
-I have no problem expressing my disinterest and dislike of plenty of Ed Greenwood's novels and/or themes in the setting. I do so often, whenever I encounter something that I don't like. I'm not bashful in expressing my dislike of things.
I've publicly stated, more than once, that I don't care for a lot of Ed's fiction. Some I have liked, but most of it simply hasn't grabbed me. And I've discussed that with him, too.
I've also publicly disagreed with other things, like the idea of Lathander and Amaunator being different sides of one deity, or the idea that the Dawn Cataclysm can't be dated because it happened outside of time. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 05:42:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
They are well loved gods, and no one wants to blaspheme against them. They also have a nice firewall between them the guys who make the business decisions that cause us so much agony.
-I have no problem expressing my disinterest and dislike of plenty of Ed Greenwood's novels and/or themes in the setting. I do so often, whenever I encounter something that I don't like. I'm not bashful in expressing my dislike of things.
I've publicly stated, more than once, that I don't care for a lot of Ed's fiction. Some I have liked, but most of it simply hasn't grabbed me. And I've discussed that with him, too.
I've never had a problem with Ed's fiction. It's one of the core aspects of the setting that I've appreciated the most since the Ol' Grey Box. And that's largely because I like and enjoy his writing style.
It's probably also why I've always been eager to pick up his other non-FR works also, because of his particularly enticing way of telling his tales.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 06:48:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Isn't it a little inconsistent to want a setting with a rich history, but then not care when that history is changed, or when new information directly contradicts that history?
My reaction would depend on the size and importance to my campaign of the contradiction. Narbondel has zero importance to the games I have run. It's a pretty minor thing in the scope of Realms lore.
As far as me being inconsistent, I want a rich history because it gives me lots of material to work with. I'm not going to be a slave to it though. If I don't like the way something happened, I change it. If I want to add more detail, I add it. I don't worry about what the game designers are going to do in the future, because their changes are always just suggestions, as far as I'm concerned.
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 06:53:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Its nice to see ErskineF on these forums.
Nice to see you too!
*tries to guess who Mr Miscellany was on REALMS-L back then...
First initial 'J'? |
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 07:04:05
|
[EDIT: I double-posted. Sorry about that. First version deleted.]
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I do believe, however, it's in large part because of the ill feeling towards the Time of Troubles that the 3e changes weren't given a matching in-Realms upheaval.
That's exactly why there was no equivalent event (thank god) between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition.
The fans (back then) spoke, and TSR-WotC listened.
As for the Cosmology change: The change to the Realms Cosmology followed WotC's thinking with regard to the Great Wheel as something that shouldn't be the only cosmology out there, much less something directly linking all the settings together.
Instead, cosmologies for each prime plane were supposed to be unique, with only minimally similar features so the D&D rules for planar travel and summoning magic could function and otherwise make sense in terms of how they worked.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The reasoning for this was never explained.
No in-game reasoning was provided, but WotC was entirely open about their design methodology during the transition from 2nd Edition AD&D to 3rd Edition D&D in terms of looking at racial class restrictions and level limits as counterintuitive, burdensome, unbalanced and otherwise not fun to play.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not convinced they listened... Because 3E was nothing but RSE after RSE.
Hyperbole aside, strictly speaking nothing in 3E came close to the Time of Troubles. I see your point in terms of the constant low rumble of localized events happening all over the Realms, but even now to call those RSEs is too much, in my opinion.
I dont recall Wizards ever stating they would stop introducing RSE-equivalent events into the setting.
As for 4th Edition happening: I dont see how one can equate that with how the changeover to 3rd Edition was managed, given the considerable turnover in headcount at WotC over the last nine years. Im very disappointed that WotC chose to go the true RSE route with 4th Edition and basically make the same mistake they made with the transition to 2nd Edition, but Im not going to turn around and say, You should have known better! when the only full time Realms designer of note that I know of who is still employed at WotC that was also there ten years ago for the changeover to 3rd Edition is Rich Baker.
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
I do not know any rulesets other than 3e, but I know that, in 2e, Darkvision did not exist, and instead, Infravision existed. The 2e to 3e transition gave races with Infravision Darkvision, suddenly. Is this an RSE? No. Does this warrant some kind of explanation? Yes.
This begs the question: Explanation for who, exactly?
Thats really only looking at things from a lore perspective. Theres no consideration of game mechanics or a practical consideration of how most Realms DMs would handle the change.
Infravision was a problematic rule. I played a lot of 2nd Edition back in the day and Im glad infravision went away because adjudicating it slowed play down.
Yes a lot of lore (Narbondel being a notable example) was written around it, but sometimes game rules just flat out need to be sacked. When my friends and I started playing 3rd Edition in the Realms, we gladly used the rules for darkvision and never had any lore-related hiccups because of it.
(Ill always think of Narbondel as it was, though. ;) )
Its nice to see ErskineF on these forums. Thoughtful and practical, and very much a blast from the past, Realms-L-wise.
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
First initial 'J'?
Yep! |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 24 Dec 2008 07:10:34 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 15:45:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
He's such a sweet guy, though. How could you risk hurting his feelings?
Ed is a sweet guy, but having read through many of his comments I can tell that he isn't so thin-skinned that criticism of his work will hurt his feelings. I can also tell he doesn't expect everyone to love his work (I do love his work, btw). |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Nerfed2Hell
Senior Scribe
USA
387 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 16:39:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Brynweir
It would just be nice to have and "official" answer to fall back on - especially if that answer were to actually make sense .
But any explanation they came up with would be criticized as nonsense by most of the people on any Realms forum. If I were a designer, the demand for explanations would sound like: "Give me something I can publicly denounce, and then completely alter for my own campaign." lol.
See, that's not a valid answer simply because making changes without official explanations could be publicly denounced, too. And the reason to add official explantions for changes has more to do with than just gamers... they also have to be dealt with by writers of the novels. If there are rules changes with the edict from the execs saying you must incorporate changes (like infravision to darkvision, for example), then the writer has to adapt that and accept that previous stories written now have inaccuracies with no explanation... meaning that gamers will complain about the game and readers will complain about story inconsistencies.
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
Really, though, I just don't think there's a way the designer can win in that situation. If the rules change enough to warrant a new edition, then the changes to the campaign setting are going to be substantial enough to piss people off, no matter how the designer tries to integrate them into the setting.
Nope, no way to win... so they should just do their job, make their changes, make in-game explanations for those changes, and not worry about criticisms of either the changes or the explanations. |
Some people are like a slinky... not good for much, but when you push them down the stairs, it makes you smile. |
|
|
|
ErskineF
Learned Scribe
USA
330 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2008 : 17:16:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
See, that's not a valid answer simply because making changes without official explanations could be is being publicly denounced, too.
Fixed that.
quote:
And the reason to add official explantions for changes has more to do with than just gamers... they also have to be dealt with by writers of the novels.
I could point out that the writers don't mind breaking things in our campaigns, so why should we worry about them? But I think I'm just going to fall back on my previous statement: Dagnirion's valiant effort aside, there's no way to logically explain the change from infravision to darkvision across the entire Realms. I challenge anyone to come up with an explanation that doesn't look like exactly what it is: a transparent attempt to gloss over a discontinuity caused by changes in the rules.
Were I a writer, I would rather ignore the discontinuity than come up with some contrived explanation. All that would do is call attention to the ridiculousness of it all.* The writer is already having people take his living, breathing creation and reduce it to a set of stats, which then get picked apart by gamers arguing over whether the character could really do the things he does in the stories. That has to be irritating enough without suddenly having to alter the character and his world because a bunch of suits want to sell more rulebooks. Sheesh.
*It reminds me of a guy I knew whose wife came home early one day and caught him on the couch with the lady from next door. He jumped up and said, "Baby, this isn't what it seems!" I can tell you, that explantion only made her angrier. 
|
--
Erskine Fincher
http://forgotten-realms.wandering-dwarf.com/index.php |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Rules and History?
