| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 20:22:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by coach
also the moderators could be more heavy-handed on a member that cliked on the "Post-Spellplague: Inns of Waterdeep" thread and posted how much 4e sux
Really? Because I've been kinda worried that we've already been too heavy-handed. In fact, it's something I'm cautious about each and every time I have to determine how to handle problems between the pro- and anti- 4e camps.
And despite a total lack of evidence, I've been accused of being heavy-handed with regards to 4E discussions. |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 20:37:58
|
Really Wooly... that's a total setup if I ever saw one LOL
And I changed my mind - despite the fact that I think 4e lore should get its own shelf (solely for organizational reasons), I despise the idea of chopping FR into a hundred little bits. If that's what we'd have to do to make things 'fair' then forget it... it isn't worth it...
That sounds like it would compound the problem. For instance, "Can someone tell me about the Sarruhk?"
Where the HELL would THAT go? 
Just forget this whole idea... I wasted my time... keep 4e mixed-in with the rest... at least the drama serves to keep the boards active.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 21:20:50
|
I really like the idea of a single 'get information' board, where we avoid lengthy discussions and opinions, and simply provide information o direct toward information.
I'm also very fond of the idea that threads be tagged if thye have to do with a specific time period. Just put a year range IMO, dont put post spellplague or pre-spellplague.
So a 4e waterdeep thread would be like:
Waterdeep[1472DR]
or a 3e thread on cormyr
Cormyr[1376]
or with a range,
Spells that never got reprinted in 3e [x-1368] |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 22:26:06
|
If we go this route, I would agree that keeping it edition-neutral, and basing it on time periods, would be for the best.
Primordial: -35,000 to -24,000
Elven Era: -24,000 to -9,000
Ancient History: -9000 to -3000
Age of Humanity: -3000 to 1356 DR
Recent History: 1356 DR to 1385 DR
Current History: 1385 DR to 1479 DR
I combined several canon eras because I really don't think enough questions (or answers) will ever be made for those. I named it the 'Elven Era' because folks unfamiliar with the setting will have no clue what 'The First Flowering' even means. I was going to name the Age of Humanity the 'Netherease Age', but there were several other prominent empires around as well, so I went with the canon era-name. I would have liked to have divided up the era between editions from the 4e time period, but honestly, what info do we have from that era? Almost none - better to just combine it with the 4e time period just for organizational reasons. Also, 'current history' sounds a bit awkward, but I can't think of any other way of separating 1e/2e/3e from 4e lore without violating someone's sensibilities. Technically, the time period most of us prefer is now HISTORY.
BTW, if we do this, however we set it up, I would suggest then removing the 'Sages of Realmslore' sub-heading, and perhaps make it the over-heading of this new section. Personally I always found it confusing (albeit poetic), so just calling the whole thing 'Questions for the Sages' may be the easiest for some folks to comprehend (given that I find questions that should be in that section all over these forums).
I was thinking the old 'Sages' section could be for lore-discussions, but really, we have General for that.
EDIT: Didn't see this before -quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Would you like the thread locked, Markustay?
No - there is still plenty of room for discussion. Anything that can be done to improve the current situation is a step forward. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Jun 2010 00:49:39 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 22:55:52
|
| I definitely like the idea of era-specific subdivisions. I am currently trying to come to the point where I will be able to at least tolerate the existence of the post-Spellplague Realms (please do not react in a volatile manner to that statement, it took me a really long time to come to this point, and it was not meant in an inflammatory manner). That is why I suggested some scribe-created content for the new Compendium to help flush out some of the details of the poorly (IMO) written (i.e. the Tyr/Tymora/Helm love triangle that was out of character for the involved deities) bits at the end of the GHotR. Also, Elaine's and Paul's upcoming novels are making it rather difficult for me to entirely avoid the 4e Realms. But I do think there needs to be some sort of division to keep the petty squabbling down, as I have stated in prior scrolls of this nature. Finally, I think that the moderators should come up with how the eras (while taking input from interested scribes) should be divided up, so it is not the reflection of one "camp's" or the other's vision of the Realms. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 01:36:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If we go this route, I would agree that keeping it edition-neutral, and basing it on time periods, would be for the best.
Primordial: -35,000 to -24,000
Elven Era: -24,000 to -9,000
Ancient History: -9000 to -3000
Age of Humanity: -3000 to 1356 DR
Recent History: 1356 DR to 1385 DR
Current History: 1385 DR to 1479 DR
I like the idea, but, ultimately, I don't think we need to be that drastically specific in terms of separation.
If this concept were to be enacted, I'd want to try just a single section that deals with quick reply questions for the entire breadth of Realmslore. Should there prove to be a need for further separation -- into specific eras -- then I'd consider it. |
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 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 03:03:20
|
I think that Kyrene and Coach have both made some good points... Kyrene regarding the utility of Google's Advanced Search within the domain "forum.candlekeep.com" (which will, unlike CK's search function, take you directly to the correct page of a scroll for your search terms), and Coach regarding subject tagging. I'm a big fan of subject tagging, and if we used it more consistently, the whole time-period separation would be unnecessary. For old-school Realmsians like Jorkens, the ToT is just as big a concern as the Spellplague is for many of the rest of us. Things said here recently (mostly by The Sage) have convinced me that a time-period separation is functionally unworkable, simply because some topics (such as the sarrukh and the phaerimm) span multiple time periods. The easiest way to deal with all of these concerns is simply to use subject tags. They don't even have to be edition tags, which some people consider to be divisive. I personally don't have a problem with them, as long as multiple tags are used in cases of lore applicable to more than one period. The simple fact is, the edition of the game fundamentally has very little to do with the vast majority of the Realmslore, RSEs notwithstanding.
If anything, the fact that a group could (if desired) play a campaign in ancient Imaskar (Netheril's been overused) with 4E rules should convince us of the futility of attempting to "explain" changes in the rules by changes in the lore.
My vote goes to The Sage's proposal of a single area for quick-answer questions, with the proviso that questions specific to the aftereffects of a particular RSE (be it the ToT, the Return of the Archwizards, or the Spellplague) indicate as much in some way in their subject. It's not divisive; it's helping the scribes of Candlekeep find what they're looking for. [/mini-rant] |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 20 Jun 2010 03:04:37 |
|
|
|
coach
Senior Scribe
USA
479 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 05:45:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by coach
also the moderators could be more heavy-handed on a member that cliked on the "Post-Spellplague: Inns of Waterdeep" thread and posted how much 4e sux
Really? Because I've been kinda worried that we've already been too heavy-handed. In fact, it's something I'm cautious about each and every time I have to determine how to handle problems between the pro- and anti- 4e camps.
nah, y'all've been fine
tagging is the key
was just saying that if 4e advocates bombarded a 1/2/3e tagged scroll with their "all hail the new" spew or ...
vice versa ... the grognards blasted a 4e tagged scroll with "4e realms is not really realms" rhetoric ...
you could bring Thor's Hammer down on their heads because they knew what they were cliking on before they trolled
 |
Bloodstone Lands Sage |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 06:11:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by coach
<snip>
nah, y'all've been fine
tagging is the key
was just saying that if 4e advocates bombarded a 1/2/3e tagged scroll with their "all hail the new" spew or ...
vice versa ... the grognards blasted a 4e tagged scroll with "4e realms is not really realms" rhetoric ...
you could bring Thor's Hammer down on their heads because they knew what they were cliking on before they trolled
I am in complete agreement here, speaking as a former troll from the land of grognardia myself.  |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 06:49:12
|
Hey!
I resemble that remark!
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
lowtech
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 07:01:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If we go this route, I would agree that keeping it edition-neutral, and basing it on time periods, would be for the best.
Primordial: -35,000 to -24,000
Elven Era: -24,000 to -9,000
Ancient History: -9000 to -3000
Age of Humanity: -3000 to 1356 DR
Recent History: 1356 DR to 1385 DR
Current History: 1385 DR to 1479 DR
I really like this idea. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 08:08:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Hey!
I resemble that remark!
I thought you might...  |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 10:49:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
For old-school Realmsians like Jorkens, the ToT is just as big a concern as the Spellplague is for many of the rest of us.
I've more or less had it, so my input here isn't really relevant, but since my name came up:
If a subject is really specific edition-wise it could just be a part of the thread title if defining it was important to the original poster. That is possible at the moment and I cant see how anything positive can come to Candlekeep from structuring the forums along defined edition lines. It is to much trouble to separate everything into a whole bunch of separate edition-areas, especially when lore crosses editions. Especially when it would irritate as many members as it would satisfy. One could probably make as many arguments for separating the forums into TSR and WotC sections and even more arguments against doing just that. The same goes for the time-gap. |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 02:39:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by coach
also the moderators could be more heavy-handed on a member that cliked on the "Post-Spellplague: Inns of Waterdeep" thread and posted how much 4e sux
In my view the mods here are already way too 4e defensive. I'm sure from their point of view it must be difficult to deal with the fact that a new edition was introduce & so many gamers, including many posters here (myself included) have a great dislike to utter hatred of what many of us view as a damaging force to the D&D legacy & rpgs in general. If you wanted to be more pc about it, you could divide the forums into year markers, ideas that happened 1300s & that which happened in the 1400s. I think there are a lot of great contributors here & I'm greatly appreciative for answers I've recieved here as some of them have been very helpful but the site would overall be a lot more usual to me & enjoyable to use without someone chirping in about 4e details on any of my posts, especially the ones I actually remember to add please keep it 3.5 or earlier in the question.
I don't think you should come into a thread & begin flaming but I certainly understand why 4e would cause someone to be angry enough to do that. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 15:04:13
|
| IMO if something like that were to be done, then it would have to be separated by era rather than edition, so I voted to keep it status quo. Sorry Markus. I think it would create division more than anything (and I am a fan of all eras, I don't want to see that happen). |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 15:07:07
|
| I like the idea of historical areas, it would inspire more discussion. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 19:30:34
|
| I think game editions should have nothing to do with anything. It should be segmented by time/date. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 19:30:37
|
New idea, which could either be added to anything we do with this poll, or be an entirely seperate animal -
Not sure how well this is going to sit with certain members, but since it applies to ALL editions it should work. A lot of us are comic-fans... remember the Marvel 'No-Prize'?
What if we did something like that? A few of us used to do that on the WotC boards, and in other threads I have recently seen Mr. Misc and Brace do the same.
If we made it an entirely new section, then we could have a thread about each continuity glitch we run across. Then folks post their answers to how such a thing was possible, and we all decide on which version is the best, and the one generally accepted by CK members.
We don't have to vote - we could just kick ideas around, but I was thinking that we could collect all the 'answers' into a document and have it hosted here (another log for Sage's never-ending pile?)
Basically, we'd be building our own, unofficial FAQ, to help people GET PAST some of the more glaring glitches (and even the little ones). Although the first thing that jumps out at us is 4th edition, we obviously have these problems all over the place - some very early modules contain material which is canon and doesn't work at all (I can name several).
The recent Dwarven discussion got me to think of this, and I think finding solutions, rather then arguing about the inconsistencies, should be what CK is all about. I remember back when guys like Gray and Krash hung out here a lot, and that's exactly what they used to do.
Input?
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Jun 2010 19:32:25 |
|
|
|
althen artren
Senior Scribe
USA
780 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 21:21:47
|
After the last few scrolls getting locked, do u think
honestly that posts wouldn't degrade into more troll-baiting?
Its an interesting concept, but I think that us nerds are too
hot headed for "discussions"
And besides, even if we did get decent documents made like these,
Sage would lose them in his own personal black hole called "the to-do
List" |
|
|
|
Kyrene
Senior Scribe
South Africa
765 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 21:52:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
And besides, even if we did get decent documents made like these,
Sage would lose them in his own personal black hole called "the to-do
List"
If he ever got around to putting them in there. SageTime (or Sage Reckoning) might prevent even that from happening.
On a more serious note: I still don't see the need for a seperate section. Any Realmslore related topics have always been asked about and built upon in the Sages of Realmslore section. And none of the scrolls in there (at least on the first five pages, going back to July 2009) have ever been locked (which tells you something).  
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. *shrug* |
Lost for words? Find them in the Glossary of Phrases, Sayings & Words of the Realms
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 22:55:27
|
| I was watching the Discovery channel last night, and astrophysicists are on the verge of pin-pointing the exact location of Sage's unique phenomena. They've even got a mathematical model of just how the time-distortion effect works - it has something to do with Galactus and South-American Chili-Peppers. Tinker-Gnomes may be involved as well... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 23:16:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrene
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. *shrug*
If at least half the threads are now devolving into 'heated discussions' about what is the correct, current version of canon, then I think there may be a problem. 
I've also noticed a trend in the last few threads of many scribes just 'giving-up', as so many have.. and many of them have moved-on. I had even decided to do that myself, awhile back, but running into fans of K-T and Al-Quadim (FAR from home) made me nostalgic for the Realms.
If we do NOTHING, FR is doomed. There simply aren't ENOUGH pro-4e FR people around to keep FR alive, despite whatever certain fans of that lore seem to think. Those fans are primarily 4e D&D fans, and will jump from setting to setting as they are released.
Is that what CK's official position is? To slip quietly into the night?  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Jun 2010 23:20:38 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 23:38:19
|
| No. I definitely would like to see some proactive patching of the 4e Realms and its lore to the previous versions of the Realms. I can't say because I wasn't involved as much in the Realms back then, but is it really that much worse than when they appended Kara-Tur and Zakhara to the Realms? I don't like the changes, but that doesn't mean I am not willing to accept them once the major inconsistencies have been ironed out. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2010 : 01:19:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Basically, we'd be building our own, unofficial FAQ, to help people GET PAST some of the more glaring glitches (and even the little ones). Although the first thing that jumps out at us is 4th edition, we obviously have these problems all over the place - some very early modules contain material which is canon and doesn't work at all (I can name several).
Actually, that's pretty much what my proposed Candlekeep's Guide to Forgotten Realms FAQ is like. I've basically taken the most canon-ready and responsible posts from particular replies [from both here and at Wizards] stretching back all the way to 2002, and placed them in an easy-to-search Sage-equivalent PDF. Each Candlekeep scribe or Wizards' poster has been properly credited with each reply sourced and dated for further easier reference. I've addressed most of the "hot topics" right up to the end of 3e. I've not started on anything related to 4e just yet, because I'm still catching up on the novels and DDI articles. |
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2010 : 01:24:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I was watching the Discovery channel last night, and astrophysicists are on the verge of pin-pointing the exact location of Sage's unique phenomena. They've even got a mathematical model of just how the time-distortion effect works - it has something to do with Galactus and South-American Chili-Peppers. Tinker-Gnomes may be involved as well...
I call it a Sage-Hole! [Yes, I know ]
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Is that what CK's official position is? To slip quietly into the night?
Unlikely. Much like Babylon 5's Kosh, "I will always be here." And, as such, so will any voice for the official FORGOTTEN REALMS -- regardless of edition. |
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 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2010 : 08:44:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Basically, we'd be building our own, unofficial FAQ, to help people GET PAST some of the more glaring glitches (and even the little ones). Although the first thing that jumps out at us is 4th edition, we obviously have these problems all over the place - some very early modules contain material which is canon and doesn't work at all (I can name several).
Actually, that's pretty much what my proposed Candlekeep's Guide to Forgotten Realms FAQ is like. I've basically taken the most canon-ready and responsible posts from particular replies [from both here and at Wizards] stretching back all the way to 2002, and placed them in an easy-to-search Sage-equivalent PDF. Each Candlekeep scribe or Wizards' poster has been properly credited with each reply sourced and dated for further easier reference. I've addressed most of the "hot topics" right up to the end of 3e. I've not started on anything related to 4e just yet, because I'm still catching up on the novels and DDI articles.
I certainly would've enjoyed a read of that, before engaging some "hot-topics" myself, lately.
I'd love to (continue) working on the "pro-active" patching. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2010 : 08:48:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Basically, we'd be building our own, unofficial FAQ, to help people GET PAST some of the more glaring glitches (and even the little ones). Although the first thing that jumps out at us is 4th edition, we obviously have these problems all over the place - some very early modules contain material which is canon and doesn't work at all (I can name several).
Actually, that's pretty much what my proposed Candlekeep's Guide to Forgotten Realms FAQ is like. I've basically taken the most canon-ready and responsible posts from particular replies [from both here and at Wizards] stretching back all the way to 2002, and placed them in an easy-to-search Sage-equivalent PDF. Each Candlekeep scribe or Wizards' poster has been properly credited with each reply sourced and dated for further easier reference. I've addressed most of the "hot topics" right up to the end of 3e. I've not started on anything related to 4e just yet, because I'm still catching up on the novels and DDI articles.
I certainly would've enjoyed a read of that, before engaging some "hot-topics" myself, lately.
I'd love to (continue) working on the "pro-active" patching.
I've every intention of opening said PDF to these halls eventually, for both commentary and potential revision [as of May 2010, it's still around 76 pages in length, and that's at the smallest possible font size]. Since the community of Candlekeep is largely a snapshot of the diverse online FR community as a whole, any and all input will not only be greatly appreciated, but will also help to ensure that my FAQ attempts to cover as much as possible. |
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 |
|
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
769 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2010 : 10:10:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I think game editions should have nothing to do with anything. It should be segmented by time/date.
I tend to agree with Matt here. There is nothing that says 4E has to be used in the current time line if the DM doesn't like it. Nor is there anything which says you can't use 4E during the TOT. So let's have a lore section which is divided up into Eras. Heck, it would be great just to have for some good reading. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 20:55:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
No. I definitely would like to see some proactive patching of the 4e Realms and its lore to the previous versions of the Realms. I can't say because I wasn't involved as much in the Realms back then, but is it really that much worse than when they appended Kara-Tur and Zakhara to the Realms? I don't like the changes, but that doesn't mean I am not willing to accept them once the major inconsistencies have been ironed out.
This is more or less my position as well... of course, re-establishing the continuity is exactly what Wizbro doesn't want. 
I actually liked the inclusion of Kara-Tur and Zakhara... what I didn't like in that respect was the scattering of Middle-Eastern cultural derivations all across Faerun (see the earlier mini-rant by Markustay). According to Ed himself, the Realms were once connected quite closely to Earth, so there should be cultural cross-pollination. In my Realms, the Norse pantheon is Toril-native, and were interlopers to Earth in the early 1st millennium DR / mid-1st millennium CE; this is why Tyr wasn't affected by the Imaskari barrier (as I believe he should have been). The Northmen are a much stronger cultural presence in my Realms, and have completely conquered the Moonshaes (peacefully, by settlement and intermarriage with the Ffolk, after following canon through the pre-Spellplague novels).
Anyway, to return to topic, I've cast my final vote on this issue a few days back; as much as the Powers that Be here at CK see edition-tagging of posts as an obstacle to CK's edition-neutral stance, I see it as a positive effect. Those (like myself) who want to mix and match the old and new know where the lore is coming from at a glance, those who want to avoid 4E in its entirety can easily do so, and those who have completely moved ahead into the 15th century and are not interested in the older lore can more easily find what they are looking for. I see it as being win-win-win... and such a strategy eliminates the need to segregate anything, which has been the primary source of contention on this issue from the beginning.
Okay, I'm shutting up and getting off my soapbox now... [/plea] 
Edit: I really like Markustay's idea of "FR No-Prizes"... we'll have to come up with another name for them, of course, but I think this is a brilliant idea. It's similar to what Brian "Garen Thal" Cortijo started to do with his Monday Musings (which I enjoyed greatly, despite being very anti-4E at the time; I credit his work with a great part of the change in my position regarding the Spellplague). Just another great idea belonging to someone else that I'm standing up and voting for... |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 26 Jun 2010 21:03:47 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
4e - Lets take a Vote....
Topic Locked
