| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Aug 2010 : 23:35:36
|
Hey all,
I posted this article over at the WotC boards (http://community.wizards.com/bookclub/blog/2010/08/30/fire_the_canon!), but thought you guys might like it too. So here we go:
The story
Once upon a time, there was a land called the Forgotten Realms, which was rich with heroes and villains and neutral-aligned characters of ambiguous morality who *did things.*
These things were recorded in sourcebooks, novels, and even video games, and were determined “canonical”--i.e. they truly happened in the Forgotten Realms. These characters (created by authors such as the prodigiously bearded Ed of the Greenwood, the deadly Bob “Twin Scimitars” Salvatore, the mysterious Paul “Shadows” Kemp, and so on and so forth) respectively righted wrongs, wronged rights, or maintained their list of gray hero/villain uncertainty traits through many a tale. In this way, they filled out a rich fantasy setting, which--like all settings in every sort of genre of entertainment there is--required characters and stories to do exactly that.
But a storm was brewing on the horizon. Thousands upon thousands of gamers were visiting this marvelous world on a regular basis, and a growing displeasure swept through them. They believed that these heroes, villains, and dodgy characters of illegible intention were, as it were, stealing their thunder. For in a setting with so many powerful characters, how could they get anything done?
They wanted *their* heroes to *do things* that Elminster, Drizzt, Erevis Cale, and so many others were already doing.
And so the great canon wars began.
The Dilemma
Much has been made over the years of Forgotten Realms canon (or pick your setting!), and specifically how it applies to your home FR game, and one of the major *criticisms* of the setting (and one of the suggested reasons for the 3e to 4e shakeup) has to do with canon itself.
Specifically, it was that canonical characters—usually novel characters such as Drizzt, Elminster, the Seven Sisters, etc.—with their power and influence, seemed to be the primary movers and shakers of the setting. The perception was there was nothing for the PCs to do in the Realms, because the novel characters were doing it all already. And since the novels are considered canonical, that adds to the perception that the events of the novels have to guide their game.
This, as I see it, is a false perception, but we’ll get there.
The struggle between sourcebooks, novels, and home games has always been going on, and *will* always go on. How you deal with it, however, is entirely up to you, and what I hope to do in this article is offer some insights into how you can reconcile things the best way for your game. Because it’s really all about having fun, isn’t it?
The Central Problem
The basic problem is this: I write something in one of my Forgotten Realms novels that affects your game in some way, either major or minor, and you have two options: 1) ignore it or 2) incorporate it.
Seems like an easy choice, but there are variables to consider--particularly if you pride yourself on “being canonical.”
For instance, I write that there is an organization called the Eye of Justice (hardcore shadowy paladin vigilantes) that operates out of Westgate (dodgy “sin city” in the Realms) and played a major role in the elimination of the Night Masks (a vampire thieves guild, formerly of Westgate). This shows up in my most recent novel Downshadow, my forthcoming novel Shadowbane, and a DDI article I published in Dungeon called, well, “The Eye of Justice.” And who knows? It might be in more stuff.
Trouble is, you don’t like it. Or it doesn’t fit into your game. Or—even more dire—what if you’ve already explained the elimination of the Night Masks in some other way? (For instance, Elminster popped in, said “enough of this, then,” and blasted them all to the Fugue Plane.) Or your PCs might have vanquished the Night Masks on their own without those paladin vigilante ponces, and now I’ve all of a sudden overwritten their exploits.
This is easy enough to ignore, then, but if you’re really hard-core into keeping things canonically perfect, what are you supposed to do?
The Point of Canon
First of all, there is no virtue in “being canonical” unless that also means “making it fun.” As a DM, if you’re not making your game fun and coherent and sensical for your players, then you are failing at the job that you were appointed to do. DMing is a *service* you’re doing, and your masters aren’t WotC or the designers or the authors who make up canon, but your players. We don’t care if you use our stuff—I mean, it’s cool if you do, but ultimately you need to do what’s best for your game.
Second, you have to understand the *purpose* of canon. It isn’t to give you rules and boundaries to determine the scope and direction of your game. It’s about filling in a campaign setting to provide 1) entertainment, 2) a place to play in the form of a fully visualized setting, and 3) inspiration for your games.
We’d love to make your PCs the heroes of the all our products--we really would. But since there are thousands upon thousands of you with different PCs doing different things all the time, we have to settle for giving you a sandbox to do it in, and offering novels/sourcebooks/adventures/etc. to give you ideas about things that might have happened in that sandbox.
(And besides, Drizzt, Elminster, etc., are basically the PCs of their respective novels, and to deny them the chance to be heroes is just as bad as denying anyone else.)
Canon is necessary in order to build a fully realized campaign world for you to use. That's it--that's the purpose of it.
The Illusion of Exactness and the Necessity of Interpretation
I’ll let y’all in on a little secret as regards canon: you’re never ever going to get it exactly right.
I mean, unless you’re running a game wherein your PCs play the Knights of Myth Drannor through Ed’s three marvelous books (Swords of Eveningstar, Swords of Dragonfire, The Sword Never Sleeps) with exactly the same plot and exactly the same things that happen in exactly the same order at exactly the same time with exactly the same dialogue everywhere without any acting or improvisation but basically just reading the novel to yourself (not even out loud, since that would be an interpretation), then what you’re going to be doing in your game is an INTERPRETATION, not the exact thing.
When you run a published module, you can’t play it “as is,” because the very act of reading it and ascribing what it says to action is an interpretation. I mean, unless the author sets down in a specific order exactly what every monster is going to do every round, you are going to have to interpret the creatures’ strategies to your PCs’ actions. Basically, some intelligence needs to go into the monsters’ artificial intelligence, or else it’s just an old-school Nintendo platformer with anthropomorphic turtles jumping and hurling hammers in a set pattern. (Not that that isn't fun--it's just no D&D.)
The way you get it *right* is by playing it in such a way as your players have a good time, and feel like they had a real Realms experience. If the canon presented fits, then great--if not, there is NO reason you should feel constrained to it. In fact, if you go your own way and create your own stuff, you are likely to have a better time.
Canon is also always moving. New books get published, and things have to happen in them. New sourcebooks appear. Gods die. Landscapes explode. The game keeps changing, in order to give new settings, new ideas, etc., to old gamers and new gamers. What you knew about the setting one year might not apply the next year. And this is just something that has to happen as time passes, or the setting stagnates and becomes irrelevant.
What to do about Canon
So let’s get specific with the above situation (I created an organization in the Realms that relates to your game). The options still stand, but now they have other consequences—note that all the ones marked *2* still fit into what I would consider a “canonical Realms game.”
1) Ignore it.
If it doesn’t fit your game, that’s an easy choice.
2) Incorporate it.
If you do happen to like it, roll with it. Your interpretation, as noted above, isn’t going to be the same as mine, so no matter what you do, it’s not going to be *exact*—but then again (as noted above) it shouldn’t be.
2a) Incorporate and ignore it.
It’s there, but it has no bearing on your game. Perhaps the organization was long ago crippled by some great catastrophe, or perhaps your PCs just never run across it. Or perhaps the focus of your first adventure is to eradicate it because you hate it that much. Either way, you win.
2b) Incorporate and modify it.
It’s there, but the motivations and goals expressed in the article/novels are just a cover for its *real* schemes, to bring back the Night Masks to Westgate. The leaders are all vampires, and Uthias is really Orbakh the Night Master.
2c) Incorporate and flesh it out.
It’s there, but the people noted in the article/novels take a back-seat to events in your game. Instead, you focus on other leaders/operatives in the organization of your own invention (as I only detailed one of the councilors and a couple of the operatives). Go nuts!
2d) Incorporate it as a distant background.
One character in your group might hail from the organization or have had dealings with it in the past. There might be a subplot. Otherwise, it’s completely absent from your game.
Final Thoughts
Finally, please note that you--or whichever gamer in your group gets stuck with the job--are the DM, and what you say goes.
No player should ever stand up in the middle of a session and say "no, it works this way--I read it in [insert author name here]'s book." If that happens, you can either say "no, it's my way" (because you're the DM) or you might change your mind (if you find the argument convincing or the new interpretation helps your game) but either way, you need to have a talk with that player and make it clear that as the DM, you are the arbiter of everything, because the group *chose you to be.*
If your players question your portrayal of the world or events therein, then maybe they want a new DM.
Do what works for your game. Do NOT feel tied by canon, because remember what canon is: a tool for your game.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 00:03:01
|
Forgive me for not reading your entire article; I've had a long day and my eyes can't take that much reading at one sitting. But if I've distilled it properly, I think you're saying essentially: don't obsess over over canon, just use as much as makes your game fun.
Something very much like that should probably be pasted into the fronticepieces of most gaming products. Just because something's published doesn't mean we have to use it. I think what you're saying is fairly obvious, but still needs to be said.
That said, it also goes the other way. It's the job of the designers to create things that make our games more fun, not less. Obviously, what constitutes "fun" varies greatly between gaming groups and people, which creates tension in the creative process. And if what comes out doesn't make our games more fun, we have every right to complain about that fact, and to rework it into something that is fun for us.
If sometimes we forget that we shouldn't take things so seriously, the past few years have clearly shown that the designers also sometimes forget that we are their intended audience, and they're supposed to make things fun. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
 |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 01:43:01
|
Absolutely: reworking is what you should be expecting to do.
I think, for precisely the point you're making (and precisely the opposite conclusion) the movement over the past few years has been away from lots of "what designers think is fun" and more "provide a framework for you to fill in what YOU think is fun." I.e., create a game system, give some guidelines on a setting, and let the players fill it in.
Maybe it's helpful to think of it this way.
Because designers are not psychic, there are basically two directions to go when designing something: 1) fill it all in with what we're most confident will be fun, and assume the audience will change what they don't like, or 2) fill in only the bare essentials and let the audience flesh it out as they see fit.
Every product released is going to be somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes: fill in enough but leave enough gaps that people will find the most utility in the product. Also, don't create all kinds of lore that canon wonks (like myself and many folks on this board) don't go nuts and boycott the product. What I'm recommending is that one not have this reaction, and just calm down a little about "canon wars," as it were.
I personally prefer to lean toward #1, and I think a lot of the products in 2e-3e go that way, while the early stages of 4e seemed very much to head toward #2.
All that said, I think some of the products I've worked on recently have been much more detailed and story heavy, so I think we're headed back toward #1, which is a great thing. It just assumes a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the audience.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3566 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 02:32:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Absolutely: reworking is what you should be expecting to do.
I think, for precisely the point you're making (and precisely the opposite conclusion) the movement over the past few years has been away from lots of "what designers think is fun" and more "provide a framework for you to fill in what YOU think is fun." I.e., create a game system, give some guidelines on a setting, and let the players fill it in.
Maybe it's helpful to think of it this way.
Because designers are not psychic, there are basically two directions to go when designing something: 1) fill it all in with what we're most confident will be fun, and assume the audience will change what they don't like, or 2) fill in only the bare essentials and let the audience flesh it out as they see fit.
Every product released is going to be somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes: fill in enough but leave enough gaps that people will find the most utility in the product. Also, don't create all kinds of lore that canon wonks (like myself and many folks on this board) don't go nuts and boycott the product. What I'm recommending is that one not have this reaction, and just calm down a little about "canon wars," as it were.
I personally prefer to lean toward #1, and I think a lot of the products in 2e-3e go that way, while the early stages of 4e seemed very much to head toward #2.
All that said, I think some of the products I've worked on recently have been much more detailed and story heavy, so I think we're headed back toward #1, which is a great thing. It just assumes a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the audience.
Cheers
Nice article Erik!
I hope you are right and we are steaming full speed ahead back towards # 1 and hopefully the audience is either more flexible with what's offered( or as i think happened , those who weren't flexible are less vocal than in the past and don't project the feeling that they are the vast majority) or more willing to explore ways to adapt things they don't like. |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31715 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 02:35:23
|
Unfortunately, I'll have to be brief. This lousy web problem has become rather all depressing.
Thankfully, I've these brilliant and well conceived words from Master de Bie. It's a wonderful and thorough analysis of an argument that has long been a part of the extended RPG firmament for decades. There's simply too many crucial points that I want to address that my current internet problems won't allow for, so I'll just say that I concur with this approach, and it's largely how my own Realmslore has been forged for my games since the earliest days of 1987.
[Oh, and Erik, I'd love to quote this article as part of an argument I'm trying to make on a similar subject on another forum {as my net connection allows}. Would you be okay with that? I'll try to maintain the context of your position as much as possible, to ensure your POV is clear.] |
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 |
Edited by - The Sage on 31 Aug 2010 02:38:05 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 02:38:54
|
I'm a little hesitant to continue posting in this thread. Not because I necessarily disagree with anything you've said, but because I think the thread (or maybe just I) could all too easily swing back around into "all the things I don't like about 4e." And I don't want that. My feelings haven't changed in the year or so since the flame wars finally died down, and that's just too much negativity to be pleasant dredging back up. So forgive me if I dance around the point a bit. Also, I haven't read any 4e material in the 8-12 months, so things might have changed and I wouldn't know.
That said, I think you're absolutely right about the two ways to make a world, and how the Realms has historically been designed around #1, with some areas set aside for #2 (Sembia comes to mind). And it's entirely possible to do good work with #2. I think the Iron Heroes sourcebook does a good job of that: it gives you all the details you need for how the setting is run mechanically, and gives a broad overview of what kind of campaign world the setting is meant to be, but then just steps back and lets you run with it. (I understand there are other books in that setting, but i haven't read them, so I don't know if this changes with more material)
On the other hand, I think if a setting has a history of trending one way or another on that #1-2 continuum, it will tend to gather users who prefer that kind of game design. In an idea world, those gamers inform the designers what they like and don't like in products, and the designers tailor their creations with that in mind. Legend of the Five Rings is perhaps a good example of this kind of heavy user feedback setting.
That doesn't mean that #1 is necessarily better design than #2, or vice versa. On the other hand, fans of one are not necessarily fans of the other, and if the designers decide to switch design philosophies without what the fans see as a compelling reason, well, lets just say feelings can get hurt.
As an aside, and while I'm pulling on other settings for examples, I'd like to highlight probably my favorite non-D&D setting as an example of how to do #1 with a built in "change anything you want" mechanism: Shadowrun. That setting rivals the Realms for depth and amount of thought and careful design put into it, of plots lovingly tended and grown over years of real time, especially when you include its sister line Earthdawn. But it's entirely based around message board posts by the shadowrunners themselves, with lots of crosstalk by other shadowrunners (often calling whatever author is talking at the moment full of manure). It's a wonderful tapestry of rumor and innuendo and outright lies that turns into a vibrant setting, and it actively encourages every DM and every player to redefine what the sourcebooks actually mean.
Finally, I did want to hit you up for more info on your hinted projects that are using Design Philosophy #1. I've payed zero attention to the published Realms for the better part of a year, because none of it holds any interest. It isn't the Realms anymore, or at least not the Realms I invested my time and money and emotions into. But since you're kind enough to hint, I'll be kind enough to ask for any follow-up you can share. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
GRYPHON
Senior Scribe
USA
527 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 02:54:55
|
Nice article. It's amazing how something as simple as this seems to be constantly forgotten by DM and players.
I guess I'm fortunate, our game is played simply, with fun being the main element. We just use whatever keeps the interest going, and it all (all being the unseen god *CANON*) gets used or acknowledged in some way. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 04:18:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I'm a little hesitant to continue posting in this thread. Not because I necessarily disagree with anything you've said, but because I think the thread (or maybe just I) could all too easily swing back around into "all the things I don't like about 4e." And I don't want that. My feelings haven't changed in the year or so since the flame wars finally died down, and that's just too much negativity to be pleasant dredging back up. So forgive me if I dance around the point a bit. Also, I haven't read any 4e material in the 8-12 months, so things might have changed and I wouldn't know.
That said, I think you're absolutely right about the two ways to make a world, and how the Realms has historically been designed around #1, with some areas set aside for #2 (Sembia comes to mind). And it's entirely possible to do good work with #2. I think the Iron Heroes sourcebook does a good job of that: it gives you all the details you need for how the setting is run mechanically, and gives a broad overview of what kind of campaign world the setting is meant to be, but then just steps back and lets you run with it. (I understand there are other books in that setting, but i haven't read them, so I don't know if this changes with more material)
On the other hand, I think if a setting has a history of trending one way or another on that #1-2 continuum, it will tend to gather users who prefer that kind of game design. In an idea world, those gamers inform the designers what they like and don't like in products, and the designers tailor their creations with that in mind. Legend of the Five Rings is perhaps a good example of this kind of heavy user feedback setting.
That doesn't mean that #1 is necessarily better design than #2, or vice versa. On the other hand, fans of one are not necessarily fans of the other, and if the designers decide to switch design philosophies without what the fans see as a compelling reason, well, lets just say feelings can get hurt.
As an aside, and while I'm pulling on other settings for examples, I'd like to highlight probably my favorite non-D&D setting as an example of how to do #1 with a built in "change anything you want" mechanism: Shadowrun. That setting rivals the Realms for depth and amount of thought and careful design put into it, of plots lovingly tended and grown over years of real time, especially when you include its sister line Earthdawn. But it's entirely based around message board posts by the shadowrunners themselves, with lots of crosstalk by other shadowrunners (often calling whatever author is talking at the moment full of manure). It's a wonderful tapestry of rumor and innuendo and outright lies that turns into a vibrant setting, and it actively encourages every DM and every player to redefine what the sourcebooks actually mean.
Finally, I did want to hit you up for more info on your hinted projects that are using Design Philosophy #1. I've payed zero attention to the published Realms for the better part of a year, because none of it holds any interest. It isn't the Realms anymore, or at least not the Realms I invested my time and money and emotions into. But since you're kind enough to hint, I'll be kind enough to ask for any follow-up you can share.
Heh... I've been doing two things with Shadowrun right now. The first project is writing up a campaign for my friends for when I move back to PA to run for them. The second project (just completed) was going through all the sourcebooks and indexing all of those wonderful 'innuendoes' and rumors posted by the Shadowrunners on the boards. I ESPECIALLY love watching the 'big powers' dropping in to muddy the waters on purpose (Ahhh, how I miss you, 'D').
Edit: (*AHEM*) To get my brain back on track for this scroll, let me just say that I'm agreement with Hoondatha's outlook. Many of us scribes here 'grew up' on the Realms, where every sourcebook and novel gave us a detail on this or that, helping us to fall in love with the world. And I think it was the sudden change in development styles that shook us the hardest. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 31 Aug 2010 04:21:03 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 04:55:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
<chop>
The Point of Canon
First of all, there is no virtue in “being canonical” unless that also means “making it fun.” As a DM, if you’re not making your game fun and coherent and sensical for your players, then you are failing at the job that you were appointed to do. DMing is a *service* you’re doing, and your masters aren’t WotC or the designers or the authors who make up canon, but your players. We don’t care if you use our stuff—I mean, it’s cool if you do, but ultimately you need to do what’s best for your game.
Second, you have to understand the *purpose* of canon. It isn’t to give you rules and boundaries to determine the scope and direction of your game. It’s about filling in a campaign setting to provide 1) entertainment, 2) a place to play in the form of a fully visualized setting, and 3) inspiration for your games.
We’d love to make your PCs the heroes of the all our products--we really would. But since there are thousands upon thousands of you with different PCs doing different things all the time, we have to settle for giving you a sandbox to do it in, and offering novels/sourcebooks/adventures/etc. to give you ideas about things that might have happened in that sandbox.
(And besides, Drizzt, Elminster, etc., are basically the PCs of their respective novels, and to deny them the chance to be heroes is just as bad as denying anyone else.)
Canon is necessary in order to build a fully realized campaign world for you to use. That's it--that's the purpose of it.
I agree entirely. Someone (possibly Ed, possibly Garen Thal or Markustay or another of our luminous scribes) made the same point shortly after 4E came out. If we had all just listened to Ed in the first place over the course of the first 3.5 editions, and understood that the Realms is a vast place, certainly big enough for all of our PCs, let alone a few dozen epic-level NPCs, the Spellplague likely would not have happened, because the voice of reason would have overwhelmed the power-mongering munchkins.
I personally would have favoured a different strategy from the beginning with the Realms... but I'll get to that next, and yes, even though it's a moot point, I will discuss it because maybe it will help future campaign setting project managers, whether at WotC or elsewhere (Paizo... although I'm not seeing any signs yet that they need the help).
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
<chop>
What to do about Canon
So let’s get specific with the above situation (I created an organization in the Realms that relates to your game). The options still stand, but now they have other consequences—note that all the ones marked *2* still fit into what I would consider a “canonical Realms game.”
1) Ignore it.
If it doesn’t fit your game, that’s an easy choice.
2) Incorporate it.
If you do happen to like it, roll with it. Your interpretation, as noted above, isn’t going to be the same as mine, so no matter what you do, it’s not going to be *exact*—but then again (as noted above) it shouldn’t be.
2a) Incorporate and ignore it.
It’s there, but it has no bearing on your game. Perhaps the organization was long ago crippled by some great catastrophe, or perhaps your PCs just never run across it. Or perhaps the focus of your first adventure is to eradicate it because you hate it that much. Either way, you win.
2b) Incorporate and modify it.
It’s there, but the motivations and goals expressed in the article/novels are just a cover for its *real* schemes, to bring back the Night Masks to Westgate. The leaders are all vampires, and Uthias is really Orbakh the Night Master.
2c) Incorporate and flesh it out.
It’s there, but the people noted in the article/novels take a back-seat to events in your game. Instead, you focus on other leaders/operatives in the organization of your own invention (as I only detailed one of the councilors and a couple of the operatives). Go nuts!
2d) Incorporate it as a distant background.
One character in your group might hail from the organization or have had dealings with it in the past. There might be a subplot. Otherwise, it’s completely absent from your game.
I'm a big fan of all five approaches, as best fits the situation. I won't go into examples from my Realms, because I want to address the "different strategy" I mentioned above:
In a perfect world, the novels and game materials for the Realms would have been more closely entwined from the beginning. Yes, I said more, not less. Here's what I mean:
- Present the novel events (not as a spoiler of outcomes, but simply as an overview of the major players and the conflict(s) involved) as "this is what might happen, if the PCs do nothing about this problem first."
- Present a variety of possible scenarios regarding significant events or locations; my first example here would be those infernal pyramids of Ascore from FR5 and subsequent products, followed by the Karse scenario in the OGB involving the avatar of Karsus at the red stone butte that was never(to my knowledge) followed up on.
- Present alternate crises for the novel NPCs to have been busy dealing with while the PCs took care of the central crisis of the novel as played out in the individual DM's campaign.
I could continue here, but I think I've provided enough that you can see what I mean. It all falls under a combination of options [2b] and [2c] from Erik's original post, quoted above in this post.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Final Thoughts
Finally, please note that you--or whichever gamer in your group gets stuck with the job--are the DM, and what you say goes.
No player should ever stand up in the middle of a session and say "no, it works this way--I read it in [insert author name here]'s book." If that happens, you can either say "no, it's my way" (because you're the DM) or you might change your mind (if you find the argument convincing or the new interpretation helps your game) but either way, you need to have a talk with that player and make it clear that as the DM, you are the arbiter of everything, because the group *chose you to be.*
If your players question your portrayal of the world or events therein, then maybe they want a new DM.
Do what works for your game. Do NOT feel tied by canon, because remember what canon is: a tool for your game.
Cheers
And this, imho, was the biggest cause of the Spellplague: canon lawyers. I'm not sure whether they or rules lawyers are the bigger blight on the gaming community as a whole, but in a Realms context, it's definitely the canon lawyers that create the DM nightmares. In my Realms gaming group, I am by far the most well-versed in Realmslore, and I made use of it when I DM'ed. In our current campaign, I'm not the DM, and I keep my mouth shut unless I'm in character or asking for clarification. Mind you, in this situation, I helped establish a lot of the canon that the current DM is adhering to; his game is set 20 years after the conclusion of my campaign (and the real-time gap is now ten years).
Anyway, I'd be interested to know what others think of the idea of the novels expressly indicating what might happen, rather than what did happen... I confess to being inspired along this line of thought by the announcement that the 4E Dark Sun setting would be a reboot, and what this meant for the Prism Pentad.
Fire the canon!  (And make it work for you; a canon that doesn't work is no fun at all... how are you supposed to blow things up with it? Edit: That is rather paradoxical, now that I think of it... a gun that doesn't work can't be fired... but that's HR amusement for a different scroll)  |
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 31 Aug 2010 05:00:18 |
|
|
|
Snowblood
Senior Scribe
Australia
388 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 06:43:53
|
| I like Eriks take on canon...while I try to make what I write fit within the canon lore already set down by others, I am just as likely to include something wonderful from the scribes here, and the rest either comes from hints dropped by Ed, or George or I just make it up to fit. So canon for me is an inspiration not a hindrance....but then I guess writing about historical pasts I do have a rather longer view of different game periods and settings. However what Erik said still applies, what we do in our home games (even Ed's) can and frequently does differ from what WOTC publish, and thats good. Many people like what I do...even ???? and ????? but its just my take on things nothing official....in a home game its all about adaption and interpretation.......nuff sed!!!!! Cheers.....by the way Erik....what you said...... |
Aryvandaar, Ilythiir, Arnothoi, Orva, Sarphil, Anauria/Asram/Hlondath, Uvaeren, Braceldaur, Ilodhar, Lisenaar, Imaskar, Miyeritar, Orishaar, Shantel Othrieir, Keltormir, Eaerlann, Ammarindar, Siluvanede, Sharrven, Illefarn, Ardeep, Rystal Wood, Evereska are all available here for download:http://phasai.deviantart.com/gallery/
|
Edited by - Snowblood on 31 Aug 2010 06:47:34 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 08:53:41
|
Erik you deserve a hug.
I would guess that no one would be surprised by me saying I am in the 1 category for the most part? It never occurred to me at all that there was a "right way" at playing and looking at the setting before I started reading these forums and I still don't like the idea. |
|
|
|
mensch
Seeker
80 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 10:10:26
|
Erik's article hits the nail on the head!
I personally don't feel daunted by the amount of canon in the Forgotten Realms though. I want to include as much of it as possible, because there's nothing more rewarding than hearing a players say: "Hey! I know that NPC/Story/Place/Etc." One problem with the sheer amount is the chronology. Often I'd like to include some organisation while preparing my sessions and find out it doesn't exist in the year my campaign is set. For example, I wanted to include a Moonstar agent in our campaign, which is set in 1363 DR, but after some research realising the Moonstars were founded 7 years later. But when everything finally fits, maybe with some slight alterations, the end result is so much more rewarding. |
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate to know that for destruction ice is also great and would suffice. – Robert Frost (1874 - 1963) |
Edited by - mensch on 31 Aug 2010 10:10:59 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3566 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 14:03:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Erik you deserve a hug.
I would guess that no one would be surprised by me saying I am in the 1 category for the most part? It never occurred to me at all that there was a "right way" at playing and looking at the setting before I started reading these forums and I still don't like the idea.
I think you just summed it up ...There is no "right way".
And folks guess what else.....There is also no "wrong way" to play or enjoy the Realms!
There is room for everyone, every view and every opinion. |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4435 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 15:19:31
|
What a great article Erik. As a fan of the Realms for over a decade (and earlier from playing Baldur's Gate games) I've pretty much incorporated most of your points into my own Realms games. Though I can understand some sentiments about NPCs mucking up the works, I've never had that problem in my games because I just don't make them the focal point of my campaign.
I use the "...Alustriel? Yea, she's REALLY busy with something waaay more important right now to deal with this so it's up to you!" line of thinking if that ever comes up (which it really never does). And for my own part, I think novels, games, and sourcebooks being canon advances the storyline and could be used in my own games if I so choose.
And like others have said, use what you like and discard the rest. And that saying can pretty much be used across the editions and years of the Realms.
PS. I really need to get those novels of yours Erik, they sound like a really good read. And as for the Eye of Justice article, well I'll probably be setting my next Realms campaign in Westgate and they'll see some use. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 15:44:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
They wanted *their* heroes to *do things* that Elminster, Drizzt, Erevis Cale, and so many others were already doing.
I know this is true, because I've heard and seen it mentioned many, many times. But I've never really understood it.
Obviously, there have been efforts to counter it — I know Ed, among many others, has repeatedly pointed out that to the average Faerunian, Elminster is a semi-retired sage, not this super-epic deus-ex-machina-in-waiting, lurking about, ready to drop a meteor swarm into every adventuring party's next threat.
I think, Erik, you make an apt point with regard to misperceptions, but I don't think you expanded on it sufficiently. In part, TSR/WotC has brought this misperception on themselves by so often focusing Realmsian marketing on these "uber-characters" (Gods, how I hate that prefix) — the cover of GHotR almost tells the tale, doesn't it?
But I think equally culpable have to be the numerous players who bring knowledge that would be distinctly OOC for their PCs into their games, and DMs who too often take a lazy, or fanboy-ish approach to their games and use these iconic characters in ways which were never intended by their creators.
But there was never a concerted campaign to say, "Hey, that's not really how the Realms works." Or even, "You know, the Marines don't always show up, either." Even in this exceptionally connected world of ours, hundreds, thousands, and even millions die in conflicts, accidents, and natural disasters, and the vast majority of people don't know about it. Take a random sampling of people on the street, in almost any Western country, and ask them if they can find Congo on a map, let alone know anything about the war that's taken something like 2 million lives.
TSR/WotC never said, "And you think adventurers are waiting on the Seven Sisters to solve their problems?"
I think this addresses the point very well. It is a misconception that the NPCs of the setting are supposed to be the heroes of the game, but it is one that is all too often supported by the marketing, particularly as regards the novel line.
The issue with the marketing, as I see it, is that focusing on "big damn heroes" (if you will) is that it sells novels, and you need your heroes to *do* something. And when you publish a trilogy with heroes *doing* something, that makes a convenient source for canon information to add to the setting to keep it advancing.
The Realms has to serve, basically, two demands: provide a cogent and fun campaign world, and also provide a place to tell stories that sell novels. They don't have to be Realms shattering stories, but nobody wants to read novels where nothing happens.
(Though I do like the Elminster novels wherein hordes of war wizards, highknights, and Cormyrian traitors get blown up in countless unpleasant ways and just get replaced within a couple tendays--I'm just waiting for Elminster to shrug and say "Well, that's Cormyr for you.")
I think the main question is, do the novels serve the game (in which case they shouldn't be all powerful world-shattering stories), or are they their own endeavor (in which case they follow the rules of fantasy publishing)? And me, I can't see why they wouldn't do both: show cool locales, suggest cool adventures, flesh out NPCs to be used in your games, and also tell darn good stories/full-fledged fantasy novels.
This is getting a little off topic, but this is essentially my novel-writing philosophy. I like to tell stories that don't mess things up but introduce cool characters and show their personal struggles.
quote:
Obviously, anytime something new happens, it changes the setting. No matter how minor. But there's a difference between writing novels about the Crown Wars, for example, and moving the setting "forward" with world-changing events on a monthly basis. (And this isn't about the Spellplague — think of the ToT, the Rage, the Threat from the Sea, the return of Shade, etc. etc. etc.)
Well, the thing about RSEs is that they sell books. Those series tend to sell a lot better than the stand-alones they've released along the way, so naturally that pushes WotC to maintain that story-telling paradigm. Plus, they are telling stories about big, serious fantasy events, which fits the criteria of "full-fledged fantasy novels."
(I do wonder whether smaller-scale stories could be told just as effectively and sell just as well, but I'm not privy to those numbers.)
My suggestion as regards these (from the original essay) holds true: incorporate them if you like them, or ignore them if you don't. There's no reason your PCs can't be the ones who have to deal with the rage of dragons, or the return of shade might not actually affect your game--at least at first.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
*snip*
Do what works for your game. Do NOT feel tied by canon, because remember what canon is: a tool for your game.
Thanks for the cogent contribution!
Very welcome. 
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 15:58:30
|
Never, *ever*, trust anything said by someone who pairs a trenchcoat and a sword.
Ever. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 16:06:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Never, *ever*, trust anything said by someone who pairs a trenchcoat and a sword.
Ever.
Connor and Duncan would NEVER lie! |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Elfinblade
Senior Scribe
Norway
377 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 16:25:25
|
| Some very thorough and astute observations there Erik. I approve! |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 16:25:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Never, *ever*, trust anything said by someone who pairs a trenchcoat and a sword.
Ever.
Connor and Duncan would NEVER lie!
But it is a good idea to nod and agree with everything the person says until you are out of reach. And preferably in another time-zone if they show you any special interest.
And thanks Ashe, now I have Queen stuck in my head. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 16:54:38
|
I read the OP, but not the responses, so I may be repeating others here so please forgive me if I do.
I have ALWAYS said that NONE of us plays in the canon Realms - not even Ed Greenwood. The canon Realms exists in a pristine, inviolable state in novels and sourcebooks (video games are 'iffy' at best). Each of us - the designers and Ed included - play in our version of the Realms. Think of each as an alternate Quantum universe a'la Sliders, or perhaps as other crystal spheres in a Cosmos filled with an infinite number of spheres (so that anything is not only possible, but also highly probable).
Any group or DM who thinks they are playing in the 'canon Realms' are delusional. As much as it may offend some here, that statement holds true for the 'Living FR' people as well - you were NEVER playing in the canon Realms. What you were doing is running adventures for groups that could possibly become canon, if the designers wanted it to be so. To think that the same adventure run for hundreds of groups across the country were all 'canon' was preposterous. I just picture 37 adventuring groups all trying to squeeze through the doorway to the dungeon at the same time. The canon outcome of the adventure will always be the same in the official Realms, regardless of what any one particular group does (including if they fail).
That all being said, many of us try to keep our versions as canon as possible, simply because the Realms are so delightfully complex, to make a single change usually sends ripples across the rest of the setting. The 'butterfly effect' is VERY real in a game setting, especially one as detailed as the Realms, and each change we make must be considered carefully.
I have said on numerous occasions that my game Realms is very different from the canon one, most especially the maps. However, despite moving countries around I still try to keep all the canon events, characters, groups, and history intact as much as possible, simply because I don't want to invalidate other parts of the setting. Those 'ripples' I mentioned could cause a catastrophic meltdown of other on-going meta-plots that I may someday want to use.
What this is all means is that it is perfectly understandable (and desirable) to adhere to canon within reason, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point to buying a pre-fab setting, but to think you are running a 'canon game' is just plain wrong, and therein lies the problem. Anytime a player, or DM for that matter, tries to say 'thats not how it is in the books', they should be answered with "this isn't the same world as that one - it is merely one based on it". Players who argue otherwise are misguided (at best), and any DM who thinks that is the case is only insulting his own creativity.
Ed isn't sitting next to you when you run your game, allowing your players to enjoy themselves - that's all YOU. You can have the greatest setting in the world in front of you, but if your players aren't having fun then it's your fault, not the game's. Same goes for a bad setting - its what YOU, the DM (and players), make of it. Being a 'canon Nazi' just proves you are a mindless lemming, running for the proverbial cliff. Creativity is what D&D is all about, so relax and just have fun with it. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 17:54:08
|
Here's a long reply I gave to one of the posters over at the WotC boards (name included to give credit). I think it clarifies and articulates my point as applied, specifically, to the 4e FR transition:
quote:
Originally posted by Jorunhast
It's a good essay, with good advice generally. It definitely addresses canon from a rational viewpoint, and it'll be useful for many people.
That said, how does one "get over" changes to a setting that make a person feel like they're no longer connected to it or invested in it? I'm really being serious here, because I miss that feeling of investment.
Or is there a certain point where people just "move on" to other things if they can't stand certain changes? And is that what companies/designers want and intend, that they expect to lose the older fanbase in order to attract a new one?
It seems pretty obvious we're talking at the 4e FR leap, so let me be clear in my opinion on this: I earnestly believe that the designers were trying their best to please everyone--or at least, as many as possible. These are professional people whose livelihoods and families depend on them to sell products--it's not like they wanted to cheese off the very people who make that possible.
From my perspective as a designer, I would *never* intentionally alienate an existing fan or fanbase, but I do recognize that things will happen that do have the unintentional effect of pushing people out of it. The things that you most love might change--that's just something that happens in entertainment, life, etc.
Let's take one of my favorite examples: A fellow writer of mine once talked about your "Drizzt virginity"--i.e., when you start reading Drizzt and you love the story so much and you're so invested in it . . . but then time passes, and it just isn't the same for you anymore. Maybe it evolves in a direction you don't necessarily like, or one of the characters you love dies or does something to change your view of that character. Or maybe you stick with it, but you might be spending more of your energies to read it when at first you just blazed through it without effort. Regardless of the actual consequence, you can never get your Drizzt virginity back--the books are never going to be quite the same for you.
The Realms are a macrocosm of this. When you first discover the setting (or at some point early on in your Realms playing career), it's a major and memorable experience, and that is, basically, the Realms for you--ingrained in your subconscious in a particular way at a particular canonical state. For me, this is pretty much a combination of the 2e boxed set and the 3e FRCS--the 3e changes seemed like a logical extension to me, and I didn't have to expend effort to make it all fit into the mold of "the Forgotten Realms" that I had in my head.
If, for instance, I'd come into the Realms through The Year of Rogue Dragons or the War of the Spider Queen, I'd see the Realms through that lens, and my basic assumption as regards canon (how the Realms is "supposed to be") would fit in with those book series. The 3e FRCS wouldn't make as much sense to me as the 3.5 PGtF, for example, and all the 2e supplements would be the distant past.
What I'm getting at in the article is that the Realms is and *should be* something different for everyone. If the setting sourcebooks/canon changes to something you don't recognize as the Realms, then you should by all means continue playing in your version of the Realms--not come and arbitrarily declare it "not the Realms." It might not be the Realms for you, but it is definitely the Realms for someone else.
Myself, I find that my affection (some might say obsession) for the setting allows me to follow through all sorts of crazy changes--blue fire, worlds colliding, etc.--but that *doesn't* mean that I love the Realms any more or less than you do. I, like anyone else, cling to those things that appeal to me--that fit in with my vision of what the Realms is--and let the others slip past without much acknowledgment.
There has never been and will never be a "one-size-fits-all" gaming product (not everyone loves Mario Brothers, for instance). Designers know this, and designers assume this, and they just try to put out a product they think will most likely have the broadest appeal possible.
If you're going to buy into a setting or a game of any kind--particularly a RPG--then you're going to have to be prepared to make changes to do your most important job: make it fun. You find things that appeal to you, and you ignore ones that don't.
So anyone else invested in the Realms who doesn't like the 4e FR as presented in the FRCG, etc., has a choice to make: stick with it (modifying as you need to), or don't (and either play in the past Realms or find another game that appeals to you as much).
And don't misunderstand: this isn't a fresh ultimatum, but rather the choice that you've *always* had, everytime there's been a change to the Realms. To most, the 4e FR is just the most drastic shift we've seen in a long, long time.
And even so, I don't believe it's all that big a change, really. Sure, there are some new countries and some new people in charge. But the things about the setting that draw me in are still there--the culture, the plots, the magic, the sword-fighting, the awesome stories. I choose things to focus on to keep it alive in my heart and mind.
And anyone ever playing in the Realms (or any setting) can do just the same thing--or choose not to. You get out of it what you put into it.
It is, and always will be, your Realms--do with it (or not) as you will.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 18:51:35
|
Just wondering... is this becoming a '4e' discussion? 
I can name changes in every edition I didn't care for, including the first one - some things Ed had were better, IMHO. I would also disagree slightly with the 'lens thing', at least in my own case. I bought the Old Gray Box when it came out, but I was a GH DM at the time and didn't really do more then give it a quick glance. I bought EVERYTHING TSR back then, just to find ways to adapt the stuff to my own campaign, so FR sat on a back-burner for several years.
Fast Forward - I was coerced into running FR for a group of Newbs, and bought the Gold box which had just come out - that was really the first FR product I read (despite owning several 1e FR products already). I begrudgingly thought it was 'pretty good', but wound-up adapting quite a bit of my GH material to the FR campaign, simply because I knew it better. At around the same time I began reading the novels - first the Moonshaes (which really gave me the wrong look at the Realms), and then the Avatar trilogy (which is why I was never bothered by the ToT, I suppose). Reading those two series, and one Harper novel (Red Wizards) gave me a VERY poor impression of the Realms, and I still didn't find it more appealing then my beloved Greyhawk. I ran FR for a couple of years for that group, co-GMing with my bro-in-law, and eventually lost interest in D&D (I won't blame the group, but it had a lot to do with it). Anyhow, during the period the campaign was up and running, I went back and read all the older stuff I had, including the Gray box, in order to fill in the blanks and be a better FR DM (despite my reservations). What I found was a very deep and rich world filled with history, but unfortunately my taste for the game itself was waning.
Fast forward again - I have always been an avid reader, so continued to read all sorts of Sci/Fantasy, and in the process discovered the Drizzt books, and thought "Hey... there actually is one FR writer who knows how to write". From there I read other series, some good, some bad, but it maintained my interest in the Realms, despite my non-desire to play D&D again.
I am also an off-again/on-again miniatures gamer, so I continued to buy lovely Reaper minis along with my WarHammer purchases, and through the LGS grapevine heard about TSR tanking. I knew something was up, because I still maintained my subscription to Dragon magazine (although most were still in the plastic), and they had stopped coming. I was also a MtG player (what can I say? I'm a GAMER!!!), and heard that WotC was buying (saving!) TSR and D&D.
I heard the hype about 3e long before it appeared. There were giant cardboard dudes at the bookstores and game stores, and there was even a story on the 6 O'Clock evening news here in NY about the new edition (why couldn't 4e get coverage like that?) I heard one of the very first sourcebooks that was being released was the FRCS, so of course I purchased the 3 core books, and the FRCS when it came out.
And I was stunned! It was by far the most 'perfect' edition of D&D I have ever seen, and managed to get rid of many the bad things I myself had written-out over the years. I began immediately working on a new campaign with more new players (ages 13-16), and began to re-read ALL of my old FR material, both 1e and 2e, and bought everything 3e that came out. I even went so far and hunted down a few products I had missed at the end of the 90's.
And thus began my 'love affair' with the Realms - it was a combination of three editions. If I had to pinpoint one I considered 'right' it would be 2e/post-ToT, because that's when I started running it, but I had experience with both 1e and 3e settings before I actually rook the plunge and gave up entirely on GH.
So, the new rules helped, Bob Salvatore's novels definitely helped, and it was a weird combination of all three editions that really made me into an FR Junkie. I use everything I like, from every edition, and ignore the rest - its still there, in the background, if I need it (like the Shades). I also borrow heavily from other settings and even other genres - its all good.
So I really can't be pegged as an edition-bigot, since there were many factors and much time involved, but I can honestly say that the latest iteration of the Realms had the opposite effect on me that 3e did - it practically drove me from FR for good. As it is, I am back to just buying the novels, and like always, some are good, some bad, but I keep reading.
And hoping........ |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 31 Aug 2010 19:02:49 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 19:00:00
|
Good post, MT--thanks for sharing!
And . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Just wondering... is this becoming a '4e' discussion?
Nope--I was just addressing that one particular instance as my philosophy applies to it. I do *not* want this to become a 4e FR discussion thread, and will humbly ask everyone NOT to make it so.
We're talking about the Realms and Realms canon here, and our topic of conversation applies to all editions, novels, books, etc., equally.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
769 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 19:02:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Just wondering... is this becoming a '4e' discussion?
I can name changes in every edition I didn't care for, including the first one - some things Ed had were better, IMHO. I would also disagree slightly with the 'lens thing', at least in my own case. I bought the Old Gray Box when it came out, but I was a GH DM at the time and didn't really do more then give it a quick glance. I bought EVERYTHING TSR back then, just to find ways to adapt the stuff to my own campaign, so FR sat on a back-burner for several years.
Fast Forward - I was coerced into running FR for a group of Newbs, and bought the Gold box which had just come out - that was really the first FR product I read (despite owning several 1e FR products already). I begrudgingly thought it was 'pretty good', but wound-up adapting quite a bit of my GH material to the FR campaign, simply because I knew it better. At around the same time I began reading the novels - first the Moonshaes (which really gave me the wrong look at the Realms), and then the Avatar trilogy (which is why I was never bothered by the ToT, I suppose). Reading those two series, and one Harper novel (Red Wizards) gave me a VERY poor impression of the Realms, and I still didn't find it more appealing then my beloved Greyhawk. I ran FR for a couple of years for that group, co-GMing with my bro-in-law, and eventually lost interest in D&D (I won't blame the group, but it had a lot to do with it). Anyhow, during the period the campaign was up and running, I went back and read all the older stuff I had, including the Gray box, in order to fill in the blanks and be a better FR DM (despite my reservations). What I found was a very deep and rich world filled with history, but unfortunately my taste for the game itself was waning.
Fast forward again - I have always been an avid reader, so continued to read all sorts of Sci/Fantasy, and in the process discovered the Drizzt books, and thought "Hey... there actually is one FR writer who knows how to write". From there I read other series, some good, some bad, but it maintained my interest in the Realms, despite my non-desire to play D&D again.
I am also an off-again/on-again miniatures gamer, so I continued to buy lovely Reaper minis along with my WarHammer purchases, and through the LGS grapevine heard about TSR tanking. I knew something was up, because I still maintained my subscription to Dragon magazine (although most were still in the plastic), and they had stopped coming. I was also a MtG player (what can I say? I'm a GAMER!!!), and heard that WotC was buying (saving!) TSR and D&D.
I heard the hype about 3e long before it appeared. There were giant cardboard dudes at the bookstores and game stores, and there was even a story on the 6 O'Clock evening news here in NY about the new edition (why couldn't 4e get coverage like that?) I heard one of the very first sourcebooks that was being released was the FRCS, so of course I purchased the 3 core books, and the FRCS when it came out.
And I was stunned! It was by far the most 'perfect' edition of D&D I have ever seen, and managed to get rid of many the bad things I myself had written-out over the years. I began immediately working on a new campaign with more new players (ages 13-16), and began to re-read ALL of my old FR material, both 1e and 2e, and bought everything 3e that came out. I even went so far and hunted down a few products I had missed at the end of the 90's.
And thus began my 'love affair' with the Realms - it was a combination of three editions. If I had to pinpoint one I considered 'right' it would be 2e/post-ToT, because that's when I started running it, but I had experience with both 1e and 3e settings before I actually rook the plunge and gave up entirely on GH.
So, the new rules helped, Bob Salvatore's novels definitely helped, and it was a weird combination of all three editions that really made me into an FR Junkie. I use everything I like, from every edition, and ignore the rest - its still there, in the background, if I need it (like the Shades). I also borrow heavily from other settings and even other genres - its all good.
So I really can't be pegged as an edition-bigot, since there were many factors and mush time involved, but I can honestly say that the latest iteration of the Realms had the opposite effect on me that 3e did - it practically drove me from FR for good. As it is, I am back to just buying the novels, and like always, some are good, some bad, but I keep reading.
And hoping........
Excellent post. |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 19:16:17
|
| My game is canonically seamless; hence, the proposition that running a canon game is impossible is categorically untrue. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 20:23:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cleric Generic
I can't help myself...
Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'canonically seamless'?
Canon is not violated in my campaign. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 20:41:16
|
My own take on canon is that authors writing for the setting should keep to canon/continuity if at all possible as a thing of professionalism, among other reasons. You're paid to know the material and be aware of it as you expand upon it. Specific instances where you go against something can exist, but should never be taken lightly, especially when it comes to large-scale retcons or changes. And flavor continuity should always trump rules.
As for anyone else, canon should be used or ignored as you see fit. Take the setting, make it yours, break it and rework it as needed and have a blast doing so. Lord, I mean I broke things like crazy in my 3.x Planescape games, and I'm as hardcore of a setting purist and canon obsessive as you'll find. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 20:52:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cleric Generic
I can't help myself...
Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'canonically seamless'?
Brace disagrees with me just for the sake of proving me wrong.
I want him to show me an official source where all the actions of his characters and the characters themselves are high-lighted.
'Canonically seamless' and 'canon' are NOT the same thing - NO-ONE runs a canon game. To do so, you would have to live-stream your gaming sessions onto the WotC site, and even the designers don't do that (because then things like "Hand me the Doritos" would become FR canon). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2010 : 20:56:51
|
| At Brace: It may not be violated, but I bet you have things happen in your campaigns that have NEVER happened in the "canon" Realms! Everything that PC's do changes things from being completely canon, even if it's only a small change, like the mayor of town X being killed and having to put in someone new. I think that is what was meant by it being impossible to run a completely "canon" game. Our DM'ing adventures changes the setting from its canon base bit by bit, by the very nature of creating adventures. The only way to keep one's Realms COMPLETELY canon is not to run a game at all, but simply read the novels, scourcebooks, or what have you AND NOT CREATE anything that might change that. But that's not DM'ing. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"Fire the Canon!" essay
