| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
662 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 20:50:49
|
The problem with the shattering events is that they are described in one product, and then in the next the feeling is that nothing important happened, from there arises the disbelief, the world doesn't feel real.
Except the Spellplague which is too drastic, 4th edition needed at least the same number of books and lore as the 3rd to competitive to an earlier era.
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels. |
. |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36971 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 21:24:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels.
How accepted? And how do you measure it? If you look at the Return of the Archwizards trilogy, for example, you'll find that people either love the trilogy or hate it -- there seems to be no middle ground.
What happens if the majority of the fans don't accept the novels? This could upset plans that are laid months, if not years, in advance.
I can't say I think this is a good idea. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 21:39:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
The problem with the shattering events is that they are described in one product, and then in the next the feeling is that nothing important happened, from there arises the disbelief, the world doesn't feel real.
Except the Spellplague which is too drastic, 4th edition needed at least the same number of books and lore as the 3rd to competitive to an earlier era.
I always thought the S in RSE was shaking, not shattering. There aren't that many shattering events.
Having said that, I find it odd that you are blaming earlier shaking events for not making waves (even though some of them do*) and then you blame the Spellplague for finally living up to the name of a shattering event and creating real, lasting change. Which is it?
*Take the return of Shade for instance. In the initial trilogy, the main change was the destruction of Tilverton. However, there were ripples that went out through a couple of series. The Evereskans lost a number of High Mages, which if I recall the Last Mythal trilogy correctly, that had an impact on their ability to try to fight the Fey'ri. I know the Shadovar and their activities were mentioned a few times in that series. Then Shade took over Sembia, they raised another floating city, Rivalen became something akin to a demigod, Mask was absorbed by Shar, and Shar's overall agenda was clearly advanced. 100 years later and folks in Cormyr and Waterdeep seem fairly concerned about the Shadovar. The number of nations that openly worship and endorse Shar went from 0 (I believe) to 2. The Aunorach (sp?) desert is now being transformed by the Shadovar into fertile land. Somewhere in there they destroyed Zhentil Keep and apparently killed Fzoul (and I believe the Manshoon clone that was still with the Zhents bought it there too, but I am not positive about that). That event has clearly had ripple effects and has been followed up. I am sure it is not the only one either.
quote:
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels.
In what practical way could this even be considered? From what the authors willing to talk about it have to say, the RSE centric novels outsell the others. They will still be accepted by the fans if it is any kind of vote or pure sales figures (the only two objective ways I can think of). |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
662 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 21:48:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels.
How accepted? And how do you measure it? If you look at the Return of the Archwizards trilogy, for example, you'll find that people either love the trilogy or hate it -- there seems to be no middle ground.
What happens if the majority of the fans don't accept the novels? This could upset plans that are laid months, if not years, in advance.
I can't say I think this is a good idea.
Parts of that trilogy were pretty good, for example PGtF could have canonized the siege and the breach of sharnwall and left the rest to the PC's.
I don't think they'd upset future plans, everything can be worked out in fantasy, only they'd be more careful with such events. |
. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 22:30:56
|
I think the balance WotC has tried to strike with RSEs is to make them a big deal within the scope of the novel, and to allow them to have *some* effects on the game world that can easily be played up (if you read the RSE and liked it) or can be ignored (if you didn't read the novel or just didn't like the RSE). You won't have a hugely significant event happening in the game product coming out of a novel or trilogy, because you alienate all your audience that either hasn't read it or hated it.
To me, that seems like the best way to do it--it's the best way to put the most power in the PC/DM's hands.
The edition shifting events are, obviously, an exception, as they here feel they have to make substantial changes in order to justify coming out with a new game setting book.
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" |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36971 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 22:44:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels.
How accepted? And how do you measure it? If you look at the Return of the Archwizards trilogy, for example, you'll find that people either love the trilogy or hate it -- there seems to be no middle ground.
What happens if the majority of the fans don't accept the novels? This could upset plans that are laid months, if not years, in advance.
I can't say I think this is a good idea.
Parts of that trilogy were pretty good, for example PGtF could have canonized the siege and the breach of sharnwall and left the rest to the PC's.
I don't think they'd upset future plans, everything can be worked out in fantasy, only they'd be more careful with such events.
But if the triumph of Shade wasn't assured, then Paul S Kemp would have not been able to write about them taking over Sembia, and Shade wouldn't have been able to cause so many other issues.
So novels can't be either/or -- they have to be either entirely canon, or entirely not. |
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! |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 00:24:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erdrick Stormedge
Granted, it is a Martin tome, a Sage whose acumen has been derided in these halls, but 'tis a pre-3e canon source, none the less.
Hmmm. Do you have a source for this claim about derision? |
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 - 27 Jan 2011 : 00:28:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels.
That would cause tremendous problems for the official direction of the Realms -- because not every Realms fan has the same likes or dislikes when it comes to the novels.
Believe it or not, I actually know Realms fans who care nothing for Evermeet, or the works of Ed Greenwood. So how would they measure up in your conception here, if they formed part of the decision-base for the novels? |
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 |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 01:04:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
Sorry, I'm just a little bit touchy about other people telling me what is "good quality."
Lots of people are touchy about it, and my students used to try to give me a similar arguement. They were wrong and so are you. Quality and taste are two distinctly different things. That is fact, not opinion.
Quality involves how things are made, and is judged according to criteria that can generally be reaidly assessed by multiple individuals who will come to very similar conclusions. Taste involves how a given thing -art, food, music, literature- is perceived by its audience/diner, ect. As such, taste is impacted by things the creator of the art, food, ect has no control over and really is individual and cannot be argued over.
So suck it up and accept that other can not only tell you what is or isn't 'good quality' they can also be correct. |
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 01:21:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels.
That would cause tremendous problems for the official direction of the Realms -- because not every Realms fan has the same likes or dislikes when it comes to the novels.
Indeed. It can't and won't work.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Believe it or not, I actually know Realms fans who care nothing for Evermeet, or the works of Ed Greenwood. So how would they measure up in your conception here, if they formed part of the decision-base for the novels?
Count me in those who care nothing for [i]Evermeet/i] (and everything elfy and Manshoony). How then, Maruluthu, will you "determine" that "acceptance by the fans"? |
Every beginning has an end. |
Edited by - Dennis on 27 Jan 2011 01:25:49 |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 02:18:23
|
| Within the context of the individual game, I think each group has the right to ignore any given novel as canon for the purposes of their play sessions. What they consider canon for that particular game has no baring on what anyone else considers canon. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 02:55:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
Sorry, I'm just a little bit touchy about other people telling me what is "good quality."
Lots of people are touchy about it, and my students used to try to give me a similar arguement. They were wrong and so are you. Quality and taste are two distinctly different things. That is fact, not opinion.
Quality involves how things are made, and is judged according to criteria that can generally be reaidly assessed by multiple individuals who will come to very similar conclusions. Taste involves how a given thing -art, food, music, literature- is perceived by its audience/diner, ect. As such, taste is impacted by things the creator of the art, food, ect has no control over and really is individual and cannot be argued over.
[bold added]
Explain to me how these individuals of vaunted rank above us ignorant plebeians do not constitute "an audience." Who are these individuals, what kind of audience are they and why should I trust anything they have to say about anything in the arts?
My original point was that different audiences can and frequently do react differently to the same texts. You are attempting to argue that one audience segment's reaction carries more weight than another now. Mayhap some things are specifically targeted at your theoretical quality control officers in order to gain a seal of "good quality," regardless of how anyone else might regard the same work?
quote:
So suck it up and accept that other can not only tell you what is or isn't 'good quality' they can also be correct.
Only if they stop using a "my audience is superior to yours" mantra in favor of something more tangible. Until then, I will happily go and get my plebeian cooties all over their artform... If only to piss the QC officers off.  
If you are going to insist on attempting to change my mind (not recommended) I would ask that it gets taken to PM. |
Rants and reviews that interest no one may be found here. |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 03:08:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
And I think that novels shouldn't be canon right away, only after they're accepted by the fans, for example Evermeet and Cormyr novels.
That would cause tremendous problems for the official direction of the Realms -- because not every Realms fan has the same likes or dislikes when it comes to the novels.
Believe it or not, I actually know Realms fans who care nothing for Evermeet, or the works of Ed Greenwood. So how would they measure up in your conception here, if they formed part of the decision-base for the novels?
*raises hand* I'm not a big fan of Ed's fiction for one, but I know I can (and do) skirt around that small section of the huge playground he built.
For another, a lot of the time the part of a fan base that desires change is frequently opposed by a section of the fan base that wants things to stay the same... with a few in between that want to compromise. Guess which two are usually the loudest?
No, I don't see that as being particularly viable. |
Rants and reviews that interest no one may be found here. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36971 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 03:38:59
|
| I'm another that isn't a fan of Ed's Realms fiction. It just doesn't work for me. |
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! |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 04:17:35
|
I'll be the first to admit that there are parts of the Realms I've never cared for. For one thing, I've never given a fig about Cormyr. (Shocking, I know...) Never understood why Elminster cared so much about one little kingdom when he has an entire world that needs help. Why, oh why, for one thing, has no one ever bothered with aiding the slaves and oppressed folk of Calimshan or Thay? Not that I am especially concerned for Thay either, but... And now it's a blasted waste full of undead- how very Resident Evil of them. And none of this could have been stopped? Where were the Harpers? Or any of the Chosen? This is one RSE I don't get.
As for the notion of quality being objective, I scoff at this, for even if taken on a purely analytical basis, two people would have a differing conclusion of how well put together a particular piece of work is. Grammatically, it might be perfect, and so considered "good quality", but it may be filled with plot holes large enough to drive a tank into. Or perhaps it is written in a tight, logical manner, but the style is stilted and jarring. Or perhaps it's so atrocious grammatically or so simplistically written that anyone over the age of ten would wince while reading it. Yet the story itself might still be "good" as a plot and premise. So who makes that determination? You? Me? A college professor? Pfft, so much for quality being objective. Even the "best" of prose has flaws, and some novels are more glaringly flawed than others, but that's a matter of hwat one is looking for. Which is, of course, subjective.
I don't see why there should be this big tug-of-war over what is canon or not. To me, if it's been published and distributed to the PUBLIC in any form (yes, even video games!), then it should be considered "official" lore. This does not make it automatically consistant and in continuity, but it is an accurate gauge, IMO. |
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 |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 04:26:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erdrick Stormedge
Nae, The Red Walker. I can summon 'ye a gate to the World Between Digital Worlds...
**SPIZZ-SPAZ-KADOOM**
http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=341
Follow the gate above to find a scroll detailing Scribe Martin's work.
EDIT: But which strangely dost nae list Faiths and Avatars. Mayhaps her work for the Dragon Magazine was 'ported to this tome...
I like the way you talk.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 04:37:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
So I don't think of my age as a stumbling block. If you do, and you're going to discount my opinions because of it, then this whole thing is moot. I hope you don't, however, because it's an interesting discussion.
Actually, and I'm sorry this will sound condescending, I'm pleasently surprised to find someone who argues so well in your generation of gamers. It's a pleasure to meet you.
I can't say i think of FR first when I think of AD&D. My first campaign was in the map in Isle of Dread, then Greyhawk (folio & gold box). I've played Dragonlance Ravenloft, still play Greyhawk and Spelljammer both, in addition to the Realms. And i played all the old school games, Paranoia, black books Traveller, ect, ect. And wargames of first, my first was Panzerblitz. Later even the White Wolf games and d6 Star Wars 1e.
My point is, I judge the Realms against lots of other settings & game systems I also enjoy.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Since you showed me yours, I'll show you mine. I don't have a blog (how old of me, right? ;)) so bear with me. I'm 40 something, I started gaming in 1979 or 1980, I honestly can't recall which. When I was young and in shape I too fenced sabre, though not well. I served in the Marine Corps and now I am a historian for the Marine Corps, that's my real job/calling, writing military history. I've had an ongoing Realms campaign since 1987. I also write the 'Off the Shelf' book review column for Knights of the Dinner Table magazine.
You know, I probably could have guessed most of those things based on your OP and replies in the thread.
That's surprising. The age and when I started gaming sure, but even my profession? Impressive.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I can't speak to why the ToT happened so quickly as it did, and my investiture in the Realms came about after the hubbub, so to me, the Avatar trilogy is one of the foundational pieces of the Realms. This might explain why I view Bane as "the" big bad of the setting (at least in those early years).
That's partially my point, Realms fans barely knew Bane til they offed him. :)
But then, my point is that the Realms is prone to these events, and always has been. :)
And, the Realms has a very bad track record dealing with these changes, compared to other settings and game systems. It always tends to alienate fans with these big changes.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm also here thinking of Pool of Radiance, Pools of Darkness, and several of the video games of the era (which I consider at least as important as the early game material to getting me into the FR).
Interesting. I never played any of the AD&D video games, and I've never played WoW. I'm a bit of a dinosaur, I guess. It reminds me of my son, whose experience of Star Wars is primarily with the cartoons and video games, rather than the original movies. 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
I don't think Ed had anything to do with Cyric. Not sure about Jeff Grub but I seriously doubt that he did either.
Well, Ed has been heavily involved with most that goes on in the setting, particularly in those early years. Jeff Grubb was the traffic cop of the Realms at the time, so nothing got past his watch. I should have added James Lowder and Troy Denning there as potential sources--they actually wrote the books.
I vented my spleen about Denning long ago. But yeah, his catastrophes in the Realms have left massive ripples.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
In Waterdeep those who owned FR1 Waterdeep and the North recognize tavern after tavern, NPC after NPC, all acting much as they would have in their own campaigns. A young player could yell out, after reading a particular page, "My elf fighter/magic-user drank in that bar!"
I pared down a lot of your quote, but I think I kept the most relevant example (this is not to denigrate the amazing accomplishments you listed). This is a really cool thing, but over time and as the setting aged, it became neither possible nor in the best interest of the setting.
Here we disagree. I think it remains very possible, the writers just have to do their research. And it is in the best interest of thesetting, it's what people look for in this sort of multi-media setting.
It is not mutually exclusive. One can stay true to the setting and create new things in it at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Yes, that's problem and that's my point. First TSR, and then WotC has never made continuity a priority.
There's a difference between violating continuity and challenging presumptions. As our whole discussion about the Shades, Mystra, Bane, etc., elucidates, one person might see things as totally conceivable while another considers them preposterous.
It's an imaginary world. Sure, anything in it is 'possible.' But we might as well go back to the playground: "I'm the King." "Well, I'm a cowboy!" "No way, we are playing knights, not cowboys!" "Knights could fight cowboys!" "nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!"
You write in a shared world, you agree to follow its rules and follow its 'bible.' Otherwise we might as well not be in a shared world.
If large numbers of your long term fans think something is unbelievable, impossible, than you failed. Doesn't matter what sort of arguements you can make proving how possible it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(Note: I personally think that I am right as regards their logical possibility--no matter how implausible they might seem, I still assert (and have yet to be challenged with any logical rigor) that they are logically possible. The words "this doesn't make sense to me" do not a logical argument make. Sorry, this is my philosophy degree talking.)
As I said, anything is possible in an imaginary world. So a broad defintion of possible makes little sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
All I'm interested in doing is saying that you should give what you love a chance--it may surprise you.
Oh, come on. That's laying it on pretty thick. It's an imaginary game setting, one that often verges on incoherent that is owned by people who don't respect their customers. It's not a person, not a loved one. It's one of many such settings. let's not get too romantic about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I believe that the core continuity and theme is there. The Realms has always been still the Realms.
We'll definitely disagree there. I think 4e shattered the Realms, I'm sad that the Realms ended that way. But that is a question of taste, so we can disagree on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
If you'll pardon the little bit of psychoanalysis (and it's well founded on your stated purpose of trying to rekindle your love of the setting), I think you're here because you want to find hope about a setting that's near and dear to your heart.
Well, mostly I had a few minutes and I was bored. I started rereading the old novels, and was doing some long term planning in my Mercs PBEM game, set in the Realms. I'm not interested in finding any hope in the Realms, I'm interested in looting its dissicated corpse. I'll scavenge what I find helpful in 3e and 4e and leave the rest in the trash.
As I said, there are lots of other settings and games to spend money on.
I am interested in tripping down memory lane a bit though, the future of the Realms, IMO, is the same as Gygaxian Greyhawk: a few websites such as Dragonsfoot run by devoted fans with a smattering of new folks occassionally dropping by.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
but in my experience on the internet it's WAY easier to get fired up over something you haven't read or used. So give the 4e FR books a shot (I recommend Steven Schend's Blackstaff Tower and Ed's Elminster Must Die as starting points), then come back and tell me how you hate it.
 Yeah... I actually have both those from the library, planning to read them because I like Steven. Ed is a great guy, and a wonderful setting designer, but I've never liked his novels so I don't expect to like this one. But that is almost enough to make me not read them.
See, it's the job of those who write for FR to make me want to read the stuff, not the other way around.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
As for the Old Empires, which ones do you mean exactly? Could be anything from Chessenta to Mulhorand to Imaskar or Myth Drannor.
I mean the region covered in Scott bennies' excellent Old Empires.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Also, my point's more tailored to those people who love 3e but hate 4e, so I don't imagine it lands on your ears with the same effect.
It does sound just like what they told 1e folks about 2e, and 2e folks about 3e. 
Which again, was my original point. The Realms as a setting has always been prone to poorly considered radical changes, "RSEs" that drive away portions of its audience. It's survived, even thrived, for other reasons, despite the RSEs.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
If I say, "Mystra has died and been reborn, thus Mystra has the power/potential to die and be reborn, thus in the future Mystra might die and be reborn again," that's logically sound.
Yes, and I pointed out one problem was the short duration between deaths, not the fact that she could die. Deity death is well attested in FR. Doesn't mean any given death fits.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
But again, it doesn't matter really what I think or say. Your opinion is still your opinion.
So, closed mind then? The conversation is about you converting me, not a mutual discussion about the problems, or lack thereof, of the Realms?
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Based on Shar's established dogma (loss, bitterness, night) and her actions during her symbolic war with Selune (i.e., Selune wanted to promote life, Shar wanted the opposite), it follows that the ultimate goal of her faith might be emptiness/nihilism/destruction of all life. Even if this wasn't the established goal of her church in earlier literature, it is entirely possible that a strong religious leader in her church
Possible yes, good writing no. It's like with a murder mystery, the author has to earn it. Yes, I know it is ironic using the phrase in this discussion, but deus ex machina are never satisfying.
Far better is to draw on threads already existing, and FR has no shortage of those, to create the changes required.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I often run into this attitude among the readership, and it is very common in an expanded universe/shared setting/fandom thing like this: you want to have all the answers, and you refuse to make them up yourself.
Again, you broaden the idea to create an easily deposed strawman. Demanding firm answers about an event like the Spellplague is not asking for 'all' the answers, it is requiring the bare minimum that should be required of the designers.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The point here is that the designers/authors CAN'T explain everything, and it wouldn't be in their best interest to do so anyway, because the MASSIVE odds are that it will just alienate people. Some people will like the explanation, some people won't. What designers have to do is find a balance between "here's what happened," "here's what MIGHT have happened"[1], and "make up what happened yourself."
Thoroughly explaining a world's defining event for its gamemasters is simply required.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
What I find far too often in the hobby industry is that people often deride a setting or game for not being what it isn't meant to be.
I haven't done that. I've always judge FR as a multi-media, shared world setting. The issues I bring up are areas where FR fails at being what it is.
That's what I mean about being open here yourself. In the old days, the FR list became somewhat like an old school Communist Party meeting, where anyone showing deviance from the accepted beliefs is circled by the rest of the cadre and brow-beaten into submission.
Asking people why they hang out here when the complain about the Realms accomplishe sthe same thing, even when that is not the intended result. And I believe that is not what you or the others intend.
better is to consider the complaints and wonder what they mean.
So... getting back to my original post, do you think the Realms is, or is not, prone to RSEs as a setting, and why?
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Speaking for myself (and only for myself, as I always do), my plan is to write and create what I think is cool and fun and what I hope people will like. I'd obviously prefer it if you like it too, but some things are just not meant to be.
That's healthy.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Yikes, apparently someone does remember me, or knows me from the KODT forums. I'm sorry Mr_Miscellany, I don't recall you, different username then i would have known you by?
No need to apologize, Paul.
You would have known me as Sanishiver/Jeremy Grenemyer on the Realms-L list.
Ah, yes, I do recall you. Well met!
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Your stances on some issues pertaining to the Realms appear to have not changed much over the years.
Well, I do value consistency...
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
[edit] I’m very curious about your early experiences contributing to the Realms. You’re credited on some 2E products and I’m wondering if you’d be willing to share in another scroll what the experience was like?
There isn't much to tell. I worked with Steven Schend, who is a wonderful guy to work for. I was a minor cog, I just collected references for the Realms Encyclopedia project that never got published. It was a pretty good paying gig considering the work was a total pleasure.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
If I was really out for myself, don't you think I would say something like "You're absolutely right! All that stuff is B.S.! And by the way, you should totally read my books, which ignore all that kerfuffle!"
Hey, 'out for yourself' makes it seem cheap or bad. It is neither of those, it's natural to care about work that feeds one's family, or just to be proud of one's work.
It's just impacts one objectivity, is all.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
P.S. Though by the way, you should totally read my books, which ignore all that kerfuffle.
If I like your story in Realms of the Elves I will.
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
After all, what I hear repeatedly is "don't use the new Realms if you don't like them" and some form of "well, leave the boards if you don't like the new Realms." (And frankly, screw that, I have invested a lot of time and money into my Realms).
For simple pragmatics, that's fine and all, and I'm big enough to vote with my dollar. But after 20+ years of feeling that I had choices, this new Realms indeed feels like putting on the "straight jacket" or leaving the living Realms behind. To me, that says more about this current design team, that they couldn't accomplish what all other prior design teams could accomplish.
This seems a fair attitude to me. Though I felt like it started with 3e, the 4e Realms seems to be even more like this, it's one reason I drifted from Realms fandom a few years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Erdrick Stormedge
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
A divine purpose she didn't have until they created the Shadow Weave. As I said, she isn't FR's Tharizdun until 3e, when they imported this new form of magic. It had not been present at all in any book before that. Total violation of canon.
Are 'ye familiar with the tome "Faiths and Avatars", GMWestermeyer? Within, the legend of the Sisters of Light and Darkness is presented. This is a 2e source by Martin and Boyd which details Shar's divine purpose of subjugating Mystra.
Granted, it is a Martin tome, a Sage whose acumen has been derided in these halls, but 'tis a pre-3e canon source, none the less.
I mentioned several times. And you are wrong, it does not state, nor imply that "Shar's divine purpose" is "subjugating Mystra." In fact, Mystra is not even listed among Shar's foes in that tome.
And I suppose someone has already told you improperly using words like 'ye' is annoying as hell.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 04:53:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
Explain to me how these individuals of vaunted rank above us ignorant plebeians do not constitute "an audience." Who are these individuals, what kind of audience are they and why should I trust anything they have to say about anything in the arts?
Those who have studied the subject and understand the criteria. They should be able to show you objectively why something is 'quality.' You can undoubtedly judge the quality of many different things yourself.
Continuing with my example, King's Gunfighter series. I can tell it is quality writing because of the careful sentance structure, the elegant plotting, the consistent characterizations, obviously careful word choice, the use of ancient motifs and the layered symbolism. These are things that, if I had a copy of the book, I could point out examples of it and illustrate to you each point. Unless you were being mule-headed, you'd see the examples plainly and the care that King took with his work, the obvious skill he shows in the writing, would be obvious.
Conversely, I could take Gary Gygax's Saga of the Old City and show its simplistic, shallow plot, cartoonish characterizations, and elementary words choices (replete with words obviously drawn from a handy thesarus.
Gygax's work is obviously poor quality writing, King's Gunfighter is obviously high quality writing.
But taste? I really enjoy Gygax's wonderful first novel, warts and all. And I just dislike King's Gunfighter stuff no matter how hard I try to like it. That's taste.
You appear to confuse taste with quality and you appear to think that someone disparging the quality of something you enjoy is a reflection on you. It isn't.
Well, unless your tastes run to sadism or something similar but that's a different discussion.
Oh, here's a another way to think of it. You look at a house, considering whether or not to buy it. You can tell if you like it, if its shape, colors, ect fit what you want and/or need.
But if you want to know if the house is well built, you contact a builder, someone who can tell if they used the proper sized nails and install the electric properly.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 06:16:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I'll be the first to admit that there are parts of the Realms I've never cared for. For one thing, I've never given a fig about Cormyr. (Shocking, I know...) Never understood why Elminster cared so much about one little kingdom when he has an entire world that needs help. Why, oh why, for one thing, has no one ever bothered with aiding the slaves and oppressed folk of Calimshan or Thay? Not that I am especially concerned for Thay either, but... And now it's a blasted waste full of undead- how very Resident Evil of them. And none of this could have been stopped? Where were the Harpers? Or any of the Chosen? This is one RSE I don't get.
My guess is that the situation is more a case of using limited resources to defend what "right and good" instead of going all in against the empire of evil in the East. I know that it sounds like a great idea to eliminate the source of some of their troubles (even in Cormyr) by launching an attack on Thay, but what is the outcome? Who fills the power vacuum? Who feeds the slaves with their masters now dead? Beyond that, if the fight isn't over quite quickly, what happens to Cormyr while it's big wig defenders are away? They may end up trading one worthwhile realm and one evil realm for two ruined realms. And all of that is before considering if Mystra wasn't too keen on the idea of wiping out a nation that heavily employs magic (albeit for primarily evil ends) and at least at present (1370's) is usually too busy fighting itself or a coalition of it's neighbors to make any great strides in enlarging their borders.
Those are just guesses on my part and I admit to having not read every Realms novel out there (and only a handful of RPG books). However, I got the impression from Elminster Must Die that Elminster has thought for a very long time (and not just post Spellplague) that there is still so much left undone. He seems to think the work is never ending and he has never had enough time or help to help everybody. He has had to choose, and he chose Cormyr (well, up until apparently choosing the Simbul, but you get the idea).
quote:
As for the notion of quality being objective, I scoff at this, for even if taken on a purely analytical basis, two people would have a differing conclusion of how well put together a particular piece of work is. Grammatically, it might be perfect, and so considered "good quality", but it may be filled with plot holes large enough to drive a tank into. Or perhaps it is written in a tight, logical manner, but the style is stilted and jarring. Or perhaps it's so atrocious grammatically or so simplistically written that anyone over the age of ten would wince while reading it. Yet the story itself might still be "good" as a plot and premise. So who makes that determination? You? Me? A college professor? Pfft, so much for quality being objective. Even the "best" of prose has flaws, and some novels are more glaringly flawed than others, but that's a matter of hwat one is looking for. Which is, of course, subjective.
I am in agreement here. I've never been convinced of objectivity in judging what is understood by pretty well everyone else to be a subjective subject matter. Yes, there are certain aspect that can be discussed objectively. Certain aspects of mechanical composition, how much money the end result cost, how much (if any) money it made, etc. I don't find it a coincidence that the only people I have ever seen defend the system at some point make it clear that they have a stake in that system being accepted (or at least perpetuated).
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
But if you want to know if the house is well built, you contact a builder, someone who can tell if they used the proper sized nails and install the electric properly.
A builder isn't a critic. He will tell you if the house is built well or if it isn't. There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room if he is giving you an honest answer. There is no subjectivity in his answer to the core question. He may have opinions of one method being better than another, but that isn't the question at hand. It's not really a scale, it's yes or no (though that yes or no may be on a piece by piece basis with different parts of the house). There can be disagreements between professionals if one method is better than another, but the basic question of if something is well built or not should only ever have one answer if your builders are being honest.
Critics do not work that way. They have a scale (usually). If it was a consistant process used to to judge movies/books/music, there would be 2 options. Good and bad. Once you move beyond that, subjectivity enters into it. If it's a matter of some good movies being better than others, why? Who decided critera X is more important than criteria Y and should count for more? Who designed the grading system? Does a novel that flawlessly follows the gramatical rules of it's home language, but has flat characters who interact in mind numbingly boring situations get high marks for technical accuracy? Does it get low marks for boring characters? Who decided they were boring? What is the criteria for a boring character? Is it too a sliding scale of some type? How much does that impact the final score? This is why at some point subjectivity has to enter into it. Judgement calls have to be made because no amount of education can prepare someone to objectively judge the potentially infinite levels of complexity in modern media and it's ever evolving forms. This is not like science or math which are based in objective facts. 2+2 will always equal 4 (barring some really wierd math that is well off the beaten path), things you throw up in the air will fall back down, etc. Those are facts and they aren't really up for any serious debate. They are also easily deomnstrated facts. If I put down 2 apples, and then I put down 2 more, I now have 4. If I throw one of them up in the air, it will come back down. This will happen every time, no matter who does it. If I have 100 critics watch the same movie they will not give the same critique. At some point opinions and bias (or outside influence) enter into it. That is not an objective system. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 06:52:41
|
My thoughts exactly. Of course, you went into much more detail than I did (or would have, for that matter), but it seems great minds think alike. This is one of the many things I learned in my four years of high school English Lit. (Which, BTW, was on par with most college-level classes in the subject, as it was an AP Gifted program class.) Even Ebert and Roper can watch the same movie together and have two widely different views on its quality, and these are two people who are familiar with each others criteria! And they will argue over a point of plot or character which can't be agreed upon as good or bad. This is what critics do, be it food, art, or a book. At some point, personal taste MUST enter the equation.
The ONLY objective point in any novel is whether or not it follows an established structure. But since story structure can vary wildly (I'll use another King novel as example- namely "It"), even that must be taken into consideration as changing from one to the next. "It" is a perfect example of not following the established norm, as it jumps back and forth in time telling two distinct stories, and even then parts overlap or jump even further back or in between, or go into a story within a story. By the end, you have had two complete tales- same characters, but hugely different situations and perspectives- that show history repeating itself, but instead of simply flowing from past to present as most story structure would do, it becomes a mix of past and present that can be confusing to the casual reader, yet still makes sense.
Or take Pulp Fiction- starts near the end, goes to the beginning and continues to the middle- and then connects back around. Hardly standard plot structure. But are these methods good? Who can say? They worked for their respective stories, but probably would not work for others.
As for the Cormyr vs Thay idea, I did not mean to imply that Cormyr or any other nation should attack Thay, but rather, that there are so many Harpers, Chosen, and others in the Realms that someone SOMEWHERE should have looked at the situation and said "Hey, this is wrong. Let's do something about it." Same goes for Calimshan. Where are all those paladins of Torm or Helm or Ilmater trying to free the slaves and lead a rebellion a la Spartacus in Rome? After all, Szass Tam could hardly have completed his despicable plans if someone had opposed the zulkirs at an earlier time. So why didn't anyone? One has to wonder why some of these places were simply ignored by the forces of good as being not worth saving. Yet Cormyr get all the attention as a "bastion of decency" by Elminster and Storm. (Even though it clearly does not deserve that title.) |
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 |
Edited by - Alystra Illianniis on 27 Jan 2011 07:07:18 |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 07:28:48
|
There's something I always found rather offputting about the fact you have places like Waterdeep, Cormyr, the Silver Marches; all fairly european based settings and while containing a fair amount of moral ambiguity, you have a place like Calimshan, very much arab, and Thay, rather eastern/middle eastern; one is a bastion of scum and villainy and the other is an out and out evil empire. I'm not the only one who found that to reek of unfortunate implications, am I?
|
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 07:55:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
Explain to me how these individuals of vaunted rank above us ignorant plebeians do not constitute "an audience." Who are these individuals, what kind of audience are they and why should I trust anything they have to say about anything in the arts?
Those who have studied the subject and understand the criteria. They should be able to show you objectively why something is 'quality.' You can undoubtedly judge the quality of many different things yourself.
"Those who have studied the subject and understand the criteria." Hmmm. Just a moment...
That criteria includes me.
I guess opinion on what constitutes quality really can be divided on all fronts. Oh noes! the critics are of a divided mind! Whatever shall we do?
Perhaps say that texts can be read in many different ways?
quote:
Continuing with my example, King's Gunfighter series. I can tell it is quality writing because of the careful sentance structure, the elegant plotting, the consistent characterizations, obviously careful word choice, the use of ancient motifs and the layered symbolism. These are things that, if I had a copy of the book, I could point out examples of it and illustrate to you each point. Unless you were being mule-headed, you'd see the examples plainly and the care that King took with his work, the obvious skill he shows in the writing, would be obvious.
Conversely, I could take Gary Gygax's Saga of the Old City and show its simplistic, shallow plot, cartoonish characterizations, and elementary words choices (replete with words obviously drawn from a handy thesarus.
Gygax's work is obviously poor quality writing, King's Gunfighter is obviously high quality writing.
But taste? I really enjoy Gygax's wonderful first novel, warts and all. And I just dislike King's Gunfighter stuff no matter how hard I try to like it. That's taste.
Yes and...? You liked/disliked them because...? I've never read either of these books and so can't really judge them with regards to anything else. You keep saying that these things are "obvious" but I've yet to see anything to back this up or why I should care that they are so wonderful I should weep upon reading their scintillating words or not.
Nathaniel Hawthorne's symbolism is "obvious" but that doesn't keep it from getting extremely old, extremely fast and for at least this reader. James Fenimore Cooper's descriptions are glorious... but Corellon help me, I started to yearn for something to happen after the tenth page detailing the sunlight filtering through the trees. And then there's Charles Dickens... whom I will let off the hook because he usually got paid by the word and I'm not going to argue with someone doing something to keep food on the table.
A non specific reaction is useless, but a considered one from anyone helps at least narrow a work's expected target audience and how people both inside and outside that target audience react to it. I don't think that the Gunslinger books could possibly be the paragon of literary genius you seem to want to convince me they are if your reaction to them was so dismal. Something somewhere got garbled. Or they started to use symbolism like a baseball bat on a punching bag. Whatever. What issues did you bring to the read, what in the book made you grumpy as you continued reading are good things to know.
The same thing happens with things that we like. Something went right and something resonated. Does this not have academic value with regards to audiences (as I have been repeating ad nauseum)?
quote:
Well, unless your tastes run to sadism or something similar but that's a different discussion.
Well, yes they do (just ask anyone on the RAS message boards), but I think that's really besides the point and I actually do get some grins and giggles from being so. Ah, the joys of not being afraid to be the gadfly.
What mystifies me is why you feel that you must like something acclaimed by people whose opinions you seem to hold in higher esteem than your own and why you are so eager to toss aside your own preferences in favor of someone else's. That seems slightly masochistic to me.
quote:
Oh, here's a another way to think of it. You look at a house, considering whether or not to buy it. You can tell if you like it, if its shape, colors, ect fit what you want and/or need.
But if you want to know if the house is well built, you contact a builder, someone who can tell if they used the proper sized nails and install the electric properly.
Ah but the difference is that a shoddily built building is quantifiable. I can measure the nail heads myself. I can look for signs of termites. Multimeters are not hard devices to use to get a feel for the current running through the house.
Say you pick up a book that's critically acclaimed for blah blah blah and looks interesting in premise, if you find that you did not like it and it did not speak to you, where does the fault lie? I don't think that it lies with the reader, the raving critics or the author, but that they all came from different perspectives, had different interactions with the text and each of these interactions has value of its own. At some point a text becomes what an audience makes of it in addition to whatever the author intended to say.
That you seem to think that a book is quantifiable is not an opinion I share and quite frankly I don't really care of you are convinced by my reasoning for more open interpretations or not.
So saith this critic. |
Rants and reviews that interest no one may be found here. |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
662 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 11:42:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But if the triumph of Shade wasn't assured, then Paul S Kemp would have not been able to write about them taking over Sembia, and Shade wouldn't have been able to cause so many other issues.
The return of Shade was all that was needed, all the rest that happened after the summoning was unnecessary.
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Agreed. I would not make any sense to only use part of a novel as canon. Which parts would be used? how would they decide?
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
That would cause tremendous problems for the official direction of the Realms -- because not every Realms fan has the same likes or dislikes when it comes to the novels.
...
I'm not talking about the novels, FR is a RPG world first, the novels are of secondary importance. The criteria should be worldbuilding. If a novel contributes to the gaming potential of the world, makes it better, that parts of the novel can be canonized, the rest remains in the novels universe. Here's examples:
The shades returning makes Anauroch more interesting, that is canon. Blowing up Tilverton doesn't contribute for gaming purposes, why not blow a section of the city and make a plot hook about how locals want to fix the situation or take advantage of it. Reducing Zhentil Keep to rubble and eliminating Zhentarim from there doesn't improve the western Moonsea area, an ongoing covert war for the paths in Anauroch would. Myth Drannor rebuilt was never a point of Myth Drannor, why not just make the fey'ri another power group within the ruins and leave the few elves who dream about the Coronal's dream in Semberholme. The shades conquered Sembia and Zhentil Keep, but Shadowdale remains, where's the logic in that. The point of Sembia was to make a big deal about their greedy mercantilism. The dragons no longer rage, that is great, what's next orcs taking up farming. Thay was a country of magical intrigue with so much options for the DM, now there is just one school and Sauron. |
. |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 12:47:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
I'm not talking about the novels, FR is a RPG world first, the novels are of secondary importance.
FR was an RPG world first; now the novels have become more profitable and so, naturally, esteemed WotC concentrates on the novels. Which does rather leave us RPGers out in the cold.  |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 14:29:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
What mystifies me is why you feel that you must like something acclaimed by people whose opinions you seem to hold in higher esteem than your own and why you are so eager to toss aside your own preferences in favor of someone else's. That seems slightly masochistic to me.
My arrogance hasn't yet been made obvious?
What I like, and what is quality, are often different things. Recognizing the difference between quality and taste is a requirement for mature judgement.
Nobody can tell me what I like, or do not like. But I trust the experts on whether or not a given thing is done well, is quality. Of course, there are some areas where I have the expertise to determine quality myself. Historical works, and fantasy genre fiction being two of them. Military performance.
But fair enough, not going change minds on this, I can see that. I'll let it go.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 15:05:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
Ah but the difference is that a shoddily built building is quantifiable. I can measure the nail heads myself. I can look for signs of termites. Multimeters are not hard devices to use to get a feel for the current running through the house.
Say you pick up a book that's critically acclaimed for blah blah blah and looks interesting in premise, if you find that you did not like it and it did not speak to you, where does the fault lie? I don't think that it lies with the reader, the raving critics or the author, but that they all came from different perspectives, had different interactions with the text and each of these interactions has value of its own. At some point a text becomes what an audience makes of it in addition to whatever the author intended to say.
That you seem to think that a book is quantifiable is not an opinion I share and quite frankly I don't really care of you are convinced by my reasoning for more open interpretations or not.
So saith this critic.
Not all opinions are equally valid or even accurate. Just like your determination of a house's quality, you absolutely can quantify a novel's quality in terms of writing, and there are people who are trained professionally in literary analysis. Those professionals have an opinion about quality that matters more than the average untrained person who tries to speak of its quality.
Where opinions are on a little bit more of an even level is in personal taste, but those opinions matter only for the individual who is speaking. As GMWestermeyer said, he can appreciate the quality of a book but still dislike it. That's fine, because he is not saying anything about the quality of the writing, just his personal taste. People are allowed (and encouraged!) to like what they want. But even with matters of taste, not all opinions are equal. Experience matters in determinations of taste.
In fine cuisine, for example, a sophisticated palate is better prepared to talk about the nuances of a four-star dish than an unsophisticated palate. Their experience makes their opinion better, and more important, even in matters of preference and not just the quality of the prepared dish.
You would not have a country hick make judgments about whether or not to feature Edwardian-style furniture in an Ethan Allen furniture store.
Similarly, you don't go to a teenage girl who has only read Twilight and ask her for an opinion about which vampire novels are the best. By way of experience (speaking of the average teen girl), she has not read enough to have a sophisticated palate, nor is she professionally trained in the critical analysis of literature.
So honestly, even in matters of taste, not all opinions are equally valid, true, or even desirable. And it's even more true when speaking of professional opinions.
Yes, everyone should like what they like. But that hardly means everyone's opinion is on an even level. |
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 27 Jan 2011 15:13:51 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 15:35:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Fellshot
What mystifies me is why you feel that you must like something acclaimed by people whose opinions you seem to hold in higher esteem than your own and why you are so eager to toss aside your own preferences in favor of someone else's. That seems slightly masochistic to me.
My arrogance hasn't yet been made obvious?
What I like, and what is quality, are often different things. Recognizing the difference between quality and taste is a requirement for mature judgement.
Nobody can tell me what I like, or do not like. But I trust the experts on whether or not a given thing is done well, is quality. Of course, there are some areas where I have the expertise to determine quality myself. Historical works, and fantasy genre fiction being two of them. Military performance.
But fair enough, not going change minds on this, I can see that. I'll let it go.
Never trust an expert on blind faith....an expert is nothing but another fool with a powerpoint presentation. |
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
|
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 15:50:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
As for the Cormyr vs Thay idea, I did not mean to imply that Cormyr or any other nation should attack Thay, but rather, that there are so many Harpers, Chosen, and others in the Realms that someone SOMEWHERE should have looked at the situation and said "Hey, this is wrong. Let's do something about it." Same goes for Calimshan. Where are all those paladins of Torm or Helm or Ilmater trying to free the slaves and lead a rebellion a la Spartacus in Rome? After all, Szass Tam could hardly have completed his despicable plans if someone had opposed the zulkirs at an earlier time. So why didn't anyone? One has to wonder why some of these places were simply ignored by the forces of good as being not worth saving. Yet Cormyr get all the attention as a "bastion of decency" by Elminster and Storm. (Even though it clearly does not deserve that title.)
That's what I meant, just the Harpers, Chosen etc. attacking Thay. I'm not 100% convinced that the outcome is the toppling of the Red Wizards. I know the Chosen have the Silver Fire and such, but the Red Wizards have a number of epic level folks themselves as well and I think they might be able to win with numbers. That's why I think it's an all or nothing proposition, and when they go all in no one is left to mind the store (so to speak). I could easily see a few of the Chosen not making it back from that, if they won. I think the easy answer is Mystra has told them not to do it. Calimshan, on the other hand, is a different matter. I am not sure why the "forces of good" would allow slavery to exist there. It might be another case of needing to worry about their own backyard first and foremost and simply not having the resources to commit to doing the right thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
There's something I always found rather offputting about the fact you have places like Waterdeep, Cormyr, the Silver Marches; all fairly european based settings and while containing a fair amount of moral ambiguity, you have a place like Calimshan, very much arab, and Thay, rather eastern/middle eastern; one is a bastion of scum and villainy and the other is an out and out evil empire. I'm not the only one who found that to reek of unfortunate implications, am I?
Don't forget that Thay also cheaply mass produces magic items to sell abroad. And their state color is red. Yeah, I see the unfortunate implications.
quote:
Originally posted by Maruluthu Mistrivvin
I'm not talking about the novels, FR is a RPG world first, the novels are of secondary importance.
Except that's not the case. It's the other way around. For the RPG world to continue, the novels must succeed. The novels likely don't need the RPG to succeed. So, the owners will give greater importance to the novels. You may choose to place greater importance on the RPG, but that does not mean reality will reshape itself to conform to your outlook. The situation is what it is. More importantly, no one is forcing anyone to use anything from the novels. If you don't like them, don't use them.
quote:
The criteria should be worldbuilding. If a novel contributes to the gaming potential of the world, makes it better, that parts of the novel can be canonized, the rest remains in the novels universe. Here's examples:
You still have a situation that comes down to varying opinion and ultimately leads to someone having to make this call. How is that call made? The only objective measure of the like or dislike of a novel and it's contents is sales figures. RSEs and Drizzt outsell everything else. Your Realms is now filled with nonstop world shaking events and CG Drow Rangers.
quote:
The shades returning makes Anauroch more interesting, that is canon.
Unless you liked it the way it was.
quote:
Blowing up Tilverton doesn't contribute for gaming purposes, why not blow a section of the city and make a plot hook about how locals want to fix the situation or take advantage of it.
You've eliminated a town, potentially eliminating a safe refuge for your potential future heroes. The area may now be more prone to monster attacks, etc. Someone may choose to rebuild. The Shades may just blow it up again. Plot hooks abound.
quote:
Reducing Zhentil Keep to rubble and eliminating Zhentarim from there doesn't improve the western Moonsea area, an ongoing covert war for the paths in Anauroch would.
Covert war against someone that is more than willing to destroy towns to achieve it's goals with no one apparently able to step in and stop them, good luck with that. Besides, no Zhents means now there is a power vacuum. Who steps into it? Who keeps the monsters at bay now that the power in the region is no more? What's lurking in the Ruins of Zhentil Keep? Etc. How are any of those not also an improvement?
quote:
Myth Drannor rebuilt was never a point of Myth Drannor, why not just make the fey'ri another power group within the ruins and leave the few elves who dream about the Coronal's dream in Semberholme.
Cities can't be rebuilt? A new Elven power seeking to reclaim monster infested ruins can't lead to numerous advantures? A group buried for thousands of years and finally free is going to content itself with being just another dark power in a mass of ruins?
quote:
The shades conquered Sembia and Zhentil Keep, but Shadowdale remains, where's the logic in that.
The Shades destroyed Zhentil Keep, they didn't conquer it. They don't rule it. It's a monster (and I think Pirate if I recall correctly) infested ruin. They conquered Sembia but not Cormyr. Why? Sembia was ripe for the picking with their little push, and it provides them with a well established trade system to begin funneling gold into their coffers and allowing them to further spread their influence. Sembia also doesn't have Elminster or the Chosen carefully guarding it. Sembia makes sense as a target, Shadowdale doesn't (beyond hoping to eliminate Elminster).
quote:
The dragons no longer rage, that is great, what's next orcs taking up farming.
Did the dragons rage often enough to have an impact on a campaign that likely can't stretch more than 20-30 years? Or, it was done with magic before so nothing is stopping it from being so again.
quote:
Thay was a country of magical intrigue with so much options for the DM, now there is just one school and Sauron.
There are still other Red Wizards. Besides, I hear LotR was kind of popular. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2011 : 16:21:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Since you showed me yours, I'll show you mine. I don't have a blog (how old of me, right? ;)) so bear with me. I'm 40 something, I started gaming in 1979 or 1980, I honestly can't recall which. When I was young and in shape I too fenced sabre, though not well. I served in the Marine Corps and now I am a historian for the Marine Corps, that's my real job/calling, writing military history. I've had an ongoing Realms campaign since 1987. I also write the 'Off the Shelf' book review column for Knights of the Dinner Table magazine.
You know, I probably could have guessed most of those things based on your OP and replies in the thread.
That's surprising. The age and when I started gaming sure, but even my profession? Impressive.
Well, you *did* ask, so let's follow my thought process. Sorry if this sounds psycho-analysisy . . . You just gave me a pretty distinct impression, so I'll explain it.
Your argumentation and logical style remind me of lots of people I know with a military background, and it's clear you've been gaming a long time but don't like change. In this way, your opinions typify a certain type of grognard (I use the term with all affection). You obviously think highly enough of your analysis (I believe you mentioned your arrogance in a later post! ) that you probably do something professional in the industry, but not something that has huge distribution/acclaim (or I would have heard of your work and/or you would probably be more guarded about your derision out of professional courtesy).
So I pegged your age, approximate background (military), experience, and at least possible profession/"night job." I didn't get the specifics, obviously, but the concept is there.
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
In Waterdeep those who owned FR1 Waterdeep and the North recognize tavern after tavern, NPC after NPC, all acting much as they would have in their own campaigns. A young player could yell out, after reading a particular page, "My elf fighter/magic-user drank in that bar!"
I pared down a lot of your quote, but I think I kept the most relevant example (this is not to denigrate the amazing accomplishments you listed). This is a really cool thing, but over time and as the setting aged, it became neither possible nor in the best interest of the setting.
Here we disagree. I think it remains very possible, the writers just have to do their research. And it is in the best interest of thesetting, it's what people look for in this sort of multi-media setting.
Well the argument for impossibility and not-in-the-best-interest is about efficiency and the conservancy of time.
Here's the impossibility scenario: As the research becomes more extensive, more time is required to do it. Eventually, you reach a point where you simply aren't paying authors enough to do the level of research that certain die-hard fans call for. It's not that authors are greedy--it's that they can't take that much time off making money to buy food and pay their mortgages so as to do all that research. Not (practically) possible.
The issue of "in the best interest of the setting" speaks to this as well. Even if it were possible to do the same level of research and ascribe to the same level of detail as you had in the early days of the Realms, the payoff becomes less and less, as fewer and fewer readers will have done the same research and can appreciate it. Forget new fans entirely--this book ends up being written to appeal strictly to old fans, who increasingly grow up and out of the setting.
For instance, I could write an entire series of novels based off one chapter in the Old Grey Box set, but only those fans who have read, loved, and idolize the old Box set will understand and appreciate what I'm attempting. Those who haven't will cast it aside as idiosyncratic and limited in vision.
(Also, am I allowed to bring in later sources or not? Do I get to pick and choose based on what I assess as quality? Also, if the original authors got to make stuff up, why can't I?)
Everyone who writes in the setting does research--some of us more than others--and it's all a matter of degrees.
To give a sense of how *I* approach writing in the setting--I try to find a balance between highlighting old lore and bringing in new ideas. I push back against changes I don't like by finding cool ways to explain/invert them. And above all, I try to stay true to the spirit of the setting, simply because I've grown up with it and it's a part of my vision.
quote:
It is not mutually exclusive. One can stay true to the setting and create new things in it at the same time.
You know, it might be informative for the continuing discussion if you'd give us examples of changes you DO like. In the Realms, that is.
What's your gold standard for the setting?
You seem to have a set vision and are intolerant of deviation from that vision. You don't accept the evolution of faiths, the emergence of new enemies, or any occurrence that wasn't sufficiently foreshadowed in the original (or at least your ideal) version of the Realms.
I think in any setting, be it a game, novel, TV, movie, etc., has an "ideal configuration" for any particular gamer/reader/viewer. It exists in a particular state at a particular time that you think is perfect and, thus, *right.* However, new products constantly need to be sold, in order to keep something viable. It is thus in the nature of active/current stories to evolve (sometimes in directions you like, sometimes in directions you don't), inevitably there will come a time when it moves away from your ideal configuration. At this point you have a choice: accept the change and move with it, or don't and leave it behind. And I know dealing with change sucks, and sometimes the changes instituted displease a lot of people, but it isn't the authors'/designers' fault *that* things need to change.
quote:
You write in a shared world, you agree to follow its rules and follow its 'bible.' Otherwise we might as well not be in a shared world.
You seem to think there's some specific gold (or platinum) standard, set in stone, where everyone writing in the setting should write like this and about this. And even if there is, that's still open to interpretation. Not to bring politics into it, but how long have we been going over the U.S. Constitution, disagreeing with how to interpret it, and how many times have we just changed it?
quote:
If large numbers of your long term fans think something is unbelievable, impossible, than you failed. Doesn't matter what sort of arguements you can make proving how possible it is.
Well, only if we're talking about things in terms of logic--then if I successfully and soundly argue the possibility of something, then you using the word "impossible" is inaccurate at best, disingenuous at worst. Though note, this makes no mention of the words "unbelievable" or "implausible," but those are subjective judgments based on one's own opinion and worldview, rather than the objective "possible/impossible" distinction. All my argument demonstrates is however implausible one or more individuals might find something, it has to be assessed objectively as possible or impossible, not subjectively. (And when dealing with a setting where magic runs rampant, it's hard to call things impossible, as you said.) So let's just stop using the word "impossible," as it makes my logical mind sigh, ok?
All this isn't the point. The point is:
There will always be a certain percentage of people who like something and a converse percentage of people who don't--it's a matter of maximizing the number of people who DO like it, and minimizing the number of people who DON'T. And since you can't get inside people's heads and change their opinions, all you can try to do is create things that will please the most people, most of the time.
(Note: If we went with your argument [that if large numbers of people disagree with something, you've failed] then every product TSR/WotC has ever released has failed.)
Some things TSR/WotC has done to that effect have been effective, some haven't. That's just the nature of the business.
quote:
Oh, come on. That's laying it on pretty thick. It's an imaginary game setting, one that often verges on incoherent that is owned by people who don't respect their customers. It's not a person, not a loved one. It's one of many such settings. let's not get too romantic about it.
Well, thank you very much for not shooting me down when I stepped out on a limb. I really appreciate your tact.
So if you aren't really invested in the setting, then why are we talking about it? Seriously?
Pardon the psychoanalysis again, but it seems to me that if you're here, and you've devoted significant time to reading my extremely long winded posts and composing replies, that you have a strong emotional investment in the setting. But by all means--tell me this is a waste of time, and we can just stop talking.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I believe that the core continuity and theme is there. The Realms has always been still the Realms.
We'll definitely disagree there. I think 4e shattered the Realms, I'm sad that the Realms ended that way. But that is a question of taste, so we can disagree on that.
It does not surprise me that you think that. You don't use the 4e FR (or the 3e for that matter), have made no attempt to have an open mind about it. Are you only interested in expressing your distaste for it?
quote:
I'm not interested in finding any hope in the Realms, I'm interested in looting its dissicated corpse. I'll scavenge what I find helpful in 3e and 4e and leave the rest in the trash.
As I said, there are lots of other settings and games to spend money on.
Well, good luck with that, and I hope you find something you like better.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I often run into this attitude among the readership, and it is very common in an expanded universe/shared setting/fandom thing like this: you want to have all the answers, and you refuse to make them up yourself.
Again, you broaden the idea to create an easily deposed strawman. Demanding firm answers about an event like the Spellplague is not asking for 'all' the answers, it is requiring the bare minimum that should be required of the designers.
That is a false requirement. We have an imperfect understanding of our own world, and yet we're able to live in it. Why can't there be some mystery? Why can't the DM come up with something cool and let the PCs go figure it out? Or would you rather the PCs had all the answers from the beginning, and there was never any surprise?
I understand the desire to explain or have something explained--believe me, I do--but I also understand that some things are ripe for campaign hooks and story arcs. I advanced that argument before, and you just kind of ignored it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
But again, it doesn't matter really what I think or say. Your opinion is still your opinion.
So, closed mind then? The conversation is about you converting me, not a mutual discussion about the problems, or lack thereof, of the Realms?
I'm not sure what the concept "closed mind" means to you, but a recognition of differing opinions, respect for someone's alternate opinion, avoiding denigrating that someone for believing what he does, and acceptance that one isn't going to change someone else's mind seems pretty "open minded" to me.
Only you can change your own opinion. What I say may or may not prompt you to do so, or give you fodder for the change, but I have no interest in "converting" you. For one thing, it's not possible, and for a second, I have way more productive things to do with my time.
Which, come to think of it, I should really get back to.
I see no particular reason to continue participating in this conversation. I've already addressed the original question, which was:
quote:
So... getting back to my original post, do you think the Realms is, or is not, prone to RSEs as a setting, and why?
Absolutely. RSEs move product. The setting needs to change (for reasons argued above). WotC combines these two facts into a single business strategy.
Could they find a better way to do it? Sure, but WotC has to work with the resources they have, which dwindle every year. (I could go into my theories about the why, but that's outside the scope of the discussion.)
So, having answered the original question and spent entirely too much time following up on it, I will depart the scroll, having said all I wanted to say.
GMW, you've expressed your desire in . . . (how did you put it?)
quote:
looting [FR's] dissicated corpse. I'll scavenge what I find helpful in 3e and 4e and leave the rest in the trash.
And I think that pretty much sums it up--I think my role in this discussion is at an end.
I hope everyone enjoys the scroll further.
I'm off to write some Forgotten Realms.
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 27 Jan 2011 16:34:34 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why so many Realms Shattering Events?
