| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 02:42:27
|
Well said.
I'd also like to bring to the table one other wrinkle to the "plot threads left unresolved/dangling" matter. In his FR game writing (and some designers, both staff and freelance, have followed his lead in this), Ed likes to introduce three loose ends for every plot thread that's "tied off" or resolved or substantially used in a novel or adventure. It's part of what keeps the Realms feeling "alive."
At a Worldcon panel some years back, Ed and Terry Pratchett stood together against some other panelists, in a friendly disagreement, over "epic fantasy plotting." Ed and Terry both felt that some books felt too pat, with characters being moved in perfect chess-move-like lockstep to act out an author's plot, with no one getting lost, making a mistake, pursuing a blind alley, or being less than perfect in their hunches - - as well as miraculously arriving at exactly the right spot at exactly the right moment, when travelling through unfamiliar territory across half a world in pursuit of a quest. Everything was just too neat and tidy and therefore unrealistic (heroes never wrong, villains' undefeatable plan having just one flaw that the villains left unguarded and that the heroes blundering right into exploiting, and so so forth.
Some other writers took the view that seeing everything perfectly orchestrated was enjoyable in itself, like listening to the culmination of a symphony, yet granted that carried too far, possible delicious reader enjoyment would be marred by perceived lack of realism (and everyone agreed that trying to make the obviously fantastic seem "real" was not only laudable but necessary for the willing suspension of disbelief).
As a sometime editor, I agree with Ed and Terry: if the reader can see the strings making the marionettes dance, the story suffers. Some things should remain unresolved or left hanging, just as in real life.
As J.R.R. Tolkien said: "Don't explain everything, and beware too-neat endings. Leave them wanting more."
Lily, I have no idea if this matter "fits" the unresolved plot ideas in the trilogy you're currently reading, or not. I simply wanted to point out that sometimes things are left unresolved deliberately. I know Ed has done this in his Realms writing deliberately for decades, to spur ideas for other DMs, players, writers, and designers. (Not that he hasn't had his moments of bad writing or plot holes, mind you.) The one thing Ed does in his home campaign that the necessities of publishing won't allow is to leave something hanging deliberately for years, waiting for one of his players to frown and exclaim, "Hey! Wait a minute . . ." And then remember something from literally five or ten years before, connect the dots, and leave Ed beaming. 
It's a great feeling when it happens, believe me!
love to all,
THO |
 |
|
|
JamesLowder
Forgotten Realms Author & Game Designer
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 03:00:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
I'd also like to bring to the table one other wrinkle to the "plot threads left unresolved/dangling" matter. In his FR game writing (and some designers, both staff and freelance, have followed his lead in this), Ed likes to introduce three loose ends for every plot thread that's "tied off" or resolved or substantially used in a novel or adventure. It's part of what keeps the Realms feeling "alive."
Fantastic point. It also gets to something important in the discussion about critical commentary. Not everyone appreciates the same things in a piece of fiction. Even the best read, most thoughtful readers, writers, and editors can and do disagree about what qualifies as a merit or a fault.
This isn't to say that critical commentary is impossible, but rather that it's vital to make it clear precisely why you think a work succeeds or fails. That's the only way others can tell if they share your value set, or if the point you're making is securely grounded in the text itself.
Cheers,
Jim Lowder |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 05:49:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lily M Green
I'm not sure I have a great deal to add to this scroll but... given that some of its content is concerned with considering the literary merits of the genre / setting I just wanted to share with you this recent article from The Guardian website (posted on International Women's Day) regarding strong female characters, or the blogger's perceived lack thereof, in literary fiction. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/mar/08/daring-women-s-heroines
Feel free to draw your own conclusions regarding the article itself, but I really wanted to draw your attention to was the comments, which time after time tell the blogger that if what she's looking for in fiction are strong female (feminine) characters then she need look no further than the Sci-Fi and fantasy genres to find them by the bucketload, and FR Fiction is no exception to this.
To the Guardian-people's credit, they did bring up those comments when they spoke about it in their Books-podcast. |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 06:22:25
|
I can attest that so far in my FR writing, pretty much every plot line I've left unresolved is purposeful, as I intend to leave it open to follow up in my future work, or as a potential plot hook for you to grab for your game.
I don't like tying everything up, because life just doesn't work that way. Things aren't neat--they're delightfully messy. 
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" |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 16:38:13
|
| I agree that there are advantages to leaving certain aspects of a story ambiguous or unresolved. On the other hand, one of the pleasures of fiction is that it can provide something that real life often denies us: closure. If we're going to leave plot threads dangling and mysteries unresolved, we need to do it in such a way that the stories are nonetheless satisfying rather than exercises in frustration. Which I guess means that every work should at least answer the biggest, most central questions that it poses. |
|
|
|
JamesLowder
Forgotten Realms Author & Game Designer
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2011 : 21:29:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I can attest that so far in my FR writing, pretty much every plot line I've left unresolved is purposeful, as I intend to leave it open to follow up in my future work, or as a potential plot hook for you to grab for your game.
Of course, the nature of shared worlds means that the original author may never get to resolve plot threads left open or, worse, that the publisher may have other writers take things in a direction that changes or overtly undermines the earlier book. This can leave the original work looking a lot more flawed than it was when first published.
Cheers,
Jim |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 00:09:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by JamesLowder
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I can attest that so far in my FR writing, pretty much every plot line I've left unresolved is purposeful, as I intend to leave it open to follow up in my future work, or as a potential plot hook for you to grab for your game.
Of course, the nature of shared worlds means that the original author may never get to resolve plot threads left open or, worse, that the publisher may have other writers take things in a direction that changes or overtly undermines the earlier book. This can leave the original work looking a lot more flawed than it was when first published.
I think that is an important point, and argues that shared world writers should be careful and... parsimonious in the dangling plot threads they leave in thier works.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
JamesLowder
Forgotten Realms Author & Game Designer
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 05:00:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
I think that is an important point, and argues that shared world writers should be careful and... parsimonious in the dangling plot threads they leave in thier works.
True enough. Another partial solution would be for shared world publishers/IP owners to create contracts that guarantee authors be offered first shot at any sequels to their works and even some control over characters they create.
Cheers,
Jim Lowder |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 09:40:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by JamesLowder
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
I think that is an important point, and argues that shared world writers should be careful and... parsimonious in the dangling plot threads they leave in thier works.
True enough. Another partial solution would be for shared world publishers/IP owners to create contracts that guarantee authors be offered first shot at any sequels to their works and even some control over characters they create.
Cheers,
Jim Lowder
Nah... that sounds too much like sense for any multinational corporation to adopt it as policy. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2011 : 14:27:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by JamesLowder
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
I think that is an important point, and argues that shared world writers should be careful and... parsimonious in the dangling plot threads they leave in thier works.
True enough. Another partial solution would be for shared world publishers/IP owners to create contracts that guarantee authors be offered first shot at any sequels to their works and even some control over characters they create.
Cheers,
Jim Lowder
That would work... And TSR's old practice of having a traffic cop monitoring continuity would also help. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 01:49:04
|
I'm just speculating, but it seems to me that Wizbro D&D products of late (that is, at least the products made from the "transition" from 3E to 4E onwards) have been following a master game plan. The designers sometimes make mistakes, sometimes even introduce new bling which "breaks" the game a bit, and the brand has directed some unpopular decisions, true ... but Wizbro staff isn't releasing fiction and sourcebooks haphazardly: they do research the lore (they even consult places like Candlekeep), they do carefully prepare an overall structure for story arcs and elements, and I think it can be said that overall production quality (writing, artwork, etc) is held to consistently high standards.
Yes, there's no designated traffic cop. Yes, they must make sacrifices to appease the mighty brand beast. But there appears to be excellent collaboration between Wizbro staff, the authors have (thus far) demonstrated a genuine passion for D&D gaming and settings and seemingly defer to each others' expertise. They even defer to ours, I think it's quite awesome that they remain visible, maintain dialogue, often feel out their new ideas, or even ask for "accurate" lore before setting things down in stone. A central traffic cop authority might ensure greater conformity, but at the price of perhaps stifling some creativity. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 03:41:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I'm just speculating, but it seems to me that Wizbro D&D products of late (that is, at least the products made from the "transition" from 3E to 4E onwards) have been following a master game plan. The designers sometimes make mistakes, sometimes even introduce new bling which "breaks" the game a bit, and the brand has directed some unpopular decisions, true ... but Wizbro staff isn't releasing fiction and sourcebooks haphazardly: they do research the lore (they even consult places like Candlekeep), they do carefully prepare an overall structure for story arcs and elements, and I think it can be said that overall production quality (writing, artwork, etc) is held to consistently high standards.
Yes, there's no designated traffic cop. Yes, they must make sacrifices to appease the mighty brand beast. But there appears to be excellent collaboration between Wizbro staff, the authors have (thus far) demonstrated a genuine passion for D&D gaming and settings and seemingly defer to each others' expertise. They even defer to ours, I think it's quite awesome that they remain visible, maintain dialogue, often feel out their new ideas, or even ask for "accurate" lore before setting things down in stone. A central traffic cop authority might ensure greater conformity, but at the price of perhaps stifling some creativity.
I disagree, across the board. When 3E came out, there was a lot of prior continuity that was not maintained -- plotlines/hooks were dropped, and a lot of things were changed without even a token attempt at an explanation. And it did not get any better as 3E progressed.
Heck, part of the reason we'll never see Reclamation is because of the way things were being changed.
None of that shows collaboration or a desire for accurate lore.
Further, I don't see how maintaining continuity stifles creativity... How hard is it to avoid crossing a particular line? And if you do have a need to do it, making it work requires more creativity, not less.
Oh, and while some individual authors/designers may decide to consult us here, keep in mind that we've also been told that WotC discourages those same individuals from coming here. A forum full of people who have spent years pouring thru Realms material, and we are not considered a viable resource for WotC. That doesn't say good things about an overall regard for continuity, either. |
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! |
|
|
|
ElaineCunningham
Forgotten Realms Author
2396 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 04:22:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heck, part of the reason we'll never see Reclamation is because of the way things were being changed.
::snip""
Oh, and while some individual authors/designers may decide to consult us here, keep in mind that we've also been told that WotC discourages those same individuals from coming here.
Actually, Reclamation was cancelled because I couldn't finish the manuscript. It's really just that simple.
I don't recall anyone telling me not to post on Candlekeep. I'm not arguing that this was never said to anyone, but it's my impression that this was more a matter of individual editor opinion than company policy.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 05:38:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heck, part of the reason we'll never see Reclamation is because of the way things were being changed.
::snip""
Oh, and while some individual authors/designers may decide to consult us here, keep in mind that we've also been told that WotC discourages those same individuals from coming here.
Actually, Reclamation was cancelled because I couldn't finish the manuscript. It's really just that simple.
I don't recall anyone telling me not to post on Candlekeep. I'm not arguing that this was never said to anyone, but it's my impression that this was more a matter of individual editor opinion than company policy.
It was recently brought up by Erik Scott de Bie.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 17:02:11
|
Nobody ever told me not to post on Candlekeep, either.
Wooly, I respect the knowledge of the regulars here at Candlekeep. But I don't think it implies any disrespect that WotC hasn't chosen to integrate you into its operation as continuity cops. I suspect there are practical issues which keep this from being feasible. For one thing, they probably couldn't do this without letting you in on confidential plans and information. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 18:10:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Nobody ever told me not to post on Candlekeep, either.
Wooly, I respect the knowledge of the regulars here at Candlekeep. But I don't think it implies any disrespect that WotC hasn't chosen to integrate you into its operation as continuity cops. I suspect there are practical issues which keep this from being feasible. For one thing, they probably couldn't do this without letting you in on confidential plans and information.
Oh, I have no problem with not being involved in that. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that we are used as traffic cops for the Realms. Certainly, we have had some authors come in and ask for help with research, but those authors are in the minority.
We could function in such a capacity, but we certainly don't do so for WotC as a company, and it's not often we are asked to do so by the folks working for them. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 01 Apr 2011 18:11:02 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 18:37:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Arik, it’s an unwritten rule that you cannot say anything generally positive on the Candlekeep forums about Wizards of the Coast. At least one moderator or curmudgeon regular will always chime in with something negative, even if they have to gloss over facts to do it.
OKAY, NOW who's stirring the pot?
I haven't contributed to this thread because I have nothing to add that hasn't been said, and I agree that every individual 'work' (be it sourcebook, novel, article, art, etc...) should be taken on it's own merit, and not be judged by who it was written by, or what it was written for.
I just take issue with your 'cheap shot' there - it was uncalled for (and things have been going smoothly here, for the most part).
I RESPECT authors (and designers) who come here seeking help with research - I would never think of them as 'lazy' (quite the contrary). Despite what many folks may believe (or perceive), I DO NOT come here to share "my wonderful knowledge with others", I come here to get input (and data) from folks who know the setting far better then I. This place is an amazing resource, and more power to the people who realize that. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Apr 2011 18:39:16 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 18:40:10
|
lol, sorry I helped get ye in trouble, Woolpert. (Well, kinda not really, but yeah, sorta. )
The wording in my previous post seems a little ambiguous. I don't view sites like Candlekeep as being a replacement for FR traffic cop, only as a resource (one of many) which some of the authors/designers appear to often use as a reference. The question of whether the Realms would be a better place with a traffic cop is entirely rhetorical, the golden age has come and gone.
Although the ship has been deliberately (and recklessly) steered into ramming a lot of icebergs, and it is sometimes piloted into the fog through treacherous murky waters, it's still somehow managed to keep afloat ... so it seems to me that the crew must be doing a good job in plotting their maps without a Captain. The traffic cop functions seem (to me) to still exist, albeit in more of a decentralized peer consensus format than within an officially designated authority. Outside of the grossest 4E transitions (which I largely view as clumsy and distasteful expediencies) it seems to me that much care has been taken to retain consistency within the lore; many of the authors seem to make real efforts to do their research before writing ... this largely offsets the disadvantages of having no appointed traffic cop without having the disadvantages (forced conformity, ie: restricted creativity) that a traffic cop would impose. Of course, even this is blurry, since Wizbrand makes decisions and the authors either comply or look for other work.
Having said all that, some of the authors (IMO) are much better than others in this regard. I'm not going to set them upon a glowing pedestal but I will offer my thanks and appreciation to those who do make the extra effort because it is noticed and appreciated (and demonstrates your passion for the setting), even when you happen to write books that I personally find objectionable. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 01 Apr 2011 18:46:21 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 19:36:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Arik, it’s an unwritten rule that you cannot say anything generally positive on the Candlekeep forums about Wizards of the Coast. At least one moderator or curmudgeon regular will always chime in with something negative, even if they have to gloss over facts to do it.
This is not a rule, written or unwritten. It is your opinion. I will point out -- as I've had to point out more than once in the past -- that I have frequently defended WotC, that I have called for people to examine facts and to make informed decisions, and that I have railed against generally bashing them.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
When 3E came out, there was a lot of prior continuity that was not maintained -- plotlines/hooks were dropped, and a lot of things were changed without even a token attempt at an explanation. And it did not get any better as 3E progressed.
None of that shows collaboration or a desire for accurate lore.
Well, as has been pointed out many a time before on this forum (for what, nine, ten years now?), when the D&D rules change, the Realms must needs reflect that. Anything incompatible (i.e. lore reflecting 2E rules that were not in place anymore) had to be modified or removed.
As well, housecleaning of sorts was done on the Realms. Anything judged unnecessary, stupid or just not good for the setting was removed.
In the run-up to the FRCS, everywhere one of these decisions to change some part of the Realms was made without an accompanying in-setting explanation, the reasoning behind that decision was always made public to the fan base.
I know you feel all changes require in-setting explanations. I’m cool with that.
However, I don’t feel it’s appropriate to publicly question the professionalism and commitment to the Realms of people we hardly know because they modified a map, decided the Manshoon clones should be left to DMs to play with, or made the smart decision to let dwarves cast spells.
That kind of talk is what encourages managers to advise their employees and work-for-hire staff to avoid places like Candlekeep.
I'm not talking about things that were required by the changing rules. I'm talking about things like Silverymoon's wards suddenly becoming a mythal, or the fact that at least one NPC's alignment was changed from good to evil.
And abruptly closing off prior plotlines -- like the Manshoon Wars -- is not "leaving things to DMs to play with." Ditto for disregarding them -- like the Harper Schism, something Rich Baker publicly said he didn't like.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Oh, and while some individual authors/designers may decide to consult us here, keep in mind that we've also been told that WotC discourages those same individuals from coming here. A forum full of people who have spent years pouring thru Realms material, and we are not considered a viable resource for WotC. That doesn't say good things about an overall regard for continuity, either.
Every time I read some version of this statement (and I’ve read a lot of them down the years) it always leaves me feeling uncomfortable.
I consider myself to be a fan of the Realms, but I just don’t consider myself to be so hugely arrogant that I require every game designer or author to prostrate themselves before me and beg me to review their work before they submit it to WotC, just because I grace some anonymous online forum with my presence.
I said, rather clearly, that it doesn't bother me to not be involved in that. What I also said was that we could serve as such, but that it's not something we have been used for all that oft. I was responding to a specific assertation that we function as a resource.
Kindly try reading what was actually typed.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I’d be as enthusiastic as the next guy to help a game designer or author if they asked for it (provided I had some understanding of the area of the Realms they were working on—this is why I haven’t responded to certain PMs in the past) but I do not consider myself so emotionally fragile that my feelings will get hurt if the authors/designers don’t come begging me for help.
Again, read what was actually written. Nothing like this was stated overtly or even implied.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I am extremely uncomfortable when the leadership at Candlekeep uses phrases like “we are not considered a viable resource”.
A recent author stated that WotC discourages its people from coming here. If we were considered by the company to be a viable resource, they'd not say that.
Also, I am not a leader here. I am a fan of the setting, just like anyone else. I just happen to be able to do things like edit posts or lock threads. That's not leadership. Even if it was, I am on record as saying -- repeatedly! -- that people need to look at facts and come to their own conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
First of all, where’s the evidence that this is how WotC feels? We know as recently as Erik that someone at WotC has encouraged some of their people not to visit here, but the decision to advise people to avoid certain forums is, as I understand it, in place because they don’t want their people getting flamed.
This is why concluding “protecting your staff” means the same things as “WotC doesn’t think we’re useful” is such a bizarre leap of logic. 
A resource cannot be utilized if you tell people to avoid it. If WotC considered us a useful resource, they'd say "be wary" not "be elsewhere".
The only bizarre leaps of logic here are the ones you're using to put words in my mouth. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 22:49:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is not a rule, written or unwritten. It is your opinion.
Call it a well informed observation based off of years of experience.
It is your opinion. Again, I've often been the first person to ask people to give WotC fair shakes, or to caution against knee-jerk "WotC is t3h evil!" reactions whenever they do something that could be viewed as objectionable.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not talking about things that were required by the changing rules. I'm talking about things like Silverymoon's wards suddenly becoming a mythal, or the fact that at least one NPC's alignment was changed from good to evil.
You started your statement with “When 3E came out”. Because of this I figured you were talking about the modifications to the Realms that came from D&D rules changes rippling into the setting—and that caused so much nerdgrage on various forums at the time.
I didn’t realize you’d lumped the contents of two questionable items in the Silver Marches sourcebook into that time period.
So, if we subtract the effects of D&D rules changes on the Realms…well we’re not left with much; certainly not enough to accept your generalization that “None of that shows collaboration or a desire for accurate lore” on the part of game designers.
Think about it: you’re calling into question the professionalism of a group of real people because of one error and one revision in one sourcebook.
It's a lot more than just that one sourcebook. I've not seen it in a while, but somewhere there is a compiled list of unexplained changes that happened with 3E.
I only cited those as a specific example. And I never called anyone's professionalism into question; I only said that such things did not show a desire for accurate lore. That could have been on the part of the designers, it could have been on the part of the bean counters, it could have been anything else. I did not assign a motivation; I said their actions did not show that regard.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Using fans to fact-check an entire sourcebook is a waste of time and money, because it amounts to holding up the design schedule so a second set of editors can go over the work.
Holy mother of Lurue, will you get off of this point? All I've said is that we could be used in such a manner. Could. Not should, could. And I never said anything about fact-checking sourcebooks -- I said we could (again, note that that word begins with a C; I can link you to a definition if it's necessary) be used to assist with research.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Mistakes happen. I don’t think it is right to imply that people lack professionalism or enthusiasm for the Realms because they made those mistakes.
Saying there is an appearance of something is not the same as saying it definitely exists. I have not questioned anyone's professionalism or enthusiasm.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And abruptly closing off prior plotlines -- like the Manshoon Wars -- is not "leaving things to DMs to play with."
Then what is it, Wooly?
Plot points are regularly left dangling so DMs can pick them up and run with them. Manshoon is a gigantic example of this: he’s a pretty popular bad guy; there are lots of him running around the Realms….what’s not to love?
Do you think DMs will avoid using the Manshoon clones? I didn’t in my Realms game.
Hey, I love the idea of the Manshoon Wars. I think it's one of the best ideas to come out of 2E. I never said anything about not using them... What I said was that them closing off that plotline -- which they did, by saying there were only three Manshoons left -- is not leaving the plotline available for DMs to play with. We had a great plotline available here, and WotC came along and said "yeah, that's over and done with."
Again, please pay attention to what I am actually typing.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I said, rather clearly, that it doesn't bother me to not be involved in that.
Not in the same post where you wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
A forum full of people who have spent years pouring thru Realms material, and we are not considered a viable resource for WotC. That doesn't say good things about an overall regard for continuity, either.
On the one hand, you say you don’t mind CK not being utilized, but on the other hand you believe WotC’s “overall regard for continuity” is lower for failing to utilize CK.
I’m reading what you’re writing. It’s just reads as contradictory.
There is no contradiction here. I have a problem with them not considering us a potential resource -- it doesn't matter if they opt to use us or not; it's the fact that it's not considered an option that bothers 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! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 23:10:36
|
Not to take sides here - just a comment:
I have to agree with Wooly in regards to the Manshoon Wars plot. I didn't even like it, and would never use it, but I think it is a tremendous disservice to just say 'there are NO more'. What is the point of doing that? Its bad design.
Wouldn't "There are only three known to still exist" have been better? just re-wording it makes it so much more usable.
Its a tragic example of subtractive lore - something which is very poor design philosophy (not MY opinion, but I agree with it - someone had a link somewhere to an article written by someone in the industry, who knew what he was talking about). You should NEVER just close-off a side-road a DM might want to 'wander down', especially when it adds absolutely nothing in return. It was 'shut-down' because someone didn't like it, and that someone made the decision for 8 billion other people not to use it as well.
And this is my opinion - a person who really didn't like the clone wars (in either SW or FR), and was glad to see them end. I may have hated it, but if I was in-charge, I wouldn't have had the hubris to force my own personal preferences on the rest of the world. Designers should design for everyone, not just themselves (Cthulhu lovers take note).
Anyhow, continue. I find it amusing that the person accusing others of 'bashing' is doing all the bashing this time. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Apr 2011 23:16:19 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 23:31:26
|
OK Wooly, you win.
WotC is evil and there's no use in defending their work because, well, your negative opinion is just not allowed to be challenged here at the 'Keep. |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 00:16:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
OK Wooly, you win.
WotC is evil and there's no use in defending their work because, well, your negative opinion is just not allowed to be challenged here at the 'Keep.
Oh dear. It's a shame when two scribes end up at loggerheads but you were on a hiding to nothing there, Miscellany.
And without wanting to pick the fight up were it left off I have to say I disagree with you a little Wooly I think you're reading too much into the eariler comments that authors are discourage from hitting the keep. I think that was more a reflection of an opinion that many authors and freelancers have expressed to each other than any issued instruction of WotC. |
|
|
|
Thieran
Learned Scribe
Germany
293 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 00:24:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
OK Wooly, you win.
WotC is evil and there's no use in defending their work because, well, your negative opinion is just not allowed to be challenged here at the 'Keep.
Aww, come off it. That's simply not true - everyone can (and does!) challenge Wooly's opinion, and he has the right to respond with arguments. It's your decision if you want to decide that he "wins" and you stop challenging his opinion.
He does not abuse his Mod powers (your last remark dangerously sounds as if you want to allege that) and he is not the only Mod here anyway. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 00:25:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
OK Wooly, you win.
WotC is evil and there's no use in defending their work because, well, your negative opinion is just not allowed to be challenged here at the 'Keep.
Challenge me all you wish. Just do so by focusing on what I actually said.
And as someone who has fought the "WotC is evil" argument, I don't know where you come off saying that's my stance. |
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! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
|
|
ElaineCunningham
Forgotten Realms Author
2396 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 14:03:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert I have a problem with them not considering us a potential resource -- it doesn't matter if they opt to use us or not; it's the fact that it's not considered an option that bothers me.
I understand the points you've been making. Where I think you're slightly off the mark is in assuming that WotC's attitude is specific to Candlekeep.
WotC/Hasbro is VERY protective of copyright, confidentiality, and the use of their intellectual property. In general, the policy is to restrict access to unpublished material. Here's an example: A while back, I asked my editor about the policy of using first readers on a manuscript. They are VERY leery of this. When I mentioned that one first reader was a former WotC employee, they STILL wanted a signed NDA specific to that project. The notion of them opening up a work-in-progress to an open online forum is so far outside of their modus operandi as to be unthinkable. It doesn't matter if the forum is Candlekeep or D&D Online or anything else. That's just not how the company works.
I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. I've working with companies that take extreme positions on either end of the spectrum. Paizo provides free beta versions of major projects for play-testing. They make a fanzine available from their website as a free download. Editors and designers actively participate in the forums. Their approach to the fan base is inclusive and collaborative. And it works.
On the other side of the scale is Star Wars. LucasFilm Licensing has NDA policies that would make Hasbro attorneys weep in envy. Writers sometimes joke that signing a contract involved getting an implant like the one young Anakin described in Episode 1: "Violate confidentiality, and they BLOW. YOU. UP!" Judging from the success of the Extended Universe, I think it's fair to say that this approach works, too.
There are pros and cons to both approaches to licensed settings. I agree that the collective talents and knowledge base that is Candlekeep could be a valuable resource, but I don't agree that NOT considering Candlekeep as a resource shows a lack of respect.
As for editors advising writers to stay offline, I have every reason to assume that this advice was based on a personal opinion, not company policy. |
Edited by - ElaineCunningham on 02 Apr 2011 14:33:50 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36965 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 14:44:02
|
I wouldn't expect to be used as a first reader, or to fact-check a sourcebook, or anything that involved. The kind of utilization I would expect is more like an author or designer coming in and saying "Hey, I know that sources X, Y, and Z all have info about thing Q. Are there other sources or books I'm missing that refer to this?" That's it, just research assistance. Not sharing anything with us that would require an NDA or even anything more than flipping thru a particular existing book -- just research on a general topic.
We've had at least a small percentage of authors do this -- less than a handful. The number is small, but it has happened. IIRC, Chris Rowe recently did this while working on Sandstorm, and I also recall Steven Schend popping up, needing to know which eye Osco Salibuck had hidden by an eyepatch.
And I'm not saying that I expect an official directive from WotC for all their people to do this, either. I'm just saying that it is something we at the 'Keep can do.
If someone wants to use us as a resource like that, I'm cool with that -- I think it would be great, actually. But if someone does not opt to use us like that, that's cool, too. Either way, it's an option.
But if WotC is telling people not to come here, that to me means they don't consider us a viable option for that. And that's the part that bothers 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! |
|
|
|
ElaineCunningham
Forgotten Realms Author
2396 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 15:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I wouldn't expect to be used as a first reader, or to fact-check a sourcebook, or anything that involved. The kind of utilization I would expect is more like an author or designer coming in and saying "Hey, I know that sources X, Y, and Z all have info about thing Q. Are there other sources or books I'm missing that refer to this?" That's it, just research assistance. Not sharing anything with us that would require an NDA or even anything more than flipping thru a particular existing book -- just research on a general topic.
We've had at least a small percentage of authors do this -- less than a handful. The number is small, but it has happened. IIRC, Chris Rowe recently did this while working on Sandstorm, and I also recall Steven Schend popping up, needing to know which eye Osco Salibuck had hidden by an eyepatch.
And I'm not saying that I expect an official directive from WotC for all their people to do this, either. I'm just saying that it is something we at the 'Keep can do.
If someone wants to use us as a resource like that, I'm cool with that -- I think it would be great, actually. But if someone does not opt to use us like that, that's cool, too. Either way, it's an option.
But if WotC is telling people not to come here, that to me means they don't consider us a viable option for that. And that's the part that bothers me.
Research assistant is a great concept.
Again, I do NOT think WotC is telling writers not to come to Candlekeep. It seems much more likely that one of the editors who distrusted the internet in general--and there was one or two--expressed the opinion that writers are better off staying out of message boards. I have had a WotC editor say this to me, but it was clear from the context that this was his opinion, not company policy. Even if Candlekeep was mentioned in that discussion--and I don't recal whether it was or not--I would have understood that any reservations expressed were one man's opinion.
FWIW, he seems to have modified his opinion since then, and has become very active in blogging and social networks.
Obviously, I can't speak to any other writer's experience. If anyone has been told, "As a matter of corporate policy, we do not want people who write for WotC to participate in the Candlekeep forums," I wish someone would come out and say so. I'd hate to think that so many writers are in violation of policy.
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 17:35:51
|
quote:
Wooly Beeble Hamster
... I would expect ... an author or designer coming in and saying "Hey, I know that sources X, Y, and Z all have info about thing Q. Are there other sources or books I'm missing that refer to this?" That's it, just research assistance ... We've had at least a small percentage of authors do this ...
I think that a few more authors than we know have done this on the sly. They tend to be very mysterious and refuse to drop hints during the initial "research" phase, it's only when projects are nearing completion that we are allowed to learn hints about the enticing directions they intend to take us. I think it's unlikely that they'd scrap and rebuild a book halfway through when discovering some awesome new bit of relevant lore at a fansite ... though our opinions and expectations are probably considered (perhaps dismissed or contradicted, yet still considered) when decisions are made and "fluff" elements are fleshed out during the course of a story. Just my opinion and speculation, of course. Lurkers cannot violate NDAs and other professional constraints. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 02 Apr 2011 17:37:05 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Editor's get a bum rap?
