| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 05:14:34
|
I've read about the Hasbro core brand setup and how WotC tried to raise D&D into this coveted status. Granted it was a tough situation, but someones had to think this was the best way to reach the required level and move forward with the various D&D brands. This amongst all other routes was ultimately chosen after all.
The team may be mostly different, but several members are likely the same and we don't know how significantly different the whole team's approach will be. It is also far easier and safer to hold most of what they do have than reinvent the setting yet again, that much I expect them to have learned.
I'll confess I'm being vocal on this in the off chance the new team is listening, since I was disenfranchised out of the 3E to 4E changes and skipped the entirety of 4E. I only have the 4E Eberron Campaign Guide because I won it in a promotional drawing, to date the only 4E book I own.
If 5E FR doesn't end up something I'm interested in, I'm no worse off than now.
|
 |
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 07:31:24
|
How about either a novel or a module that incorporates a one line plot hook from the 3e FRCS about a madman babbling about a Netherese artifact known as 'The Thalang' that was the only thing that could save Faerun from a coming apocalypse.
How about they pull that one out and use it as the macguffin to rewind the clock and prevent the Spellplague and the events of 4e FR from happening (or splitting off into two timelines and giving us the option)? |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 08:49:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
How about either a novel or a module that incorporates a one line plot hook from the 3e FRCS about a madman babbling about a Netherese artifact known as 'The Thalang' that was the only thing that could save Faerun from a coming apocalypse.
How about they pull that one out and use it as the macguffin to rewind the clock and prevent the Spellplague and the events of 4e FR from happening (or splitting off into two timelines and giving us the option)?
That macguffin has actually been the source of much heated debate here at the Keep...and elsewhere (and some of those other places make the ones here look positively sedate). That, or something akin to it - the 'split timeline' has engendered a lot of approval from 3rd-and-earlier aficionados, and hostility from 4th Edition enthusiasts. It is one of the single most polarizing topics I can recall seeing, after 4th Edition itself, that is.
ESdB had that in mind when he started this scroll. While I am definitely in the 'split timeline' camp, I think we need to stay focused on what Erik is trying to do here. For whatever reason, the likely outcome of Wizbro's final decision will be to build on the Shattered Realms.
The only variation to this rule being the (likely one-shot) guide Ed is producing based on his original campaign notes. I admit to being eager to see this work, with nothing else Wizbro is releasing giving me more than mild interest. Mainly because Wizbro has proven they don't 'get it', while Ed is, if I may use the term, a Gygaxian figure in terms of his influence on the setting
Erik is trying to devise ways to (in essence) 'un-shatter' the Realms, and is asking for our input. I want the Realms of lore and yore back - so if working within Erik's frame is the best way to do that, I say we do it. This scroll was made for that purpose, and this is our chance to give input on how Wizbro could make the changes that would give us our beloved Realms back.
Some things won't change - I gave my opinion on what those are in an earlier post in this scroll. But I am of the opinion that apart from those, everything, absolutely everything, can be changed so that it is virtually unrecognizable from the Realms of 1375 DR, and that includes bringing back gods and people. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 09:04:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
FR still wouldn't be my primary setting, but it would at least remain a setting I participate in.
Would a once-per-year bone work if it was the only setting you played in?
If I were only going to get one Realms "book" per year, and it was going to be a cobbled translation of a bunch of articles written for a futuristic version of the setting, rather than a 1000 page work of awesomeness directed at "my" Realms ...that wouldn't work for me. I would (imo justifiably) feel abandoned by the brand.
And I'm not arguing with you, by the way... I think you're probably depressingly correct. Just sayin that's not going to bring everybody (or anybody, for that matter) back to the Realms. The "this ain't your daddy's Realms anymore" attitude in particular is in 100% opposition to the idea of building a Realms which everybody who's ever gamed here will recognize as home.
Anyway... I'm gonna give Erik's vision another shot. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 12:34:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Remember, this thread is specifically about ADDITIVE lore, POSITIVE design (positive meaning addition, as opposed to negative meaning subtraction), and (I hope) healing.
As promised/threatened, a fresh try to see things your way Erik. Less about lore, more about design and the hope for healing.
Edit: toning down some language resulting from strong feelings. apologies for whatever remains. i'm tired.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The Work:
What would you do? How would you address issues that need to be addressed in a way that does not compromise the lore that's been built up over the last thirty years?
1. Dial Down the Crazy.
My reaction to 4e is an example of the most important thing that needs to change going into 5e. I took one look at the 4e Campaign Guide when it first came out, and gave the entire edition the finger. I do have access to the Campaign Guide and Player's Guide now, but I haven't found the motivation to read much of either. I occasionally spot-check particular places to see what was changed; that's it. I don't have access to DDI, mostly because I was just that uninterested in anything new being created. Going by what I've seen on forums, I wasn't alone. So call me a grognard if you will, but for the record it's not the 4e rules I object to, and it's not even the 100-year advancement of the timeline in the Realms. What I object to is the stripping away of the setting's character. And fixing that isn't about canon... it's about the fact that I'm utterly convinced that I could do WotC's job better than WotC can. Note: I'm not being an egomaniac, and I'm not saying I'm better at writing than Ed, or any other author. WotC doesn't do all the writing. But it does control the future of the Realms. The direction it takes. The interest it generates. And it doesn't appear that they know what they're doing.
This is not about bashing WotC. It's about the perception. As long as I feel like I'd do a better job than WotC (not the authors) then I'm more interested in being a competitor than a devoted customer. But maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, in which case there's not much to worry about. I just don't think I'm completely alone, and therefore finding a way to fix this would result in more happy customers.
2. Getting the Old Guard past the Spellplague.
I'm assuming for a moment that (1) WotC really wants to get us old-timers back, and (2) this obviously isn't really a valid issue if we have three timeframes to choose from... we can just pick either the pre-1358 or pre-1385 options Erik suggested, and be happy. But we're not really coming back in large numbers if our only option is the 1480s. I'm sure everybody gets that. You can say the Realms is still the Realms, but it's not the same place to us. And the best reaction you'll get from us, when you say that, is a weird puzzled look as we make mental guesses as to what you've been smoking.
I don't have a ready solution here. I'll note that the longer you've played RPGs, the more likely you are to have played at least a few sessions in a futuristic setting or just a bizarrely different setting. That 1e D&D adventure that had light-sabers... Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? Well, at least it had light-sabers the way my DM ran it. Gamma World. Darwin's World. Dark Sun can count too. Those excursions are often heavy on action (and maybe puzzles) and extremely light on lore. Part of the assumption is that the lore has been destroyed or lost, and must be rediscovered. You may be able to do something appealing with that idea.
For example, maybe the diviners of Halruaa foresaw the Spellplague, and took the realm Elsewhen, kinda like Shade avoided the Fall of Netheril. My 4e lore is lacking here, I'm just winging it and it's just an example so that should be fine. Perhaps Halruans will or could return on their own eventually, but probably not as long as Mystra is out of the picture... what would be the point of returning to a Realms without a firm foundation of magic? Maybe we can find a portal somewhere that leads to the surviving land of Halruaa... the entire country, floating in the Plane of Air or some other unexpected place. The positive energy plane might be fun, if that still exists in the 4e cosmology. Point: it opens up a new place to go adventuring... not just Halruaa, but the plane they've relocated to; they'll need adventurers to find and neutralize threats to their continued survival in that place. The idea is to (without necessarily retconning) rewrite things so that new opportunities open up.
3. Convince us that you're still creators, and not destroyers.
The Rules of writing in the Realms have changed. Before, it was all positive, all the time. Well... overwhelmingly favoring the positive. We were always adding new lore; creating new storylines. The 4e treatment of the Realms destroyed things... a lot of things. Other than a few gods disappearing during the ToT, that had never happened before in the official Realms. Campaigns like mine, set in Mulhorand... no longer compatible with the published Realms, and it never will be again barring another big huge stupid event. Anything set in Halruaa, or most of the Chultan peninsula, or Anauroch, or Thay, or the Great Rift, or most likely anything in the nations under the Sea of Fallen Stars... gone. Who knows what the Underdark looks like now. It's a massive destruction of Realmslore, and a disturbing direction for WotC to take with a lore-rich setting. Instead of not knowing what's going to get created next, we're left wondering what's going to get destroyed next. Could be anything. Could be the center of your campaign. This is a fix that players can't make... except to say You Can't Ever Do That Again.
4. Make D&D less like WoW. And I'm actually not talking about gameplay.
WotC made the Spellplague a Big Deal. It may not have been intended that way, but if it wasn't then the designers were just silly... to put it mildly. When you change the maps, by torching entire nations and turning little crevasses into chasms big enough to swallow other nations, it's ludicrous in the extreme to expect everyone to just fail to notice it. The Post-Spellplague Realms is a completely different setting. We have scars and plaguelands and earthmotes. My first thought was that Halruaa turned into Dalaran, but reading the FRCG again, maybe it's more like Halgrind, in Howling Fjord? And we have floating rocks, from Outland. I bet the Underchasm looks like the Dead Scar just south of Silvermoon City, or like Coldarra around the Nexus. And the Spellplague is the Cataclysm heralding the return of Deathwing.
My point here is that if playing D&D is not supposed to make us think about a competitor's MMO, then... well, the visual references should maybe get tweaked again. Back to something resembling a real world, maybe? I get that it's a fantasy world, and those visuals are fine for WoW, because it was cartoony to begin with. Azeroth was never meant to look like a real world. You took the Realms, and turned it into a video game. The video game is fine, and the setting might be fine too if it were a new setting written for 4e. A video-gamey setting. That could work. What does not work is taking a real world (yes, I know...) and turning it into a cartoony world. I should say, instead, that it clearly didn't work this time.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
1. Multiple Eras
I dig the 70/30 split of lore, and I like your choices for the eras. I can get behind this.
I'm concerned that WotC is going to say "too much work" and pick only one timeframe to develop, and it's reasonable to assume that their choice would be 1480s... or some time after that. Not really trying to be pessimistic... just saying I hope you're persuasive, Erik. 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
2. Dealing with Spellplague
Moving forward with 5e FR, we have an opportunity to correct that, and I suggest that the Spellplague be relegated to the dusty tomes of history as an event that occurred, had sweeping changes, but has largely been forgotten, like the Time of Troubles, the Return of Shade, Lolth's Silence, etc.
I believe, if you can actually accomplish removing the Spellplague from everyday gaming, you can write a new Realms which works for everybody. The same Realms that we called home before? No. That ship sailed, as soon as the timeline started advancing. It sails faster with every edition, which kinda breaks the metaphor. Without retconning the map back to 1e/2e, the official Realms has changed forever. It would be nice if those irreversible changes stopped happening.
Moving past 5e having to deal with 4e's Spellplague, my question is this. Is another RSE scheduled to introduce 5e? Past experience tells me to predict a yes. Past experience also says it will be a mistake. The bigger the RSE, the bigger the mistake, and the more DMs/players it will repulse. It's pretty much like gravity... always true.
So it would be nice if that didn't happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
3. Big Canonical Sticking Points
I don't really have any canonical sticking points. My sticking points are freezing the timeline and avoiding RSEs.
What we need is a setting. A detailed and stable setting. One where DMs and players have the pens and the creative freedom. The more of the setting that's useful to everyone, the better the setting is. So no more RSEs in the published sourcebooks, because a significant % of DMs and players will always hate an RSE. That means, by definition, forcing them on us is dumb.
The ToT (as a minor example, to avoid harping on the Spellplague) was fine as long as it was in the realm of conversation. When it became a published fact of all campaigns, then it stunk. I'm sure all of us dealt with it... my point is that we shouldn't have been forced to. RSEs are the storyteller's right, which means DMs and authors of novels... assuming that the novel doesn't become canon for everybody's campaign by virtue of the official timeline advancing to pass it and make it historical fact as opposed to a potential future event.
And for everybody saying "but you can ignore whatever you want, you big dumb jerk, shut up about RSEs and timeline advancement already" --I hear ya-- but you're wrong. I can only ignore events that don't get followed up on. Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira are gone after 1358. I have Cyric and Kelemvor after 1358. The new ones get mentioned in subsequent sourcebooks, novels, and adventures, and the dead ones do not. So sure, I can choose to ignore the Time of Troubles... but as the timeline advances, the amount of stuff I have to rewrite (both deleting useless stuff and inserting my own stuff) steadily grows. And my interest in subsequent products declines, because I'm writing more and more of it myself anyway. The ToT basically just screwed up a few gods. The Spellplague, in contrast, screws up a whole lot of things. Fast forward, and you have a much-reduced customer base. Shouldn't be a big shock, they followed the recipe.
I anticipate some dissent on this point, so I'll separate it for easy quoting:
Give us a new edition without an RSE, and I think a lot of us will forgive & forget the Spellplague.
An official clarification would be cool; in a sidebar essay or somethin, near the beginning of the 5e Campaign Guide, noting that the Spellplague has been forgotten in most lands by commoners and lords alike. It isn't a factor in my character's life? Awesome. That means I don't have to think about it. On the occasions that I read "Spellplague" on a timeline, I'll briefly shake my head and wonder what could possibly have caused that to seem like a good idea, and then I'll move on. I'll be over it, as long as it's over. And as long as we never see another RSE in the Current Time of the published Realms. Because another RSE makes it obvious that the designers haven't learned a thing, and then the Spellplague returns to its current status as a nail in WotC's coffin.
All just my opinions/observations/thoughts. Thanks, to anyone who got this far. |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 11 Feb 2012 13:26:31 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 18:24:52
|
I think we're throwing around "RSE" like it's a specific term, but RSEs exist in small and large forms. An event or a novel is (by definition) a RSE unless it really doesn't affect anything or it puts all the toys back, unchanged, when it's done with them. But even so, every novel adds stuff to the Realms, or adds stuff and then removes it, or changes it in some way.
I don't think any of my novels have been RSEs, but I've shattered one small town (Quaervarr in Ghostwalker), discovered an ancient ruin (Depths of Madness), introduced the chosen of a dead god (Downshadow), brought war to Luskan (Shadowbane). Are these RSEs? I suppose if you're playing a game in one of those places, but the rest of the Realms don't feel the shake.
For instance, if Ed were to bring back Mystra and she dampened out the Spellplague, that would be a RSE, but would it make a huge difference to the Realms? Not really, IMO, and this makes it an acceptable RSE.
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" |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 18:56:03
|
They're defined by severely affecting large parts of Faerūn, so your examples aren't RSEs as generally considered, but our understanding of the term has been conditioned by the ones that were actually published. The TSR/Wizards RSEs have often been criticized for precisely the ways in which they differ from such occasional events in the pre-novel Realms history, e.g.
-- appearance out of nothing rather than from existing dynamics in the world, thus sense of artificiality
-- far greater frequency in the recent novel timeline, and thus more quickly making source material 'out of date'
-- rendering in novels rather than game material, thus by default passive experiences for PCs
-- focus on scale and spectacle rather than intrigue or longer-term effects
-- destroying elements without introducing equally strong new ones, thus overall entropic effect on the setting
-- changing focus from local to Realmswide, modern-earth sense of global scale; drawing marketing attention from other books
-- fudging of world elements to further the latest plot, ideas or rules artefacts
etc.
They tend to be short-term cash grabs, and more than one designer has acknowledged the trade-off they incur on the Realms as a roleplaying setting. For those who are concerned by some of these criticisms -- and there's a portion of novel readers who aren't, much -- the track record tends to make a lot of our hearts sink when those three letters come up. |
Edited by - Faraer on 11 Feb 2012 19:00:54 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 19:37:30
|
I guess what I'm getting at is: Are some RSEs acceptable and others aren't? What sorts of RSEs do the most damage to the Realms, and which help the 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" |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 19:53:00
|
Well, I was trying to get at that: just invert the list of negatives. Though a few of them are contradictory: is a flash-bang event that (implausibly) leaves things the same better or worse than one that (disruptively) changes a lot?
Ed's answer to what kind of RSE is good can be gleaned, in part, from "Down-to-earth divinity" where he introduced the Godswar concept -- as a tool for DMs for specific situations in a campaign. In publication terms, that translates to a scenario that doesn't 'canonically' take place, because a publisher's needs are only by occasional chance going to match an individual campaign's. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 20:03:27
|
My point was missed again, me thinks. Definitely my fault - I'll try a less convoluted approach...
The one thing that everyone has to agree on - up until 5e apparently - is the 'now' of the setting. If someone comes to this site and asks, "whats the current official campaign date in FR?", there was always a set answer, normally based upon whatever the very last date used in any offical product, novel, or article, I believe it was in The Last Mythal series where the final date of the 3e era became canon - something to do with the Srnishee? (I haven't read those - someone help me out here).
Anyhow, even though I didn't read that series, and even though many folk here play in earlier (or later) time periods, no-one could really argue that that wasn't indeed the 'official' date of the setting, regardless of what our personal tastes would have preferred. When the GHotR came-out, that era became officially ended with the 1385 DR entry.
Which is strange, because the 4e era begins in 1479, which means nearly a century doesn't fall out in any edition (its an era, but its between editions). Thats a major part of the problem right there - the setting didn't just move forward - we've already seen it jump 5-15 years before - but thats exceptable betwen editions. The 94 year gap was just too much of a disconnection.
Regardless, my entire point was that there is ALWAYS an excepted 'official date' for a setting, whether you play in that era or not. None of us non-4e people were stupid enough to say that 1479 wasn't the official date: like it or not, we excepted that fact. I don't see how an RPG setting can not have a 'now' point of reference. I guess my whole problem with it is because I don't see how its possible to change how people think. I hope I'm wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
How about either a novel or a module that incorporates a one line plot hook from the 3e FRCS about a madman babbling about a Netherese artifact known as 'The Thalang' that was the only thing that could save Faerun from a coming apocalypse.
How about they pull that one out and use it as the macguffin to rewind the clock and prevent the Spellplague and the events of 4e FR from happening (or splitting off into two timelines and giving us the option)?
Because, quite obviously, the people pulling the strings still haven't excepted that 4e wasn't good. To me, this means they haven't admitted that anything was wrong with 4e FR - they are just re-heating it and serving it to us all over again. Dozens of good 'fixes' have been proposed by the fan-community, and all of it is being ignored (this is why I have lost hope of late).
And I'm not saying to get rid of the 4e lore at all - a LOT of it was retro-active (retcons), but wouldn't it be better to reboot to an earlier period, using that lore (Abeir, primordials, Aboleths, etc), and then leave the future up to the gamers? Only movies and books should have 'fixed' endings - I'd like to have a little more free will then that. This isn't a MORPG - the quests should not have pre-scripted endings. D&D's main attraction was its 'free-form' style - this 'future is set in stone' approach is counter-intuitive to what D&D was all about.
All IMHO, of course. I just don't see how 4e 2.0 is any sort of compromise, at all. If they want us back, they are going to have use better bait.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Feb 2012 02:41:40 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 20:41:18
|
| I think one of the positive features of the Spellplague and its aftermath is that WotC now has the opportunity to introduce tons of new ruins and dungeons for players to explore. Zhentil Keep, while it could be repaired, could make for a massive mega dungeon to explore. Granted I would also think there would be alot of this work available to the rebuilding Myth Drannor. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36844 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 20:53:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I guess what I'm getting at is: Are some RSEs acceptable and others aren't? What sorts of RSEs do the most damage to the Realms, and which help the Realms?
Cheers
For me, the biggest thing about an RSE is the story it tells, and its overall effect on the setting.
I came aboard during the ToT, and so I can't really comment on that one.
Some of the ones in the 3E era... The Rage of Dragons had potential, but I don't think it did enough. I didn't feel like this Realms-wide event was impacting the Realms entire, and that really bothered me. I liked it, but I had issues with it, at the same time.
The Crusade I liked, for bringing back an elven presence and for reclaiming Myth Drannor. That said, I think they messed it up at the end, by having Myth Drannor as an apparently thriving city just 5 years later. In my mind, that epilogue removed a lot of potential from that event. Not only do I think it wouldn't have happened so quickly, I think that we could have had years of material with cleansing this or that part of the city, or stopping the various factions that would oppose the Reclamation or would twist it to their own ends. Just like with the Manshoon Wars or the Harper Schism, there was so much more that could have been done there, and instead they prematurely ended it.
The Silence of Lolth was utterly pointless, to me. It is my opinion that it was more about selling books, and had very little to do with developing the setting.
The Return of the Archwizards... I think this one could have been handled much, much differently. I expected it to be used to explain some of the changes wrought by the 3E ruleset, and was very disappointed that they didn't use it that way. I also think it would have been a much better trilogy if the characterization of existing NPCs more closely matched canon, and if the Shades weren't so successful at just about everything they tried. The casual success the Shades demonstrated in this trilogy, and in subsequent Realmslore, robbed them of much potential, I think. By becoming one of the dominant threats to all Faerūn, DMs are robbed of much of the potential intrigue that could be used in opposing them. You can't hatch a plot that has Harpers manipulating things to cause Zhents and Shades to mutually stymie each other's plots, for example, when the Shades can wipe Zhentil Keep off the face of Faerūn.
As for the Spellplague itself... Well, I think my opinion on that particular RSE is well-known. I know that not everyone agrees with me, and I'd prefer not to engage in yet another pointless debate on that one. |
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!  |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 21:16:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think we're throwing around "RSE" like it's a specific term, but RSEs exist in small and large forms.
My bad; I do toss that term around loosely. Thank you Faraer, I don't know if that list is your own work or copied from somewhere, but it's pretty darn good.
If they have negative effects (admittedly vague/subjective, but "entropic" from Faraer's list is a good starting point) then they appear to be "kabooms" thrown into the story to... I'm guessing here... generate the same sort of excitement that makes "action" movies popular.
Role-playing games are not 100% like movies, and the things that make movies cool don't necessarily make RPGs cool. In a movie, you're (ideally) sitting on your comfy couch in your climate-controlled domicile with a hot pizza, cold root beer, and some great friends, watching somebody else deal with the events of the movie. The point of D&D, in contrast, is to put us in our characters' shoes. If the setting and the DM are great, we are *in* the Realms for a few hours that night.
I like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact and Armageddon... and I might even play an adventure version every once in a while... but a world in which global catastrophes happen every 27 years (1358, 1385) is not a place I would want to live in. It's not stable. It's a black hole... eventually, everything will be destroyed... it's just a question of how long it takes. We can enjoy "end of the world" movies because they're not happening around us. We don't want to actually be under an incoming asteroid. It's only cool in the movies. It's only cool when you know that total annihilation will somehow be averted.
In contrast, Indiana Jones or Die Hard movies are pure greatness, without the need to separate ourselves. We can get *into* the story. Ed gave us an Indy kind of setting. Authors are striving mightily to develop it that way. But (sometimes) (it seems that) WotC would much rather make global catastrophe movies.
RSEs can be fine, when they're placed outside living memory. The Sundering and the creation of Evermeet? Fine. In theory, a DM could set a campaign there if he/she wants to, but it's not *required* because it's not in the Present.
There might be a good case to be made for the idea that a world rocked by several big negative changes needs big positive changes to balance things out. It would obviously be better not to have either, but assuming a no-retcon philosophy we need to work something out.
A large-scale event with positive/neat results --elves working a massive High Magic effect that restores their forests across Faerun-- could be pretty cool, but I think it would still get mixed reviews. I'm just guessing, and I think it's sad because positive effects should be recognized as positive. But behind the shiny effect, it's a big giant thing, and that's going to annoy some DMs/players no matter what. Maybe partly because it mocks the piddly effects that PCs (supposed to be the world's heroes) can accomplish?
Speculating. But I would tend to say that anything bigger than the PCs could achieve, even at high levels, has a good chance of being a bad story element.
Positive RSEs which fix negative RSEs (like the return of Mystra) are awesome in their fixing aspect, but they're basically just a different term for retcons. That washes out to a positive or neutral for some of us, others will stand on principle and say two wrongs don't make a right... both sides are kinda right.
Ed probably gets a free pass, by virtue of being Ed. If he brings Mystra back, everybody knows he's doing damage control. Mystra belongs in the Realms, and restoring her to her proper place is (imo) less an RSE and more a beginning of the return to functionality.
And if you (Erik) have an idea for a large-scale positive change to take us into 5e, I think we'd all be happy to see it.
By "Give us a new edition without an RSE, and I think a lot of us will forgive & forget the Spellplague" I meant (directed at WotC) please stop blowing up the world. That's a fairly vague statement, but I think it needs to become part of the management's philosophy on the Realms. Want to blow stuff up? Make a new world, and blow stuff up. If you don't care about lore, it wouldn't take much effort to make a new blow-uppable setting. The Realms was originally defined as a place to live, explore, and grow. A place to write stories, in a long history of stories. It would be nice to get the Realms back. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 21:30:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Ed's answer to what kind of RSE is good can be gleaned, in part, from "Down-to-earth divinity" where he introduced the Godswar concept
I just saw this article recently, and I was shocked to see Ed being positive about the Godswar, until I realized that there was a huge difference between what he was saying and what got published.
I would have liked to see (and I'm only saying this as a suggestion for publishing future RSE ideas) the ToT and the Spellplague written up as "here's a scenario, some leads into the main events, and some ideas on how it could affect the future in your campaign. use it, if you like, whenever you like." Since it's left to individual campaign discretion, it never becomes part of canon, as Faraer notes.
There was a short list of similar ideas, like a worldwide plague, Ragnarok, etc... somewhere... I can't find my 3e DMG2 at the moment, I think it might have been there. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 22:01:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Regardless, my entire point was that there is ALWAYS an excepted 'official date' for a setting, whether you play in that era or not. None of us non-4e people were stupid enough to say that 1479 wasn't the official date: like it or not, we excepted that fact. I don't see how an RPG setting can not have a 'now' point of reference. I guess my whole problem with it is because I don't see how its possible to change how people think. I hope I'm wrong.
There is nothing wrong with having one "default" date, but supporting multiple eras. I also think having multiple "official" dates is totally feasible.
It has always been up to the DM and players what era to play in--5e should embrace that even more than any previous edition.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
How about either a novel or a module that incorporates a one line plot hook from the 3e FRCS about a madman babbling about a Netherese artifact known as 'The Thalang' that was the only thing that could save Faerun from a coming apocalypse.
How about they pull that one out and use it as the macguffin to rewind the clock and prevent the Spellplague and the events of 4e FR from happening (or splitting off into two timelines and giving us the option)?
Because, quite obviously, the people pulling the strings still haven't excepted that 4e wasn't good. They are forcing it down our throats no matter how much we say we don't like it. This means they haven't admitted that anything was wrong with 4e FR - they are just re-heating it and serving it to us all over again. Dozens of good 'fixes' have been proposed by the fan-community, and all of it is being ignored (this is why I have lost hope of late).
None of this is true, MT. That isn't "obvious"--I think the major staff shake-ups, new design team, and relaunch into a new session pretty clearly demonstrate that WotC knows there was plenty wrong with 4e FR. There is no evidence they plan to keep forcing it down our throats. They aren't reheating and serving it again.
There's been incredibly little word about what they're going to do because--IMO--they *don't know what they're going to do yet.*
All we've got is Mearls stating that all eras of the Realms are going to be supported and nothing is getting ret-conned. All that provides is evidence that WotC recognizes that retconning the Spellplague out of existence (like any other aspect of the lore) is a bad idea. Other than dividing the fanbase, destroying most of their stories of the last four years, and generally being exactly like the awful choice that landed us in 4e FR in the first place, a massive retcon like that sets a HORRIBLE precedent for lore. What else gets chopped out just because some people don't like it? Who determines what gets removed?
Far better, IMO, to continue forward and bring out GOOD stuff.
Yes, there are things about 4e FR that are bad. There are things that are good. Now is the time to play up the things that are good, reconcile or downgrade the things that are bad, and move forward into a brighter, better future.
quote:
And I'm not saying to get rid of the 4e lore at all - a LOT of it was retro-active (retcons), but wouldn't it be better to reboot to an earlier period, using that lore (Abeir, primordials, Aboleths, etc), and then leave the future up to the gamers? Only movies and books should have 'fixed' endings - I'd like to have a little more free will then that. This isn't a MORPG - the quests should not have pre-scripted endings. D&D's main attraction was its 'free-form' style - this 'future is set in stone' approach is counter-intuitive to what D&D was all about.
The future is not set in stone. Canon just gives you suggestions about what to do in your games--you are completely free to ignore it, and it's disingenuous to suggest that you don't have the choice.
We keep going around and around on this, but let me state it one last time (hopefully definitively): If you want to talk about retcons to get rid of the Spellplague or any other part of Realmslore, that's great--more power to you--but please find another scroll to do it. This scroll (see the title and OP) is about finding a way forward that is inclusive, additive, and unifying. Take your divisive ideas elsewhere.
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" |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 01:27:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
There is nothing wrong with having one "default" date, but supporting multiple eras. I also think having multiple "official" dates is totally feasible.
Agreed 100%.
I like the idea of having a set time and place where everyone can play around in and have lots of room to either use what's published or fiddle with and change things.
I think the Border Kingdoms is perfect for that sort of thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
It has always been up to the DM and players what era to play in--5e should embrace that even more than any previous edition.
I agree. I'm not sure how you keep new gamers from getting lost (so to speak) in the timeline, but I think if you take a sort of Grand History of the Realms approach to it, where you name the Age/Ega in big, bold letters at the start of the chapter and then the very next page is a two page map of Faerun during that age, well you're off to a good start.
If you do, say, three Ages/Eras this way and start with the oldest first, it's easy for a new DM to see how the world has changed and to follow along.
I think themes are really important here. Each ought to have theme to it. Something that's a guidepost for what sort of adventures DMs can create for the Age/Era, as well as the starting point from which any of several character themes can be created for the Age/Era (in the companion Player's Guide for the Realms).
Sort of like how the Neverwinter Campaign Guide does it, but on steroids. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 03:04:38
|
first off they should reprint two particular books and then break one of them up so badly that you'd never see it coming.
first book: grand history of the realms and just have the roll of years part updated each year with new tidbits
and the second book.
Lost empires of faerun( without the prcs and feats) break the book up into several books and use the lore in older material( Ie comathyr:empire of elves and Arcane age:NEtheril) and go from there.... with its roll of years.
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 03:04:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The one thing that everyone has to agree on - up until 5e apparently - is the 'now' of the setting. If someone comes to this site and asks, "whats the current official campaign date in FR?", there was always a set answer, normally based upon whatever the very last date used in any offical product, novel, or article, I believe it was in The Last Mythal series where the final date of the 3e era became canon - something to do with the Srnishee? (I haven't read those - someone help me out here).
Anyhow, even though I didn't read that series, and even though many folk here play in earlier (or later) time periods, no-one could really argue that that wasn't indeed the 'official' date of the setting, regardless of what our personal tastes would have preferred. When the GHotR came-out, that era became officially ended with the 1385 DR entry.
Which is strange, because the 4e era begins in 1479, which means nearly a century doesn't fall out in any edition (its an era, but its between editions). Thats a major part of the problem right there - the setting didn't just move forward - we've already seen it jump 5-15 years before - but thats exceptable betwen editions. The 94 year gap was just too much of a disconnection.
Regardless, my entire point was that there is ALWAYS an excepted 'official date' for a setting, whether you play in that era or not. None of us non-4e people were stupid enough to say that 1479 wasn't the official date: like it or not, we excepted that fact. I don't see how an RPG setting can not have a 'now' point of reference. I guess my whole problem with it is because I don't see how its possible to change how people think. I hope I'm wrong.
See, I'm going to opt for not having any 'now' point what-so-ever. We've had, which every single edition change, an increase to the "official current date" that puts things in the past. With the HUGE jump to 1479 DR, that makes it a rather difficult decision WotC is in. So don't give that option, and by this, I mean give EVERY option. By stopping the "current era time is..??" mantra of each and every single edition and saying 'here are the Realms from point X to point Y, and you can easily play in Z campaign at any time of those points. I'd start the X point at sometime prior to the Time of Troubles and finish it sometime in 1480's DR. What would this do?
Well for one, when people see 'current official campaign date' many people instantly feel the need to start games there as it's the "official" and somehow more vaild start time. It's weird and I don't understand it, but it's true. People see Official date and they say "Ohh, I'm being current with what's happenin in the setting." Removing this redundancy and putting the setting all on the table (as it were) gives more free-ranging opportuinities for Groups to give other eras a shot, espically IF (big word there) WotC puts out material that's usable among all of the eras.
A second benefit of no official campaign date is giving novelists and writers a HUGE part of the Realms to work with. At first, 4E seemed almost geared for the Writers to fill that blank space in......well until WotC said "no, we're staring at 1479 and moving forward" which completely rendered the timejump impotent. USE that time to create awesome stories. Use that time to fashion your own area or campaign or future. That was the big problem I had, they limited writers to a specific time with no real good justification. So, with no new 'offical campaign date' = writers given their choice of writing in other eras, or at least they should be given a choice of what era to produce books in. In fact, I think it'd be AWESOME to read a trilogy about a family or character's history that starts with book 1 (1378 DR) and goes into that story. Book 2 (1423 DR) and talks about the previous protagonists children and their adventure. Book 3 (1479 DR) goes into the last part of the story and wraps up the last two books thing into one time-spanning trilogy. I think that'd be really interesting.
A 3rd good reason for 'no official campaign date' is patron wishes. Think about it, if the current game starts in 1482 DR with the Spellplague in tact and all that, well they just lost a portion of their customers right then, and there. If there ISN'T a start date, I think there's more wiggle room for people to play in areas that are receiveing more lore and info that's important to their current campaign. They're not looking at anything "official" since it's ALL OFFICIAL and relevant.
Also, footnotes for alternative ways might be another thing books could sport. So if they detail a specific area and it has effects that are from the spellplague (earth-motes, plague-scarred people, etc.) and you don't like that then there could be a quick little blurb that says ("don't like these aspects, try THIS canon effect or THAT monster or SUCH-and-SUCH plague instead of what's written"). It's not a whole new alternative timeline with it's own set canon, but quick tid-bits that help fuel imagination for replacements of things you don't like (heh, very modular...a theme I'm seeing for 5E).
Well that's all I got about setting a current campaign date. I don't like the idea because it instantly creates a divide and sets people's impression of current = official and things that fall outside of current aren't considered official. I hope this line of thinking isn't going against the grain too much. I'd like to see the Realms continue to be a great setting. |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 12:25:33
|
| Good ideas Diffan; let's hope WotC is listening. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 13:47:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by arry
Good ideas Diffan; let's hope WotC is listening.
Thanks. Hopefully we'll get the Realms we all want. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36844 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 15:28:03
|
I don't see how this "no campaign date" thing would work. If things aren't happening in the setting, then it's stagnating. And if we don't have any kind of campaign date, when are things happening? That makes it more difficult to maintain continuity... And not having a campaign date does not change the fact that the 1375 DM knows there's something coming up that he's not going to like.
|
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 - 12 Feb 2012 : 16:27:37
|
I am going to have to throw my vote in with Diffan as well.
Set it back to that point in time, making no reference to 'future events' (except from a meta-game standpoint - later lore can be back-filled in), and then each group can decide what events happen in 'their Realms'.
Moving forward, WotC can then make timeline decisions as they go along, depending on whats selling, and how people are playing the game. They will be able to hand-tailor events to what the majority of the fanbase prefers, if they need to move the timeline forward. By taking this approach, it invalidates nothing (until such a time when they deem it safe to do so, which IS NOT at the outset of 5e).
This not all that different then what Erik is proposing - you will still have a choice of all of those eras, because there is plenty of already-existing lore for them. The only difference is that there will be one official date, early enough for EVERYONE to consider it 'The Realms'. Choosing to run a game in one of those future periods would be akin to how we were able to run games in the Arcane Age - they would be their own separate thing from this point on (unless made official at some future time by WotC).
Ergo, officially the timeline would appear to remain intact - an earlier date would simply allow us to ignore it, if we choose to. Cross that bridge when we come to it.
I was thinking more of a 1380-1385 date, but I am actually liking what Diffan proposed much better, and it would also jell with an "Ed's Realms" line of products (if his next sourcebook becomes a line). In fact, it would be an 'un-splitting' an already divergent reality - Ed's home campaign.
Bloody Brilliant. 
EDIT: And before I get myself in trouble again, let me just add this - the novels can still be set in any time period, and invalidate nothing. If I were them, I wouldn't even say if the novels are canon or non-canon - they should be apocryphal until made canon by game sources (how some, but not all, of the video game stuff became canon). Why can't WotC simply take no official stance on the novels? Most of it can validated by sourcebook timelines as we move forward, but there is no need to lock themselves into that. It would save a LOT of fan-arguments if they took this approach (when novel lore disagrees with previous canon, for instance). All the novels can just be 3rd-person, inaccurate reporting, and that would work fine.
A simple 'storyteller' prologue and epilogue would take care of this, and solve everything. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Feb 2012 16:35:53 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36844 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 17:27:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT: And before I get myself in trouble again, let me just add this - the novels can still be set in any time period, and invalidate nothing. If I were them, I wouldn't even say if the novels are canon or non-canon - they should be apocryphal until made canon by game sources (how some, but not all, of the video game stuff became canon). Why can't WotC simply take no official stance on the novels? Most of it can validated by sourcebook timelines as we move forward, but there is no need to lock themselves into that. It would save a LOT of fan-arguments if they took this approach (when novel lore disagrees with previous canon, for instance). All the novels can just be 3rd-person, inaccurate reporting, and that would work fine.
A simple 'storyteller' prologue and epilogue would take care of this, and solve everything.
Except then a lot of folks wouldn't be as interested in novels, because the events in novels wouldn't necessarily be reflected in the setting. Keeping novels canon sells more novels and it sells more game material.
Going back to having a traffic cop would solve the issues with continuity (both in novels and in game material), but that position was deemed unnecessary around the advent of 3E. Which says something, right there. |
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 12 Feb 2012 17:28:48 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 18:23:42
|
The "don't like it don't use it" concept doesn't work well, even across the many sides of the fan-base.
Remember this the published Realms setting is known for unintended "features" deeply ingrained in parts of the gaming community's collective mind. Don't need to repeat those perceived problems here, but WotC's unwillingness or inability to address or account for them meant the perception built against the setting in the minds of many gamers.
Some of these all-inclusive, across eras ideas are good, but how well will these ideas be presented on top of an already complex situation with differing amounts of existing lore and different types of fans.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 19:21:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't see how this "no campaign date" thing would work. If things aren't happening in the setting, then it's stagnating. And if we don't have any kind of campaign date, when are things happening? That makes it more difficult to maintain continuity.
Things are happening in the setting, but it's driven by your PCs and the authors stories. A Setting book that gives dozesn of plot hooks that range over the history of the setting is better, IMO, than focusing on one time/date and looking at the other parts as "Past" and "Future". This set date perpetrates the idea of time being linear. Which from our POV it isn't. We can play in any time and that will (undoubtedly) change the future of the Realms currently set. That's a good thing as you want to illustrate that your player's actions, for good or ill, have repercussions. So if your going to play the Cormyr/Shadowdale/Anauroch mega-campaign and the PCs "LOSE", well it's definitly going to change Canon right then and there (that is, if the DM wants it to) from what GHotR says.
The idea is that a set time/date of being "current" puts people into the mindset of "Ok, this is where we're starting at. It's the 'Official' date and anything from here is the uncertain 'Future' and any supplements dealing with a previous date is the un-changing 'Past'." This approach makes it harder to play in other eras and times becuase few people (that I know anyways) want to play in an 'un-official' capacity.
Continunity is maintained due to understanding that what's come along in the past 30+ years is all canon and that writers will have to fill in those spaces left unattended to. This can also be an awesome opportuinity to create great NEW Realms-lore at every time and place in the Realms (espically that 1400-1479 time). But that shouldn't discourage authors to go further than 1479 DR either, as it's just more lore and adventures to be told and unfold.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And not having a campaign date does not change the fact that the 1375 DM knows there's something coming up that he's not going to like.
Dark Wizard makes a very good point, the "use what you want, discard the rest" is easier said than done. I have no doubts that WotC is going to keep the Spellplague (or at least, it's event) as Canon from here on out. This might be a deal-breaker for many people and I really don't have any answers for that. I think we, as a community and with Erik's awesome help, can come up with ways to repair the damage done. But I don't believe it won't be wiped away clean with an Alternate Timeline or a Canon RSE that somehow reverses the effects fully. Best case scenario is that we do our best to influence WotC to make changes the majority of us can compromise and agree upon. And this thread is doing a pretty damn good job of that so far.
Hopefully these supplements in 5E will help people in their current games (prior to the spellplague) and they can support those aspects of the game while building their own futures. Also, this site alone is a great place to search for ideas that flesh out something new or alternative to the Spellplague. I guess what I believe it comes down to is understanding that you shouldn't be shackled by the chain of Canon. They're not there to force a specific style or system or element that you don't like. It's been stated numerous time, over numerous gaming supplements, and even Ed himself but for some reason, people still feel the need to be tied to it Tooth and Nail. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 19:31:39
|
EDIT: I typed this before Diffan's post, so it is in response to Dark Wizard and posts above his.
But if they rebooted to an earlier period, and DIDN'T firmly assess if it was a 'new timeline', how would anyone know anything was amiss? It could be the same exact one we are already in... or not. If the date is set early enough (as Diffan suggested), then everyone can be happy.
I think - at least for the outset of 5e - that this approach is best. I know I seem to be contradicting myself, having thrown around the term 'wishy-washy' a lot lately, but maybe wishy-washy is what we need right now. The second they set anything in stone, they polarize the fanbase. Just ignoring the entire issue (at first) lets everyone be happy with 5e, right from the beginning.
Seriously, if they give us a brand-new, 5th edition treatment of the OGB (with some new Ed-stuff added), and thats all they do (for now), what would be so bad about that? Fans can debate what kind of relaunch 5e is until they are blue in the face, but if WotC doesn't tell us what it is, then let the fans argue! We will still ALL be buying it, and thats a win-win-win all the way around, for everyone.
@Wooly - I didn't say to not make the novels canon. What I said was to simply not address the issue, at all. They can even use the DDi to this end - have timelines of events for certain regions, and include very cursory info about novel events, but no details.
For instance, did Bruenor Battlehammer retake Mithril hall? Yes he did... and folks say he was helped by a dark elf. Did some strange city of 'dark mages' appear over Anauroch? Yes it did - they call themselves Shades, and Tilverton was somehow destroyed when they showed up. Did a Tear of Selune move from its normal position and hurtle toward Faerun? Many claim to have seen it, but Cormyrian officials are claiming it was mass-hysteria brought on by some tainted mushroom-wine imported from the Underdark.
It really is that simple - you can remove the problem simply by ignoring the problem, in this case. For another approach, lets take one of Erik's novels, since this is his thread. Have a small prologue - a paragraph or too - begin at some indeterminate time after the novel events...
quote:
The group were adventurers, by the look of them. Young, ambitious, and out to have a grand time. In other words, fools. Old Sourgrym was in his cups, like usual. One of the newcomers bumped his arm, without so much as an apology. Fools.. thats the right of it.
"It is a fine time to live!", one said, raising his cup to his comrades. Apparently they had some success in the ruins nearby. Ruins that used to not be there... ruins Sourgrym knew shouldn't be there...
"To Quaervarr! The finest place in all the north!", another shouted, toasting again.
"You think that, do ye?", the crusty old farmer said still staring into his mug. As they whirled around, he only then realized he spoke aloud.
"Come, my good saer, let us buy you a drink in honor of this town, and the wealth it has afforded us! This is a time to make merry, not sit embittered."
Slowly he turned toward them, staring the lead bravado straight in the eye, "Happy now, aye, but you weren't here back when darkness strode these lands. You know not the sorrow that lies buried beneath this soil." Now he had their attention.
"Let me tell you of the Ghoswalker...", he began.
Thats it. Thats all it would take. Maybe another like that at the end, framing the entire novel in 'inaccurate 3rd person". Then the story itself does not so much become canon, as the man telling that story. See the difference?
It makes it a helluva lot easier to repair continuity glitches that way.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 13 Feb 2012 13:25:34 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 21:05:23
|
Edit: Diffan may have said this better than I did.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't see how this "no campaign date" thing would work. If things aren't happening in the setting, then it's stagnating. And if we don't have any kind of campaign date, when are things happening? That makes it more difficult to maintain continuity... And not having a campaign date does not change the fact that the 1375 DM knows there's something coming up that he's not going to like.
Things should happen in individual campaigns, not in the setting. The setting should present the world, and a plethora of potential plotlines. Novels explore some of those plotlines and (preferably) add new ones.
When the setting is a moving thing (I've been calling it "advancing the timeline") then the inevitable result is that the setting moves in directions which alienate some % of DMs and players. It's also apparently inevitable that we get kabooms, which bother a significantly larger % of us. If the setting were actually just presented, instead of deliberately and often weirdly pushed, then all of us retain full control over it.
When each new edition hops along the timeline, everything needs to be rewritten. Which is actually where stagnation comes from, because we get annual updates on Cormyr and nothing about (one out of hundreds of examples) Sossal. When someone decides that enough has been written about the current incarnation of the Realms, we get a kaboom and everything starts over.
Nothin wrong with Cormyr. It's just annoying that we hear proportionally so much more about it (and the Dales and Waterdeep) than we do about the rest of the Realms.
None of that is necessary. Either freeze Now in perpetuity (preferably with the several Nows that Erik or Jeremy have mentioned rather than one Now), or don't have a Now. Tell us about the whole world. With updates on whatever authors feel like writing about, rather than (apparently) restricting them to the so-called Heartlands with the highly suspect "that's what everybody cares about about" idea.
Now is an obstacle to be overcome, in exploring the Realms. I'm not sure that getting rid of it would be easy, but if it can be done, I think it could be great.
(It's possible that I exaggerate a little to make the point)
All just my opinion. |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 12 Feb 2012 21:09:22 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 21:13:55
|
| Vote Diffan for President. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36844 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 21:14:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Wooly - I didn't say to not make the novels canon. What I said was to simply not address the issue, at all. They can even use the DDi to this end - have timelines of events for certain regions, and include very cursory info about novel events, but no details.
For instance, did Bruenor Battlehammer retake Mithril hall? Yes he did... and folks say he was helped by a dark elf. Did some strange city of 'dark mages' appear over Anauroch? Yes it did - they call themselves Shades, and Tilverton was somehow destroyed when they showed up. Did a Tear of Selune move from its normal position and hurtle toward Faerun? Many claim to have seen it, but Cormyrian officials are claiming it was mass-hysteria brought on by some tainted mushroom-wine imported from the Underdark.
It really is that simple - you can remove the problem simply by ignoring the problem, in this case. For another approach, lets take one of Erik's novels, since this is his thread. Have a small prologue - a paragraph or too - begin at some indeterminate time after the novel events...
quote:
The group were adventurers, by the look of them. Young, ambitious, and out to have a grand time. In other words, fools. Old Sourgrym was in his cups, like usual. One of the newcomers bumped his arm, without so much as an apology. Fools.. thats the right of it.
"It is a fine time to live!", one said, raising his cup to his comrades. Apparently they had some success in the ruins nearby. Ruins that used to not be there... ruins Sourgrym knew shouldn't be there...
"To Quaervarr! The finest place in all the north!", another shouted, toasting again.
"You think that, do ye?", the crusty old farmer said still staring into his mug. As they whirled around, he only then realized he spoke aloud.
"Come, my good saer, let us buy you a drink in honor of this town, and the wealth it has afforded us! This is a time to make merry, not sit embittered."
Slowly he turned toward them, staring the lead bravado straight in the eye, "Happy now, aye, but you weren't here back when darkness strode these lands. You know not the sorry that lies buried beneath this soil." Now he had their attention.
"Let me tell you of the Ghoswalker...", he began.
Thats it. Thats all it would take. Maybe another like that at the end, framing the entire novel in 'inaccurate 3rd person". Then the story itself does not so much become canon, as the man telling that story. See the difference?
It makes it a helluva lot easier to repair continuity glitches that way.
Again, if the novels aren't canon, then they are disconnected from the source material, and people reading one have no need to read the other. That equals less sales. And if the novels aren't canon, the setting isn't moving forward. This "maybe it is canon, maybe it isn't" approach is no better than not being canon at all.
I, for one, will not bother to read any novel set in a game setting if it's not canon.
And again, having someone keep an eye on continuity would fix problems. We've had more continuity glitches from source material than we have from novels, so your idea doesn't fix that. |
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
36844 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2012 : 21:17:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Edit: Diffan may have said this better than I did.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't see how this "no campaign date" thing would work. If things aren't happening in the setting, then it's stagnating. And if we don't have any kind of campaign date, when are things happening? That makes it more difficult to maintain continuity... And not having a campaign date does not change the fact that the 1375 DM knows there's something coming up that he's not going to like.
Things should happen in individual campaigns, not in the setting. The setting should present the world, and a plethora of potential plotlines. Novels explore some of those plotlines and (preferably) add new ones.
When the setting is a moving thing (I've been calling it "advancing the timeline") then the inevitable result is that the setting moves in directions which alienate some % of DMs and players. It's also apparently inevitable that we get kabooms, which bother a significantly larger % of us. If the setting were actually just presented, instead of deliberately and often weirdly pushed, then all of us retain full control over it.
When each new edition hops along the timeline, everything needs to be rewritten. Which is actually where stagnation comes from, because we get annual updates on Cormyr and nothing about (one out of hundreds of examples) Sossal. When someone decides that enough has been written about the current incarnation of the Realms, we get a kaboom and everything starts over.
Nothin wrong with Cormyr. It's just annoying that we hear proportionally so much more about it (and the Dales and Waterdeep) than we do about the rest of the Realms.
None of that is necessary. Either freeze Now in perpetuity (preferably with the several Nows that Erik or Jeremy have mentioned rather than one Now), or don't have a Now. Tell us about the whole world. With updates on whatever authors feel like writing about, rather than (apparently) restricting them to the so-called Heartlands with the highly suspect "that's what everybody cares about about" idea.
Now is an obstacle to be overcome, in exploring the Realms. I'm not sure that getting rid of it would be easy, but if it can be done, I think it could be great.
(It's possible that I exaggerate a little to make the point)
All just my opinion.
If we don't have a now that is always moving forward, then we have a setting not going anywhere. I've followed that setting, and walked away from it. For me, part of the appeal of the Realms has been that there's always something happening, big or small.
There is no reason why source material can't expand our knowledge of the setting and allow the setting to progress. It worked for 20 years.
I'd rather chance not liking some minor thing than getting bored and walking away. |
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! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e)
Topic Locked
