| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36784 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 00:46:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Why would an author need to know Campaign Setting continuity?
Well, if it's canon that it's the year 1357 and Azoun IV is King of Cormyr, there's going to be an issue if an author decides to write a book where it's 1358 and Cormyr has been under the iron fist of a halfling lich for the last 7 generations.
An author has to know the setting he's writing in.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It seems to me that you are assuming the CS would have a continuity to begin with. The CS would have some history as part of its introduction to readers, but that's about it. A CS that is not connected to novel events is not concerned with advancing its own multilayered story and timeline.
Yes, I'm assuming that the campaign setting has its own continuity. The alternative is that every single bit of source material is set on the exact same day, forever and ever, amen.
And even if the game setting is utterly stagnant like that, authors still need to know what happened before that one day.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
All it is concerned with is presenting material OGB style. Here's the world, here's what it's about, etc., go have fun.
And authors need to know that. They have to know the setting they're writing in and adhere to its continuity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
To be clear, I am talking about a scenario as the OP described, where novels and setting are separated from the get go. I am not talking about how a reboot to the OGB era that included novels now being divorced from the CS would work.
I'm talking about the same scenario: two or more separate continuities that have to be tracked by each author. |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 06:54:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
It's not the official story if the published campaign world ignores it. If DotD says Azoun dies in 1371 and the published campaign world has him hale and hearty in the next Cormyr sourcebook in 1378 there's a big problem.
That would be a problem.
Which is why I think for the idea of separating the novels from the Campaign Setting (CS) to work, the CS would have needed to be static, like a snapshot.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Then we have a dead campaign setting. Boring.
A lot of people on different forums talk about a reset to the OGB era of the Realms. There’s a feel to it that people like and remember.
If the Realms had been introduced with the OGB, and the novels separate, and the follow up sourcebooks were Volo’s style products, or books written by the likes of Schend and a few others, I don’t think anyone would think of the CS as boring, much less dead.
Given how well he early Realms novels were received, it seems entirely plausible to me that people would have enjoyed them and demanded more even if the CS wasn’t linked to them. That, and there are tons of people who read Realms novels and other world-setting fiction without picking up a world sourcebook and playing D&D in those worlds.
To me it doesn’t seem like it would have been an exercise in cognitive dissonance if at the start TSR asked fans to think of the CS and novels as separate. The CS would have had to have been presented differently in terms of TSR explaining through the rulebooks just what their intentions were and what they needed to tell gamers to expect going forward.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Just look how well Eberron did fare with this.
It’s also possible that Eberron’s discontinuation had nothing to do with the novels and CS being separate.
Is there anything you can point to in order to corroborate the idea that Eberron failed in whole or in part because the novels were separate from the setting?
To me it seems like a convenient judgment to make after the fact and not much else. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 19:28:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
To me it seems like a convenient judgment to make after the fact and not much else.
Sure, but on the other hand, saying that keeping the campaign setting separate from novels would be better is mere conjecture.
The point of view of the people that want a reset assumes that the majority of the playerbase wants a reset AND a reset to the same era that they like. That's very far from being proven.
It's also more likely that the campaign setting and novels sharing canon brings more revenue to both than they would have in separate. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 19:52:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
It's also more likely that the campaign setting and novels sharing canon brings more revenue to both than they would have in separate.
How so? |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 20:33:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
It's also more likely that the campaign setting and novels sharing canon brings more revenue to both than they would have in separate.
How so?
For real you're asking? Logically, it is reasonable to assume someone who is an avid reader of the books may follow that with a source book of an area that caught his interest, especially if a novel's character's detailed stats and info were in a particular book. Lots of nerds (like me) enjoy numbers to accompany our literature.
And vice versa, if you love the setting for playing games, novels that follow the source material are more interesting to players and DMs than novels that are completely removed from the source books and campaign guides.
No? |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 00:38:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
No?
No.
In the scenario I'm thinking of, a Realms campaign setting that is separate from the novels doesn't advance the timeline. That's for the novels to do.
If you have Volo's Guide to Cormyr--which you can quite easily have in this scenario, minus historical references like the Tuigan conflict, for example--you've got a wealth of information, NPCs, locations, etc., all of which could find its way into a novel.
If an NPC mentioned in VGtC dies in a novel, then that's for the novels to keep track of. The sourcebooks don't care.
Now if a novel introduces a character that isn't in a sourcebook, and that character proves popular, and the novel is not sufficiently removed from the time point around which the CS is based, then you might still see an entry for the NPC in a future sourcebook, you'll just get that NPC in a canned way: basic info, stats, what they were known for, etc., with no mention of novel events.
More to the point: I've seen plenty of novels-only readers complain about the sourcebook events ruining things, and gamers complain that the novels screw things up.
If the novels and CS aren't linked, then those complaints don't happen. And just maybe sales improve. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 01:42:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
More to the point: I've seen plenty of novels-only readers complain about the sourcebook events ruining things, and gamers complain that the novels screw things up.
If the novels and CS aren't linked, then those complaints don't happen. And just maybe sales improve.
Thank you. Better said than I could have. 
It's not that I don't understand the opposing point of view. It's just that breaking the link between the novels and the game content solves problems and quite possibly evaporates the basis for the opposing points of view.
Novels need to be independent so that authors can explore past and present. The setting needs to be independent so that it can develop (edit: by which I mean expand to other lands, not advance along the timeline, so "two continuities to keep track of is a non-issue) without being dragged along on a hopscotch trip through time.
|
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 05 Dec 2015 01:49:29 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36784 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 02:02:07
|
How can creating two (or more) continuities solve more problems than having one?
Splitting the novels and the game settings then means you have the issue of "was this a novel, or a game book?" And authors have to track both.
You also get the issue of people wanting some events to happen in game, and not wanting other events to happen in game -- which we already have, so that's not a problem solved.
And all of this comes with the bonus of a game setting that is utterly stagnant and has nothing at all happen. Kinda hard to have adventures and such without changing anything.
Sure, favorite characters will never die... They'll also never change, never get older, never get more powerful, never reach their goals...
In-game plotlines will never be resolved. We will be forever wondering if Bahb Nounsilver manages to save Cormyr from the machinations of the evil Tahm Verbsilver. We will never know what Temm the evil mage was planning to do with those magic gems he stole. We will never know if Bigandbad the dragon managed to avenge his slain mate.
I don't know about anyone else, but I came to the Realms because the timeline advanced, not because one story was told and then nothing else ever happened again. |
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! |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2015 : 04:01:42
|
| As someone who mainly reads the novels, I'm going to have to say that the novels should be canon, and what happens in both the campaign setting and novels affect one another. You have people who are mainly readers, some who are mainly players, and some who are both (I wish I could be both sometimes). I believe the novels help advance the setting, just as the setting advances the novels. They work off of each other. There are continuity issues sometimes, which can happen in a shared setting (one novel claims something different from another), but it doesn't mean they shouldn't work off one another. The Realms is agame sesetting first and foremost, yes, but that doesn't mean the novels shouls diverge completely from it. They move the setting forward, just as the CS moves the novels forward. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Campaign setting separate from novels: Better?
