| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 08:20:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
It's not destroyed, though; those novels and games are all still extant and can be consumed or re-consumed. [...]
Hell, if this policy had kicked in earlier, we might not've seen Jander Sunstar get put through the ringer so hard, because they likely would've just used a new character.
When I said "seeing it destroyed", I didn't mean seeing the books physically destroyed. I meant seeing the story itself, the characters, the places destroyed or metaphorically destroyed.
Yes, the FR is indeed destroyed in that sense (even unrelatedly to this announcement). It has been destroyed for a long ass-time, and Jander is a proof of it. They already had no qualms with taking novel characters and do them dirty, now they just openly stated it.
Because yes, novels aren't canon... until they need to shit on a character for their underwhelming narrative, for whatever reason (too lazy to create a new one, want to use it to boost sales, etc...)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't say they would never use novel characters or elements, just that stuff isn't canon unless included in a 5e book. Basically, they can still do whatever they want with the novel Realms, but while being free from respecting it (which has been their stance since forever, but you get the point).
So, using it while disrespecting it. I find it quite understandable for fans to be upset, even withouth practical reasons--and, as I mentioned, there are plenty of fans who also have practical reasons.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Jul 2021 08:34:02 |
 |
|
|
Swordsage
Learned Scribe
149 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 09:03:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
Hell, if this policy had kicked in earlier, we might not've seen Jander Sunstar get put through the ringer so hard, because they likely would've just used a new character.
Congratulations, everyone. WotC can no longer mess with your darlings.
The chances of this are zero. WotC have shown consistently that their love of lore "sound bites" prevails in all their FR work. Mentions of this or that. A cherry pickers delight and a way to throw a bone to the old fans. A while back a Mystara group was over the moon because a monster unique to their setting had been used in an FR product. Such are the last breaths of campaign worlds on their knees.
The Realms remains the ultimate placeholder for any generic "cool idea" this lot of designers comes up with. And let's be clear, their "cool ideas" are way, way more important than anything previously published in the Realms. A part of me can't wait for 6E to roll around and a new design team to come on board. We'll see how Chris Perkins and co feel about their writing legacies being dismantled, sentence by sentence, in the ongoing design environment they themselves created.
The Swordsage |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 09:11:06
|
| I don't know why people seems to believe de-canonizing something means "this never happened" or "this is not valid any longer". That things are not canon now only means that when the people at WotC is deciding their next product, they will not be bound by previous work. Future materials may or may not use of that old material, but the old material still exists, and is still relevant for the people who cares about it (as Crawford never said "ours is the only valid canon in this universe or the next." In fact, they encouraged people to follow their own canon). |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 10:03:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I don't know why people seems to believe de-canonizing something means "this never happened" or "this is not valid any longer". That things are not canon now only means that when the people at WotC is deciding their next product, they will not be bound by previous work.
Future materials may or may not use of that old material, but the old material still exists, and is still relevant for the people who cares about it (as Crawford never said "ours is the only valid canon in this universe or the next." In fact, they encouraged people to follow their own canon).
Look, why do people care about canon? Because canon is relevant in keeping published products and the storyline consistent. Canon is necessary to have internal logic, continuity, and therefore any semblance of a story.
People care about canon because they want the setting to have an identity. In short, they want the setting to be a world, not a bunch of glorified clichés on a stick, and you can't have that if you say that ALL the previous material (even sourcebooks) is no longer canon, because the existing information IS the setting, and WotC has now put its validity up in the air (especially given their trend of not respecting what already exists, taking only stuff they like, twisting it, and slapping their name on it). All of this means that what came before has no bearing on future products.
So, it's obvious that FR fans interested in the future of the setting and future products are affected by this. Especially because there are people who follow FR purely for the lore/story, and not for D&D. If you don't particularly care for the published setting, then yes, you have no reason to care, except maybe emotional attachment. But it's quite understandable that there are plenty of reasons for other people to care.
quote:
(as Crawford never said "ours is the only valid canon in this universe or the next." In fact, they encouraged people to follow their own canon).
Yes, and isn't that a clownish answer that doesn't do anything to address any point? "Buy our products, so you can ignore them!"
It's obvious that you can modify canon as you want, but the future products will use WotC's canon, not yours. So, if you're interested in the future of the setting and in future products, this statement is utterly irrelevant, and so is the fact that you can modify your games (because that has 0 influence on the content you get for your money).
That said, good thing I stopped buying shortly after I joined. Between the underwhelming quality of the narrative, and the mentality of the people in the design team, this is a clown fiesta. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Jul 2021 10:11:18 |
|
|
|
questing gm
Master of Realmslore
Malaysia
1451 Posts |
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 12:40:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
sadly, every edition of the game has done this. This is just escalating. In 1st edition, red wizards wouldn't sell magic items of anything but the most menial power to any other people. In third edition, they had trade enclaves to sell magic items all over the world.
But they always presented this as new developments. They ackknowledged that in the past they did not but for this and that reasons they now decided to start doing it. One can argue how good those presented reason were, but they did not just go "What? No, they always sold items, they never were any different" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3741 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 14:04:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
I suppose I don't understand continuing to be upset when it seems like the bulk of the userbase has hated WotC's output for multiple decades at this point; for those who've been ignoring everything written after Second or Third Edition, what does this meaningfully change? Most people here haven't cared about WotC's canon almost as long as I've been alive - why care what they say is canon now?
-Principle.
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I don't know why people seems to believe de-canonizing something means "this never happened" or "this is not valid any longer". That things are not canon now only means that when the people at WotC is deciding their next product, they will not be bound by previous work. Future materials may or may not use of that old material, but the old material still exists, and is still relevant for the people who cares about it (as Crawford never said "ours is the only valid canon in this universe or the next." In fact, they encouraged people to follow their own canon).
-If they are not bound by previous work, and overwrite something that has now been deemed non-canon with something newer, then yes, the thing that was overwritten never happened and is not valid any longer. If, in an upcoming sourcebook/adventure/novel, it is decided that the avatar of Corellon Larethian rules Evermeet and always has, that radically alters a whole slew of Elaine Cunningham books, to the point that they are not longer valid anymore because any sense of internal consistency with the current product is gone.
-Do I think that this is going to be flagrantly abused? No, I don't. Do I think that this is going to have major repercussions, like the example I mentioned? No, I don't. I feel like this is more a way to cover themselves for overlooking minor/secondary characters/details and not having to field questions like, "What happened to Bob the baker?" or "This river used to have a bend that ran north, now it's running northeast, what happened?" and things like that. Would I prefer the people being paid to take that extra initiative and do the "work"? Sure, but I can get wanting the ability to not be bogged down in minutia that most likely just exists for immersion flavor and probably doesn't actually matter to the overall story of the sourcebook/adventure/novel. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 24 Jul 2021 14:06:23 |
|
|
|
Cyrano
Acolyte
United Kingdom
25 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 14:28:05
|
It's not like I can't see why people are annoyed about this - I think it's not so much the worry that future products are going to start contradicting 'history' ("The Red Wizards have *always* been giant cats who trade magic items for skritches under the skin") as the affront at being told something you've committed to now doesn't matter.
Ultimately, though, I can't summon much actual upset because, for one thing, I don't think it's going to actually cause too much rewriting of history (I think it's more to give them a get out for minor errors or larger rewrites that are socially necessary like 'The Drow have never been wholly evil', and frankly, fair enough).
And for the other, I always try to keep a firm line in my head over things I'm a fan of that divides liking something from owning it. If I don't like the latest development from Wizards (or from Doctor Who, and so on) it's...fine. I don't like it, but I don't have to and it's not being personally to me. I'll just continue to do what I always have and continue to enjoy the aspects and products out there that I do enjoy: they've not been taken away and I'm free to engage with them in the most positive way I can. |
|
|
|
Qilintha
Seeker
76 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 14:28:23
|
| I wonder if it is possible if such a statement has been made also because of TSR return to the fray of TTRPG, to prevent people to find and buy digital pdfs of 2e sourcebook, printed by TSR. I assume that 2e material money doesn't go to Wizards but goes to TSR. Like "Let's cut TSR any possible momentum given by new FR players that might want to explore previous sourcebook materials" |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 15:09:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrano
It's not like I can't see why people are annoyed about this - I think it's not so much the worry that future products are going to start contradicting 'history' ("The Red Wizards have *always* been giant cats who trade magic items for skritches under the skin") as the affront at being told something you've committed to now doesn't matter.
But they have already been contradicting history. Not in large ways, certainly, but they've been contradicting it. It's minor, stupid stuff like "hey, rather than create a new character for this specific role, let's find some existing character and do whatever it takes to make them fit our new vision. Let's see, a human, blessed by his deity with the ability to create zombies? Yeah, he's now a yuan-ti necromancer!"
And yes, that is an actual example. |
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
36804 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 15:25:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Qilintha
I wonder if it is possible if such a statement has been made also because of TSR return to the fray of TTRPG, to prevent people to find and buy digital pdfs of 2e sourcebook, printed by TSR. I assume that 2e material money doesn't go to Wizards but goes to TSR. Like "Let's cut TSR any possible momentum given by new FR players that might want to explore previous sourcebook materials"
Neither of the new TSRs are the original TSR. The original TSR became Wizards of the Coast, and still holds the rights to the old material -- including the pdfs of the older material. That money goes to WotC (minus whatever cut the hosts get)
In simpler terms, I can change my name to Adriana Lima, but that doesn't make me a Brazilian Victoria's Secret model, and I certainly wouldn't automatically gain access to her bank account. (Trust me, you don't want to see me in some of the stuff she wore on their catwalk! )
I would say that WotC would leave the sales of older pdfs alone, because those sales don't affect sales of current material and it's still a revenue stream for them... but I can't say that. When the 4E ruleset came out and got pirated almost immediately, WotC's reaction was to pull all sales of digital material. Me buying a Spelljammer module wouldn't relate at all to pirating rulebooks from two editions later, but I still couldn't do it because of their over-reaction. They even pulled the free downloads they hosted on their own site, once someone higher up realized they were there.
It took a while -- literally years -- for them to go back to selling pdfs. And they changed how it was done, too, so people like me, who had bought pdfs the first time around, would have to purchase the same pdfs again if we lost our earlier copies. (Not an issue for me; I've got so many copies of those files, due in large part to never cleaning off nor tossing old hard drives. I copy everything to the new drive, put the old one to the side, and keep going. Still, the principle remains: I was promised, when I bought those pdfs, unlimited downloads, and WotC forced that promise to be broken.)
So while I'd like to say that sales of pdfs from earlier editions won't be affected, past history has shown that this may or may not be the case. |
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 24 Jul 2021 15:26:41 |
|
|
|
Cyrano
Acolyte
United Kingdom
25 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 17:07:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrano
It's not like I can't see why people are annoyed about this - I think it's not so much the worry that future products are going to start contradicting 'history' ("The Red Wizards have *always* been giant cats who trade magic items for skritches under the skin") as the affront at being told something you've committed to now doesn't matter.
But they have already been contradicting history. Not in large ways, certainly, but they've been contradicting it. It's minor, stupid stuff like "hey, rather than create a new character for this specific role, let's find some existing character and do whatever it takes to make them fit our new vision. Let's see, a human, blessed by his deity with the ability to create zombies? Yeah, he's now a yuan-ti necromancer!"
And yes, that is an actual example.
I'm not familiar with that precise example (where's it from?) but that sounds like it would benefit more from ignoring canon than not? The issue there was trying to be *too* tied to the past and bringing in a recognisable name from the lore even if it had to be contorted to fit with new 'revelations' to add to the old continuity rather than just ignoring it and making up something new.
I think, ultimately, this is a problem lots of franchises or ongoing stories hit. They're getting on for 50 years old. They have a history round they're neck that's like a millstone when you're trying to seem tempting and approachable to new people, and you do need those new people.
Comics regularly throw out and reinstate their old continuity. Star Wars recently memory-holed it's own expanded universe (then started revisiting it). This is unlikely to be Wizards' first or only attempt to reckon with this issue. I'm kind of interested to see how it develops - and again, those old books and PDFs aren't going anywhere. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 17:46:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrano
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrano
It's not like I can't see why people are annoyed about this - I think it's not so much the worry that future products are going to start contradicting 'history' ("The Red Wizards have *always* been giant cats who trade magic items for skritches under the skin") as the affront at being told something you've committed to now doesn't matter.
But they have already been contradicting history. Not in large ways, certainly, but they've been contradicting it. It's minor, stupid stuff like "hey, rather than create a new character for this specific role, let's find some existing character and do whatever it takes to make them fit our new vision. Let's see, a human, blessed by his deity with the ability to create zombies? Yeah, he's now a yuan-ti necromancer!"
And yes, that is an actual example.
I'm not familiar with that precise example (where's it from?) but that sounds like it would benefit more from ignoring canon than not? The issue there was trying to be *too* tied to the past and bringing in a recognisable name from the lore even if it had to be contorted to fit with new 'revelations' to add to the old continuity rather than just ignoring it and making up something new.
I think, ultimately, this is a problem lots of franchises or ongoing stories hit. They're getting on for 50 years old. They have a history round they're neck that's like a millstone when you're trying to seem tempting and approachable to new people, and you do need those new people.
Comics regularly throw out and reinstate their old continuity. Star Wars recently memory-holed it's own expanded universe (then started revisiting it). This is unlikely to be Wizards' first or only attempt to reckon with this issue. I'm kind of interested to see how it develops - and again, those old books and PDFs aren't going anywhere.
It was Tomb of Annihilation, IIRC. They changed Ras Nsi from a human who was given the ability to raise zombies to a yuan-ti necromancer. Originally, Ras Nsi could only create and control zombies, but he didn't need spells to do it and he could control far more than any necromancer could dream of.
Part of the issue is that area had received scant coverage before -- there wasn't a need to try to find a recognizable name, because the area had been visited only twice before and not for more than 20 years, if not closer to 30. Most people who bought that new book have never even heard of the Harpers novels, much less read the fifth one of the series. Those books are older than WotC's target audience.
And the designers had other options, too -- other characters introduced in the same book Ras Nsi was introduced in. They could have easily found a role for one of them, if that was the only goal. Or they could have made a related character -- maybe the PCs meet Artus Cimber and Alisanda Rayburton's great-granddaughter.
But even if they felt compelled to bring in a recognizable name, why turn around and mangle it to something with only the thinnest connection to the original? It's like an analogy I've used before -- "Oh, you like PBJ sandwiches? Awesome, here's a bologna and cheese sandwich!"
It would have been better to simply make a new NPC to fit the necessary role. Literally all they would have had to do was drop a different name on the character, change a sentence or two about him, and there wouldn't have been any issue at all. |
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! |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 18:12:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
snip
All this sounds so hollow when we remember people (here and otherwise) was clamoring for something like this to happen to 4e lore. It's like "it's good if you only de-canonize the things I dislike..."
quote:
Originally posted by questing gm
Just taking a quick look at FR novels released since 2014: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_novels_in_order_of_publication#2014
Does that mean the part of the Sundering didn't happened? 
Guess I can push back my reading of Death Masks. 
They are non-canon, not "non-existent". Also, given that those novels are referenced in stuff like the SCAG, they did happen. Just the things that aren't referenced in 5e books are non-canonical.
Although, on the other hand, it's really good if we can consider "The Companions" as if never happened, |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Scars Unseen
Acolyte
Japan
16 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 18:16:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrano
I'm not familiar with that precise example (where's it from?) but that sounds like it would benefit more from ignoring canon than not? The issue there was trying to be *too* tied to the past and bringing in a recognisable name from the lore even if it had to be contorted to fit with new 'revelations' to add to the old continuity rather than just ignoring it and making up something new.
I think, ultimately, this is a problem lots of franchises or ongoing stories hit. They're getting on for 50 years old. They have a history round they're neck that's like a millstone when you're trying to seem tempting and approachable to new people, and you do need those new people.
Comics regularly throw out and reinstate their old continuity. Star Wars recently memory-holed it's own expanded universe (then started revisiting it). This is unlikely to be Wizards' first or only attempt to reckon with this issue. I'm kind of interested to see how it develops - and again, those old books and PDFs aren't going anywhere.
None of that is really comparable. (American) Comics reinvent themselves because for whatever reason, DC and Marvel both collectively decided that there can't be any true progression in their worlds. All characters are forever around the same age, so they occasionally have to refresh the comics to reframe the same characters to fit into the new "today."
Disney's move is seen by many to be a mistake anyway, but basically things got changed because the Skywalker era (from TPM to post-RotJ) is the most iconic, and Disney wanted a clean slate to play with without actually moving to an era that has a clean slate. Not too dissimilar to the comics situation.
The Forgotten Realms have never had that problem. Even in the TSR era, changes got made by moving time forward. New canon was built on the old. WotC did the same thing, but for whatever reason, they saw that history as a burden and took a bulldozer to it for 4E. And guess what? It was a wildly unpopular move that they had to move to undo the next edition. Now they're repeating that mistake, only it's worse. Now the old Realms don't even count. It's all just something an old writing team made that the new writing team doesn't want to have to pay attention to.
And there's no reason for it. Just write new stories. Create new characters. Hell, kill old ones if you really want a fresh playground. The Legend of the Five Rings went through way more changes than FR due to story being tied to card game tournament results, and while not every change was popular with the RPG crowd, they still kept a single flowing continuity and the setting was better for it.
Imagine if someone bought out the Tolkien estate and decided to rewrite the franchise from Silmarillion through LotR but with a combination of modern social dynamics and author pet characters taking the spotlight? Can you see how fans of the originals might not take too kindly to the move? Or to go for something a bit closer (LotR being an effectively "dead" setting does make it easier to ignore new atrocities), imagine if someone bought Games Workshop and announced that they were ending all current lines and rewriting Warhammer 40K as a more "inclusive family friendly" setting with an anime aesthetic and flavor text written to be a heavy handed allegory for various stories from the Christian bible? Oh, and when the old fans decided they hated that and no one new bought in, they got rid of the biblical references, but kept the new character designs and started reusing old characters in ways that make no sense, making the God Emperor something of a jovial father figure.
It's the dissonance that's the problem. TSR's changes were often criticized, but they at least flowed from past to future in a way that made sense. |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 18:56:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Qilintha
I wonder if it is possible if such a statement has been made also because of TSR return to the fray of TTRPG, to prevent people to find and buy digital pdfs of 2e sourcebook, printed by TSR. I assume that 2e material money doesn't go to Wizards but goes to TSR. Like "Let's cut TSR any possible momentum given by new FR players that might want to explore previous sourcebook materials"
WotC sells TSR books through their storefront and neither of the new TSRs have the rights to any D&D material. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 19:35:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
snip
All this sounds so hollow when we remember people (here and otherwise) was clamoring for something like this to happen to 4e lore. It's like "it's good if you only de-canonize the things I dislike..."
I think that was because 4e was yet another example of WotC destroying stuff that people loved, while also being disrespectful as hell with their "kill the sacred cows!!!1!one" motto.
Like it or not, 4e came at the expense of what the people you're talking about liked; it decanonized it for allpractical purposes, because chances were it was never going to be developed in published products again in any significant way.
Pretty sure you wouldn't have seen a backlash that size, if 4e hadn't wrecked stuff and had instead just added stuff (like Tymanther). There would still have been some haters, but you can find those everywhere.
It's always the same underlying reason. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Jul 2021 19:36:45 |
|
|
|
Khelben
Acolyte
Denmark
25 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2021 : 20:19:06
|
| Just need to say this out loud for myself. There is a reason why I have followed The Realms since the late 80s. I fell in love with the rich history, people, geography, religions and the authors. I read about the happenings of the months and years. The Avatar Trilogy, Spellfire, Drizzt, Cadderly, Khelben, Zhents, Red Wizards, Harpers and so on and on. I still buy Salvatores new books and hunt for those that have escaped me. This new take from Crawford annoys me quite a lot. Some guy that werent there when all the rich history was created. No respect for fans. |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 01:30:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I think that was because 4e was yet another example of WotC destroying stuff that people loved, while also being disrespectful as hell with their "kill the sacred cows!!!1!one" motto.
Like it or not, 4e came at the expense of what the people you're talking about liked; it decanonized it for allpractical purposes, because chances were it was never going to be developed in published products again in any significant way.
Pretty sure you wouldn't have seen a backlash that size, if 4e hadn't wrecked stuff and had instead just added stuff (like Tymanther). There would still have been some haters, but you can find those everywhere.
It's always the same underlying reason.
While I do agree with you in some points, you have a very mistaken interpretation of what is "canon" if you believe that advancing the timeline of a story by using retcons means "decanonizing something for all-practical purposes"... not to mention that you're basically saying that your opinion is right because "I like the right version", and that is a completely biased opinion... what is the right version of the Realms, to begin with? Even Ed Greenwood is unable to give you a straight answer.
As for the backlash, it always happens when there is change involved, regardless of the nature of the change. People even hate 5e just because it changed things to be better for the people actually buying the books... |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 25 Jul 2021 01:31:08 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 01:52:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
not to mention that you're basically saying that your opinion is right because "I like the right version", and that is a completely biased opinion... what is the right version of the Realms, to begin with? Even Ed Greenwood is unable to give you a straight answer.
Thanks for telling me what I wanted to say, I guess, but I'm afraid I have to correct you.
I'm not voicing my preference. I joined D&D shortly before 5e was announced/tail end of 4e (but after being familiar with the FR through videogames). I didn't care for 4e (and I disliked certain parts--mostly the parts where 4e demolishes existing stuff), but I didn't want it retconned. I wanted the things that it had taken away restored, and not at the cost of what it had added (though I'll be honest: I don't mind at all Lady Penitent being retconned into oblivion, since it was the product of a malicious intent).
What I did in my post was merely addressing your point of "this rings hollow", to explain why people's reaction to this new announcement is coherent with wanting the Realms restored to where they were before the designers decided that advancing the timeline meant destroying stuff that people liked.
I'll repeat: you love something, then the designers smash it in horrible ways and basically tell you that you'll never see it in future products. This isn't a matter of right version of the Realms, this is a matter of seeing what you love being destroyed to enforce the vision of someone else. It makes no sense to use "they just advanced the timeline" as justification. Advancing the timline wasn't what triggered people. They destroyed a lot of stuff, and the original, stated intent, was to sever the new Realms from the old lore.
Yes, it's basically decanonizing for practical purposes, aka the purposes that I explained in my previous comment: the stuff you love still being involved in the new stories and whatever.
And if you tell me that they did the same with some of the 4e stuff now, yes, I'll agree with you, and totally understand why you're pissed off.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 25 Jul 2021 01:58:38 |
|
|
|
rangerstranger
Seeker
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 06:58:21
|
Someone previously talked about the cost of keeping up with the depth of FR lore. Considering the first 5 or 6 non core books for 5e were based in FR and heavily used FR lore, WotC did this to themselves.
If WotC or Crawford cared about the "high entry level cost" that the Forgotten Realms brings they wouldn't have made Forgotten Realms the default setting, in fact I would prefer they had take a 3e approach to it, with FR books being specifically labeled. The first 5 or 6 non core books of 5e were all FR based. They did this to bring us "Grognard" back to the current edition, which mechanically and to a certain extent lore-wise, I enjoy, and to hopefully bring in new players with the "low entry level cost" that 5e offers. Now that the new players out number the old players they are writing off all of the old FR cannon just so that those new players don't feel the pressure of buying all the old material. I get that applying that pressure is wrong. But again, WotC has done this to themselves. They have bastardized the Forgotten Realms so hard, 4e I'm looking your way. They should have left us "Grognards" and "Gatekeepers" out of it from the get go instead of using us to kickstart a new edition.
There is also the "Clean Slate" aspect of all this. It will be much easier, and cheaper, to produce lore now that they don't have to, as designers, not consumers, do their due diligence and actually research the lore they are making additions too.
Anyway, why say this about the setting, if you are not trying to stir the pot. |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 07:05:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I'll repeat: you love something, then the designers smash it in horrible ways and basically tell you that you'll never see it in future products. This isn't a matter of right version of the Realms, this is a matter of seeing what you love being destroyed to enforce the vision of someone else. It makes no sense to use "they just advanced the timeline" as justification. Advancing the timline wasn't what triggered people. They destroyed a lot of stuff, and the original, stated intent, was to sever the new Realms from the old lore.
Yes, it's basically decanonizing for practical purposes, aka the purposes that I explained in my previous comment: the stuff you love still being involved in the new stories and whatever.
And if you tell me that they did the same with some of the 4e stuff now, yes, I'll agree with you, and totally understand why you're pissed off.
Well, that is the risk of "falling in love" with something created to show you the vision of someone else: at some point they are going to deviate away from your zone of comfort with their plot. Because, really, all works of fiction are the vision of their authors, not the vision of their fans, making the argument of "enforcing the vision of someone else" pointless to begin with: even the parts you love /are/ the "enforced" vision of someone else, as you have no control of how the story is developed.
I do agree that what they did for 4e was drastic, but that is a discussion for another topic. Suffice to say that advancing the timeline and making an event you like part of the setting's past is way too different to remove said event from the corpus of referenced material used to create new stories, because that is what "decanonizing" means. And is not what 4e did: in 4e they did referenced past events and recognized them as something that happened, even if said events are now in the "past". |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 07:51:15
|
As for decanonization and destruction, as I've tried to explain, of course they're different things, but the effect is the same. Whether they say "this is no longer canon" or "this thing is now destroyed because we don't want it", it means that they won't use it in future products, that storylines were cut off. As you said, "it's the past", so it's no longer relevant. Whether it's a retcon or a destruction, it's same difference for people who are interested in the future of the setting, really, because the material outcome is the same (I really doubt that the chances of something being referenced as the past are worth anything to people who liked that something and saw it thrown into the trash bin).
quote:
at some point they are going to deviate away from your zone of comfort with their plot. Because, really, all works of fiction are the vision of their authors, not the vision of their fans, making the argument of "enforcing the vision of someone else" pointless to begin with: even the parts you love /are/ the "enforced" vision of someone else, as you have no control of how the story is developed.
Well, of course? By someone else's vision, I meant the vision of people who didn't build the setting, and just came later to take away what people liked. Getting rid of a lot of stuff that people liked because "but it's redundant" hardly is about progressing the story. As a matter of fact, as I said, what they did was cutting short many of the ongoing stories and trying to sever ties with the "old realms". I wouldn't call this "progressing the story". If someone who loved the setting saw it treated like this, it wouldn't be hard to understand why they'd want to see it restored to its previous state, even if that meant retconning. That was my point when addressing your remark about the reactions to 4e.
Moreover, if someone's vision consists of demolishing stuff that they didn't create and that people liked, I would be hesitant to even call it a vision. In fact, it only comes off as arrogant and disrespectful--not of the fans (or at least not only), but of the work that other people put into what existed, which only rubs salt into the wound. Don't get me wrong, 4e did build stuff and add elements, and that's totally cool and can be called a vision. But, returning to the original question that I've been trying to address and that sparked all this, if you want to explain people's reaction to this kind of event, you only have to look at what's taken away (which likely made former fans jaded towards what it added). Same thing for this new decanonization--it took away the identity of the setting, and reduced it into a bunch of tropes on a stick. It made all that came before of unknown relevance (and likely little to no relevance) for future developments, just as if it had destroyed it. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 25 Jul 2021 07:54:45 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 08:11:27
|
Well this is what WoTC are known for now, they've been doing it for at least a decade.
Rather than follow their suggestion; which is to try and put the nice stuff of the past into the tropy garbage can of the future, why dont we do it the other way.
Take what few nuggets of lore in 5e are at least half way thought out, and build them back into the old setting. It's what I'm doing, because 5e is a typical modern hack, you take something of value with a well established name and fan base, strip away everything of its identity (leaving only the name), build a shallow, cheap, shoddy replica in its place, put a new coat of paint on it and charge exorbitant prices to rent it.
Its not for me and never will be, I only use quality products and even the good bits of 5e (of which there are few) are of incredibly poor quality by comparison. Hell it's not even the same setting anymore, it's like TSR, just because it's called by the same name it doesnt mean it's the same thing.
WoTC have just announced that everything it was is no longer true, therefore it is entirely different from the Forgotten Realms, this is WoTC's own brand Forgotten Realms, not "The Forgotten Realms". |
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions Candlekeep Archive
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 1
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 2
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 3
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 4
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 5
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 6
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 7
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 8
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 9
Alternate Realms Site |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 16:32:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Qilintha
I wonder if it is possible if such a statement has been made also because of TSR return to the fray of TTRPG, to prevent people to find and buy digital pdfs of 2e sourcebook, printed by TSR. I assume that 2e material money doesn't go to Wizards but goes to TSR. Like "Let's cut TSR any possible momentum given by new FR players that might want to explore previous sourcebook materials"
??? What's this about? I thought TSR no longer exists and had been bought by WotC? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Delnyn
Senior Scribe
USA
955 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 16:52:22
|
Would all this trouble have been avoided of WoTC used a core setting such as 4E Points of Light? If maintaining continuity for an established IP is an unacceptable pain in the rear end, why not channel those resources into a fresh setting where there will be no controversy. Ideas that would fail miserably in FR could very well be greeted with open arms in another setting.
As far as the issue of "canon", would you kindly consider this perspective? All our FR campaigns have individual tweaks and quirks that differentiate themselves from every other FR campaign. When you superimpose all these divergent campaigns, each of the individual differences randomly control each other. The aggregate result may have fuzzy boundaries, but is easily recognizable and converges to something with well-defined features. This aggregate is the stand-in for what we could call "canon".
Note how this aggregate version allows for deviations, but not excessively so. At the end of the day, my campaign will differ from your campaign, but we will recognize each other's campaign as clearly FR. We both recognize the margins of reasonable deviations and do not push past them.
Let's put the "Intellectual" back into IP. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 17:00:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Qilintha
I wonder if it is possible if such a statement has been made also because of TSR return to the fray of TTRPG, to prevent people to find and buy digital pdfs of 2e sourcebook, printed by TSR. I assume that 2e material money doesn't go to Wizards but goes to TSR. Like "Let's cut TSR any possible momentum given by new FR players that might want to explore previous sourcebook materials"
??? What's this about? I thought TSR no longer exists and had been bought by WotC?
Oh gods, that's been a mess.
Yeah, the original TSR was bought by Wizards of the Coast.
Much later, this new company came along, and saw that TSR was no longer a registered name, and they grabbed it. This one, for simplicity, is TSR2. They published Gygax Magazine, and Luke and Ernie Gygax were part of it. Eventually, there was some dispute, the magazine ended, and the Gygaxes left the company. Then the guy holding the trademark accidently let it lapse, and Ernie Gygax jumped on it, and used it for his new company -- TSR3, for simplicity.
TSR3 licensed the name TSR Games back to TSR2.
TSR3 then made a lot of claims, including that they had a lot of original TSR people aboard, and even that they were the original TSR.
Then a lot of stuff started happening. Some of those original TSR people that Ernie had claimed were aboard said they had no knowledge of this.
Then Ernie Gygax gave an interview where he made transphobic comments.
As the fecal matter hit the rotating ventilation device, he doubled down on his comments and blamed others for stirring up controversy. Then pretty much anyone associated with the name TSR bailed on it, someone got Ernie to shut up, TSR3 was renamed, and now things have quieted back down.
TSR2 also bailed on the name, because of the whole mess. So now there are no companies named TSR. Again.
And since it has been proven, repeatedly, that some here are not capable of discussing such things respectfully, WE ARE NOT going to debate what Ernie Gygax said. |
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 25 Jul 2021 17:03:19 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 17:07:57
|
I'll put it a little bit like this
People get used to the world. They then develop something for the world that they like. Then the designers make a change that affects whatever the person made for their world. The person may either decide to either A) say screw the change B) overwrite their own work with the new stuff or C) try to mix the two.
This has been going on for me for 30 years. For instance, in these very halls, there is an area where you can download things written by some of the sages. One of these entries is something I wrote about 25 years back on the City of King's Reach. Looking back, its horrible, but for me in my early 20's and with very little realmslore to work with... it had potential. Meanwhile, Ed produced a version of King's Reach, which I'll say is "not as good as mine", with the place just being a mining town for the most part. No affront to Ed on that, I just put more of a story into my "King's Reach" tying it into Impiltur and saying "the name came from the city being made by outcast rebels from Impiltur". I had fun running a short campaign there a long time ago.
So, what do I do if I want to use "King's Reach" nowadays? I'd adopt both ideas. His is true, but so is mine. Now mine included some really bad storyline of a war involving lyncanthropes in Impiltur... okay, change that in modern day to involve some hobgoblins, etc.... I put a castle and a lord that fits my city, but I keep it as a mining town in the mountains.
So, fast forward a few decades. Let's say I want to introduce the use of the Eastern Shaar in a campaign. Well, its post second sundering, so I'd have it that the "Returned Shaar" is now back from Abeir, and I'd include a lot of changes that I personally want (my whole United Tharchs of Toril ideas) and I'd rebuild the ruined city of Peleverai into a whole thriving metropolis. I'd be sticking a mix of Chessentan, Thayan, Untheric, and Shaaryan humans living amongst Dambraii half-elves, drow, centaurs, wemics, tabaxi and leonins, and with a new immigration of refugees of High Imaskar. Now, what happens when WotC possibly eventually comes into the area? I'll either A) keep mine B) overwrite with theirs or C) make an amalgam of both.
I've been doing this for more than half my life. I still love the realms. It may come to a point where "what they want to do with it doesn't mesh with my own views" and "they produce so little material that taking their views into consideration doesn't weigh much in my mind", but the idea that change isn't going to happen just doesn't even enter the equation for me. It's been an ever changing cycle of change for me since the realms was invented.... Cloak and Dagger... Faiths and Avatars... the 3e FRCS... Unapproachable East... the introduction of Zakhara, Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc....
What I find myself doing now is quite simply being bored with continually going back to the same places though. That's why when I saw Seethyr interested in developing Maztica/Anchorome/Lopango, I was drawn to the work. That's why when I saw people interested in developing the Utter East, I was drawn to the idea. My ideas may not always mesh with theirs, but for me its about the fun of creation. I don't nearly play as much as I did when I was younger, but I still enjoy developing ideas. That has and always shall be the point of the realms to me, developing ideas in a shared world, which involves sometimes adapting to accept another's worldview. The only people I usually really have a problem with are those who "have to have the world their way and only their way, and anyone who doesn't accept their way is a <insert whatever name or term is currently being hurled>". |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 19:06:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
As for decanonization and destruction, as I've tried to explain, of course they're different things, but the effect is the same. Whether they say "this is no longer canon" or "this thing is now destroyed because we don't want it", it means that they won't use it in future products, that storylines were cut off. As you said, "it's the past", so it's no longer relevant. Whether it's a retcon or a destruction, it's same difference for people who are interested in the future of the setting, really, because the material outcome is the same (I really doubt that the chances of something being referenced as the past are worth anything to people who liked that something and saw it thrown into the trash bin).
I understand that. And in that case, decanonizing it is better than destroying it, as with decanonization that stuff is never referenced again, and not touched again. It remains in its pristine state before it was decanonized, and cannot be modified or destroyed in canon materials (as keftiu said, you should be happy). Really, the only thing is that is most likely (and is just that, a most likely possibility) will be not used or referenced in a future product. But given that you dislike what they do with their products, isn't that a good thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Well, of course? By someone else's vision, I meant the vision of people who didn't build the setting, and just came later to take away what people liked. Getting rid of a lot of stuff that people liked because "but it's redundant" hardly is about progressing the story.
A. They bought the setting to modify it to their needs (well, that was TSR, but WotC bought TSR and all its stuff). It would be dumb if they didn't used the setting as they needed just to please a minority.
B. Given that ALL 5e books are best-sellers and the sells of these books surpasses by a wide margin the sells of all the earlier editions combined, this means a lot of people like their changes and only a minority dislike it. They are taking away just the "likes" of a minority. Because, yes, we are the minority here. And most people here even don't buy the books since, like, 14 years ago, lol
Does this means I approve of their changes? Not at all. Heck, I've been vocal about my dislike of what they did with the 4e lore in 5e. I agree with rangerstranger, they shouldn't have lured the old greybeards with promises of "returning to the great old days" just to break those promises when the people who actually buys their products (the ones who make all their books be best-selling in less that a day --it happened with the Fizban book: it entered the top 10 best-sellers of Amazon within hours) became aware of all the problematic stuff of the old D&D in general that 4e had hidden with its changes to the lore. Because, even if heavy-handed and poorly executed, 4e did those changes for a reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Same thing for this new decanonization--it took away the identity of the setting, and reduced it into a bunch of tropes on a stick.
Ohh, this happened way before the decanonization. It began with the SCAG and its "let's make the Realms great again" motto. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 25 Jul 2021 19:17:15 |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1625 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2021 : 20:51:08
|
| Wizards of the Coast: Saving the Forgotten Realms Canon - Sign the Petition! http://chng.it/wWStwD5X via @CdnChange |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forgotten Realms Novels Not Canon: WotC
