| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Aug 2021 : 22:13:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, Chris Perkins has done some statements about canon in the D&D Blog. You can read it here, if you're interested. IMHO, this was some sort of damage control, trying to fix the mess created by Crawford's statements.
After having a chance to read his statements, I'm honestly not bothered by them or WotC's direction concerning Canon when it comes to the majority of D&D's lore across the Spectrum. In fact, I'm actually pretty amused not just by the direction but the knee-jerk reaction from the Community by-and-large.
Now, this might come off as callous - I get that - but keep in mind that when discussing 4E or the Post-Spellplague Realms during the 08' to 14' run and being told a billion times "Not In MY Realms..", "Oh, we diverted the Spellplague, that didn't happen.", "My Game never went past 1374 DR", or my personal 'favorite' "There was a 4E?" well....people have been doing what Crawford has just stated for over a decade. So, really I could care less.
Canon is -now- literally a Buffet and now it simply applied to the creators of D&D too. in a lot of ways, it definitely makes sense. Just look at the myriad of Living Forgotten Realms adventures AND Adventure League Adventures they've put out. No one complained that they weren't Canon, despite stories being told IN the Realms.
So yes, Gelcur is correct in that everyone gets a prize...because it's NOT a competition. It's a collaborative story that is special to the people who invest in it together. I've certainly never been beholden to accept EVERY piece of Realmslore created to my table, why should a designer making an Adventure be too? Especially higher level ones where the cost is more dramatically felt across a greater region. AND especially IF people don't like the story to begin with? Like, say I hate the adventure Tomb of Annihilation and their depiction of Chult, NOW I don't have to worry it being Canon in my 4E games because the Canon from one to the next is irrelevant.
From the way people complained about the Realms and ALL The possible story-lines and novels and games and adventures and supplements (etc) since at LEAST 3e....you'd think that this would be a reprieve from having to feel any sort of obligation what so ever to adhere to it.
At the END of the day, what matters is what's happening at your table with your group. What you bring in from the Realms "official" supplements, what you bring in from some 3PP Supplement (like the one I got from Thomas Costa Forgotten Characters of the Realms) or something you made up homebrewed that will ever appear in a FR Sourcebook or ever be Canonical. THATS what matters and always will. Canon has always been ignored in a multitude of ways, why is this any different? |
 |
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1625 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2021 : 23:44:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, Chris Perkins has done some statements about canon in the D&D Blog. You can read it here, if you're interested. IMHO, this was some sort of damage control, trying to fix the mess created by Crawford's statements.
After having a chance to read his statements, I'm honestly not bothered by them or WotC's direction concerning Canon when it comes to the majority of D&D's lore across the Spectrum. In fact, I'm actually pretty amused not just by the direction but the knee-jerk reaction from the Community by-and-large.
Now, this might come off as callous - I get that - but keep in mind that when discussing 4E or the Post-Spellplague Realms during the 08' to 14' run and being told a billion times "Not In MY Realms..", "Oh, we diverted the Spellplague, that didn't happen.", "My Game never went past 1374 DR", or my personal 'favorite' "There was a 4E?" well....people have been doing what Crawford has just stated for over a decade. So, really I could care less.
Canon is -now- literally a Buffet and now it simply applied to the creators of D&D too. in a lot of ways, it definitely makes sense. Just look at the myriad of Living Forgotten Realms adventures AND Adventure League Adventures they've put out. No one complained that they weren't Canon, despite stories being told IN the Realms.
So yes, Gelcur is correct in that everyone gets a prize...because it's NOT a competition. It's a collaborative story that is special to the people who invest in it together. I've certainly never been beholden to accept EVERY piece of Realmslore created to my table, why should a designer making an Adventure be too? Especially higher level ones where the cost is more dramatically felt across a greater region. AND especially IF people don't like the story to begin with? Like, say I hate the adventure Tomb of Annihilation and their depiction of Chult, NOW I don't have to worry it being Canon in my 4E games because the Canon from one to the next is irrelevant.
From the way people complained about the Realms and ALL The possible story-lines and novels and games and adventures and supplements (etc) since at LEAST 3e....you'd think that this would be a reprieve from having to feel any sort of obligation what so ever to adhere to it.
At the END of the day, what matters is what's happening at your table with your group. What you bring in from the Realms "official" supplements, what you bring in from some 3PP Supplement (like the one I got from Thomas Costa Forgotten Characters of the Realms) or something you made up homebrewed that will ever appear in a FR Sourcebook or ever be Canonical. THATS what matters and always will. Canon has always been ignored in a multitude of ways, why is this any different?
Also I think this sets up there plans for a new FR setting book they are working on (the revisited setting), I suspect something strange happens with the obilesks, like they go off all at once, and it shatters the D&D multiverse into all kinds of different canons multiverses, but that they are linked to each other. |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 00:03:21
|
Diffan pretty much has my sentiments nailed down perfectly; the number of people who have rejected canon for over a decade at this point, since 4e, make the reaction to this kind of laughable to me. The game and the world have always served your table first, and when you've already been ignoring what a multi-billion-dollar corporation does to it... what does this meaningfully, materially impact?
So many people here didn't have the Spellplague happen. I have no interest in the Second Sundering happening. We're all just as 'canon' as WotC is now. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 00:14:48
|
Not gonna lie, when I saw Crawford's statement, and then this...I did have a knee jerk reaction. I realize canon is "what you make it", but...I'll try and explain.
DMs and players have always been able to make the game what they will. And I feel like 5e has been treating the lore willy-nilly, anyway, and making up new things with every release (see "new" drow, which conveniently ignores the fact there have always been goodly drow in the Realms, in the followers of Eilistraee, and to a lesser extent, Vhaeraun. Why not just build the new "canon" drow societies around them, or at least use them as a foundation?), so it sometimes feels like they're changing their mind from one product to the next, but, in an effort to not dislike this entire approach and constantly say something negative about it, I can see their reasoning in wanting DMs and players to be able to use their content without having to sift through every single product, game, and novel to keep up with a particular storyline, as that can easily get overwhelming.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and trying to be able to put into words why exactly I feel so strongly about this decision. I think it's because I came to D&D through the Forgotten Realms novels (I've always been a big reader, so the novelization of something is a good way to get me interested lol). I feel in love with the lore and the world. Speaking specifically about FR, I loved the rich detail and history. It made it feel like a living, breathing place. Of course I didn't like every single aspect about it, but overall, I was invested (both monetarily and emotionally). What was in the official products mattered to me, because it was the "state" if you will, of the world. For example, when 4e happened and they got rid of the drow pantheon, I was very disheartened by the loss of Eilistraee. Sure, I could have her still be around in my home world, but that didn't change the fact that in the official material, she was gone. If I picked up a novel or source book and read it, she would still be gone in the "actual" world.
That was an example, but I think that is why this approach and "if it's prior to 5e, it ain't canon" statement bothers me so much. I don't think the past editions are the gold standard or should be kept in stone without moving the setting forward, but saying they are no longer canon is too far on the other end, imho. If they want to prevent new players and DMs from feeling all around, they can at least give a summary, like they did in the SCAG. I personally don't like the bare bones approach they seem to be taking with lore, but it would be something.
This approach makes the setting(s) feel less alive to me, I guess. Or maybe I just need to take a break from anything D&D related for awhile (except for CR and another stream I watch), and come back later and see where it's at.
(Also, fans have always had a reaction when WotC announces something. This isn't the first time people have voiced strong opinions). |
Sweet water and light laughter |
Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 03 Aug 2021 00:20:17 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 00:49:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
Diffan pretty much has my sentiments nailed down perfectly; the number of people who have rejected canon for over a decade at this point, since 4e, make the reaction to this kind of laughable to me. The game and the world have always served your table first, and when you've already been ignoring what a multi-billion-dollar corporation does to it... what does this meaningfully, materially impact?
So many people here didn't have the Spellplague happen. I have no interest in the Second Sundering happening. We're all just as 'canon' as WotC is now.
While I share the lack of care, I can't agree on laughable. I tried to explain you, and even pointed out that you had a similar reaction, though in the opposite direction, in this very thread.
"Meaningfully" means absolutely nothing until related to a specific person and a specific situation. Your meaningful is very different from someone else's meaningful. For example, you keep ignoring people who consume FR unrelatedly to the TTRPG, like CorellonsDevout. Is their reaction laughable too?
I guess conversations reset overnight. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 01:13:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
So many people here didn't have the Spellplague happen. I have no interest in the Second Sundering happening. We're all just as 'canon' as WotC is now.
I can imagine most people here singing praises to WotC had they said "4e didn't happened". That's why I find this reaction so... over the top, to not say the other term.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
"Meaningfully" means absolutely nothing until related to a specific person and a specific situation. Your meaningful is very different from someone else's meaningful. For example, you keep ignoring people who consume FR unrelatedly to the TTRPG, like CorellonsDevout. Is their reaction laughable too?
I guess conversations reset overnight.
If they only consume non-TTRPG products, then why they care about a decision that only affects TTRPG products? Chris Perkins was clear: the novels have their own canon, unrelated to and unaffected by the TTRPG canon, that is the only one WotC is manipulating at this point (novels canon is on RAS' hands now). |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 03 Aug 2021 01:14:58 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 01:25:19
|
Because we consume it for non-TTRPG purposes. I may not play the D&D much, but I still am a consumer of the setting (and novel canon being in RAS' hands is not something I relish).
I also wanted to make a note about something that was said early. Yes, earlier products, be they novels or source books, still exist, but the fact remains that in the future (ie, present), it is no longer considered canon. To pick up on the Jandar Sunstar example, I could go back and reread Vampire of the Mists and the short stories, but they would be incredibly bittersweet to reread, because I know that Jandar has a horrible fate coming (thank you, WotC, for shitting on an amazing character). And guess what? His horrible fate is canon by WotC's standards, because OotA or whatever product it was is after 2014. So while the short stories and novel about Jandar aren't canon anymore, his suffering is.
And in regards to the unreliable narrator...yes, Greenwood himself has said much of what we have is from an unreliable narrator, but certain "facts" remain, and there comes a point when using the unreliable narrator approach becomes less about providing some wiggle room as it is just lazy writing (MTOF, RAS).
If they really wanted to "clean slate", they should make a new setting instead. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 03 Aug 2021 01:29:55 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 02:12:23
|
Or you can see it that way: Yes, the old novels and stories about Jander are not canon anymore for 5e products. But, 5e products AREN'T canon to the novels, as well. So, if an author decides to use Jander in a novel or short story, he is not beholden to what happened to Jander in some 5e adventure. He can change his fate.
Or well, for me is easy to get this concept because as a fan of Digimon, I got used to "every product is its own continuity" lol |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 02:21:35
|
| But the novels aren't canon, so the author wouldn't really be changing his fate. Yes, it would be "novel canon", but since that doesn't actually affect the "core" canon, it would mean that in the "official" canon, he would still be trapped. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 03:09:18
|
| The novels ARE canon. Perkins was specific about it: they aren't canon to the modules, but they are canon by themselves. And, likewise, the modules AREN'T canon for the novels. They just follow their own canon. And both are official canon, lol. Yeah, it seems confusing, but it isn't. As I said, is like in Digimon, "each line of products have their own canon". |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 03:17:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
5e products AREN'T canon to the novels, as well. So, if an author decides to use Jander in a novel or short story, he is not beholden to what happened to Jander in some 5e adventure. He can change his fate.
That won't fly. Perkins, Crawford, and the others just want to not be beholden by canon. However, you can stay assured that they will indeed want their stuff to matter for everything.
Do you really picture them allowing the release of a novel that contradicts their desired direction? Nope, not going to happen, it would be self-defeating.
Basically, they're saying that canon is only what they want to be canon at any given time. What gets effectively released will line up with their version of the setting. It would be kinda sh*tty marketing if it didn't, especially with their goal of some unified universe like Marvel or whatever comic franchise did it. Canon still exists, it's just *their* canon, and that will be the only thing to matter in future releases.
So yeah, even for strictly practical purposes, people who consume novels will be stuck with the 5e lore (well, if novels were still around). Besides, having RAS in charge of the lore is quite a miserable experience for people who enjoy the novels, don't you agree?
quote:
If they only consume non-TTRPG products, then why they care about a decision that only affects TTRPG products? Chris Perkins was clear: the novels have their own canon, unrelated to and unaffected by the TTRPG canon, that is the only one WotC is manipulating at this point (novels canon is on RAS' hands now).
See above. Moreover, even novel readers would buy sourcebooks, for the lore. Buying "world books" is certainly not unheard of, to the point that videogames release their own world books for sale.
Besides, this was one example of how "meaningful" means different things to different people, I've discussed some other examples before.
Calling the reaction of other people to something they hold dear laughable is quite crass, especially when directed at a group made up of people with very different takes, and not as many 4e or 5e haters as you'd believe (and even some those who weren't fond of it at the beginning, saw potential in the ideas behind it, developed it, and so on. Take sleyvas' posts, for example).
In the end, whose reactions are getting called laughable? Gyor's, who started this thread and has always been interested in the new releases? Mine, whose posts in this thread in large part consist of discussing with you and Keftiu why people could feel strongly about this? Idk, whose? Rereading this thread, a lot of posts are simply discussing the implication of the new decision, without being over the top of extreme. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 03 Aug 2021 03:38:15 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2476 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 03:43:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Do you really picture them allowing the release of a novel that contradicts their desired direction? Nope, not going to happen, it would be self-defeating.
It happens ALL the time. Just read any novel written by RAS. Yeah, there is a consensus, and all play in the same layout. But beyond that? All of them do what they want.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
and that will be the only thing to matter in future releases.
And this isn't what always happens? I mean, I have never seen my game, or anyone else's game, reflected in their products. Complaining about this is like complaining that water is wet.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Besides, having RAS in charge of the lore is quite a miserable experience for people who enjoy the novels, don't you agree?
In this, we agree. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 03:59:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Do you really picture them allowing the release of a novel that contradicts their desired direction? Nope, not going to happen, it would be self-defeating.
It happens ALL the time. Just read any novel written by RAS. Yeah, there is a consensus, and all play in the same layout. But beyond that? All of them do what they want.
Oh yeah, it does. Which is why my comment about the topic of this thread was:
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Well, they just spelled out loud what they were already doing. Yes, that includes previous sourcebooks.
If anything, I'm puzzled why they decided to spell it out loud. Which benefits do they get from doing so?
But you see, the existence of canon gave readers some comfort, in that some assumptions were supposed to be true, that *some* semblance of continuity was there, that the previous storylines weren't all for nothing. This statement takes even that away.
I've heard some people being firmly against the Eberron model, because to them a novel would be irrelevant to read, since if it isn't canon, it's extremely labile
Either way, to me, it's pretty clear why a novel-reader--or even someone who just enjoys the FR as a setting--would be affected by this statement, and why their reaction is understandable, and not laughable.
Also, people who still buy the products have very obvious reasons to react to the statement, that goes without saying.
quote:
And this isn't what always happens? I mean, I have never seen my game, or anyone else's game, reflected in their products. Complaining about this is like complaining that water is wet.
Not sure where this is coming from. The discussion was specifically about continuity in the products, especially novels, not about games affecting canon. In fact, we weren't even discussing tables at all, so Idk how the discussion went there.
I said that their canon will be the only thing to matter, because it explains why even people who only read novels are affected, which is a question that you asked. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 03 Aug 2021 04:20:15 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 06:42:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Also I think this sets up there plans for a new FR setting book they are working on (the revisited setting), I suspect something strange happens with the obilesks, like they go off all at once, and it shatters the D&D multiverse into all kinds of different canons multiverses, but that they are linked to each other.
Well, an in-game reason for the distinction would be interesting. I haven't read anywhere about another Realms source book, but it would make this announcement....more odd IMO. |
Edited by - Diffan on 03 Aug 2021 17:47:06 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 16:52:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Also I think this sets up there plans for a new FR setting book they are working on (the revisited setting), I suspect something strange happens with the obilesks, like they go off all at once, and it shatters the D&D multiverse into all kinds of different canons multiverses, but that they are linked to each other.
Well, an in-game reason for the distinction would be interesting. I have read anywhere about another Realms source book, but it would make this announcement....more odd IMO.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did that to introduce 6e (2e to 3e was Vecna messing with the worlds with a ritual, 3e to 4e was Mystra dying and resetting the worlds, etc...), but I don't think they are there yet. It does seem to go in cycles of about 7-8 years though. Looking at my 5e PH, that was August 2014 for first printing, so we're just hitting the 7 year mark. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 17:54:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
It wouldn't surprise me if they did that to introduce 6e (2e to 3e was Vecna messing with the worlds with a ritual, 3e to 4e was Mystra dying and resetting the worlds, etc...), but I don't think they are there yet. It does seem to go in cycles of about 7-8 years though. Looking at my 5e PH, that was August 2014 for first printing, so we're just hitting the 7 year mark.
Something about the state of things right now for D&D is that they're very pleased with their products and the model of 1 big mechanic splat book with 3-4 adventure/setting books is working wonderfully for them.
I mean, I'll never say "they won't make a 6th Edition." because games can grow overburdened. That -thus far- hasn't appeared to have happened yet with 5e. I also don't think they're done exploring different worlds and settings, and that goes for re-vamping old settings (like Dark Sun), converting other IPs (more Magic:the Gathering planes), or completely new ones altogether. The community, that I've seen on FB and other sites, seem to be pleased overall with the Core Game and building from there.
Time will tell. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 18:08:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
In the end, whose reactions are getting called laughable?
While I never used the term "laughable", I did say I was amused. Not by any one singular poster thoughts here, but the overall community from both sites and FB groups. Maybe I'm still bitter, but hurled insults of a decade plus Edition war (many of us 4e players still have to combat) wears down ones empathy for those upset by changes, especially if those same ones were just as deep slinging Edition-War mud. Again, this is just my generalization, not any specific Posters here on the 'Keep but overall impression.
So yes, I do find it amusing IF someone has muttered "I don't use the Spellplague" or "not in MY Realms" or used some way to disparage an Edition they ignored and now has the gall to be upset when the Canon and Lore they've literally ridiculed and dismissed for a decade "no longer counts". |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 18:41:45
|
But again, you're limiting your view to playing. What if people who don't use certain stuff at their table still follow the Realms as such? What about those who don't play? When I used to follow FR as a whole, I didn't care for 4e despite being its target audience. I didn't want to use its lore, but I was still interested in what happened to a setting that I loved. Same for many others. Also, as I pointed out before, and as I've discussed with you in the past, this is very similar to why a lot of people felt strongly about the 4e FR: back then it was about seeing characters/factions/places that people loved being taken away from the official setting for no reason other than the designers no longer wanted those characters around. Now it's about the whole thing no longer being acknowledged in the official setting. For the people who care, it's always the same thing: they don't like seeing what they love taken away.
Also, not having something in your game is a far cry from ridiculing or dismissing, and is a far cry from not caring what happens to the official setting because you're invested in it; see above. Sure, there are people who ridiculed the 4e lore, there were people who ridiculed the 3e or 2e lore, but that happens for every IP ever.
In the end, there are so many kind of people who like FR, that any sweeping statement like this will inevitably fall flat.
quote:
While I never used the term "laughable", I did say I was amused. Not by any one singular poster thoughts here, but the overall community from both sites and FB groups.
Laughable was used by another poster who made the same point as you. As for the rest, ok, I get it, but if you post on this thread, the only place where Candlekeep addressed this matter (that I know, at least), what you say will be easily perceived as directed at the posters who commented here, because they're the only ones in this community to have expressed an opinion on this matter. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 18:51:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So yes, I do find it amusing IF someone has muttered "I don't use the Spellplague" or "not in MY Realms" or used some way to disparage an Edition they ignored and now has the gall to be upset when the Canon and Lore they've literally ridiculed and dismissed for a decade "no longer counts".
Here's the thing, though: it's not just that canon and lore, and now it's the designers saying that none of it counts.
This isn't "I don't like this one specific thing, so I'm excluding it" this is the designers saying "Yeah, every single thing, from any era or source, is getting ignored if we didn't write it ourselves."
I can get that people might be less than sympathetic after seeing their preferred era trashed, but this is bigger than that. This isn't just the 4E era, this is everything before 5E. 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E -- everything since the OGB was published is being disregarded. Every single sourcebook, adventure, novel, comic, boxed set, web article, all of it.
This is the designers waging a new edition war on everybody that liked ANY previous version of the Realms. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 19:41:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Here's the thing, though: it's not just that canon and lore, and now it's the designers saying that none of it counts.
I don't feel that's what they're saying. From Crawford's statements, what's Canon is going to be associated with the time/place of that particular piece's venue, be it a video game or novel or game supplement. But the designers currently aren't being forced to accept those elements as a fact across all venues.
Let's see...for an example I'll ask, who is Xan? We know Xan from two sources and a reference from a 3rd. Xan is -as Canon- a Moon Elf of Evereska who's competent with a blade. That's it. Oh, he's dead as he was beheaded by a Spider in the Cloakwood Forest. That's from a novel. The game paints a MUCH better pic with loads better lore and references. Not to mention we get his surname from a character in Icewind Dale (it's Blacksheaf).
Before, we HAD to be content that Xan was a nobody who died a bleak death in 1368 DR. Video Games don't count (at least, major character from BG didnt). But NOW, we can say "Well Xan died in the novelization, but that's its own thing. In Video Game Canon, he's quite well and alive AND w Moonblade wielder." He could absolutely NOW crop up in a supplement AND that should be a good thing (and it is, the novelization was dreadful).
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I can get that people might be less than sympathetic after seeing their preferred era trashed, but this is bigger than that. This isn't just the 4E era, this is everything before 5E. 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E -- everything since the OGB was published is being disregarded. Every single sourcebook, adventure, novel, comic, boxed set, web article, all of it.
Disregarded? Nope, just put in place that doesn't necessarily HAVE to be acknowledged if a certain aspect is changed now - or more likely needs a reason why it's changed.
When something contradicted previous Lore or Canon, whether due to rules changes (infravison to low-light, dwarf arcane casters, non-human Paladins) or social changes (Demons called Tanar'ri during the demonic panic of the 70s/80s or the new lore on Drow now) people complained it wasn't though out enough or it was unnecessary or dumb or whatever and blew huge holds into the "new" Canon reasons for those changes. So people were mad that it changed, regardless if there was a reason or not because those reasons weren't good enough for some.
So if you're going to alter something, and the response is going to be negative from a small group of people (I say "small" because of D&D success, despite many changes that have occurred and angered some shows that it hasn't hurt their bottom line) and no matter what reason is made (Lore reasons or just up-and-retcon) will change that response, why bother with the effort of tying it to Lore in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
This is the designers waging a new edition war on everybody that liked ANY previous version of the Realms.
What the designer is saying here to everyone is something we 4e fans have been facing for a decade. Maybe I'm just numb to it by now? I've never played in a Canon game (never will). I've treated Canon like a buffet for so long now that me seeing the designers do it to a smaller degree (because Canon exists in different vacuums) feels like a no-brainer concept.
I accept that the people mostly screwed over are the ones who absorb all Lore. I get that seeing an Adventure with a character who you know died at an earlier time in a novel is jarring and breaks Continuity and immersion. I do get that, and empathize there.
|
Edited by - Diffan on 03 Aug 2021 19:44:47 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2021 : 20:34:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
But again, you're limiting your view to playing. What if people who don't use certain stuff at their table still follow the Realms as such? What about those who don't play? When I used to follow FR as a whole, I didn't care for 4e despite being its target audience. I didn't want to use its lore, but I was still interested in what happened to a setting that I loved.
Then I'd believe that you would treat Crawford's statements much like the components you didn't care for in the setting, (ie likely ignore them completely). Let's say that someone ignored all of 4e (so every novel, game, adventure, Dragon/Dungeon article, and sourcebook between 2008 and 2014) and that person doesn't like that 5e extended the time frame, lore, and elements of 4e into 5e (Dragonborn lore, Tiefling lore, Neverember as Neverwinter's ruler, the Baldur's Gate Murder plot to bring back Bhaal, Myrkul-Bane-etc becoming "lesser" to have a strong influence on Faerūn) and now Crawford says everything you've read, played in, and incorporated isn't Canon....who cares? I mean, it's not going to affect your immersion into the game at this point, since everything since 2008 has been discarded. An Adventure put out in 1496 DR, detailing the rise of a big Aboleth that destroys half of Marsember, killing several prominent NPCs or destroying several well-known establishments won't effect that person because it's been discarded.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Also, as I pointed out before, and as I've discussed with you in the past, this is very similar to why a lot of people felt strongly about the 4e FR: back then it was about seeing characters/factions/places that people loved being taken away from the official setting for no reason other than the designers no longer wanted those characters around. Now it's about the whole thing no longer being acknowledged in the official setting. For the people who care, it's always the same thing: they don't like seeing what they love taken away.
Consider that most of the content in pre-4e hasn't been touched upon much in over a decade, one would think that they've only take away something that was never invested in the first place. They're likely not going to delve into the intricacies of ancient Jhaamdath or touch upon the cultures of newly restored Maztica (only to completely re-write it, me thinks). They haven't taken anything away, in fact I feel this is more freedom for people saying "Yeah, not in my Realms" but now that has weight.
Question: Did you make Talos an Aspect of Gruumsh or believe it so, because Canon 4E says he is? Would you be upset if an Adventure published now made the distinction of both deities, unending and reversing this Lore? Because that can certainly happen now. Would I be upset? No, not particularly bad despite me liking that concept because I'm not beholden to accept it.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Also, not having something in your game is a far cry from ridiculing or dismissing, and is a far cry from not caring what happens to the official setting because you're invested in it; see above. Sure, there are people who ridiculed the 4e lore, there were people who ridiculed the 3e or 2e lore, but that happens for every IP ever.
In the end, there are so many kind of people who like FR, that any sweeping statement like this will inevitably fall flat.
Can you give me an example of how Crawford's statements is going to negatively impact someone's enjoyment of a setting, especially if that person's investment is primarily in subject matter far in the past that isn't likely to be changed?
Say, you really love the 2e Myth Drannor book and the fall of the city and Cormanthyr in general. How is what Crawford said going to alter that book or its history right now? What does it "not being Canon in 5e" mean that will take away this supplement?
Here's the thing, a lot of the dislike of Crawford's statement stems directly from the belief that:
1. The people writing stories in the Realms aren't fans and thus, don't care about established concepts
2. Don't care Enough to put in the homework to make it truly "Realmsian".
Out of all the adventures that have been put out for the Realms of 5E, I've felt neither 1 or 2 occurred. With the alterations of how Drow and Orcs are depicted aside, I feel they've done a pretty decent job of preserving what has come before and don't see why they'd just throw this practice out the window NOW, 7 years later?
quote:
Laughable was used by another poster who made the same point as you. As for the rest, ok, I get it, but if you post on this thread, the only place where Candlekeep addressed this matter (that I know, at least), what you say will be easily perceived as directed at the posters who commented here, because they're the only ones in this community to have expressed an opinion on this matter.
That's fair, I shouldn't have been as Cavalier with the direction of my thoughts on the matter and who might have taken offense to it. This has been a topic going on a week in multiple FB groups and forums, so my apologies for lumping it altogether. |
|
|
|
Gelcur
Senior Scribe
523 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2021 : 21:23:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I've certainly never been beholden to accept EVERY piece of Realmslore created to my table, why should a designer making an Adventure be too? Especially higher level ones where the cost is more dramatically felt across a greater region. AND especially IF people don't like the story to begin with? Like, say I hate the adventure Tomb of Annihilation and their depiction of Chult, NOW I don't have to worry it being Canon in my 4E games because the Canon from one to the next is irrelevant.
Why should the designers be beholden to Realmslore? That is their job. They are supposed to be painting a story in the Forgotten Realms. You as a DM can cherry pick what you want. But they need to maintain order and consistency.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So yes, I do find it amusing IF someone has muttered "I don't use the Spellplague" or "not in MY Realms" or used some way to disparage an Edition they ignored and now has the gall to be upset when the Canon and Lore they've literally ridiculed and dismissed for a decade "no longer counts".
I use as much canon as humanly possible in my Realms. Personally I have no taste for 4E rules or lore BUT I just don't run in that time period. The lore from 4E is still useful to me in my 1491 DR campaign. For you nothing changes, you continue cherry picking like nothing has happened but for a DM like me, now I'm forced to cherry pick I cannot rely that anyone has done any work to ensure contradictions haven't occurred. Even the DMs who care very little about lore, they pick an adventure and run it, if in one Orcs are killed on site and in another they are very well tolerated the players are going to question what in the nine hells happened?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Here's the thing, though: it's not just that canon and lore, and now it's the designers saying that none of it counts.
This isn't "I don't like this one specific thing, so I'm excluding it" this is the designers saying "Yeah, every single thing, from any era or source, is getting ignored if we didn't write it ourselves."
I can get that people might be less than sympathetic after seeing their preferred era trashed, but this is bigger than that. This isn't just the 4E era, this is everything before 5E. 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E -- everything since the OGB was published is being disregarded. Every single sourcebook, adventure, novel, comic, boxed set, web article, all of it.
This is the designers waging a new edition war on everybody that liked ANY previous version of the Realms.
^This. With all previous changes I believed the designers were trying to do something interesting with the lore of the Realms while staying in the Realms. Whether they succeeded or they didn't they attempted to do their job well. Tell a story in the Forgotten Realms. This is taking the easy way out to profit, killing the proverbial Golden Goose. This boils down to they have cool stuff they want to do and don't want to have to work hard to do them, the Forgotten Realms is a big recognizable name so we have to do it there. Not only is this is insulting to those who have followed AND paid for lore of any previous edition but to all those designers and authors who worked VERY hard on those editions. Pay someone or multiple someones to manage the lore across all platforms. Do your job right or don't do it at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What the designer is saying here to everyone is something we 4e fans have been facing for a decade. Maybe I'm just numb to it by now? I've never played in a Canon game (never will). I've treated Canon like a buffet for so long now that me seeing the designers do it to a smaller degree (because Canon exists in different vacuums) feels like a no-brainer concept.
I accept that the people mostly screwed over are the ones who absorb all Lore. I get that seeing an Adventure with a character who you know died at an earlier time in a novel is jarring and breaks Continuity and immersion. I do get that, and empathize there.
This is bigger than Editions. I am willing the admit the ill will directed towards 4E lore and the people who enjoyed it was wrong. If any time we should be united as a community it is now.
I quoted this earlier for a reason:
"Those who destroy knowledge, with ink, fire, or sword, are themselves destroyed." -Candlekeep's one absolute rule.
It doesn't take much to reimagine ALL of this as a D&D adventure. Warring parties with a troubled passed, check. People holding dear their treasured items, check. A powerful entity deciding it can change and alter history to benefit itself, check. Who is the Big Bad in this story?
We should focus on how this scroll began:
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-canon-roleplaying-game-novels/
All FR novels, video games, comics, aren't considered none canon, they just had press release.
RIP Forgotten Realms 1987-2021
I look forward to the day whoever was involved in this gets the firing they so richly deserves.
I'm thinking of writing a petition not to not decanonize the novels. Any suggestions welcome.
It should be broadened to ALL canon, ALL editions, and remove the hate/sorrow, make it a rallying cry. I know very little about social media, why I still lurk on old boards like these, but my understanding is a large burst of people objecting on Twitter is your best bet. Try something like #NotMyRealms or #NotMyFaerun. Try to get people with a lot of followers that are well liked in the D&D community to retweet or use the hash tag. Suggestions below. Good luck.
Matt Mercer
Felicia Day
Wil Wheaton
Jerry Holkins
Mike Krahulik
Dwayne Johnson
Matthew Lillard
Dan Harmon
Pendleton Ward
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Deborah Ann Woll
Vin Diesel
Matt Damon
Ben Affleck
Elon Musk
Judi Dench |
The party come to a town befallen by hysteria
Rogue: So what's in the general store?
DM: What are you looking for?
Rogue: Whatevers in the store.
DM: Like what?
Rogue: Everything.
DM: There is a lot of stuff.
Rogue: Is there a cart outside?
DM: (rolls) Yes.
Rogue: We'll take it all, we may need it for the greater good. |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2021 : 21:50:41
|
| Mike Krahulik has been viciously transphobic in the past and broadly has a checkered record; consider leaving him out of your public complain at a soulless corporation about their IP campaign. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2021 : 23:16:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
Mike Krahulik has been viciously transphobic in the past and broadly has a checkered record; consider leaving him out of your public complain at a soulless corporation about their IP campaign.
Never heard of the guy before you brought him up, but since you did....
Michael Krahulik is an American artist for the webcomic Penny Arcade and co-founder with Jerry Holkins of Child's Play, a charity that organizes toy drives for children's hospitals.
sounds like a horrible person.....
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Gelcur
Senior Scribe
523 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2021 : 23:28:32
|
I googled "Famous D&D players" and copy pasted. I'm horrible with celebrity names but if he's who I think he is, he played Jim Darkmagic on some of the live D&D events wizards hosted/DMed at some cons.
Edit:
Info on that particular person here. *Shrugs* |
The party come to a town befallen by hysteria
Rogue: So what's in the general store?
DM: What are you looking for?
Rogue: Whatevers in the store.
DM: Like what?
Rogue: Everything.
DM: There is a lot of stuff.
Rogue: Is there a cart outside?
DM: (rolls) Yes.
Rogue: We'll take it all, we may need it for the greater good. |
Edited by - Gelcur on 05 Aug 2021 00:28:51 |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2021 : 00:50:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
Mike Krahulik has been viciously transphobic in the past and broadly has a checkered record; consider leaving him out of your public complain at a soulless corporation about their IP campaign.
Never heard of the guy before you brought him up, but since you did....
Michael Krahulik is an American artist for the webcomic Penny Arcade and co-founder with Jerry Holkins of Child's Play, a charity that organizes toy drives for children's hospitals.
sounds like a horrible person.....
A quick google will show you over a decade of transphobia controversies and an incident where his webcomic featured a sexual assault joke that he sold merchandise referencing after outcry. Him having done charitable work does not erase his prior misdeeds.
You say youve never heard of the man. Why defend him? |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2021 : 01:35:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then I'd believe that you would treat Crawford's statements much like the components you didn't care for in the setting, (ie likely ignore them completely). Let's say that someone ignored all of 4e (so every novel, game, adventure, Dragon/Dungeon article, and sourcebook between 2008 and 2014) and that person doesn't like that 5e extended the time frame, lore, and elements of 4e into 5e (Dragonborn lore, Tiefling lore, Neverember as Neverwinter's ruler, the Baldur's Gate Murder plot to bring back Bhaal, Myrkul-Bane-etc becoming "lesser" to have a strong influence on Faerūn) and now Crawford says everything you've read, played in, and incorporated isn't Canon....who cares? I mean, it's not going to affect your immersion into the game at this point, since everything since 2008 has been discarded. An Adventure put out in 1496 DR, detailing the rise of a big Aboleth that destroys half of Marsember, killing several prominent NPCs or destroying several well-known establishments won't effect that person because it's been discarded.
Oh, yes, I don't care about those statements. If you asked me what I cared about in FR, I'd say that now I would only care about their statements if they wanted to get rid of Eilistraee, Laeral, Liriel, and a few others. That's because I'm personally attached to those characters, and I want people to be able to learn about them and stuff. Heck, I haven't bought anything in forever, but I might buy well written stuff about them. Some years ago, however, I would have cared about the whole setting, because I used to follow the new developments, I wanted to buy new books, and so on.
So yeah, as I said when talking to ZeromaruX, my personal stance is pretty much that I currently don't give a flying aside from those characters, and since they've all been included in 5e material so far, this statement doesn't affect me, personally. That doesn't mean that it can't affect others who enjoy the setting also outside of using it for their games. I know it would have affected me some years ago.
Take a person who doesn't include Xth edition lore in their game, but is still a fan of the Realms, still reads novels and so on. Setting=all the lore they read and knew up to now, and someone who likes it, wants all that stuff to be acknowledged in any story and lore that follows, of course. A setting without any form of internal consistency whatsoever isn't even a setting, it's a bunch of ever-changing tropes. Such a person would clearly see their enjoyment of the setting compromised by this new stance; their interest in future products would be affected because the future products may very well no longer be the stuff that they've been following. When any character can be sh*t upon on a whim (see Jander Sunstar, an OLD character randomly taken for a new module and done *dirty*), of course fans are going to have their enjoyment ruined. There's an uncertainty factor, plus the dismissal on the devs' side, plus other possible factos, that I'll mention in the rest of this post.
Basically, if you're a fan of the setting, for whatever reason, even unrelatedly to what you do at your table, you have all the reasons to be affected by this new stance, because it affects what you like and consume (new products), as well as stuff that you hold dear, and how it will be perceived (or *if* it will be perceived) in D&D community.
But heck, even for people who aren't interested in new products, if the matter just boiled down to emotional attachment to the setting, despite no longer following the new developments, it wouldn't be surprising. As I've discussed before in this thread, it's not a healthy attitude, but I don't find it laughable. Or maybe I'm biased, because if they tried to--say-remove Eilistraee, I'd feel very strongly about that, despite the fact that I don't even use FR in my games.
quote:
Consider that most of the content in pre-4e hasn't been touched upon much in over a decade, one would think that they've only take away something that was never invested in the first place. They're likely not going to delve into the intricacies of ancient Jhaamdath or touch upon the cultures of newly restored Maztica (only to completely re-write it, me thinks). They haven't taken anything away, in fact I feel this is more freedom for people saying "Yeah, not in my Realms" but now that has weight.
Question: Did you make Talos an Aspect of Gruumsh or believe it so, because Canon 4E says he is? Would you be upset if an Adventure published now made the distinction of both deities, unending and reversing this Lore? Because that can certainly happen now. Would I be upset? No, not particularly bad despite me liking that concept because I'm not beholden to accept it.
Once again, a lot of people love the Realms not just because they use it in campagins, but because they like the setting and its stories on their own. Someone who's fond of Talos=Gruumsh and wants to see the implications of that assumption in a novel, adventure, or what you have, will certainly lose something if that concept goes out of the window. Likewise, people who like a certain something and are told that said element is now gone, will certainly lose something, because they won't be able to see it explored in new material. Not only that, there's also the fact that the element that they liked will start fading away and being forgotten by the community, because it will no longer be touched. Or yet, as seen in other posts in this thread, some people simply take comfort in knowing that a character or organization that they like still have a place in that fictional world. It's fiction; it's known for touching people like this.
So yes, with this statement, WotC are indeed taking away--they're taking away all of it. Before this statement, fans had some sort of reassurance that the Realms existed, that the new stuff could still be connected to the lore and history that they enjoyed. That they were still buying and reading FR stuff, and that maybe pieces of lore that they enjoyed might have resurfaced in future material. Now that feeling is no longer there.
There's also the factor of seeing something you love being dismissed in the official material. Not a pleasant experince for most, I'd say.
Now, if you tell me that they've always been doing that, I'll 100% agree with you. That's what I said in the first post I made in this thread, but the decision to spell it out loud baffles me.
If fans had this sort of sense that the Realms still existed as a published setting, now that's gone too, because the current version doesn't acknowledge anything, not even as history (it might not even acknowledge lore published within the very 5e). Of course that's going to elicit an emotional response.
So yeah, there are countless reasons for people to feel strongly about this. Maybe you see the Realms mostly as a buffet for your games, or you aren't very emotionally invested in it, but a lot of people feel differently.
quote:
Can you give me an example of how Crawford's statements is going to negatively impact someone's enjoyment of a setting, especially if that person's investment is primarily in subject matter far in the past that isn't likely to be changed?
Say, you really love the 2e Myth Drannor book and the fall of the city and Cormanthyr in general. How is what Crawford said going to alter that book or its history right now? What does it "not being Canon in 5e" mean that will take away this supplement?
See above.
quote:
Here's the thing, a lot of the dislike of Crawford's statement stems directly from the belief that:
1. The people writing stories in the Realms aren't fans and thus, don't care about established concepts
2. Don't care Enough to put in the homework to make it truly "Realmsian".
Out of all the adventures that have been put out for the Realms of 5E, I've felt neither 1 or 2 occurred. With the alterations of how Drow and Orcs are depicted aside, I feel they've done a pretty decent job of preserving what has come before and don't see why they'd just throw this practice out the window NOW, 7 years later?
Not sure, the SCAG is the only 5e book I have (as I said, I no longer care), I was giving answers about why people might feel strongly about the statement.
Honestly, those points that people made and that you pasted here do indeed come off as flawed. "Realmsian" feeling is too vague of a thing to even discuss, tbh. Not only it means absolutely nothing because it's subjective, but the Realms as a whole don't even have a feeling, because each region has its own. The glue that connects everything is the deep history.
But if you ask me if they have ditched previous lore, and good one too, I do know of some stuff that they have objectively and callously warped or erased.
Examples: Mielikki being portrayed as condoning genocide, Vhaeraun being described as the peak submissive drow male (LMAO), Jander Sunstar being done massively dirty (and Lathander being shown as entirely uncompassionate towards him), or the whole retconning of large swaths of elven and drow history.
As for the drow and orcs matter, that's just ridiculous to me. First, the new portrayal is perfectly in line with how the Realms treat those races, if we exclude WotC's obsession with "X race is all evil, hurr durr" in 3e and 4e. The matter is ridiculous not because they're adding new factions--don't mind those at all--but because of how WotC and RAS are parading about it while dismissing the work of others and the existing lore. Different cultures have always been there, and WotC (and RAS too, for the drow) have done nothing but doggedly downplay them. Now WotC are calling the work of the people who tried to give nuance to the drow and orcs "racist" (they literally labeled books like Ed's "The Drow of the Underdark" as such on the DMGuild--a book that gives a portrayal of the drow 100x more nuanced than MToF), and pretending that adding different orc and drow cultures is their doing (and RAS is taking credit for having created the whole FR drow).
All of that while trivializing large swaths of lore, of course, and ironically downplaying once again the first goodly drow *nation*, and the nuance and conflict that its history brings to the whole situation (I've already discussed with you how RAS is trying to replace the history of the drow/elves in FR with his own trivialized version, that is entirely incompatible with the actual history, and that entirely overlooks the thriving center of arts and magic that the Miyeritari culture was).
So yeah, WotC's history with respecting the setting doesn't look too reassuring to me.
quote:
That's fair, I shouldn't have been as Cavalier with the direction of my thoughts on the matter and who might have taken offense to it. This has been a topic going on a week in multiple FB groups and forums, so my apologies for lumping it altogether.
No worries, at least for me. It just seemed unfair, because a lot of the people in this thread have been fairly reasonable, and some of the people in this thread still buy 5e FR stuff, or even get excited about it, so it's even more understandable why they'd be affected by the new stance. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 05 Aug 2021 03:42:58 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2021 : 01:51:00
|
| Oh, let's not mention that people who still buy 5e stuff might very well have concerns about quality. Perkins came to the point of stating that not even all 5e books are canon, only the core 3. This means that internal consistency could very well be out of the window even for 5e products. I.e. why even bother having a setting, and not just a bunch of generic lore tropes at this point? If you don't care about coherence and are just after the crunch, then it's not a problem, but if you want a lore with *some* cohesion in it? Yeah, these are not good news. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3741 Posts |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3806 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2021 : 03:44:06
|
| I think there are many more reasons than that, and that they can change from person to person. That's why I went through a variety of reasons that came to mind for people to react strongly to this statement. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 05 Aug 2021 03:44:28 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forgotten Realms Novels Not Canon: WotC
