| Author |
 Topic  |
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Jan 2005 : 23:33:17
|
This was recently posted on the 'Boards That Shall Not Be Named' in terms of a Q&A with Rich Baker:
Q. Should everything that Ed writes down and publishes (even if "published" means "posted on an internet forum") be considered canonical? I am not a canon freak by any means of that word, but this is important for the sake of arguments. What if you (or any other FR designer) wrote something that contradicted something Ed wrote? Does Ed have to coordinate his writings with R&D?
A. Is everything Ed says canon? No. Canon is the assemblage of information in the current edition of the rulebooks. Beyond that is a much larger sphere of "we thinks" and "when we get tos" in which Ed's never-ending font of creative energy is quite prominent. For example, if Ed writes a couple of thousand words on Rethmar in the course of a bunch of posts to a message board, it's as good as anything until something else gets into print. In a perfect world, we'd know all about Ed's previous speculation on the topic and make sure it was part and parcel of any other designer's work on that city. Sometimes, it doesn't work out that way. Ed doesn't monitor all RPGs, novels, and PC games being worked on, and we don't keep track of everything he says. Heck, I don't *want* to. I don't want Ed to have to be afraid to speak from the heart about anything he cares to talk about, and I don't want to have to approve what he says before it goes in the public eye. Seems like that would make us both miserable.
In any event, I'm not sure that the whole concept of canon is worth the fuss we seem to invest in it. If something isn't in print, I don't treat it as canon. Even then, I'm willing to "evolve" canon when the situation calls for it (for instance, an edition shift in the D&D game). I know that some fans don't like that, but that's the way the business works.
Interesting, no?
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 00:23:27
|
Ah, so now even the original agreement betwixt Ed and TSR has been retconned... What a surprise.  |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 00:26:03
|
| If there going to ignore pre published material why dont they at least ignore events that should be gotten rid of? ie Smokepowder |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
|
|
Melfius
Senior Scribe
USA
516 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 01:49:02
|
In my campaign, the standing rule is: If a PC comes across smokepowder (we play in Waterdeep, BTW), they have 24 hours to turn it in themselves, or Khelban appears and smites them verily.
Bottom line - I hate the stuff.   |
Melfius, Pixie-Priest of Puck - Head Chef, The Faerie Kitchen, Candlekeep Inn
"What's in his pockets, besides me?"
Read a tale of my earlier days! - Happiness Comes in Small Packages |
|
|
|
Lady Kazandra
Senior Scribe
Australia
921 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 05:50:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ah, so now even the original agreement betwixt Ed and TSR has been retconned... What a surprise.
Indeed. I wonder now, whether there is anything left of Old Order that hasn't been touched by the WotC Wand of Improvement . . . 
|
"Once upon a time the plural of 'wizard' was 'war'." -- The Last Continent, by Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5695 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 11:28:59
|
You know, the more I think about this statement, the more irked I get by it.
For one thing, it's an extremely arrogant statement. He's saying that the creator of the setting and one of its most prolific writers is no more important than any other writer. He's also forgetting that much of the success of the setting is due to Ed's incredibly detailed work. Lastly, he's forgetting that Ed is the creator of the most successful setting they've ever had...
It's an insult to Ed.
And I can't help but notice that this statement came from the same person who has changed canon just because he felt like changing things... |
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! |
|
|
|
Reefy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
892 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 11:43:41
|
| I'm just wondering how much of that, if any, is due to the large chunks of great Realmslore Ed's been reeling off here. Call me cynical but... |
Life is either daring adventure or nothing. |
|
|
|
Mystery_Man
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 13:18:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Well met
I have removed a number of pennings herein, please let us try to discuss this more amicably Thank ye.
Heh, sorry Alaundo.  |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 18:51:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You know, the more I think about this statement, the more irked I get by it.
For one thing, it's an extremely arrogant statement. He's saying that the creator of the setting and one of its most prolific writers is no more important than any other writer. He's also forgetting that much of the success of the setting is due to Ed's incredibly detailed work. Lastly, he's forgetting that Ed is the creator of the most successful setting they've ever had...
It's an insult to Ed.
And I can't help but notice that this statement came from the same person who has changed canon just because he felt like changing things...
Felt the same way when I read it earlier. I was going to ask Ed about it but then just shook my head and moved on. It annoyed me though, deeply. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 22:54:34
|
I'm not sure that Rich was intending to be disrespectful to Ed with his answer, more like pointing out the difficulties inherent in meshing the WotC Realms (which is all about business and profitability - as it should be) with Ed's Realms that we get such a great insight into, here at Candlekeep.
Ed is free to do what he wants with his Realms - he always has done. More to the point, he has the talent to seamlessly integrate other people's FR work with his FR strivings, making it seem that they were there the whole time. The only FR writer I've seen who approaches and even surpasses Ed in this regard is Eric Boyd. The Realms are Ed's love and passion, so he makes it his business to be "on top" of the Realms, keeping track of other people's work and making it all 'fit'.
Other FR writers, especially novice ones, haven't got that grounding and background. This is what I think Rich was alluding to. We've got FR products from 1987. Dragon articles from way before that. I suppose it's easy to say that a professional writer should do the thorough and all-encompassing research needed to write great FR products and novels, but it isn't always that simple, and it certainly isn't easy.
I've been doing the research caper for near on 6 years now and you still miss stuff, forget references, realise you should've linked X with Y. It's hard to keep it all together and that's what I think Rich was saying witn specific reference to Ed.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2005 : 23:27:03
|
Krash is indeed correct in that it is hard to stay on top of most Realmslore. However, Rich Baker has shown a willingness to intentionally depart from established lore. I don't recall the specifics, but someone on those other forums asked about an NPC in Silverymoon. The NPC, in 2E, had been good. In 3E, she (I think it was a she) was now evil, and had a totally different familiar. Rich was asked about this, and his response was basically "there's not enough evil people in Silverymoon, so I decided to change her alignment."
I'm sorry, but he knew the lore and deliberately chose to go against it... Not only was no in-game explanation offered, but there was no RL explanation for why he couldn't have simply created a new NPC, and made him or her be evil (which is essentially what he did with his arbitrary change).
With precedents like that one in mind, it's clear to me that the previous 20 years of established Realmslore is not important to him. He is choosing to discard that, and doing so in a peremptory manner. This does not show respect for the setting's creator, the other loresmiths, or the fans whose dollars have kept first TSR and now WotC afloat. He's not simply following the the footsteps of those who have gone before, he's catching up and pushing them off of the path. |
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! |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:03:55
|
I was the one that asked about that Silver Marches, Silverymoon NPC. :)
And another example is the sad queen's hair color or even the fey'ri's son/cousin. Rich has changed all these at a whim. Yes the sad queen's hair color isn't that big of a deal but it's still annoying. Or how drow are not longer ebony/obsidian since Underdark changed thier skin tone even though EVERY 1e/2e/3e/3.5e, except for that one, says they are obsidian/ebony. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:11:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Or how drow are not longer ebony/obsidian since Underdark changed thier skin tone even though EVERY 1e/2e/3e/3.5e, except for that one, says they are obsidian/ebony.
Err I missed this one, however THO has posted for things like Elven hair there is a general quideline, that exceptions can occur. Even under 2nd (varient rules) I have met albino Drow/
Also IIRC Ed of Greenwood has indicated that not all he writes is canon, based on business relasionship he established withTSR, perhaps changed with WotC and/or Hasbro (I do know at least the former of these two made new deals with some founders of D&D). |
Edited by - Kentinal on 14 Jan 2005 00:13:55 |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:27:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Other FR writers, especially novice ones, haven't got that grounding and background. This is what I think Rich was alluding to. We've got FR products from 1987. Dragon articles from way before that. I suppose it's easy to say that a professional writer should do the thorough and all-encompassing research needed to write great FR products and novels, but it isn't always that simple, and it certainly isn't easy.
I hold a full time job, have a wife and three children, and have other hobbies that take my time away from studying Realmslore. Why is it then, that many professional designers miss realmslore references that are glaringly obvious to me and many others here at Candlekeep. This is their job afterall. They are paid to know this stuff. I just don't get it sometimes. Perhaps WotC is just not interviewing their designers thoroughly before hiring them. |
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
Melfius
Senior Scribe
USA
516 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 00:55:32
|
While I can understand the point that all things Ed has posted here, there, and everywhere cannot possibly be made canon (they would have to hire an additional staffer at WotC who's sole task would be to monitor all boards Ed posts on, which, as much as he posts, would be impossible), I do think they should give a bit more credence to his thoughts, at least as far as not changing what he already has put in print.
By changing (or 'retconning', whatever that means) that which we have already seen in print, he is doing a great disservice to not only Ed, but the rest of us as well.
Case #1: Changes to the map of the Realms. On one hand, they insist they want to refrain from over-detailing the Realms to leave room for us 'home-brewers' to work our magic. But on the other hand, they just basically deleted the largest tracks of open land for us to work with.
Case #2: Changes to Drow Racial Abilities. Don't get me wrong, Elaine's 'novel' explaination (pun DEFINATELY intended) was marvelous. One has to wonder if this was the original intention, or if it just luckily worked out well. I believe the former, but I've been wrong before. However, the drow are a powerful race who, while chaotic and not prone to work well together, still find a way to muster patrols and armies to lay waste to outsiders. As powerful as they are, the biggest drawback for them has been their inability to function on the surface. Consider the battles described in the Drizzt novels. Do we all remember the fact that one of the major battles was won by the forces of good due to the fact that the sun came up? Now, this is no longer a hinderance. Do we really think that the basic chaotic nature of drow will be enough to prevent them from becoming a dominant power?
Which brings up another good point: This has become a mantra for WotC to explain why good always seem to triumph over evil: "Evil cannot work well together, so they fall apart short of their goal." C'mon. How many times can they use the same excuse? Even over in DL, the Knights of Takhesis become world powers because they proved evil CAN work together given a powerful enough leader (and, of course, if good hands it over to them!  ). I still remember Ed's likening the Zhentarim to the Keystone Cops. This seems to be the way they handle too many 'bad guys'. I for one am fed up with the forces of evil and chaos disintegrating just short of their goals. I do not think the likes of Manshoon, Fzoul, or Sememmon are REALLY that stupid. If they can be given high Wisdom and Intelligence scores, why do they never seem to be shown using them?
A good idea would be this: Since they have already dipped their toes into the water of 'Adult Material' with the Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds, why not try their hand at a series of adult novels. Not lewd or pornographic, but ones that show evil as being REALLY evil, and potentially winning once in a while. I game with a group who's average age is about 34, and while DMing I found that, as adults, if the 'bad guy' is played with adult themes, doing really vile stuff, they begin to really loathe the man (or woman) and it adds a dose of realism to the game.
Wow, does it seem like I'm ranting? 
In any event, the topic was the apparent lack of unchangeable, 'canon' material. It's bad, m'kay? |
Melfius, Pixie-Priest of Puck - Head Chef, The Faerie Kitchen, Candlekeep Inn
"What's in his pockets, besides me?"
Read a tale of my earlier days! - Happiness Comes in Small Packages |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 02:00:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Realmslore
I hold a full time job, have a wife and three children, and have other hobbies that take my time away from studying Realmslore. Why is it then, that many professional designers miss realmslore references that are glaringly obvious to me and many others here at Candlekeep. This is their job afterall. They are paid to know this stuff. I just don't get it sometimes. Perhaps WotC is just not interviewing their designers thoroughly before hiring them.
They are good designers, Brian. They just haven't been eating, sleeping, breathing the Realms for the last 15 years like you, myself and many others have. If I was a designer and someone asked me to write a DL product, I'd take on the job - because it was a job and paid $$ - and research with due diligence. But within my deadline framework and with the resources at my disposal, I'm sure I'd miss something or lots of somethings because DL isn't my 'homeworld'. It's that grounding I mentioned in a previous post. And despite what might sometimes appear to be the case, my experience with the current crop of FR designers is that they all want to do their best for the setting, research hard and ask many, many questions of Ed and others who can help them out. There is no such thing as the perfect, error-free FR product. It simply hasn't been written yet and likely never will be.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2005 : 03:23:48
|
I, for one, don't expect something to be error-free. But I do expect something better than "oh, I just felt like changing that, so I did."
The other thing Kuje31 pointed out, the reason that drow skin tones changed... As I recall, the explanation was something like "Well, the artists kept flubbing it, so we changed the racial description to match the artowrk."
C'mon, what kind of excuse is that? I'm sorry, but for someone who cares about the setting, he's doing a good job of not showing it.
I know it's difficult to stick with every single detail ever printed... And if something that was in Polyhedron gets overlooked, or this footnote in that Dragon article is unintentionally contradicted, then that's one thing. Deliberately changing things on a whim is not showing respect to the setting. |
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! |
|
|
|
Eremite
Learned Scribe
Singapore
182 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 14:21:58
|
Personally, I have no problem with the changes made in gaming products, per se, but the wholesale changes inflicted by the novels is what irks me.
This is not supposed to be an anti-FR novel rant rather an appeal to use the novels to flesh out the backstory of the game books. Frex, wouldn't we all like to read about the rise and fall and rise again of Fzoul? What about the novel of Bane's return?
There's more than enough material in the recent past of FR that would make for some great novels without having to, frex, take the orc horde campaign hook from Silver Marches and turn it into a trilogy.
Also, I think that there would be less damage to "canon" if the novels were written about the past/recent past rather than advancing the timeline. |
Best
E |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 15:32:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eremite
Frex, wouldn't we all like to read about the rise and fall and rise again of Fzoul? What about the novel of Bane's return?
No and no.
quote:
There's more than enough material in the recent past of FR that would make for some great novels without having to, frex, take the orc horde campaign hook from Silver Marches and turn it into a trilogy.
The trend clearly shows that the books detailing Faerun's past have slowed down if not ended. I'd rather see novels tackle the future and gaming products detail histories of various areas.
quote:
Also, I think that there would be less damage to "canon" if the novels were written about the past/recent past rather than advancing the timeline.
And what damage have the novels done? |
|
|
|
Lysander
Learned Scribe
USA
183 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 16:02:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, for one, don't expect something to be error-free. But I do expect something better than "oh, I just felt like changing that, so I did."
The other thing Kuje31 pointed out, the reason that drow skin tones changed... As I recall, the explanation was something like "Well, the artists kept flubbing it, so we changed the racial description to match the artowrk."
C'mon, what kind of excuse is that? I'm sorry, but for someone who cares about the setting, he's doing a good job of not showing it.
I know it's difficult to stick with every single detail ever printed... And if something that was in Polyhedron gets overlooked, or this footnote in that Dragon article is unintentionally contradicted, then that's one thing. Deliberately changing things on a whim is not showing respect to the setting.
It was precicely the attitude Wooly mentions that contributed to me not wanting to make the leap from 2E too 3E. My thought was: why bother learning all new rules, if I'm going to have to correct all of the fluffy stuff? For any campaign I run, the map from the FRCS is deemed not to exist - anything good will be retrofitted to it's 'proper' place per the Interactive Atlas and so forth. |
Lysander
Defender of the Second Edition
Moderator, Project Gemengan, Worlds of D&D |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 17:18:08
|
What usually scuppers discussion of canon is people conflating its metaphysical sense, which is about artistic legitimacy, with its practical sense, which is about what's in the latest books (and what they try not to conflict with).
Seems to me Rich's statement is similar to the way magazine articles are said to be less than entirely canonical, because there's less pressure on new designers to check them. They may not go out of their way to check Ed's posts to REALMS-L, either.
Unfortunately, Rich is *also* conflating the two senses of canon by disrespectfully (perhaps inadvertently) referring to Ed's un-print-published writing as 'speculation'. He's also confusing the situation of which published works are canon by apparently restricting them to 'the rulebooks', meaning presumably the sourcebooks. It does also sound as though he might want to review Ed's contract with TSR, with which Ed is presumably far more familiar.
As well, the limited, practical 'what's in the latest books' canon is a much smaller set than, and is not the answer to, 'what is true about the Forgotten Realms'.
Regardless of any conceivable legal situation, or any WotC statement, anyone who thinks any of Ed's writing about the Realms is not authoritative because it isn't published in a book has misunderstood the Realms, and the creation of stories and worlds, as drastically as could be. And can anyone imagine Wizards publishing a different staff- or freelance-written discourse on art in the Realms, or the oaths of Tempus, or a detailed description of Firefall Vale or Tantras, (a) at all or (b) that isn't plainly inferior to those Ed has posted for us here?
(I note that the post George quoted does not, just now, seem to exist.) |
Edited by - Faraer on 15 Feb 2005 17:34:09 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 17:58:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
(I note that the post George quoted does not, just now, seem to exist.)
Yes it does, page 19 on the, "Ask the Game Designers," thread on the main FR boards, near the bottom. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2005 : 18:14:27
|
Aha, I was looking under 'Feb' rather than 'Jan'.
In Rich's second paragraph, I agree about canon and fuss, and I'm prepared to understand the reasons and even need for retconning, but each change is a choice, not an impersonal 'way the business works' inevitability, and I regret the use of 'evolve', which claims spuriously that the latest official line is fittest to survive, even in quotes. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2005 : 00:03:47
|
I don't know what's in Ed's WotC contract, but whatever is in there, anything Ed says will take priority (for me) over any other Realms source, period. Ed created the Realms and continues to create it, detail it, and bring it to life, so who else would truly know it as well as he does?
I've mentioned before how I agree that changing Realmslore "just because" is annoying. Why? Because it feels like cheating. If you are going to change something, shouldn't you take the time to come up with plausible reasons for that change? |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2005 : 22:09:15
|
| Good point. Love, hate, or be indifferent to the Time of Troubles, it sure provided a solid, in-game explanation for why all the game-mechanics changed. Not, oh, we needed to change editions, so now the Realms is different, and no, nobody really noticed anything. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Reefy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
892 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 14:17:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Good point. Love, hate, or be indifferent to the Time of Troubles, it sure provided a solid, in-game explanation for why all the game-mechanics changed. Not, oh, we needed to change editions, so now the Realms is different, and no, nobody really noticed anything.
Exactly. When the change to 3E happened, the opportunity was there to do something similar with the Shades but it wasn't taken. |
Life is either daring adventure or nothing. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 16:37:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Good point. Love, hate, or be indifferent to the Time of Troubles, it sure provided a solid, in-game explanation for why all the game-mechanics changed. Not, oh, we needed to change editions, so now the Realms is different, and no, nobody really noticed anything.
Exactly. When the change to 3E happened, the opportunity was there to do something similar with the Shades but it wasn't taken.
Indeed! I wasn't sure how it was going to play out, but as soon as I saw in the previews that Shade was coming back, I figured they'd somehow use that to explain all the changes wrought by 3E. The fact that the trilogy did nothing of the kind, however, was to me a very large missed opportunity. So that trilogy failed on two levels.
As I've said before, I can accept changes in the setting, so long as there's an in-game reason for why it happened. The Return of Shade, for example, have caused some sort of ripple that forever altered the Weave, just a bit, which would explain how sorcerers could suddenly appear. Instead, we got "oh, they've always been around, but no one knew about it."
WotC missed a lot of good opportunities when they decided to transition the Realms to 3E. And now they're unwilling to even admit to making a mistake, much less go back and correct it... |
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! |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 00:12:41
|
The Realms didn't change at all from 1E through to 2E through to 3E. The D&D game changed. Whether the Simbul is described as a magic-user, wizard or sorceror, she is still the Simbul. PCs need stats. NPCs (that the PCs will interact with in terms of combat) need stats. Unless your PC group is intending to "take out the Simbul" (as described in the laughable thread on the WotC Boards), what in-game difference do her stats have at all? This can be applied to the Realms as a whole. People get in high dudgeon about the fact that Laeral had a hand in the creation of a mythal for Silverymoon and she doesn't ... *gasp* ... have the Epic Spellcasting Feat. Or that Drizzt Do'Urden's stats don't match his abilities in the novels. Or the NPC X doesn't match the pre-reqs for the PrC class Y which he has 5 levels of, etc. etc. etc.
The trend I'm seeing, especially with 3.X edition is that people aren't seeing the Realms for the Rules. And changing the landscape of the Realms to explain away rules changes is something that I find particularly annoying. The ToT added nothing to the Realms other than headaches. I'm so very glad that 3E didn't see wholesale changes to a game setting just for the sake of explaining stats, feats, PrCs and skills - all of which are incidental to the bedrock of the Realms which is the people, the places, the history and the connecting strands between them ("realmslore").
If the only way you can appreciate the Forgotten Realms is through the oily lens of the contents of the DMG, the PH and the MM then you are missing out on a whole vista of opportunities that require a bit of storytelling and imagination, not a calculator.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 03:25:55
|
| Hear hear, George. But some of the things we are arguing about *do* have to do with character history rather than rule mechanics. Yes, it really isn't a huge deal what the alignment of a minor NPC in Silverymoon is (or is it?). But what *is* the point of completely changing around the character and making her evil, as opposed to just creating a new character? |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
More "Canon"-Fodder
