My head is spinning ... the amount of information you all know about this is staggering and daunting. Hopefully my Campaign won't be too laughable; better yet, I would love nothing more than to have all of you review it and make sure I stay relatively constant within that Lore and Setting
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
My head is spinning ... the amount of information you all know about this is staggering and daunting. Hopefully my Campaign won't be too laughable; better yet, I would love nothing more than to have all of you review it and make sure I stay relatively constant within that Lore and Setting
Many'a-time, the best adventures are the "simplest" with purely focused or even little-to-no lore. I'm sure you will do well and have blast, for really that is all that matters! ;-)
I agree with zeb. Lore is important only when you have a large enough story - it helps you keep your stories consistent. But best stories in D&D are standalone stories. I for one, really like backwater kind of story where you are, for example, a farmer's son and go to town to find goblin menace and end up in a plot of generic necromancer who imprisoned your grandfather for testing spells.
More so, it is the way you tell it while keeping your characters realistic.
Knowing that much lore can be bad also. For example, even when I know all this lore, I have to consider what my characters knows while role-playing. So if you ever follow my role-playing, my cleric will end up asking, "Who was Karsus?" and not really listening or caring for your answer when you explain him/her anyways unless he needs to.
0
aavariusMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
My head is spinning ... the amount of information you all know about this is staggering and daunting. Hopefully my Campaign won't be too laughable; better yet, I would love nothing more than to have all of you review it and make sure I stay relatively constant within that Lore and Setting
You should keep in mind that most of it of it's debatable (hence these 4 pages of discussion) whether by design or happenstance. I disagree with several of the statements made here, but the neat thing is the Realms are old enough (both in terms of real world years and in-game years) and diverse enough that you're pretty free to make up whatever you need to fit your story. It is, after all, a D&D campaign setting.
.... I disagree with several of the statements made here, ...
Feel free to express your opinions and join the discussion. Though many of them are opinions (and one is free to shape realms according to one's wishes) we are trying to sort out what the cannon is (while sometimes mentioning our own campaigns and how we have dealt with ambiguities). So I would welcome any disagreements if they allow us to determine/guess the cannon story.
EDIT: pffftt I just realized my spelling mistake - cannon instead of canon. But I will let it stand for the lolz so you all can have a laugh too
0
aavariusMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
Mostly I think the idea of a "canon" doesn't really exist in FR. Considering what the product line is meant for (a game where people make up their own stories) then the ambiguities are only accountable for on a game group by game group basis. And that's not a bad thing, either.
Mostly I think the idea of a "canon" doesn't really exist in FR. Considering what the product line is meant for (a game where people make up their own stories) then the ambiguities are only accountable for on a game group by game group basis. And that's not a bad thing, either.
"Canon" was used by FR authors describing both their books and source material in a few video panel interviews I have seen. "Homebrew" is the term for D&D material that is non-cannon.
aavariusMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
But even in the novels "canon" changes from edition to edition to the needs of the authors. I'm just saying it's a misnomer, an inaccurate term in this usage.
But even in the novels "canon" changes from edition to edition to the needs of the authors. I'm just saying it's a misnomer, an inaccurate term in this usage.
That's where I strongly disagree. I feel, as do the Authors and Wizards of the Coast, that source books and their novels are Canon. Anything else is "Homebrew," eg. not canon. It's like telling Ed Greenwood that Elminster is not canon because he is in Novels and in Sourcebooks. Sourcebooks make Novels and Novels make Sourcebooks, hence they are both Canon. I don't see where that could purvey any misnomer in that simple truth of how Forgotten Realms canon is defined.
So, plainly speaking, anything Stamped TSR / WotC is Canon as it has been rigorously fact-checked. WotC has, many times, stated how all Novels are fact-checked and continually sent back for corrections. Non-TSR / WotC material is considered "Homebrew." Homebrew is not Canon as it has not been fact-checked by WotC.
As for my posts on the topic of Gods & Lore, everything that was Homebrew, I specifically mentioned as being something in my campaign specifically. Everything else not noted as such, is factual canon.
But even in the novels "canon" changes from edition to edition to the needs of the authors. I'm just saying it's a misnomer, an inaccurate term in this usage.
Are you saying that canon of 3e is different than canon of 4e so the word is not used more specifically?
Oh! So I hope you agree that drow as a plural is a misnomer, an inaccurate term in usage too :P
But D&D does use drow as plural in most of its novels so common usage triumphs literary history. Just as in this case, they probably should have specified it is canon for 4e (which is what we are discussing - canon of 4e as game's lore will be based on canon of 4e).
But the meaning here canon has "to 4e, specifically forgotten realms" implied to it. Just as D&D Next' canon will have "canon to that edition in question" implied to it.
0
aavariusMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Drow equipment used to melt in the sun. In recent years it doesn't do that anymore. There's no explanation for that in the campaign setting books. It's an inconsistency, and it seems likely it's an intentional omission to fit the changing needs of the game. If there's a story explanation of any kind it's probably buried somewhere in a novel, which is an example of an author changing things up to meet his own needs. It seems a little nonsensical to call a thing fact checked when the very facts, like melting equipment, change.
I'll grant you that as a whole product line Forgotten Realms material is pretty consistent, but let's recognize any inconsistencies for what they are. What I'm suggesting is rather than trying to explain away everything with an unquestionable, canonical truth, embrace that this is the "forgotten" in Forgotten Realms.
Oh! So I hope you agree that drow as a plural is a misnomer, an inaccurate term in usage too :P
But D&D does use drow as plural in most of its novels so common usage triumphs literary history. Just as in this case, they probably should have specified it is canon for 4e (which is what we are discussing - canon of 4e as game's lore will be based on canon of 4e).
What I am saying is that even if things change from one edition to another, it cannot be argued that whatever is written in 4e pnp books of forgotten realms is not canon to the lore in this game.
0
aavariusMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
What I am saying is that even if things change from one edition to another, it cannot be argued that whatever is written in 4e pnp books of forgotten realms is not canon to the lore in this game.
Ah, I see, now.
What I'm saying is that in the places where a fact is not eminently clear it can be argued such. Even then, I'd say just what's eminently clear is debatable to a certain extent.
...
What I'm saying is that in the places where a fact is not eminently clear it can be argued such. Even then, I'd say just what's eminently clear is debatable to a certain extent.
And that is why I said in the first place that we are trying to sort out what the canon is by discussion and would like any disagreements to our arguments and conclusions if they allow us to determine/guess the cannon story. Indeed there are loose ends open to interpretation as obvious from the question Zeb put to me about Selune and the elven Lady of Mysteries and Moon; but much of it is not ambiguous and loose ends are tied nicely.
Also, there may be hypothetical instances when for example, some part of the history of elves may be wrongly written which we will only know in 7th or 8th edition, but for now elves will believe and think that their history is written correctly. Hence following the canon for characters to make them consistent with official content will be the right choice.
But you can always Homebrew your own campaign by claiming "though it is widely known as <<random canon fact>> but it is not how it actually happened. What happened was <<your homebrew version>>..."
Also about inconsistencies if any exist in official campaign books, 4e ones should be our choice of official version as that is what the cryptic will follow.
0
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
edited November 2012
Despite having no reasoning as why drow equipment doesn't disintegrate in the sun doesn't make that fact non-canon. Lack of lore for explanation of a rule doesn't make the rule non-canon. Missing elements like this has always been a part of a DM's duties - to fill in the gaps to put that personal touch on their campaign. Now, if it were described in detail in lore, that lore would then be canon and when a DM changes that lore (or a rule) for their campaign, it is no longer canon and is instead "homebrew."
Whenever I mention rules and lore of the Forgotten Realms publicly, like I do a lot here in the forums, I always try to state if it is something I use in my campaign. For instance, when I spoke of Lycanthropy in another thread, I made sure to state that I do not use the new ways of how Lycanthropes are now a Race.
So, on that example, the way I use Lycanthropy as a disease is now considered homebrew in 4th edition. Since, in 4th edition, Lycanthropes are now considered a race. The same would be for Aasimars and Tieflings. I use the old ways, which is now "homebrew" for my campaign, since I do not use the 4e official canon rules and lore.
Hope that makes sense!
If ever there is any question of whether something I mention is canon or homebrew, please inquire on that specifically and I'll be happy to clarify! I do not like to spread lore and rules as canon when they are not and strive to make sure I am conveying such properly, as either "in my campaign" or just as it actually is.
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
Yeah regarding times when the novels do not jive with the Game setting
(eg Greedwood's Mystra is alive in his novel series but not in the 4E game system,)
you have to understand there will be inconsistencies and while the novels are to be considered game cannon, sometimes they are not supported or supported in later updates or versions of the game itself. I could be wrong, but last time I checked, Mystra is sadly still dead in 4E gaming?
(It's Waukeen all over again when she was captured in 2E after the Time of Troubles whether she was free or not and was not game canonized for a while later.)
Yeah regarding times when the novels do not jive with the Game setting
(eg Greedwood's Mystra is alive in his novel series but not in the 4E game system,)
you have to understand there will be inconsistencies and while the novels are to be considered game cannon, sometimes they are not supported or supported in later updates or versions of the game itself. I could be wrong, but last time I checked, Mystra is sadly still dead in 4E gaming?
(It's Waukeen all over again when she was captured in 2E after the Time of Troubles whether she was free or not and was not game canonized for a while later.)
The reason she is still dead in 4e source information is just because 4e source stopped being updated while they are now focusing on D&D Next. This also has to do with novels coming out before source information can be updated and published. For Neverwinter here, that goes a bit deeper as NWO is apparently set in its own timeline that will predate current Novels and Source information and lore. As soon as D&D Next comes out, unless NWO proactively updates to current timeline and ruleset-lore, NWO will become a "soft-canon" of the past.
All novels currently in writing are now considered D&D Next ruleset lore.
Personally, I hope NWO is allowed to and does grow and keep updating with the timeline and ruleset-lore and source information. I would love it if NWO would stay "current" and not be a memory of the past.
The reason she is still dead in 4e source information is just because 4e source stopped being updated while they are now focusing on D&D Next. This also has to do with novels coming out before source information can be updated and published. For Neverwinter here, that goes a bit deeper as NWO is apparently set in its own timeline that will predate current Novels and Source information and lore. As soon as D&D Next comes out, unless NWO proactively updates to current timeline and ruleset-lore, NWO will become a "soft-canon" of the past.
All novels currently in writing are now considered D&D Next ruleset lore.
Personally, I hope NWO is allowed to and does grow and keep updating with the timeline and ruleset-lore and source information. I would love it if NWO would stay "current" and not be a memory of the past.
Comments
Many'a-time, the best adventures are the "simplest" with purely focused or even little-to-no lore. I'm sure you will do well and have blast, for really that is all that matters! ;-)
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
More so, it is the way you tell it while keeping your characters realistic.
Knowing that much lore can be bad also. For example, even when I know all this lore, I have to consider what my characters knows while role-playing. So if you ever follow my role-playing, my cleric will end up asking, "Who was Karsus?" and not really listening or caring for your answer when you explain him/her anyways unless he needs to.
Feel free to express your opinions and join the discussion. Though many of them are opinions (and one is free to shape realms according to one's wishes) we are trying to sort out what the cannon is (while sometimes mentioning our own campaigns and how we have dealt with ambiguities). So I would welcome any disagreements if they allow us to determine/guess the cannon story.
EDIT: pffftt I just realized my spelling mistake - cannon instead of canon. But I will let it stand for the lolz so you all can have a laugh too
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
So, plainly speaking, anything Stamped TSR / WotC is Canon as it has been rigorously fact-checked. WotC has, many times, stated how all Novels are fact-checked and continually sent back for corrections. Non-TSR / WotC material is considered "Homebrew." Homebrew is not Canon as it has not been fact-checked by WotC.
As for my posts on the topic of Gods & Lore, everything that was Homebrew, I specifically mentioned as being something in my campaign specifically. Everything else not noted as such, is factual canon.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
Are you saying that canon of 3e is different than canon of 4e so the word is not used more specifically?
Oh! So I hope you agree that drow as a plural is a misnomer, an inaccurate term in usage too :P
But D&D does use drow as plural in most of its novels so common usage triumphs literary history. Just as in this case, they probably should have specified it is canon for 4e (which is what we are discussing - canon of 4e as game's lore will be based on canon of 4e).
But the meaning here canon has "to 4e, specifically forgotten realms" implied to it. Just as D&D Next' canon will have "canon to that edition in question" implied to it.
I'll grant you that as a whole product line Forgotten Realms material is pretty consistent, but let's recognize any inconsistencies for what they are. What I'm suggesting is rather than trying to explain away everything with an unquestionable, canonical truth, embrace that this is the "forgotten" in Forgotten Realms.
I don't understand what you're talking about.
What I am saying is that even if things change from one edition to another, it cannot be argued that whatever is written in 4e pnp books of forgotten realms is not canon to the lore in this game.
What I'm saying is that in the places where a fact is not eminently clear it can be argued such. Even then, I'd say just what's eminently clear is debatable to a certain extent.
And that is why I said in the first place that we are trying to sort out what the canon is by discussion and would like any disagreements to our arguments and conclusions if they allow us to determine/guess the cannon story. Indeed there are loose ends open to interpretation as obvious from the question Zeb put to me about Selune and the elven Lady of Mysteries and Moon; but much of it is not ambiguous and loose ends are tied nicely.
Also, there may be hypothetical instances when for example, some part of the history of elves may be wrongly written which we will only know in 7th or 8th edition, but for now elves will believe and think that their history is written correctly. Hence following the canon for characters to make them consistent with official content will be the right choice.
But you can always Homebrew your own campaign by claiming "though it is widely known as <<random canon fact>> but it is not how it actually happened. What happened was <<your homebrew version>>..."
Also about inconsistencies if any exist in official campaign books, 4e ones should be our choice of official version as that is what the cryptic will follow.
Whenever I mention rules and lore of the Forgotten Realms publicly, like I do a lot here in the forums, I always try to state if it is something I use in my campaign. For instance, when I spoke of Lycanthropy in another thread, I made sure to state that I do not use the new ways of how Lycanthropes are now a Race.
So, on that example, the way I use Lycanthropy as a disease is now considered homebrew in 4th edition. Since, in 4th edition, Lycanthropes are now considered a race. The same would be for Aasimars and Tieflings. I use the old ways, which is now "homebrew" for my campaign, since I do not use the 4e official canon rules and lore.
Hope that makes sense!
If ever there is any question of whether something I mention is canon or homebrew, please inquire on that specifically and I'll be happy to clarify! I do not like to spread lore and rules as canon when they are not and strive to make sure I am conveying such properly, as either "in my campaign" or just as it actually is.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
(It's Waukeen all over again when she was captured in 2E after the Time of Troubles whether she was free or not and was not game canonized for a while later.)
All novels currently in writing are now considered D&D Next ruleset lore.
Personally, I hope NWO is allowed to and does grow and keep updating with the timeline and ruleset-lore and source information. I would love it if NWO would stay "current" and not be a memory of the past.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
Seconded here.