Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"

[S'mon]

Re computer games & canon - I haven't played the old 1e-2e FR games. I played Neverwinter Nights and I remember being vaguely surprised that Luskan in the game didn't seem anything like Luskan in some Driz'zt/Icewind Dale book I'd read. I think at the time I'd have preferred 'canon adherence', now I'm more of the mind that the needs of the game outweigh the needs of canon. It's all just ideas in a fictional setting - and not a 'tight' setting like Te'Kumel; FR is basically a generic fantasy sandbox, why not build your own sandcastles.

[S'mon]

BTW reading through this thread again I have been feeling that strong urge I sometimes get to run an FR game, and this thread has given me some good ideas:

Grey Box only
Pay no attention to canon
1357 DR or maybe earlier

And most importantly: Don't use any official ruleset, because I don't want to be constrained by "NPC stat canon", eg unkillable Chosen. 4e might work for a tabletop game, but I like the idea of using Labyrinth Lord (B/X clone), especially for a PBP. That way I could use Elminster, he could be a powerful Wizard with 9th level spells, but no twink-magic, he'd still be vulnerable, making the villains a credible threat. Same for the Simbul etc - I could use them as say 19th level M-Us, capable of threatening Thay, but still vulnerable enough for mid-level PCs to be useful.

[Keefe the Thief]

Thats sounds like an interesting game! Similar to my current Moonsea campaign, though i integrate from the books what i like, follow Pool of Radiance loosely, and use 4e.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Grey Box only
Pay no attention to canon
1357 DR or maybe earlier

Careful! I suggested that and got my competency as a DM, my relationship with my players, my capacity for empathy, my reading comprehension, and my work ethic questioned.

-O

[JeffB]

Finally found myself a copy of the OGB contents complete and in good shape (I sold mine sveral years back) and they are on the way. The 4E FRCG is next up- It seems to be the modern equivalent.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Re computer games & canon - I haven't played the old 1e-2e FR games. I played Neverwinter Nights and I remember being vaguely surprised that Luskan in the game didn't seem anything like Luskan in some Driz'zt/Icewind Dale book I'd read. I think at the time I'd have preferred 'canon adherence', now I'm more of the mind that the needs of the game outweigh the needs of canon.

Ok, so how was Luskan not like the Luskan of the book you read? I've never played Neverwinter Nights myself, so I don't know what it's like in Luskan either.

(And sigh, it seems none of us have any commonality in game experiences)

It's all just ideas in a fictional setting - and not a 'tight' setting like Te'Kumel; FR is basically a generic fantasy sandbox, why not build your own sandcastles.

Some people don't like how sandcastles wash away, and prefer the use of bricks or stone. Even sticks. As long as no Big Bad Wolf's come by anyway...

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by S'mon

BTW reading through this thread again I have been feeling that strong urge I sometimes get to run an FR game, and this thread has given me some good ideas:

Grey Box only
Pay no attention to canon
1357 DR or maybe earlier

And most importantly: Don't use any official ruleset, because I don't want to be constrained by "NPC stat canon", eg unkillable Chosen. 4e might work for a tabletop game, but I like the idea of using Labyrinth Lord (B/X clone), especially for a PBP. That way I could use Elminster, he could be a powerful Wizard with 9th level spells, but no twink-magic, he'd still be vulnerable, making the villains a credible threat. Same for the Simbul etc - I could use them as say 19th level M-Us, capable of threatening Thay, but still vulnerable enough for mid-level PCs to be useful.

At this point, that's the only kind of FR campaign I would play in, though I might make some exceptions for FR1, FR2, FR3, FR5, and FR6 (or maybe just FR1 and FR6, each of which could theoretically serve as its own self-contained setting).

[Hussar]

S'mon, that's not fair and you know it. I most certainly did not call you or anyone else an asshat.

But it is funny that you would absolutely hammer me on the other issue, of "player entitlement" yet give FR canon lawyers the pass. Do you think that it is perfectly acceptable for a player to tell the DM, "No, you're doing it wrong"?

Because, for me, that's what it comes down to. Bumbles, whether you like it or not, that's what you are saying. You are telling the DM that he has changed something about the setting that you do not personally like and that is unnacceptable. Either the DM changes the element back, or you refuse to play.

Does it really matter where you draw the line? You might think your criteria are perfectly reasonable (and I do too for that matter - I agree that your criteria are perfectly reasonable) but, I've been told over and over again on these boards, by people in this thread no less, that the DM has absolute authority over his campaign. That a DM should NEVER allow player wishes or preferences to over ride his or her own.

So, S'mon, back to you, which is it? Should the DM bow to the player or not? Is the DM, as you have so eloquently argued in the past, the absolute master of the campaign or not? If the DM can say, "No X in my campaign", does that include setting canon as well? If not why not? Why is it ok for the DM to absolutely over rule a player in one part of the setting (I don't like X so no X in my campaign) and not in another?

[thecasualoblivion]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Re computer games & canon - I haven't played the old 1e-2e FR games. I played Neverwinter Nights and I remember being vaguely surprised that Luskan in the game didn't seem anything like Luskan in some Driz'zt/Icewind Dale book I'd read. I think at the time I'd have preferred 'canon adherence', now I'm more of the mind that the needs of the game outweigh the needs of canon. It's all just ideas in a fictional setting - and not a 'tight' setting like Te'Kumel; FR is basically a generic fantasy sandbox, why not build your own sandcastles.

Looking back on the 1e-2e FR videogames, some of the canon bits were hysterical. In Curse of the Azure Bonds, both Fzoul Chembryl and Finder Wyvernspur died during the course of the game.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Do you think that it is perfectly acceptable for a player to tell the DM, "No, you're doing it wrong"?

Isn't it? In principle, if not in specific? Or do players have to accept that a DM is always right, and not to be questioned? I know I don't. I can question a decision. I can walk out and leave. This may be unfair of me, or it may be the best decision to avoid a confrontation over something that can't be resolved.

I do the same for players too. There may be times where I'm being questioned, and it's a good thing, and times where it's a bad thing. It happens both ways.

Because, for me, that's what it comes down to. Bumbles, whether you like it or not, that's what you are saying.

Indeed, that is a basically accurate representation of my position though it may not be be completely accurate as to how I perceive it, mind you.

You are telling the DM that he has changed something about the setting that you do not personally like and that is unnacceptable. Either the DM changes the element back, or you refuse to play.

Is there something wrong with saying "I won't enjoy this" when confronted when something I won't enjoy? That doesn't seem fair to me, yet it seems to be implied.

Does it really matter where you draw the line?

Absolutely. Otherwise, I feel you're basically saying I'm not able to form a reasonably opinion, and it seems that you think that I should just obey the mantra of the "DM is Always Right" . The DM can be in the right. The Player(s) can be in the right. Accordingly, the where does matter. They could even both be in the right or the wrong.

You might think your criteria are perfectly reasonable (and I do too for that matter - I agree that your criteria are perfectly reasonable) but, I've been told over and over again on these boards, by people in this thread no less, that the DM has absolute authority over his campaign.

Well, in a sense, they do. This is met by the Players having absolute authority of where they play. It's a case of Unstoppable Force meets Immovable Object.

That a DM should NEVER allow player wishes or preferences to over ride his or her own.

A DM who takes that absolute position is one who I will probably not play with for long. Smart DMs know when they can yield one preference or wish in order to improve the game.

Why is it ok for the DM to absolutely over rule a player in one part of the setting (I don't like X so no X in my campaign) and not in another?

Why is it ok for me to go into a hamburger shop and say "Hold the Ketchup" when I order a burger, and not ok for me to ask for a Pizza*?

Because the two things are different, and where you draw the line matters.

*Of course, there are places where they can serve me a pizza, but let's not tear this analogy into pieces, it's a simplification by necessity, and not something to argue over. If it helps you understand my position better, great, if not, tell me what will.

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Grey Box only
Pay no attention to canon
1357 DR or maybe earlier

I made it perfectly clear to my (4e) group that I would only ever run a Realms game under those exact conditions.

The one player who reads the novels and has a massive collection of 1e/2e FR splats was horrified at the concept, effectively ending the discussion.

So---no Realms for them, I guess.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by Primal

No, I'm saying that if you have veteran FR players (or even DMs) sitting at your table, it might be wise to run a game in one of the undeveloped areas -- just as it would be wise to do that with a group of Eberron fans who know more about Eberron that you -- the DM -- do. Especially if you know they're "diehard" fans.

So in other words, I should place my campaign and adventures in...

The Serpent Hills (east of the High Moor)
The Wood of Sharp Teeth
The Desertedge Mountains (outside the Dales), and
The Nation of Sembia

These will not have any modules or sourcebooks set in them, and are left solely for the DM to develop, without fear of contradiction or invalidation.

...Right?

-O

[Primal]

Originally Posted by wingsandsword

I wouldn't walk out, but it would sure as heck raise my eyebrows.

Personally, I wouldn't think that inserting Hommlet wouldn't be that bad, it would not seriously break Realms canon to insert one extra little village someplace, especially if adapted slightly to the Realms (like putting it in Cormyr and having a Purple Dragon Knight lead the town guard, making the local temples be to Ilmater or Torm instead of St. Cuthbert and so on).

Seriously, in a world that size it isn't a catastrophic canon break to add one little village. Porting over the City of Greyhawk or something, then that's a problem, but the Realms already has an uber-city for adventuring in Waterdeep.

Now, as to the Cult of Vecna, if he is acting like Vecna is already a deity in the Realms I'd ask point-blank if he knows he's changing Realms canon that much and re-think my involvement at that point, but if the plot of the campaign is that some cultists of Vecna have arrived from Greyhawk via spelljamming/planewalking and are trying to set up a beachhead for Vecna to enter the Realms by starting up some cults and getting some worshippers then it would be cool (and be a way to introduce the Hand of Vecna or the Sword of Kas into a Realms campaign).

Oh, I'd be fine with an expeditionary party of Vecna's followers that have come through a portal... however, the DM in question did just plug the ToEE into the middle of the Savage Frontier without any "Realmsification" process (too much work). Therefore, all the Greyhawk lore had "always been part of FR" (including deities). The campaign didn't last long, and I had a hard time swallowing all that.

I agree that ToEE would fit many areas in FR, and would not ever require a lot of modifications (most of the religions and organizations featured in it have suitable FR counterparts). I would probably place it near the Battle of Bones, Reaching Woods, in the North, or the Moonsea area. And to give two examples, Jalanthar or Qheldin's Mask could be used with the Hommlet lore (and maps) pretty easily, as both are small settlements and there's very little official info published about them.

As for Waterdeep, I remember a DM who told me he had replaced it with a pirate city from one of the 'Fighting Fantasy' (I think it was one of them?) books... I really wanted to ask him why Luskan didn't work for him, but decided not to, as I didn't play in the campaign.

[Primal]

Originally Posted by Obryn

So in other words, I should place my campaign and adventures in...

The Serpent Hills (east of the High Moor)
The Wood of Sharp Teeth
The Desertedge Mountains (outside the Dales), and
The Nation of Sembia

These will not have any modules or sourcebooks set in them, and are left solely for the DM to develop, without fear of contradiction or invalidation.

...Right?

-O

Or maybe in one of the small settlements in the Western Heartlands (there are many small settlements there)? Or in the Vast? Or the Border Kingdoms, which have been detailed in 'Power of Faerun' and as free articled on the WoTC site? Those are just quick examples, and there are even whole continents that have not been touched in official Realmslore, if you want to be creative.

I'm not sure why people persist that this is solely a FR-related issue; as I mentioned, I'm sure Eberron veterans would gripe about my lack of canon lore. If you're expecting to make major changes (such as replacing a city or a while kingdom with your own version, or blowing something up, or introducing new deities), I'm quite sure you'd have a problem with fans of *ANY* setting. Even if you're only using a single campaign book, and running the game for a group with similar exposure to official lore, I doubt it would any different if you decide to run your campaign in the same place their previous DM ran several campaigns in -- unless they're not interested in any names or places or maps, you'll likely bump into this very same issue sooner or later ("But I thought it was Lord Blackhand who ruled here? That's what the previous DM said, and there should be no wizards or clerics in this town! And the inn was called 'Majestic Magic-user'!").

I usually try to discuss this with the players, if I don't know them; especially if I'm running my first campaign in a setting (and I usually go for small and remote border settlements). Talking usually always helps, just as it helps to communicate which sort of campaign I want to run and which sort of campaign and with which sort of characters they want to play in.

As I said, not all changes are "bad". At the moment I'm playing in a heavily-modified AoW adventure path set in FR; it's so different (even from the FR conversion notes) and it's hard to recognise. And the DM has made many major changes to canon lore to make it all better fit the campaign (including huge revisions to the history of the Savage Frontier, Netheril and major religions). And it *does* fit the campaign backstory so much better than official lore (and as another DM myself, I'm aware of the number and scope of changes), which is why I don't mind it at all; I might not endorse those changes as the "new lore" in my own campaigns, but they fit that one perfectly. In my Pathfinder playtest campaign I replaced an official town map with the Fallcrest map from the WoTC site, and everyone is okay with that, because the original is... well, I guess it's okay if you're into TSR-era CRPG city maps. Likewise, I wanted to use Kaorti and other Far Realm-related monsters there, so I rewrote centuries of official history for the kingdom.

What I'm trying to say is that it's always best to discuss which sort of "expertise" the players have on the setting, and where they may have played. Then, do some research on the area from those sources you have available, and pick what you like and modify/write the rest. That way you avoid a lot of the issues with players who have more knowledge and experience about the setting (or, at least certain areas) than you do. What do they want? Do they regularly take notes, and enjoy details? How do you prefer to run your games, and how much do you generally use descriptions or drop names? And so on.

[Obryn]

I think you missed my semi-sarcastic point.

Those were the areas firewalled off in the 1e setting, reserved for DMs, which were later ... um ... detailed. Particularly Sembia.

-O

[Primal]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

and what I am saying is if you want people to 'get into' the realms you need to stop all of that way of thinking...or it will be a dead setting. Luckly WotC thought of that and bang 100 year jump.

You see your whole post screams "GO over there adults play in this section"

Alright, maybe I was a bit too snarky with underlining and all, but I've tried to get my point across several times and it feels frustrating when we're all apparently miscommunicating. Again, I don't think it's any different from Eberron, Greyhawk, Planescape, Mystara, Dragonlance, etcetera; diehard fans are diehard fans, regardless of the setting. Yes, they did what they did (and I'll not dwell on that) with 4E FR, but for some reason they thought 15+ books and dozens of internet articles did not require the same with Eberron (and using the line of thought usually applied to FR, someone could also ask if he's supposed to buy and read them all to "properly" run Eberron? Because that's a lot of pages, too.). Yet, do I actually need to read more than ECG to run a campaign there, at least in some less-detailed area? If not, why can't you do that with 3E FR?

I'm not so sure if WoTC is happy with the sales of 4E FR... and whether they're happy with the decisions they made. I doubt it. So maybe it will end up a "dead setting" anyway.

[Primal]

Originally Posted by Obryn

I think you missed my semi-sarcastic point.

Those were the areas firewalled off in the 1e setting, reserved for DMs, which were later ... um ... detailed. Particularly Sembia.

-O

I did, but replied anyway (it was also a sort of a "generic" reply, too). Not all of Sembia is detailed... you could run a campaign set in Mulhessen or Kulta, for example. And I think 3E FRCS has a very good generic "overview" on Sembia.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Hussar

But it is funny that you would absolutely hammer me on the other issue, of "player entitlement" yet give FR canon lawyers the pass.

I don't, I'm on the anti-canon-lawyer side, here. Maybe I'm just too polite.

I'm in favour of players being open-minded and being willing to at least try a game, see if they like it. Eg I had a lower opinion of FR until I played an FR game that used no canon NPCs, it helped me see the potentialities of the setting. Conversely I don't expect GMs to be open-minded re player requests.

For me, best practice is:

1. GMs - run what excites you. Don't be afraid to say no.
2. Players - try it, you might like it.

Obviously if a player has tried and disliked something already, they don't have to keep putting their toe in the fire.

[TwinBahamut]

Originally Posted by Primal

Yes, they did what they did (and I'll not dwell on that) with 4E FR, but for some reason they thought 15+ books and dozens of internet articles did not require the same with Eberron (and using the line of thought usually applied to FR, someone could also ask if he's supposed to buy and read them all to "properly" run Eberron? Because that's a lot of pages, too.). Yet, do I actually need to read more than ECG to run a campaign there, at least in some less-detailed area? If not, why can't you do that with 3E FR?

For the whole Eberron vs. the Realms thing...

The big difference is that all the novels are officially nan-canonical, and that the stories of the novels are all explicitly supposed to not mess with the setting. The authors are forbidden from doing things like restarting the Last War and wiping out Aundair. I'm not sure how well the novels stick to the idea (I never read any of them), but that is nonetheless the way the novels were pitched to the fanbase back when Eberron was first released. In a sense, Eberron is a setting that is rooted in a particular point in time, which is one of the big reasons there was a big fan outcry against the idea of moving forward with the timeline in the transition to 4E.

Also, the way things are phrased in the Eberron setting book itself is designed to make the setting as open and flexible as possible, so that there are more mysteries than hard answers, and some mysteries that were designed to never be answered. There was a lot of supplemental material afterwards, but I personally have always considered it to be totally optional, and not all that necessary for getting in to the heart of the setting (especially since some of it gives more detail than it should).

Finally, the most important reason a lot of these things I just mentioned were done is to explicitly make Eberron different than the Forgotten Realms. The people at WotC were quite open about acknowledging that the path they were taking with Eberron was deliberately different than the way they built the Realms around canon, partly because there was such a large part of the D&D fanbase that felt like it was too hard to get into the Realms, and WotC wanted to sell a setting that was easier to get into.

I guess, it can be said that if any canon lawyers exist for Eberron, it is despite the best efforts of the setting, and their existence runs contrary to some of the goals of the setting itself. What is more, there are extremely important areas of the setting where no amount of canon lawyering will affect the DM's campaign, since the canon simply doesn't exist. The same can't be said of the Forgotten Realms, which is why there is a perceived problem.

[JeffB]

Well having got my OGB materials today and reading through a good chunk of them again after many years, It sure is apparent that the FR of 1987 was a fantastic DM toolkit. One thing I was reminded of is the sheer SIZE of the continent- it's HUGE - before the Novels and computer games and deluge of 2E Complete Handbook of Western Sembia's Mage's Undershorts type books there was a TON of room for the DM to play with. And plenty of "mystery/make it up yourself" areas.

On the flip-side you can see where the Realms set itself up as the "detailed to death/PC's are not terribly important in the grand scheme of things" Campaign Setting. The books are chock full of NPC's & Gods. Obviously many are meant as foils or helpers to the PC's, but it gave me a very bad feeling reading through them- a harbinger of doom so to speak. The Gods are even mentioned as bing very active in the world, and I think that's always been a big issue- these Gods are portrayed/written as bigger badder NPCs, when THAT info and those kinds of stories (in RPG products) should be minimal,and the PLOTS AND ACTIONS OF THE CHURCHES AND FAITHFUL are far more important for a RPG supplement's utility. The NPCs of course have the same issue, though in less grand fashion. I DONT CARE ABOUT SEMMEMOM's/MANSHOONS/FZOULS PERSONAL MANNERISMS & CHOICE OF CLOTHING- but I DO care about the plots they are hatching.

If you can ignore all that BS about the NPCs/Gods being super characters- the rest of the world makeup/detail and potential is really fantastic.