Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ibrandul" data-source="post: 9045893" data-attributes="member: 6871736">Even &quot;Elminster's Forgotten Realms&quot; includes references to the Spellplague.WotC marketing at the time made &quot;Elminster's Forgotten Realms&quot; sound like it contained an alternate FR based on Greenwood's original vision. There are some photos in that book of archival documents such as original typescripts Greenwood sent to TSR when they bought the setting. A few of the details in those typescripts contradict the &quot;official&quot; version of the Realms. But the vast majority of the book is just more FR lore written by Ed, totally consistent with the published Realms. The book presents &quot;Ed's Realms&quot; mostly just in the sense that it focuses on the kinds of &quot;street-level&quot; (and pure fluff, nonmechanical) things he's celebrated/disdained for emphasizing, with sections on slang, cuisine, trade goods, etc. Ever want to read a full two-columned page about mechanically useless fantasy perfumes? This is the book for you!Anyway, there isn't really a &quot;Greenwood canon.&quot; Or rather, &quot;Greenwood canon&quot; is an overlay on top of &quot;WotC canon,&quot; a supplement and not an alternative to it. When Greenwood answers lore questions, whether on Twitter or elsewhere, he always assumes all published lore as a basis and goes from there—unless he says something like &quot;In my original version of the Realms,&quot; usually after providing a published-Realms answer to the question. Even when there are elements that he publicly dislikes, such as the barely disguised real-world analogues Kara-Tur and Maztica, he still incorporates those elements into &quot;the Realms&quot; when he answers lore questions, though often he'll decline to provide/invent a detailed lore answer when the question pertains to one of those.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ibrandul, post: 9045893, member: 6871736"] Even "Elminster's Forgotten Realms" includes references to the Spellplague. WotC marketing at the time made "Elminster's Forgotten Realms" sound like it contained an alternate FR based on Greenwood's original vision. There are some photos in that book of archival documents such as original typescripts Greenwood sent to TSR when they bought the setting. A few of the details in those typescripts contradict the "official" version of the Realms. But the vast majority of the book is just more FR lore written by Ed, totally consistent with the published Realms. The book presents "Ed's Realms" mostly just in the sense that it focuses on the kinds of "street-level" (and pure fluff, nonmechanical) things he's celebrated/disdained for emphasizing, with sections on slang, cuisine, trade goods, etc. Ever want to read a full two-columned page about mechanically useless fantasy perfumes? This is the book for you! Anyway, there isn't really a "Greenwood canon." Or rather, "Greenwood canon" is an overlay on top of "WotC canon," a supplement and not an alternative to it. When Greenwood answers lore questions, whether on Twitter or elsewhere, he always assumes all published lore as a basis and goes from there—unless he says something like "In my original version of the Realms," usually [I]after [/I]providing a published-Realms answer to the question. Even when there are elements that he publicly dislikes, such as the barely disguised real-world analogues Kara-Tur and Maztica, he still incorporates those elements into "the Realms" when he answers lore questions, though often he'll decline to provide/invent a detailed lore answer when the question pertains to one of those. [/QUOTE]

Verification