Keefe the Thief
Hero
Let them run a game if they want that. Otherwise i would ask them "what about 'this is a Grey Box game taking place in 1357 DR' did you not understand? "
Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"
- Thread starter wingsandsword
- Start date
Let them run a game if they want that. Otherwise i would ask them "what about 'this is a Grey Box game taking place in 1357 DR' did you not understand? "
Jared Rascher
Explorer
I empathize with people having whatever problem they might be having in their campaigns, but I am quite frankly shocked at the outright abuse heaped on Ed Greenwood in this thread.
It makes perfect sense that some designers and authors may not produce material that is to everyone's taste. In fact, I think that is the biggest sticking point that people have in the FR debate, the gap between people that view the setting as having the "job" of being "generic D&D hosting ground," and the people that are fans of the setting divorced of a specific set of rules.
I don't have any problems with players and DMs that don't want the level of detail that the FR offers. Its just a different style of game. Its not right or wrong. I do think that WOTC, and TSR before it, have made a mistake in trying to put the "job" of "generic setting" before the setting itself, given that they allowed it to become more detailed and develop a fan base that was dependant on those details.
On the other hand, it is rather reprehensible to make personal attacks on Ed Greenwood, and to make broad generalizations about his games or his players based on campaign moments taken completely out of context for the express purpose of somehow showing how "wrong" his thinking is.
On top of all of that, one of the saddest things of is is that I rarely see designers that have worked with Ed and have stood on his shoulders building on his work, and not just in the Realms, but on all of the various things that he has contributed to D&D over the years, that never seemed to be moved to defend the man when the long knives come out.
On that note, I have seen the designers at Paizo defend Ed and his long history with the game, but outside of them I've seen only blank space when a paragon of the industry is mauled, personally. I don't care of anyone wants to say "I don't like Ed's NPCs" or "I don't like this about his settings," but the assault to his professionalism, ability to entertain his own friends, and the attacks on his character all really go beyond the pale.
Like the Realms or hate them, defend the 4E version of them or not, but please, don't attack the man in the hopes that it somehow proves your point about the setting he created.
It makes perfect sense that some designers and authors may not produce material that is to everyone's taste. In fact, I think that is the biggest sticking point that people have in the FR debate, the gap between people that view the setting as having the "job" of being "generic D&D hosting ground," and the people that are fans of the setting divorced of a specific set of rules.
I don't have any problems with players and DMs that don't want the level of detail that the FR offers. Its just a different style of game. Its not right or wrong. I do think that WOTC, and TSR before it, have made a mistake in trying to put the "job" of "generic setting" before the setting itself, given that they allowed it to become more detailed and develop a fan base that was dependant on those details.
On the other hand, it is rather reprehensible to make personal attacks on Ed Greenwood, and to make broad generalizations about his games or his players based on campaign moments taken completely out of context for the express purpose of somehow showing how "wrong" his thinking is.
On top of all of that, one of the saddest things of is is that I rarely see designers that have worked with Ed and have stood on his shoulders building on his work, and not just in the Realms, but on all of the various things that he has contributed to D&D over the years, that never seemed to be moved to defend the man when the long knives come out.
On that note, I have seen the designers at Paizo defend Ed and his long history with the game, but outside of them I've seen only blank space when a paragon of the industry is mauled, personally. I don't care of anyone wants to say "I don't like Ed's NPCs" or "I don't like this about his settings," but the assault to his professionalism, ability to entertain his own friends, and the attacks on his character all really go beyond the pale.
Like the Realms or hate them, defend the 4E version of them or not, but please, don't attack the man in the hopes that it somehow proves your point about the setting he created.
I think clearly he must be well able to entertain his own friends, but his GMing is not a good model for general use. In the hands of most GMs his deus-ex-machina interventions by godlike PCs are a really really bad idea. This is definitely a concern of mine.
On another point where he's been criticised, the amount of sex and the free-love ethos in his work doesn't bother me much* (I think it can be easily ignored), though given this it suprises me that "Angry Mothers from Heck" TSR used his world as its signature setting in the 2e era.
*The opening to "Drow of the Underdark" did rather weird me out**. But I don't read Ed's novels, so no problem there. I certainly don't begrudge him his fantasies or lifestyle.
**Mostly because it really had nothing to do with drow. Drow priestesses having kinky sex with summoned Type III demon per some Driz'zt book I recall, would have been fine.
Last edited:
Jared Rascher
Explorer
I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but since you brought this up, my point in mentioning this is, in part, to show that someone took a comment of his, out of context, not having seen the whole however many hour session that was going on, and has extrapolated that every time his players get into trouble Elminster or some other powerful NPC shows up and saves them. Without seeing the entire campaign, its just not possible to make that assumption, and given the fact that I've also heard references to how many times Nain Keenwhistler died, and the fact that many Knights of Myth Drannor have died as well, I don't think its fair to guess at Ed's DMing style based on the fact that he has said that, if you want to, you can once in a while use Elminster to push the plot in a given direction.
Um, I'm going by the accounts of Ed's campaign I've seen, by him, in his own words. If anyone was taking it out of context, he was. Obviously it (NPC intervention) works - for him, and his players. I get the impression that his campaign is more simulationist than gamist, that may be a factor.
If I had to use the GNS theory -- and this is based on what I've read of his campaigns on Candlekeep -- I'd rather say that his campaigns are probably *narrativist*; apparently Ed is still running [houseruled/streamlined] 1E, but whenever the rules stand in the way of creativity/story, story always prevails over them.
I meant Simulation as used in GNS - a focus on exploration of setting & character. As opposed to Gamism - focus on challenging the players to overcome threats/challenges/obstacles and 'win'.
What you describe actually gets shoehorned into Simulation in GNS (so that Narrativism can be confined to 'exploration of Premise'), but that's a different kettle of fish.
The number of times I've heard somebody describe an event, and it not match my recollection of it, or I've heard somebody recount somebody else's description and it not match...is quite high. I simply do not trust people's accounts, even when it's their own, it's way too easy for misinterpretation to occur.
Therefore, I'm reluctant to make any note of what happens in Greenwood's games, and fortunately (or unfortunately), it's not an issue for me, since I don't have to think anything of his games. Not like I'm going to play in them.
Obviously YMMV.
Therefore, I'm reluctant to make any note of what happens in Greenwood's games, and fortunately (or unfortunately), it's not an issue for me, since I don't have to think anything of his games. Not like I'm going to play in them.
Obviously YMMV.
S'mon, as to your comments about "Primal-esque" canon lawyering... as I said in an earlier post, I'm not against changes to canon *if* they benefit the campaign and also make sense (do not violate internal consistency and/or are believable). For example, I'd probably walk out if the DM started with "Alright, guys, you're travelling from Silverymoon to the village of Hommlet to investigate some rumours about a cult of Vecna...". However, if the DM chose to have the bland and generic 8th level local lord replaced with a more interesting NPC, I'd have no objections to that; I do that myself in every campaign (i.e. I read the relevant supplements I own and then pick what I like and change the rest to better fit the campaign).
Of course, if the DM only owns the Grey Boxed Set, I don't expect him to suddenly buy every book that has some lore about Town X. Absence of lore is not what usually troubles me (I *do* have a problem with DMs who don't detail the area at all, and generally don't do NPC descriptions)... rather, what really bugs me is glaring inconsistencies with the canon that are not explained in or out of the story (e.g. a Cormyrean town that's "alway's been a Zhentarim town"). And, of course, that the lore DM chooses to replace the canon with does not feel "Realms-y", e.g. local lords with RW names or homebrewed deities.
So, when you're running a game to FR "veterans", it's good to be familiar with the setting in general, and not just the local area, but I'm not advocating that you should read and own every book to be able to run a FR campaign. If you want to run a FR campaign set in 1357, I'd be totally cool with that.
Of course, if the DM only owns the Grey Boxed Set, I don't expect him to suddenly buy every book that has some lore about Town X. Absence of lore is not what usually troubles me (I *do* have a problem with DMs who don't detail the area at all, and generally don't do NPC descriptions)... rather, what really bugs me is glaring inconsistencies with the canon that are not explained in or out of the story (e.g. a Cormyrean town that's "alway's been a Zhentarim town"). And, of course, that the lore DM chooses to replace the canon with does not feel "Realms-y", e.g. local lords with RW names or homebrewed deities.
So, when you're running a game to FR "veterans", it's good to be familiar with the setting in general, and not just the local area, but I'm not advocating that you should read and own every book to be able to run a FR campaign. If you want to run a FR campaign set in 1357, I'd be totally cool with that.
Hmmm... I thought the "realistic" rules (and physics supported by rules) were an important part of Simulationism, as in such games as Rolemaster or Harn? I may be wrong here, because it's been a while since I read the GNS theory, and I haven't discussed Ed's DMing style with him in person.
Similar Threads
