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.
Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"
- Thread starter wingsandsword
- Start date
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.
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
Hero
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
Hero
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
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)
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
Front Range Warlock
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
Legend
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?
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
First Post
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Similar Threads
