Forgotten Realms - What happened to Tilverton in DR 1372?

[ruleslawyer]

I can understand the need to have something massive occur in a game/setting, but seriously, FR seems to have had so many shocks to its system that it needs to go on life support.

Then again, there's just so much stuff that's been done to the Realms that any initial appeal the setting had for me (back in the original grey box days) was just lost.

Yeah, I agree, although the point needs to be made that the setting is what you make of it, and in the case of the Realms, it seems like the solution is easy: Ignore what you don't want, and save some bucks on supplements and novels.

I've run an FR campaign for about 17 years, and I'm pretty well up on the source material, but I must say that the entire idea of "canon" is an absurd crock applied to a game world. I see your point, KaeYoss, in that it's very important for the DM and the players to share a common image of their campaign setting; this is one of the advantages of using the Realms as opposed to a homebrew, after all. However, especially with the proliferation of FR sourcebooks and novels, it's become vital to me to have some say over what happens in my game, and to differentiate what happens in my game from what Troy Denning, or any other FR writer, has happen in his novels. I'll give you an example of some FR developments that I simply reject outright or spin strongly:

1) Arrogant racist sun elves. So we go from "Gold Elves tend to be recognized
as the most civilized of the elven subraces and the most aloof from mankind" to "gold elves are a bunch of racial supremacist b*stards." Not my bag; I had my fill of annoyingly short-sighted, racist elves with Dragonlance, thank you. So EC's racist sun elves don't have a big presence IMC.

2) Harper characterizations. We go from a loose-knit, albeit long-sighted, group of careful meddlers to a sharply organized bunch of sometimes rash do-gooders, and then split off all the more insighful individuals into a new secret society. Again, I don't care if it's in the novels or even in the sourcebooks; doesn't go IMC.

3) Realms-shattering events. Fine; others might like the Avatar trilogy. I even DMed those modules for one group. Nonetheless, outside that group's campaign history, the ToT didn't happen. Likewise, the Return of the Shades didn't happen; Shadow Weave Magic is an insidious art practiced by some scattered groups of spellcasters (including the wizards of Ironfang Keep, some Red Wizards, and a few others), but not the province of a gigantic empire of evil Netherese. The surviving Netherese get Ed's recommended treatment; they're scattered throughout the Realms, mostly undead, insane, or in stranger shapes (wonderform, etc.); there's no great return of the archwizards, and the phaerimm are still locked under Anauroch where they belong.

Note that the absence of the above doesn't bother my players in the least. Moreover, hard dates, times, and facts are really rather against the spirit of the Realms (or at least Ed's version) in the first place; it's all about rumor, legend, and conjecture rather than hard data.

 

[Arnwyn]

and to differentiate what happens in my game from what Troy Denning, or any other FR writer, has happen in his novels. I'll give you an example of some FR developments that I simply reject outright or spin strongly:
/lots of great stuff snipped/

Preach on, brother!

I, too, have DMed FR for more than a decade, and all those are fantastic ideas, and (quite the coincidence) the exact same things I have done.

Yet more reasons for me to ignore all the (crappy, IMO) novels and their (crappy, IMO) effects on the Realms.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I know you players' side: I read a lot of FR-novels, and all 3e-Rulebooks (except Serpent Kingdoms, which I am reading at the moment), so I know a good deal more about the Realms than my DM's. Whenever something is handled differently, I want to tell the DM "that's not how it's supposed to run". But of course I don't. After all, it's our world now, and the details aren't that important (especially if they don't have anything to do with the current plot.)

The only time I mention something is when they screw something up big time, but then usually only like "that isn't actually like that" more for the DM's information than as a request to change it.

As a player, my main problem is when the DM alters something that would be common knowledge to the PC's IC. My current DM runs a FR game, yet has no real idea of FR. He's foggy on the old stuff, but knows nothing of the new stuff. We just started the game not too long ago, and he's not using the Time of Troubles, fine.

But he also has no idea of what's in the North, when we mention something common knowledge ("Well, Lady Alustriel is lady of Silverymoon, she's a good example of a charismatic wizard" ) he doesn't know, and then says his FR isn't going to be like normal FR...
It'd be nice if our characters had some idea of what was around them and really that's the main purpose behind choosing a pre-gen world, a common ground to start from.

 

[ruleslawyer]

dreaded_beast: I have a suggestion for you, if you haven't already committed to an existing campaign: Start the campaign in 1356 or 1357 DR, using the picture of the Realms and the news and rumours included in the 1e FR gray box set (which is easily available for $5 as an ESD... yadda yadda yadda) as a springboard. Your players will recognize the setting, as the dramatis personae (with the exception of the ruling structures of Cormyr and Tethyr) are the same, and the setting is physically and culturally identical. However, you can then play forward from that date and decide how the big Realms-shattering events (the ToT, the Horde, the discovery of (ugh) Maztica, the destruction of the Sharnwall, the obliteration of Tilverton, etc etc) take place, if at all. It also allows you to get some real use out of all that "out-of-date" 1e/2e FR product, and to reject or defer purchasing any new stuff that comes out.

Just a thought...

 

[Darth K'Trava]

We don't deal with the Time of Troubles. It's already passed in our timeline. We're in the year 1373. And the cause of the obliteration of Tilverton? Our party's fault. But not directly. We took out Gargauth under the town, unbeknownst to us, but knownst to the DM (obviously). A plague (pulled from the BOVD) took out Tezir (we knew of this). So when our PCs' respective gods/goddesses asked what our group would like to do with our teeny, tiny sliver of divinity, we chose to restore Tezir back to its orignal form. It was only after that we found out about Tilverton but it was too late to do anything about it.

Now our game is past what's even in the Players Guide to Faerun, so it's all conjecture and not realms history at this point.

 

[mythusmage]

Shriners' convention. Place hasn't been the same since.

 

[Invictikore]

You all are all wrong.

Spoiler

Everyone in Tilverton made to mistake of going to the Starbucks in Shadowdale at the same time and they are all still there, waiting in line.

Now that is truly horrifying

 

[Kae'Yoss]

says his FR isn't going to be like normal FR...

That's the worst sort. They're not even reading the FRCS (not even the relevant parts, like the write-up of the country the campaign is going to take place in, or the organizations the party will have to deal with) and then the players have to put up with some "forgotten realms" that aren't actually the Realms, but some lands that stole a bunch of names from the real realms.

To all guilty DM's: It's perfectly OK to use your own world, but don't pretend it's something else, then. Go ahead, and say it's not the Realms....

I've run an FR campaign for about 17 years, and I'm pretty well up on the source material, but I must say that the entire idea of "canon" is an absurd crock applied to a game world.

I have to disagree. The Canon is a great thing: It makes the game world a living one instead of a dead one. That's the biggest problem I have with Middle Earth: it's agreat world, but it's officially over.

The Realms, on the other hand, is history in progress. It evolves farther and farther, which is good for DM's, for it supplies them for the events in other places that happen simultaneously with the deeds the players do. As the Realms are meant to supply you with a wealth of information about the world (rather than letting you create the world from scrats) and thus concentrate on what really matters: the details about the player's environment. So the Realms not only offer you a past to build upon, but also a present.

Of course, you ignore the stuff that happens in the place your campaign takes place, replace it by the player's deeds, or fit it into what happens in *your* realms. But as someone said: the past is just another place, and why care about what happens on other places?

If you say "canon is absurd" then you should better not use any material at all - you don't want to let anyone tell you what happened to the netherese, for you want to determine that yourself, right?

I see your point, KaeYoss, in that it's very important for the DM and the players to share a common image of their campaign setting; this is one of the advantages of using the Realms as opposed to a homebrew, after all. However, especially with the proliferation of FR sourcebooks and novels, it's become vital to me to have some say over what happens in my game, and to differentiate what happens in my game from what Troy Denning, or any other FR writer, has happen in his novels.

You always have the last word in that. The canon is most useful right after the start of the campaign - you can use most of it with only a few changes to let your story fit into the realms. When your game's in progress, you'll have to alter the stuff that directly affects your story. But what if you want to start another campaign, which takes place in 1373, and not 1359? Without the events described in Canon, you'll have to write all the events of 14 years of realms history rather than rewrite those parts that don't fit.

I'll give you an example of some FR developments that I simply reject outright or spin strongly: 1) Arrogant racist sun elves. So we go from "Gold Elves tend to be recognized as the most civilized of the elven subraces and the most aloof from mankind" to "gold elves are a bunch of racial supremacist b*stards." Not my bag; I had my fill of annoyingly short-sighted, racist elves with Dragonlance, thank you. So EC's racist sun elves don't have a big presence IMC.

I agree. The sun elven race as a whole should not be portrayed as racist supremacists. But of course, every race, culture, organization or other group of individuals has its black sheep, and the gold sheep amongst the black elves (uhm - vice versa, of course), are likely to have the "bad versions" of their race's traits: civilised becomes supremist, aloof from mankind becomes racist. And as so often, those individuals are more vocal than the good-natured majority, and a lot of people who can't look beyond those few, but very vocal, black sheep, will perceive the whole race as supremist racists

Realms-shattering events.

What's so bad about big events? I might understand if someone said that there are too much of them, but big events happen from time to time. New inventions change the world and the people, empires are born and crumble, world wars scar the face of the world for years, plagues decimate the population..... They may not happen twice a year, but they do happen.

 

[daTim]

In our campaign it was destroyed by the Shades floating city Deathstar style... not as lame as it sounds I promise!

 

[ruleslawyer]

I have to disagree. The Canon is a great thing: It makes the game world a living one instead of a dead one. That's the biggest problem I have with Middle Earth: it's agreat world, but it's officially over.

You and I may not be using the same definition of "canon," KaeYoss. "Canon," to my mind, is the notion that the Realms is a shared universe with many authors AND that everything that "happens" in a Realms sourcebook or novel is meant to be applied literally to the development of the setting by all DMs who subscribe to the Realms franchise. That is NOT a good way to build a campaign setting.

If you say "canon is absurd" then you should better not use any material at all - you don't want to let anyone tell you what happened to the netherese, for you want to determine that yourself, right?

Not true. I'm happy if the events set forth in the setting offer me guidelines as to possible developments rather than hard-and-fast happenings that influence vast areas in my campaign world. Note the enormous difference between Ed's take on the Netherese (found here ) and the RotA trilogy.

My point isn't that people shouldn't write novels and sourcebooks that take place after 1356, or that change the setting, but that a philosophy that states that all of this is "official" and thus to be swallowed whole is not a good one. IOW, "canon" is an absurd idea because of what it traditionally means: That there is a right and orthodox set of campaign materials, including, sadly enough, the novels, and a wrong take on the campaign, which is everything else.

You always have the last word in that. The canon is most useful right after the start of the campaign - you can use most of it with only a few changes to let your story fit into the realms. When your game's in progress, you'll have to alter the stuff that directly affects your story. But what if you want to start another campaign, which takes place in 1373, and not 1359? Without the events described in Canon, you'll have to write all the events of 14 years of realms history rather than rewrite those parts that don't fit.

And I'm happy to do that minus the ToT, the RotA, the unification of Tethyr, and anything else I don't want, thank you. What I don't appreciate is an attitude, whether on the part of meddlesome players or other DMs, that it's somehow "wrong" if I do so, which is where I think the whole idea of "canon" goes.

What's so bad about big events? I might understand if someone said that there are too much of them, but big events happen from time to time. New inventions change the world and the people, empires are born and crumble, world wars scar the face of the world for years, plagues decimate the population..... They may not happen twice a year, but they do happen.

It's a problem when (a) there are too many of them; (b) they're difficult to work around for DMs; and (c) they lead to the proliferation of things that are already over-abundant in the setting (gods, magic, drow); (d) they wreak havoc with established themes of the setting; and (e) they take place as monolithic, vast offstage events in which your own PCs can't really involve themselves, rather than providing opportunities for greater adventure. (The ToT is a notable exception to the last, because at least you could have run your PCs through the modules.)

By the above standards, there are a great number of RSEs that bother me, including the RotA, the ToT, and the emergence of the Cormanthor drow, none of which I feel help the setting, and all of which radically alter it.