hawkeyefan
Legend
So, according to TSR and WotC, anything Greenwood writes or says about the Realms is canon until contradicted by WotC (or TSR back in the day). That is 100% true. It's part of the agreement that Greenwood made for selling the rights to FR to TSR. So, right there, the Greenwood novels are 100% canon. Anything that Greenwood wrote in Dragon, or anything he contributed to any website is 100% canon.
Note, up until very, very recently, EVERYTHING published for Star Wars was canon. Granted, the EU had a number of levels of canon, but, it was all still canon. The Fantastic Four partnering up with Luke Skywalker is canon in the EU. You might not like it, but, it is canon. (Also some rather silly stories with a talking rabbit, but, I digress)
Canon isn't a la carte. The novels, unless specifically called out, are 100% canon. The modules, again, unless specifically called out, are 100% canon. EVERYTHING published for the Realms, including the Baldur's Gate games (I'm not sure about the old Gold Box stuff) is 100% canon. This is official.
Again, you might not like it, but, that doesn't change it's nature.
This may be true. Obviously, many people may see it differently. I can definitely accept your view of it.
But I think something that must go hand in hand with it, and which can trump the view of canon, is the importance of canon to the individual or the gaming group. Maybe this is a matter of semantics....I don't know, let me know if you think so....but if I personally don't really care about being faithful to canon, then what actually is or isn't canon doesn't really matter, right?
This is why I am always a bit baffled when conversations take this turn here on the site....because I am willing to toss aside any "canonical" element that I find to be an obstacle. So to me, the view that any setting has flaws that cannot be overcome, is a bit odd.
Now, I say that and at the same time, I certainly have setting preferences. But those settings that I don't really enjoy? I don't have an aversion to them. I certainly don't hate them. I just prefer other settings. But if for whatever reason, Mystara was the only setting that WotC was producing material for, I really wouldn't have a problem with it. I'd either play in Mystara or I'd take the Mystara based elements and swap them out for whatever setting I wanted to use.
I feel like that's another part of my confusion on this....90% of the D&D settings are similar enough for such changes to be easy. Greyhawk, Realms, Mystara, Ebberon, Birthright, Dragonlance, Nentir Vale.....and so on......they're all so interchangeable. I freely take whatever I like from one, and put it in another if need be.
I always thought that's what most people would do....threads like this remind me that's not the case.
By the same token, one of the bigger criticisms I saw of CA:TWS, is, where is Tony Stark or Thor? I mean, they drop a bloody Helicarrier into the bay and Tony's what, having cocktails?
The Netflix stuff handles this really well actually. None of the plotlines of the stories (Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron Fist) are global. They're all very, very local. It's entirely plausible that Thor doesn't show up to handle, say, The Hand. They're just not high enough on the radar (compared to say, dropping a Helicarrier out of the sky, or a giant floating structure hanging over London - a la Thor) to register. Fair enough. I can buy that Thor isn't concerned with The Kingpin.
But, there's the rub isn't it? In the 5e modules, we're not talking about local threats. We have flying bloody castles and dragons threatening the Sword Coast with releasing Tiamat. That's pretty high on the radar. So, it's not really that unreasonable to wonder just where Elminister et al are during all of this. Particularly in a setting where high double digit level NPC's are not particularly rare. I mean, Waterdeep has how many high level NPC's in it? I don't actually know beyond, more than 2. And Waterdeep is directly being threatened here. Yet, there's no mobilization.
I'm not sure why this is seen as such a completely unreasonable criticism.
I don't think it's unreasonable. I just think that it's easily resolved. For many, it won't even be an issue....no one playing even cares where Elminster is. Problem solved before it is even a problem, in this case. My players don't care about Elminster at all, and never expect him to show up, nor to they ever even consider going to him for help.
For other tables, it may be an issue, but it's one the DM can avoid. If you're running Tyranny of Dragons, and your players say "hey, where's Elminster in all this?", really all you have to reply with is "That's a good question....where is he?" and it's implied that something must have happened to him. Then you can continue on without even worrying about it.
Or, you can go one step further, and actually come up with a reason he's not involved. Let's say the Cult of the Dragon knew he would be an issue, so they dispatched some high level mages to deal with him, and he's been captured/killed/banished and cannot help with what's happening on the Sword Coast.
Or, you can go two steps further, and come up with a reason he's not involved, and then make that part of your adventure. This would require a good deal of work on the DMs part, but some may like doing that, and it's certainly not required.
And I think this is again a reason why I don't think the criticism is all that strong, even if I recognize it as reasonable; you can involve your game in Realms lore as much or as little as you like. Played exactly as written, Tyranny of Dragons is a Realms game, but I don't think Elminster is ever a consideration (I only own the first book, so I could be wrong). A DM who is in the know can make passing mention of such characters. Or a DM who really thinks it will help his game or be cool for his players, can add these elements into the game.
Any level you go with...it's a game in the Realms.