quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanishiver

quote:

---

Originally posted by GothicDan

I really dislike how the newer novels "feel like a game."

---

For perspective, it's worth noting how fans ***for years*** have whined, complained and publicly insulted novel authors for not 'following the rules'.

Now we see one or more authors trying to reflect game rules in the novels....and so we have criticism of that (and to be clear, it's mature, smart criticism so far).

It's rule of life reflected in publishing decisions: If a publisher like WotC listens to fan group A, then they end up upseting fan group B, and vice-versa.

Interesting.

J. Grenemyer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GothicDan

Mind you, I'll hardly say that the old material didn't have inconsistencies in it - but I think it wasn't quite as often, and they didn't retcon things as much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FridayThe13th

Third Edition just completly contradicted almost everything in the previous ones and made HUGE changes to the game.

---

quote:

---

This seems likes a case of rose-tinted glasses. Although I'm hardly an unbiased observer, I think there were just as many retcons/inconsistencies/RSEs in the "old days" as there are now. We've just done a decent job incorporating them over time, time we haven't had yet for the newer ones.

Just an opinion.

---

quote:

---

For perspective, it's worth noting how fans ***for years*** have whined, complained and publicly insulted novel authors for not 'following the rules'.

Now we see one or more authors trying to reflect game rules in the novels....and so we have criticism of that (and to be clear, it's mature, smart criticism so far).

It's rule of life reflected in publishing decisions: If a publisher like WotC listens to fan group A, then they end up upseting fan group B, and vice-versa.

Interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GothicDan

I really dislike how the newer novels "feel like a game." The older writing seemed more 'normal' fantasy; now when I'm reading newer novels (not all of them, cough, thanks Steve!, I find myself rolling my eyes at how blatantly D&D things are. Blatantly FR is fine and good and I want it! But, not "zomg this is SO D&D."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ericlboyd
This seems likes a case of rose-tinted glasses. Although I'm hardly an unbiased observer, I think there were just as many retcons/inconsistencies/RSEs in the "old days" as there are now.

---

quote:

---

We've just done a decent job incorporating them over time, time we haven't had yet for the newer ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GothicDan
I've always known that I've been in the minority as far as this sort of stuff has gone. :)

---

quote:

---

I don't get that impression; these books are certainly above the level of adventure journals. However I think back to the first Dragonlance trilogy, the Icewind Dale books, the first Spellfire tale and remember how those characters and worlds came alive without me having to know anything about the setting. I don't think I can say the same about some of the recent FR books. I'm a huge fan of FR lore and love roleplaying in the setting. But a recent story had lost me with a barrage of references.

---

quote:

---

I don't think the evidence indicates that you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GothicDan

[quote]And I'm a fan of random references that leave me going "what was that!?" Because, often, info-dumps and random bits of explanation detract from the writing rather than add to it. ("I was born in Shadowdale, a little dale in the Heartlands, known primarily for being a farming community, blah blah blah" - BAD.)

---

quote:

---

That's because you're probably well-informed fan. You already know how Shadowdale "feels" like. For a new reader the name means about as much as "Pumpkinville". I'm a fan too, but I need more than just name-dropping to draw me into a story.

---

quote:

---

I'm not quite sure what "info-dump" means exactly, because any story is a body of information, albeit fictional information. I'm not looking for footnoted explanations of every person, place, or thing. What I'm saying is that these books would be stronger stories if they could stand on their own. I don't want to have to look up a sourcebook to understand an important plot point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RodOdom

I'm not quite sure what "info-dump" means exactly, because any story is a body of information, albeit fictional information. I'm not looking for footnoted explanations of every person, place, or thing. What I'm saying is that these books would be stronger stories if they could stand on their own. I don't want to have to look up a sourcebook to understand an important plot point.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadCatMan
* Something to make those Eberron fans stop bugging us about this, that and everything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yokinobu
Yep, you just came back from that FR or Eberron thread.
(I did too.)

---

I really didn't want to bring this up, but as I skimmed the Eberron vs. FR tread mentioned previously, I noticed a few points relevant to this discussion.

Basically, FR is getting ripped to bloody shreds in that thread. As much as some of it is just irreconcilable subjective favoritism due to in-group/out-group thrashing (on both sides might I add), some of the points do make sense. Viewing the arguments from both sides, they do have a few criticisms in rough agreement.

Most of the problems (the holes in the setting, etc.) seem to be a result of TSR's legacy of mismanagement and WotC's more recent tampering and inconsistencies. Criticisms include:
- Internal inconsistencies (see below).
- Massive retcons (everything from single characters, places, or events to the whole cosmology itself).
- Constant RSEs.
- Tag on expansions due to marketing reasons.
- Regions that are uninspired direct real world parallels (related to tag-ons and marketing).
- Illogically little influence between subcontinents, Faerun/Kara-Tur/Zakhara (related to the last two points above).
- Definitive mechanical write-ups of gods (not just the avatars, but the actual gods).
- Printing similar stats for NPCs, especially the powerful or unique ones who are not meant to be.
- Inflated CRs, due to bad/incorrect/illogical NPCs builds and unnecessarily high CR NPCs. Can't it just be said that Larloch is always more powerful then the PCs, does it matter if Larloch is 29th, 32nd or 46th level, it leads to a NPC CR arms race.
- Too much focus on certain NPCs, often ones who aren't good examples of the typical.
- Focus on flavor of the month (more like a decade) races such as the drow (who are actually only a small part of the setting).
- Little attention to more standard races such as halflings, gnomes and even dwarves to some extent.

Are all of these complaints valid? Probably not, but if any of them are, they should be addressed. Most of these seem to be due to company level (as opposed to designer level) tampering with the setting, marketing moves, sales figures, material for the sake of popularity. FR is perhaps a victim of its own success.

Several subcontinents were addons, pasted into the setting with little regard for lore and logic other than for marketing reasons, because FR was popular and would help sell the new settings. This makes the setting inconsistent in tone, are there supposed to be direct Earth parallels or are there not. If most players practically ignore them, the designers practically ignore them, and even the company practically ignores them why are they were in the Realms instead of being their own settings?

Elminster and other powerful NPCs were supposed to be background flavor elements, reality obscured in legends, semi-mythical figures. Elminster was to be a narrator for sourcebooks and novels. Stats were not supposed to exist for him, perhaps nothing other than a vague line ("powerful ancient wizard"). Chosen templates, spellfire, moonblades, etc were novel elements. Yet people wanted to know too much and wanted this stuff to be available to PCs, so it was published as such.

More recently, FR books have had terrible editing for NPC stats. Too much focus on sections of the setting there are not supposed to be that dominating, such as Drow or the return of Shade. There are RSE that shake up the place then seem to fade into the background. Needlessly rearranging the pantheon in the ToT, senselessly tagged on Tuigan Invasion, return of Shade, the Elven Crusade, the Dragon Rage. All of these are given nods, but the real ramifications don't seem to be discussed enough. Meanwhile things like the return of Bane and the Harper schism are present but not given explanations or details. And the most glaring of changes, the altered cosmology is treated as always being there.

I like the Realms because of the hard working creator, designers, and authors who put effort into making the setting a interesting place with lots of well thought out history with a consistent atmosphere. At the same time, the setting is burdened with many things. Some older products were so poorly integrated into the main setting that many, including the company and the designers ignore them, so why not remove or update them with appropriate effort. Bad policies have trampled all over the Realms causing inconsistencies. FR is being Swiss cheesed with problematic holes in the same way DC Comics is with their continuity problems, infinite retcons do not make a good setting. The setting is giving mixed messages to both long time fans and new players alike.

Why are the core areas of FR popular and the fringe areas not? Why are some metaplot elements applauded, yet some are disputed and decried so openly and fervently on these boards and elsewhere? If analyzed, a discernable pattern can probably be seen, many of these questions can be answered by tracing back to some of the perceived problems listed above. The formula for FR’s greatest successes is still there; just don't let distractions muddle it up. Otherwise, everyone loses; the fans, the newcomers, the designers, and the company.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GothicDan
An important plot point... No.

What specific example are you referring to, exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archwizard

I posted my comments on a similar thread on the WotC FR boards (reposted below). I will add one more thing, it is interesting to note that outsiders to the setting, either those who like other settings more or simply don't like the Realms, see some of the same exact problems with the setting as those who understand the setting, at least those with a moderate degree of comprehension. I do not think that is a coincidence.

---

quote:

---

Are all of these complaints valid? Probably not, but if any of them are, they should be addressed. Most of these seem to be due to company level (as opposed to designer level) tampering with the setting, marketing moves, sales figures, material for the sake of popularity. FR is perhaps a victim of its own success.

---

quote:

---

The formula for FR’s greatest successes is still there; just don't let distractions muddle it up. Otherwise, everyone loses; the fans, the newcomers, the designers, and the company.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RodOdom

quote:

---

Originally posted by GothicDan
An important plot point... No.

What specific example are you referring to, exactly?

---

For example, in Blackstaff some well-known characters appear without much explanation about their identity or signficance. Sememmnon and later Alustriel. I get the impression these books are written more and more just for us long-time fans, and for some reason that loses me, despite being a fan too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanishiver

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Schend

...who asks J. to email him offlist if it'll be awkward to air such discussions in public

---

No problem I can probably do that tonight (after regular DnD Game Night is over) or tomorrow after work.

All the same I'm glad you're writing Realmslore and apologize if mine and Dan's discussion of your prior work history offended!

J. Grenemyer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand

if the physical description

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin

And we have to consider the fact that some of the novels deserve a more deep knowledge of the setting. Lord of the Rings was open to all, but Unfinished Tales demands more from the reader, only to use a non-Realms example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RodOdom

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand

if the physical description

---

That's not what I'm talking about.

---

quote:

---

For example, in Blackstaff some well-known characters appear without much explanation about their identity or signficance. Sememmnon and later Alustriel. I get the impression these books are written more and more just for us long-time fans, and for some reason that loses me, despite being a fan too

---