Unfortunately I don't think there's anything Paizo can do about "canon lawyers". Doesn't matter what you do, or how well you do it, there's always going to be some jerk that wants to nit-pick it. Just have to hit the figurative "ignore" button and get on with your life.
M
Unfortunately I don't think there's anything Paizo can do about "canon lawyers". Doesn't matter what you do, or how well you do it, there's always going to be some jerk that wants to nit-pick it. Just have to hit the figurative "ignore" button and get on with your life.
M
Speaking from the perspective of a canon chronicler, I would have to agree. It's both a good and a bad thing. Running games, or even playing in them, can be made difficult by such individuals. On the other hand, it indicates the setting is not only enjoyable but successful; such individuals wouldn't exist if they didn't adore the setting in the first place. Unfortunately it's simply something that will arise in any "living" campaign, any setting that sees continual updates and expansion. Even a home brew setting would suffer such a fate, if it where to be exposed to a significant market.
I've known a fair number of folks that think the same way as you do, ggroy, but none of them have been able to put forth a method to limit such behavior. It's something I've thought about as well, having lost a few players in such situations. I've not come up with anything either, at least not on the developer's end of things.
Ultimately, I think the only limiting factor that can have any real impact on such behavior is the GM and other players; Paizo can't do anything about it. Speak with those you see as "canon lawyers", explain that you're not going to focus on the canon, that your primary goal is to have fun. Tell them you're likely to deviate from the setting's lore, and they need to deal with it. You may lose some of these players then and there. Others will be fine with playing from the perspective of the GM being the ultimate authority on the setting for your campaign. Some of these might still make a fuss, in which case don't invite them back.
Canon lawyers can only impede the game if you allow them to. Remove them from the situation, and enjoy your setting of choice as you see fit. They'll either change their ways, start their own games, or take their discussions where you don't have to deal with them.
I obsessively follow canon as far as it relates to Golarion's planes. It's the sort of thing I'd offer continuity checking for free on.
As far as other areas of canon, I try to keep up on it, and if I'm writing about something it's just standard to cull the various books that touch the subject and make sure I have a solid grasp on them before I do much more than brainstorm. Anything less seems unprofessional to me.
Missing an obscure reference is fine, and people miss those little things and it's understandable. But there's a difference between little things like that and either rewriting canon from a point of ignorance on prior material, or simply not reading the sources because it would take away time that you could use to write (and I've heard both positions rationalized by others before, which obviously I don't agree with).
Rereading my post I realize that it sounds a tad snarky. I didn't mean it that way. I myself love fictional settings (Dune, Star Wars, and a host of others) and do my best to be true to them when gaming BUT it does disturb me when folks go so far into harping on the minutia that they forget that they were originally attracted to the setting because it was *fun*. :) And, let me say that I'm perfectly happy to deviate from canon when canon makes a setting less fun or consistent for me (midichlorians spring to mind).
M
I remember a particular FR campaign in which we went to explore the "isle" of Chult. The source material called it an island, though later products showed it to be part of a peninsula.
The DM even hand-drew a nice map (he was a good artist). Chult continued to be an island for the rest of the game, and no one had a problem with it.
Only the writers of the world need to worry about canon. GMs, IMHO, can do what they want. Isn't that the idea?
Only the writers of the world need to worry about canon. GMs, IMHO, can do what they want. Isn't that the idea?
Yup, it's the "most important rule" of the game for good reason.
Only the writers of the world need to worry about canon. GMs, IMHO, can do what they want. Isn't that the idea?
I can totally get on board with that idea. :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I remember a particular FR campaign in which we went to explore the "isle" of Chult. The source material called it an island, though later products showed it to be part of a peninsula.
The DM even hand-drew a nice map (he was a good artist). Chult continued to be an island for the rest of the game, and no one had a problem with it.
Only the writers of the world need to worry about canon. GMs, IMHO, can do what they want. Isn't that the idea?
Agreed.
For my Osiron, for example, Aasimars are seen as 'children of the gods' to the point of interbreeding and marrying to keep the lines 'pure' My pharoh is an aasimar, for example, using the Pharoh template from Hamunaptra. If I were to write an official Osiron adventure (ok, stop laughing now), I'd have to remember to pitch all the Hamunaptra goodness out the window.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Canon lawyers can only impede the game if you allow them to. Remove them from the situation, and enjoy your setting of choice as you see fit. They'll either change their ways,...The one time I was able to get some Forgotten Realms "canon lawyers" to change their ways, albeit briefly, was when I DM'd a 3.5E game using Castlemourn as the setting.
Castlemourn was designed by the same guy who designed Forgotten Realms. There has only been two Castlemourn books released so far: a campaign setting guide and a player's guide. It has had very little to no additional support ever since it was released a few years ago.
With no previous canon at all to deal with, the FR "canon lawyers" didn't have much to say about the setting other than it was designed by their "hero" Ed Greenwood.
*sigh* don't get me started on Castlemourn. I was so hoping for more material. Except for the 'radioactive elves' I liked the setting.
|
I've heard it said that the sheer amount of canon in settings such as Forgotten Realms tend to put off prospective new players because they felt they had too much to "learn" before they could feel "part of" the setting or do it justice.
I think Pathfinder are doing a stellar job of departmentalising the various regions of their campaign. For example, two adventure paths set in Varisia and Guide to Korvosa are fairly self-contained and do not overlap into Legacy of Fire adventure path - the histories, cultures, ecosystems etc are very separate from one another. Paizo have explored a region, and then moved on to explore another remote location.
Therefore, GMs aren't required to get across everything ever written on Golarion. They only need to concern themselves with the current region adventuring in.
I like knowing what canon is - for my old favorite setting Greyhawk, there have been heated discussions about what is and is not canon, as this setting went through quite some stages over the years. The only point nearly everyone can agree to is that some of the really bad joke adventures have no place in canon...
I like to keep my campaigns close to canon in general. I think that this is the way to re-imagine what the authors thought about the world - if you change everything, why bother buying the stuff in first place? But still, if there are points in canon I absolutely don´t like for whatever reason, I have no problem to change them for my game.
So, while I never would be a canon lawyer (I hope), I still like to know what constitutes canon. Small differences in canon due to the work of various authors can even be fun - in some cases, you can make these differences usable within the context of the world - to take the above example of the island that was later changed into a peninsula, this can have an ingame reason, like some land suddenly appearing out of the waves.
Stefan
Some of my friends who are hardcore Greyhawk grognards, thought that the "Greyhawk Wars" modules were a total abomination to the setting. These particular grognards only consider "canon" the stuff that was produced before the Greyhawk Wars.
There are others who only accept the 1980 folio as canon. This can never be resolved universally, I guess.
You must be thinking of the satirical "Castle Greyhawk" module from 1988.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Greyhawk_(module)
That, and gems like "Gargoyles" or "Puppets" (ok, the latter was not a joke adventure, but just had the GH logo slapped on.)
Stefan
This might sound harsh, but it sounds like these guys, the 'FR Canon Lawyers' and 'Greyhawk Grognards' just aren't that nice of people, they may be could friends in life, but they sound like appalling players, and I'm getting the added negativity from your posts, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost sounds as if you need new people rather than a setting.
However, I will go on the record as saying that I adore and reccomend Golarion as a setting, and that I am one of the slightly younger group of players who just could not get into Forgotten Realms, couldn't do it, it always seemed like it 'needed' a encyclopedic knowledge of canon to feel a part of, which is fine for some but did not appeal to me in the least.
This might sound harsh, but it sounds like these guys, the 'FR Canon Lawyers' and 'Greyhawk Grognards' just aren't that nice of people, they may be could friends in life, but they sound like appalling players, and I'm getting the added negativity from your posts, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost sounds as if you need new people rather than a setting.
I really can´t tell about the people - all I know is these sentiments regarding GH (and FR) exist. Fan comes from fanatic, you know. But without some Greyhawk grognards insisting, the setting would have been dead since the mid-nineties already. AFAICT, it was fan support that convinced WotC/TSR to publish Greyhawk stuff in the late nineties again. So, there have been heated discussions about canon, but without some fervert supporters like these, there would have be nothing new at all. It is not by chance that the most important GH fansite is named canonfire...
(I love the site, for sure.)Stefan
Fan comes from fanatic, you know.In my experience, the extreme hardcore grognards tend not to be much different than fanatics of other types (without using violence). It just happens the object of their fanaticism is a particular rpg edition and/or an rpg setting.
Depending if you see words as violence as well (and words sure can hurt), you might want to rethink if there is no violence included.
Stefan
A few years back I sat on a Forgotten Realms panel at Gen Con, and when the inevitable question of canon arose, I offered this perspective:
There is less contradiction in the FR canon than there is in the real-world historical record.
At the time, I'd just finished writing a non-fiction article entitled "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower," a short introduction to one of the unsolved mysteries of British history. As is my custom, I did WAY too much research for the article, and in the process found a considerable difference of opinion, including outright contradiction, among the various histories I consulted.
A few thoughts about this.
The notion that history holds contradictions surprises people who think of history as immutable fact, but it happens all the time. Why? Richard lost to Henry VII, and it's the victors who support (and occasionally threaten) the historians. And Shakespeare's fictitious version of Richard III as an evil hunchback was compelling enough to overshadow historical record.
Here's the thing about history: It's ALWAYS fictitious. A history might be entirely factual, but the very act of selecting facts--and any history MUST select some facts and leave out others--shapes the narrative and suggests theme and bias.
When you apply that logic to a created setting--especially one that has a history thousands of years old--you're going to get layers of history and lore that reflect the people who recorded it. An apparent contradiction in the lore--or a real one, for that matter--can become a storytelling opportunity. WHY did one group (or person) report something differently? Was it a simple error, a second-hand story inaccurately recorded? The result of deliberate misinformation? Did it reflect the attitudes of the time? Or did it reflect a debate among opposing factions?
A difference of opinion isn't limited to historians. People don't hold a single, unified position on most contemporary issues. Consider the difficulty of creating a cohesive picture of Obama from internet discussion. When you move this truth about human nation into the storytelling arena, a novel narrated by a right-wing Republican talk show host is going to portray a different picture of the world than a story whose point of view character is a Libertarian who makes a living raising alpacas and growing organic tomatoes.
Bottom line: I don't see a few contractions as a problem. They can suggest interesting things about a society or individual character. They can make the setting more real.
I always sigh a little when people get huffy about alternate spellings of gods' names. Folks who are indignant about Lolth vs Lloth really ought to read Celtic myth and legend. Or Slavic, or Egyptian. Standard spellings simply don't exist IRL. When there's no exact phonetic equivalent from one language to another, variations occur. It makes perfect sense to me that when Drow is translated to Common which is rendered in English, we're getting a phonetic approximation of the original name. For that matter, I grew up with an approximation of my father's family name because very few people on this continent can properly pronounce (much less spell) the original Polish. That's the reality of translation from one culture/era/language to another.
I'm not advocating that we throw all attempt at consistency out the window: to the contrary. I was a history teacher before I started writing fantasy and I've spent most of my life trying to figure out how (and why) cultures function as they do. Details matter. One more time for the folks in the cheap seats: DETAILS MATTER. But nit-picky "canon lawyers" often forget that a living world is a complex, messy thing. Any attempt to make things too pristine and perfect results in something static, sterile, and ultimately, unbelievable.
I wasn't around during the height of Forgotten Realm's heyday, but I have heard about this 'canon lawyer' phenomenon.
And I've had actually the reverse of it happen to me.
That is, you bring something up for discussion because it's really interesting and everybody gets defensive. Like you're trying to bust them for inconsistancy and lack of continuity. Then you're actually apologizing for being curious.
All I got to say is have a care with bandying that "Canon Lawyer" accusation around. Sometimes good natured curiosity and exploration of the source material is like a cigar, it just is what it is.
|
Interesting historical facts
Thanks Elaine, that was really interesting, and certainly you are right everything we read we read it focused in someone's point of view... its just part of humans nature.
I don't know if in english thephrase exist, but it does in spanish "la historia la escriben lso vencedoers / The story is writen by the winners"
our history books about my country talk in one way about the Conquest, but when you go to the original text you begin tosee the different perspectives... I remember a book that I did liked quite much "La visión de los vencidos / The view of the defeated" and you get to see quite a different perspective from what the history books says.
So yeah, I am open to a bit of different interpretations... we all, after all, like a good story... just don't want to bust ourheads trying to determine which one it is :)
|
|
I obsessively follow canon as far as it relates to Golarion's planes. It's the sort of thing I'd offer continuity checking for free on.
As far as other areas of canon, I try to keep up on it, and if I'm writing about something it's just standard to cull the various books that touch the subject and make sure I have a solid grasp on them before I do much more than brainstorm. Anything less seems unprofessional to me.
Missing an obscure reference is fine, and people miss those little things and it's understandable. But there's a difference between little things like that and either rewriting canon from a point of ignorance on prior material, or simply not reading the sources because it would take away time that you could use to write (and I've heard both positions rationalized by others before, which obviously I don't agree with).
QFT
I'm a big canon nut on both Star Trek and Star Wars and a bit of Vampire the Masquerade. When I run historical games I do a ton of research as well to get things right. If someone says "We're playing a game in 1915 France" and doesn't even know World War I was going on is not living up to their DM responsibilities.
I was psyched when the Campaign Setting started as this is the first CS I'll get to be in on all the changes from day 1.
I think that the Realms problem isn't actually lots of canon, but more that there's no easy way for a new GM to stay current with said canon.
For the 1987 boxed set, the Realms got torn apart within two years. The Time of Troubles radically changed a lot of the information in that set. Nonetheless, it wasn't until 1993 that there was a revised boxed set.
Said 1993 boxed set was out of date almost the moment it hit shelves due to the radical changes going on in products and novels at the time. I remember that Zhentil Keep had been destroyed before I even finished reading through the setting book, for instance. And then within a few years there were new gods and new cataclysms galore.
The 2001 Campaign Guide likewise went out of date almost immediately, with stuff like War of the Spider Queen and severl more novel invalidating parts of the setting. By 2003 there was a supplement designed to update the Realms again, but even that was out of date by 2004.
If you're running a game for someone who keeps up on all those changes, it gets really frustrating really fast. The campaign guide, which is supposed to be the gateway into the setting, is effectively useless if you want to run something using the official continuity.
By comparison, we're now two years into the existence of Golarion. The campaign guide (and, for that matter, the gazetteer) is still at least 95% accurate. And since the changes so far have come from adventure paths, there's no real "canon" way of how Rise of the Runelords or any other path ended. The real challenge will be the novels - hopefully they don't invalidate the campaign guide or other key products.
I would like to differenciate between contradictions in world setting that can be explained within the context of the world and that leave the suspense of disbelief intact, and those contradictions that result from superficial researching the topic at hand. As Elaine Cunningham pointed out, contradictions happen in history, and it is indeed written by the victor. (Just look at how the battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald in 1410 AD is viewed very differently in Poland and in Germany to have a real-world example). I guess that the history of Cheliax differs quite pronounced between the official Chelaxian view and the view entertained by the one-time vassals or enemies.
But when one author describes a stretch of land as a peninsula and another as an island, one of them did not do his homework, and the credibility of the setting suffers. It is all right to change anything and everything, but consider the consequences and see to it that there are no logical breaks in the story. These breaks considerably diminish my enjoyment of the whole.
[OT/Rant]
I sometimes hate movies with plots that have logical holes in them big enough that the Titanic might pass through (13th Warrior or Pact of Wolves come to mind), and can´t stand movies supposedly set before a historical background, yet ignoring the details of their setting - I remember a German TV miniseries about the Nibelungs, where the first thing I saw was a high romanic church in the supposed 5th century setting - not to mention that the Sigurd actor spoke in a 20th century local Ruhr area tone of voice. And League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with the Carnival of Venice in the month of August (among other nonsense) - at least facts should be researched correct.
[/Rant]
Stefan
|
I think that the Realms problem isn't actually lots of canon, but more that there's no easy way for a new GM to stay current with said canon.
(SNIP)
If you're running a game for someone who keeps up on all those changes, it gets really frustrating really fast. The campaign guide, which is supposed to be the gateway into the setting, is effectively useless if you want to run something using the official continuity.
I think the best way I've ever seen a campaign setting handle ongoing changes to the canon/continuity has to be the series of Poor Wizard's Almanacs produced for the Mystara setting (I don't count the Joshuan's Almanac because it had a fraction of the information the others had in it). These books came out every December and detailed the changes to the setting from that years products, with updated info each year on nations, rulers, important npcs, armies, even horoscopes. They also had a full calendar years worth of events detailing what was happening in the world during that particular year with each event having hooks for how the PC's can get involved in those events if they are there at that time, from things like festivals to wars and more besides. Really brought the world to life.
I think the best way I've ever seen a campaign setting handle ongoing changes to the canon/continuity has to be the series of Poor Wizard's Almanacs produced for the Mystara setting (I don't count the Joshuan's Almanac because it had a fraction of the information the others had in it). These books came out every December and detailed the changes to the setting from that years products, with updated info each year on nations, rulers, important npcs, armies, even horoscopes. They also had a full calendar years worth of events detailing what was happening in the world during that particular year with each event having hooks for how the PC's can get involved in those events if they are there at that time, from things like festivals to wars and more besides. Really brought the world to life.
Perhaps this would be something that could be compiled for inclusion into the annual Wayfinder, either by that project's contributors or even Paizo, if the time to do so could be found. It wouldn't need to be anything huge as far as development was concerned, just a straightforward rundown of major changes to the setting resulting from modules, APs, Pathfinder Society, etc.
My question for many of you is, how many people among your group have the same love of Golarion as you do?
Among my group of friends, I'm the only one who buys Paizo materials. I never need to worry about whether I'm following "canon" because my players would never know. In fact, I wish they would own the Pathfinder CS book to add more depth when creating their characters' background, but most of them don't want to spend that kind of money on a setting they know little about.
Obviously my story is anecdotal. But how many groups actually have more than one Paizophile who reads up on every Golarion detail?
Obviously my story is anecdotal. But how many groups actually have more than one Paizophile who reads up on every Golarion detail?
I, too, am the only Golarionphile on my block. I want to subscribe and get all the books, just for the pleasure of the New, Old world.
That will have to wait, though. :(
My question for many of you is, how many people among your group have the same love of Golarion as you do?
In my local group, I'm the only one. My players are fine with playing games in the setting because that's where I like to place them; they could care less about the world they're playing in, so long as they have fun doing so. The campaign flavor is just the frosting on the cake, as it were.
In the PbP groups I play in almost everyone loves the setting as much as I do. But those games are hosted on these boards and specifically focus on the APs and setting, so they can probably be considered a special case. :D
But how many groups actually have more than one Paizophile who reads up on every Golarion detail?
Over half my players have the campaign setting. It's common for people to buy appropriate supplements, too. Everyone in my Crimson Throne campaign has the Korvosa book, for instance.
I don't know if in english thephrase exist, but it does in spanish "la historia la escriben lso vencedoers / The story is writen by the winners"our history books about my country talk in one way about the Conquest, but when you go to the original text you begin tosee the different perspectives... I remember a book that I did liked quite much "La visión de los vencidos / The view of the defeated" and you get to see quite a different perspective from what the history books says.
So yeah, I am open to a bit of different interpretations... we all, after all, like a good story... just don't want to bust ourheads trying to determine which one it is :)
Quite true. In English, the phrase is "History is written by the victors."
I don't know who said it originally, but it's a universal truth. The stories of the vanquished are just as relevant, but not so often heard.
Reading through the history of posts on this thread, I didn't notice mention of the option for gaming that I tend to embrace. Although the comparison may seem a bit negative, I'd have to say that my approach to campaign settings is "borgesque". Yes, I assimilate them into a greater collective.
Like other long-time players, I have an equally long-time fondness for Greyhawk. When my group decided they wanted to play in Eberron, I resisted at first, then decided to take on the challenge as DM by bringing Eberron into Greyhawk. I rearranged the map of Khorvaire and found places for all of the places I wanted to include (most of them) in the uncharted central and western reaches of Oerik.
Meshing the cosmologies was trickier, but it worked out fine.
Now, with Golarion, I've just begun doing a similar thing, only this time I'm using Golarion as the base and adding elements of other settings to it. When we decided to switch to the Pathfinder Chronicles setting, we were in the middle of the Age of Worms AP. I found places for the important locations in the AP near Lake Encarthan and even decided to assimilate the city of Greyhawk and its environs in their entirety. With a bit of tweaking, the Lord of Mayor of Greyhawk became one of the ruling generals of Molthune, supporting the more economic and liberal policies favored by Imperial Governor Teldas.
My most recent assimilation has been to graft the entire Jeklea Bay/Amedio Jungle region onto the southeastern end of Garund in order to prepare to run the Savage Tide AP in Golarion without the need for a ton of reworking.
I threw together a map that places the Hold of the Sea Princes and the rest of Jeklea Bay south of Geb. You're welcome to take a peak at it at the link below.
|
|
Unfortunately I don't think there's anything Paizo can do about "canon lawyers". Doesn't matter what you do, or how well you do it, there's always going to be some jerk that wants to nit-pick it. Just have to hit the figurative "ignore" button and get on with your life.
M
It's not nit-picking. It's research. :)
I learned in grad school that all Well Respected Academics Who Publish are supposed to be obnoxious and argue and call each other liars and imbeciles at every opportunity. It adds to the excitement.
That reminds me. Wasn't the Oerth Journal wonderful? Wasn't Professor Mona in on that?
That reminds me. Wasn't the Oerth Journal wonderful? Wasn't Professor Mona in on that?
Under his nickname of Iquander? No, I don´t think so...
Stefan
j/k, of course
|
|
Here's the thing about history: It's ALWAYS fictitious. A history might be entirely factual, but the very act of selecting facts--and any history MUST select some facts and leave out others--shapes the narrative and suggests theme and bias.
A difference of opinion isn't limited to historians.
An excellent point which often gets overlooked. We often unintentionally shape the narrative because we present material which strokes our bias because it is the easiest path.
If a music teacher only has time to prepare one selection for the concert, and Teacher #1 choose piece A because he or she thought that it presented the most teaching opportunities, and Teacher #2 chose piece A because he or she had the composer of piece B for undergrad music composition and he was a horse's rear; both teachers may have chosen the best piece for their ensemble, but one selected and one censored. One was more ethical; one less so, even though the same selected information, as described in Elaine's post (though now sonic in nature), was distributed.
The same thing can happen in the music classroom when we skip over Schoenberg and Berg because they give us headaches. Besides, if we hand out a syllabus, everyone skips that day anyway.
When we approach canon in our hobbies (Star Trek, Forgotten Realms, ALF), we should use the same approach. If we exclude post-apocalyptic FR because we hate Hasbro for trying to make our extensive FR collections obsolete, we are censoring. If we exclude post-apocalyptic FR because we want to provide the most entertaining and comprehensive experience for the players, we are selecting.
If I exclude ST:TOS because Shatner and Nimoy ticked me off by their anti-fan behavior in the seventies, and I exclude Voyager because every time I saw Captain Janeway I kept thinking about those coffee commercials, and I exclude Deep Space 9 because the first two seasons were so bad and I quit watching, and I exclude Enterprise because I kept expecting Al to step through a brightly lit doorway, I am left with only the animated series, and my Pop Culture class totally misses the Star Trek Experience. (Unless they go to Vegas.) (I love you, Wil.)
Boy, this is a dumb post. I really should hit the cancel button. But then my office hour would have been wasted. I need to publish something.
Responding to the concern over the novels affecting canon and such...I think what Paizo should do is have the novels be historical novels. Instead of books taking place during the current year, have them take place during the Whispering Tyrant stuff and other events like that.
Or it would be almost as easy to set them in the present day but not have them involve sweeping apocalyptic changes. There are several Forgotten Realms novels that tell their story without blowing up the setting. The problem is that a lot of them tried to tell a Time of Troubles-style story instead.
Or it would be almost as easy to set them in the present day but not have them involve sweeping apocalyptic changes. There are several Forgotten Realms novels that tell their story without blowing up the setting. The problem is that a lot of them tried to tell a Time of Troubles-style story instead.
Yes, and then it becomes Save the World From the Apocalypse of the Week. One of the issues with eager writers taking on someone's world. There may be overlap in the grandeur of the story, and they won't necessarily know intimate details like the original author.
I think Paizo should embrace the canon lawyer. Get a badge for them to display on their profile. Encourage them to submit academic style notes about the differences from canon where appropriate, and to make suggestions about other ways to diverge. Harness their power and encourage them to be creative in ways that help fellow DMs instead of criticize individual vision and interpretation.
The ones that get too rowdy we toss into a cage match at the Ram at Gen Con, and take side bets on. :D
|
|
Responding to the concern over the novels affecting canon and such...I think what Paizo should do is have the novels be historical novels. Instead of books taking place during the current year, have them take place during the Whispering Tyrant stuff and other events like that.
Yes I think this is a great idea. I'm loving the current Time of Legends series from the Black Library that detail the great historical characters of the Warhammer world for example of how this can be done well. the trilogies focusing on Sigmar, Nagash and Malekith are all really good and I'd love to see similar style novels for Golarion covering Tar-Baphon, Ancient Thassilon and such. More recently the Cheliax civil war that led to the rise of House Thrune would make a for a great dark tragedy.
Yeah, I think historical Golarion fiction is a great idea.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Yeah, I think historical Golarion fiction is a great idea.
I suggested historical fiction a while ago and I think it'd be a great way to add depth to some of the history only hinted at in sourcebooks. But I wouldn't want all the fiction to be historical. I think it'd be cool to see a novel in which NPCs from APs and protagonists can interact. And setting a novel in some historical settings could ruin much of the mystery of modern day adventuring. So a balance between the two would be ideal.
Handling the NPCs in novels will the be much trickier part, but I definitely see the attraction.
Handling the NPCs in novels will the be much trickier part, but I definitely see the attraction.
It depends on how... central those NPCs are to the world/region/etc. The early Realms novels, even Darkwalker on Moonshae (with the central characters being the King's heir and friends), were pretty good about keeping the NPCs' impact minor or localized to a remote area. Even when the stories brought in "heavy hitters" (like Elminster and the Knights of Myth Drannor in Curse of the Azure Bonds and Spellfire), they tended to be shown as having other concerns and/or responsibilities.
Also, the authors kept the scope of both the story and the consequences to the setting limited; in some ways, it reminded me of the way Thieves' World shared setting authors agreed to limit what happened in their stories to avoid impinging on other authors' characters or making large changes to the setting that could invalidate other authors' stories. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if TSR used a similar agreement with novel writers at the time; and if IIRC, they did.
The Time of Troubles (with associated novels) set a different precedent.