Showing posts with label Greyhawk 1998 relaunch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greyhawk 1998 relaunch. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Fate of Istus
Subject: [GREYTALK] Fate of Istus
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:39:57 EDT
From: Tamerlain@AOL.COM
To: GREYTALK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Patrice writes:
>>Greyhawk the Adventure begins page 3 seems to say it is set between 578 and 582.>>
Paul writes:
>>Sages and savants -
Although I don't have an answer to Creighton's answer, I do have another question. I once saw a glancing reference to FoI as "non-canon" or no longer canon. Is this true, and why?>>
Rainer writes:
>>But the Scarlet Brotherhood adventure inside (the final one, where all the monks leave Oerth) sets it in 576 CY.>>
Lisa writes:
>>Actually, what I said was that some parts of it weren't considered canon.
For instance, the existence of Kara Tur since that was moved to the Realms. So,
at best, you should take stuff within FoI with a grain of salt.>>
(See explanation of this below---Steve)
Paul and all (except Lisa, who already knows all of this!),
At the Greyhawk Summit 98, Team Greyhawk decided that the Fate of Istus was only partially canon (actually, we had talked about this off and on for a while prior to the Summit).
The rationale goes as follows: 1) The new Greyhawk would act as if monks and assassins did *not* disappear (and they didn't disappear in many home campaigns anyway), and Scarlet Brotherhood Monks are not Oriental Monks, therefore the sections in FoI about the Kara Tur monks et al do not apply, 2) Some dates given in the FoI cause potential problems with dates presented in other products...fixes for these have to be made, or the FoI dates should be ignored where these conflicts exist, 3) Some things, like the Istus' plague very well could have happened without disrupting the rest of the setting (the date for this isn't set, but anywhere from 576 to 582 with no trouble.), 4) Some dated historical events are fine and do not conflict with other events in Greyhawk canon (such as the brief siege of Junre by goblins and orcs in the Hateful Wars 9253 [25])
In case 1) nothing is considered canon, in case 2) only some things are considered canon, after work, in case 3) the event is canon, but no date is attached (Roger was functioning within this framework for assigning the dates for FoI in The Adventure Begins), and in case 4) all are canon.
Because of these reasons, Team Greyhawk has a very flexible attitude about FoI as one might imagine (Sean cursed it once within the last two months, even as I was trying to provide rationale for some of its dates. Erik and Roger were generally just laughing...and then they started trying to sort the mess out for the particular dates we were working on... ;)
I'd suggest the following if you want to include the 576 date for FoI:
576-582 CY---Events in the adventure Fates of Istus 9577 [3]
576 CY---Passing of the "Millennium" date predicted by Huro for the Scarlet
Brotherhood, Millennialist Party begins to decline (6091 SD)
Note: See c 490's 11374 [17], 9253 [110]
---Scarlet Brotherhood discovers Weeping Hexagram (6091 SD) 11374
[86]
---beginning of the plague of Istus (although this could go
anywhere between 576 and 582.) (based on 9253 [110], modified by 9577 [3])
Note: this date assignment is not *canon* just my suggestion.
581 CY--- Band of mercenaries penetrate defenses of the Hidden City of the Scarlet Brotherhood (Hesuel Ilshar), and steal an Weeping Hexagram (6096 SD) 11374 [5, 86] NOTE: This event could well easily be modified to be the party of adventurers from FoI (9253), primarily, while the Weeping Hexagram might still have been destroyed, don't automatically assume that the party was as per 11374 [5].
(Compiled dates from the GreyChrondex)
If an early date is assigned to the plague, and the character party is assumed to be the 581 CY bunch that steals the Weeping Hexagram, it is possible to stretch the events of the FoI out over several years, and have the plague act as one of the major pre-cursor event to the Wars.
For campaigns that have used FoI and already have it "set" in time, it would be easy enough to say that parties that successfully got to Hesuel Ilshar and left (alive) were the party that stole the Weeping Hexagram (and move that date if necessary).
This is "retro-fixing" but it does make FoI fit better. To keep the annoying "upgrade" tendencies of FoI out, just work out new rewards/punishments for characters at the end of each chapter that changes the class to 2nd ed. The adventures in FoI aren't bad, and the city descriptions are nice to have, but having the whole thing drive a change to 2nd ed was a poor "setting" decision (even if it might've been a wise marketing one). It is our "Avatar" book, and we should just be glad it was only one adventure.
Steve Wilson
Greyhawk "Sage," Team Greyhawk
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:39:57 EDT
From: Tamerlain@AOL.COM
To: GREYTALK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Patrice writes:
>>Greyhawk the Adventure begins page 3 seems to say it is set between 578 and 582.>>
Paul writes:
>>Sages and savants -
Although I don't have an answer to Creighton's answer, I do have another question. I once saw a glancing reference to FoI as "non-canon" or no longer canon. Is this true, and why?>>
Rainer writes:
>>But the Scarlet Brotherhood adventure inside (the final one, where all the monks leave Oerth) sets it in 576 CY.>>
Lisa writes:
>>Actually, what I said was that some parts of it weren't considered canon.
For instance, the existence of Kara Tur since that was moved to the Realms. So,
at best, you should take stuff within FoI with a grain of salt.>>
(See explanation of this below---Steve)
Paul and all (except Lisa, who already knows all of this!),
At the Greyhawk Summit 98, Team Greyhawk decided that the Fate of Istus was only partially canon (actually, we had talked about this off and on for a while prior to the Summit).
The rationale goes as follows: 1) The new Greyhawk would act as if monks and assassins did *not* disappear (and they didn't disappear in many home campaigns anyway), and Scarlet Brotherhood Monks are not Oriental Monks, therefore the sections in FoI about the Kara Tur monks et al do not apply, 2) Some dates given in the FoI cause potential problems with dates presented in other products...fixes for these have to be made, or the FoI dates should be ignored where these conflicts exist, 3) Some things, like the Istus' plague very well could have happened without disrupting the rest of the setting (the date for this isn't set, but anywhere from 576 to 582 with no trouble.), 4) Some dated historical events are fine and do not conflict with other events in Greyhawk canon (such as the brief siege of Junre by goblins and orcs in the Hateful Wars 9253 [25])
In case 1) nothing is considered canon, in case 2) only some things are considered canon, after work, in case 3) the event is canon, but no date is attached (Roger was functioning within this framework for assigning the dates for FoI in The Adventure Begins), and in case 4) all are canon.
Because of these reasons, Team Greyhawk has a very flexible attitude about FoI as one might imagine (Sean cursed it once within the last two months, even as I was trying to provide rationale for some of its dates. Erik and Roger were generally just laughing...and then they started trying to sort the mess out for the particular dates we were working on... ;)
I'd suggest the following if you want to include the 576 date for FoI:
576-582 CY---Events in the adventure Fates of Istus 9577 [3]
576 CY---Passing of the "Millennium" date predicted by Huro for the Scarlet
Brotherhood, Millennialist Party begins to decline (6091 SD)
Note: See c 490's 11374 [17], 9253 [110]
---Scarlet Brotherhood discovers Weeping Hexagram (6091 SD) 11374
[86]
---beginning of the plague of Istus (although this could go
anywhere between 576 and 582.) (based on 9253 [110], modified by 9577 [3])
Note: this date assignment is not *canon* just my suggestion.
581 CY--- Band of mercenaries penetrate defenses of the Hidden City of the Scarlet Brotherhood (Hesuel Ilshar), and steal an Weeping Hexagram (6096 SD) 11374 [5, 86] NOTE: This event could well easily be modified to be the party of adventurers from FoI (9253), primarily, while the Weeping Hexagram might still have been destroyed, don't automatically assume that the party was as per 11374 [5].
(Compiled dates from the GreyChrondex)
If an early date is assigned to the plague, and the character party is assumed to be the 581 CY bunch that steals the Weeping Hexagram, it is possible to stretch the events of the FoI out over several years, and have the plague act as one of the major pre-cursor event to the Wars.
For campaigns that have used FoI and already have it "set" in time, it would be easy enough to say that parties that successfully got to Hesuel Ilshar and left (alive) were the party that stole the Weeping Hexagram (and move that date if necessary).
This is "retro-fixing" but it does make FoI fit better. To keep the annoying "upgrade" tendencies of FoI out, just work out new rewards/punishments for characters at the end of each chapter that changes the class to 2nd ed. The adventures in FoI aren't bad, and the city descriptions are nice to have, but having the whole thing drive a change to 2nd ed was a poor "setting" decision (even if it might've been a wise marketing one). It is our "Avatar" book, and we should just be glad it was only one adventure.
Steve Wilson
Greyhawk "Sage," Team Greyhawk
Re: [GH98] WotC/TSR need to be fearless
Priority: Normal
Date sent: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:19:21 -0400
Send reply to: Keith Horsefield afn09454@afn.org
From: Keith Horsefield afn09454@afn.org
Subject: Re: [GREYTALK] [GH98] WotC/TSR need to be fearless
Originally to: David Rooke dwr@davroo.demon.co.uk
To: GREYTALK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Good Day All,
>> I disagree. If one thing can be said for Carl Sargent he was true to
>> his predecessors.
>
>That is the crux of the matter. You think Sargent was true to his
>predecessors and I think that he most certainly was not.
David, you prove my point for me:
>I had a long chat at a convention with Carl Sargent and discussed many
>things with him. One of the things he mentioned was how he felt
>hamstrung by the Rary the Traitor material and would have loved to have
>just ignored it. He actually felt that some material did need to be cut
>but he wasn’t authorized to do so.
This is just one case in point. Carl also was true to a fault
t[missing text] Cook the author of Greyhawk Wars.
>Of course, he made worthy attempts to make the timeline consistent
>bearing in mind that even this he failed in, as he admitted to me
>personally, since the world was EGG’s (not hit) and he was therefore
>guessing in many areas.
And there is the key phrase, it WAS Gygax’s world. Greyhawk is no
longer Gygax’s and from the looks of things it may never return to the
fold. Gary has my utmost respect and I thank him for bringing his
vision to all of us, but the ‘official’ Greyhawk is now owned by TSR.
>What damns Sargent’s work in my eyes, however, is that he turned the
>setting inside out from a setting for heroic, S&S style fantasy to an
>essentially dark fantasy setting. Consequently, his stated aim of
>remaining true to the essence of EGG’s creation was just the waving of
>flag of convenience.
Under the guidance given Carl (see your comment about TSR and [text missing]
deciding upon a consistent history and the Rary the Traitor
conversation, he kept to Gary’s vision as much as possible. Once
again I’ll state that if you read “War’s End” from the Atlas of the
Flanaess from FtA and the ‘Brief History’ from the 1980 WoG Gazetteer,
the end political result is remarkable similar.
I find the duality of FtA Greyhawk, a much darker fantasy in the east over the west, a welcomed change from the dribble we receive all too often from TSR.
>The Greyhawk Wars and FtA won’t happen IMC at all.
What about Dragon #65 (by Kuntz)? Nyrond, Almor and the Iron League declare war on the Great Kingdom in 578 CY. Personally, I like the idea that a state of war existed for 4 years between these nations, but it took the ‘Vatun’ incident to actually light the fuse.
>However, what happens IMC isn’t what’s being discussed here. It’s what
>happens with the Official Campaign that counts
Agreed.
>
>>If Roger’s version of GH does not take into account the
>>evolution that has happened through the Greyhawk Wars then there is
>>no valid reason for it except possible $$$$ and catering to minorities
>>within the community who were put out by subsequent TSR publications
>>on Greyhawk. Just republish the original setting and be done with it.
>>
>
>But am I saying scratch the GH Wars? Of course not.
I didn’t say YOU did, but I have my concerns about TSR.
>> One of the caveats of Greyhawk is an internally consistent
>>history. We just can’t change this because we don’t like the outcome.
>
>Part of TSR’s job is to decide on a consistent historical timeline. If it
>offends a few people then that’s too bad. You can’t please everyone. I’d
>rather have a few people offended and a consistent/believable history
>than an fractured and unbelievable history with another set of people
>aggrieved (somewhat more justifiably. IMO).
Bingo!! When TSR handed Carl the job of producing FtA, he was placed under some strict guidelines as to what he could do with it and what he couldn’t. Now, due to public opinion, it would appear that they regret that decision. Roger is probably also working under a set of guidelines but IMO the issues that were introduced by the Greyhawk Wars and then ‘codified’ within FtA must be dealt with, neither ignored nor glossed over with simple fixes.
I’ve been relatively silent on the use of the Crook of Rao to rid Oerth of ALL the fiends. I don’t agree with it. It introduces a whole host of problems. But as of yet I have not been able to come up with a palatable solution that achieves the same ends. This one issue, removing the fiends from Oerth, appears to be one of the foundation building blocks for the next edition of Greyhawk.
>>Sometimes people die and sometimes people don’t live up to your
>>expectations.
>
>Are you trying to say that, “yes there’s some crap in WG but you have
>good stuff and bad stuff in a product line but this “lumpiness” makes it
>more real. For real life has good and bad”? To that I say humbug!
No what I was trying to say is that Tensor is dead and Rary acted contrary to how most people envisioned him. These events are now in the past and written in Greyhawk’s history. It is time to move on.
>What I feel WotC/TSR are in danger of doing is trying to please everyone
>(or should I say offend no one) with GH98 leaving us with a wishy-washy
>creation that resolves none of the settings core problems.
Core problems in whose opinion (though it would seem Roger and TSR agree with those against FtA. Wonder why? Could it be up until this point only those who felt slighted by FtA voiced their opinion)? I agree catering to a vocal on-line minority that all we get is a Greyhawk not of any vision.
We already have a S&S Greyhawk in the 1983 boxed set. If this is all the new edition is going to do then drop the new edition and publish supplements for the original setting and FtA.
>WotC/TSR must decide on a firm stance with the setting and the way it’s
>going to be developed cutting some of the crass historical stuff, if that’s
>what it takes to get the job done.
To this statement I can only second Galwylin’s comments:
>the ‘it never happened’ sticker.
>
>For this to happen in Greyhawk would be completely unacceptable.
>What eventually goes into Greyhawk’s new game has to include
>everything that’s happened in it’s past.
>>RPGs are just a mirror of Real Lif(with a lot of escapism thrown in for
>>good measure) and for the most part should operate in like manner.
>>
>
>Again humbug! RPGs are a *game* meant to be enjoyed as a
>recreational pastime by those taking part. Nothing more and nothing
>less. Mirror of real life? Such profound nonsense makes me want to
>laugh…
>
Up until this point I found your posting palatable. How you choose to run relationships between your PCs and NPCs is your decision. How I choose to run them in my campaign is my decision. Whether or not you agree with that does not grant you the opportunity to make light of other views on how RPGs d be gamed.
Keith Horsefield
Member Team OS/2
“To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
---
E-mail: afn09454@afn.org
Home page: http://www.afn.org/~afn09454/
Date sent: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:19:21 -0400
Send reply to: Keith Horsefield afn09454@afn.org
From: Keith Horsefield afn09454@afn.org
Subject: Re: [GREYTALK] [GH98] WotC/TSR need to be fearless
Originally to: David Rooke dwr@davroo.demon.co.uk
To: GREYTALK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Good Day All,
>> I disagree. If one thing can be said for Carl Sargent he was true to
>> his predecessors.
>
>That is the crux of the matter. You think Sargent was true to his
>predecessors and I think that he most certainly was not.
David, you prove my point for me:
>I had a long chat at a convention with Carl Sargent and discussed many
>things with him. One of the things he mentioned was how he felt
>hamstrung by the Rary the Traitor material and would have loved to have
>just ignored it. He actually felt that some material did need to be cut
>but he wasn’t authorized to do so.
This is just one case in point. Carl also was true to a fault
t[missing text] Cook the author of Greyhawk Wars.
>Of course, he made worthy attempts to make the timeline consistent
>bearing in mind that even this he failed in, as he admitted to me
>personally, since the world was EGG’s (not hit) and he was therefore
>guessing in many areas.
And there is the key phrase, it WAS Gygax’s world. Greyhawk is no
longer Gygax’s and from the looks of things it may never return to the
fold. Gary has my utmost respect and I thank him for bringing his
vision to all of us, but the ‘official’ Greyhawk is now owned by TSR.
>What damns Sargent’s work in my eyes, however, is that he turned the
>setting inside out from a setting for heroic, S&S style fantasy to an
>essentially dark fantasy setting. Consequently, his stated aim of
>remaining true to the essence of EGG’s creation was just the waving of
>flag of convenience.
Under the guidance given Carl (see your comment about TSR and [text missing]
deciding upon a consistent history and the Rary the Traitor
conversation, he kept to Gary’s vision as much as possible. Once
again I’ll state that if you read “War’s End” from the Atlas of the
Flanaess from FtA and the ‘Brief History’ from the 1980 WoG Gazetteer,
the end political result is remarkable similar.
I find the duality of FtA Greyhawk, a much darker fantasy in the east over the west, a welcomed change from the dribble we receive all too often from TSR.
>The Greyhawk Wars and FtA won’t happen IMC at all.
What about Dragon #65 (by Kuntz)? Nyrond, Almor and the Iron League declare war on the Great Kingdom in 578 CY. Personally, I like the idea that a state of war existed for 4 years between these nations, but it took the ‘Vatun’ incident to actually light the fuse.
>However, what happens IMC isn’t what’s being discussed here. It’s what
>happens with the Official Campaign that counts
Agreed.
>
>>If Roger’s version of GH does not take into account the
>>evolution that has happened through the Greyhawk Wars then there is
>>no valid reason for it except possible $$$$ and catering to minorities
>>within the community who were put out by subsequent TSR publications
>>on Greyhawk. Just republish the original setting and be done with it.
>>
>
>But am I saying scratch the GH Wars? Of course not.
I didn’t say YOU did, but I have my concerns about TSR.
>> One of the caveats of Greyhawk is an internally consistent
>>history. We just can’t change this because we don’t like the outcome.
>
>Part of TSR’s job is to decide on a consistent historical timeline. If it
>offends a few people then that’s too bad. You can’t please everyone. I’d
>rather have a few people offended and a consistent/believable history
>than an fractured and unbelievable history with another set of people
>aggrieved (somewhat more justifiably. IMO).
Bingo!! When TSR handed Carl the job of producing FtA, he was placed under some strict guidelines as to what he could do with it and what he couldn’t. Now, due to public opinion, it would appear that they regret that decision. Roger is probably also working under a set of guidelines but IMO the issues that were introduced by the Greyhawk Wars and then ‘codified’ within FtA must be dealt with, neither ignored nor glossed over with simple fixes.
I’ve been relatively silent on the use of the Crook of Rao to rid Oerth of ALL the fiends. I don’t agree with it. It introduces a whole host of problems. But as of yet I have not been able to come up with a palatable solution that achieves the same ends. This one issue, removing the fiends from Oerth, appears to be one of the foundation building blocks for the next edition of Greyhawk.
>>Sometimes people die and sometimes people don’t live up to your
>>expectations.
>
>Are you trying to say that, “yes there’s some crap in WG but you have
>good stuff and bad stuff in a product line but this “lumpiness” makes it
>more real. For real life has good and bad”? To that I say humbug!
No what I was trying to say is that Tensor is dead and Rary acted contrary to how most people envisioned him. These events are now in the past and written in Greyhawk’s history. It is time to move on.
>What I feel WotC/TSR are in danger of doing is trying to please everyone
>(or should I say offend no one) with GH98 leaving us with a wishy-washy
>creation that resolves none of the settings core problems.
Core problems in whose opinion (though it would seem Roger and TSR agree with those against FtA. Wonder why? Could it be up until this point only those who felt slighted by FtA voiced their opinion)? I agree catering to a vocal on-line minority that all we get is a Greyhawk not of any vision.
We already have a S&S Greyhawk in the 1983 boxed set. If this is all the new edition is going to do then drop the new edition and publish supplements for the original setting and FtA.
>WotC/TSR must decide on a firm stance with the setting and the way it’s
>going to be developed cutting some of the crass historical stuff, if that’s
>what it takes to get the job done.
To this statement I can only second Galwylin’s comments:
>the ‘it never happened’ sticker.
>
>For this to happen in Greyhawk would be completely unacceptable.
>What eventually goes into Greyhawk’s new game has to include
>everything that’s happened in it’s past.
>>RPGs are just a mirror of Real Lif(with a lot of escapism thrown in for
>>good measure) and for the most part should operate in like manner.
>>
>
>Again humbug! RPGs are a *game* meant to be enjoyed as a
>recreational pastime by those taking part. Nothing more and nothing
>less. Mirror of real life? Such profound nonsense makes me want to
>laugh…
>
Up until this point I found your posting palatable. How you choose to run relationships between your PCs and NPCs is your decision. How I choose to run them in my campaign is my decision. Whether or not you agree with that does not grant you the opportunity to make light of other views on how RPGs d be gamed.
Keith Horsefield
Member Team OS/2
“To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
---
E-mail: afn09454@afn.org
Home page: http://www.afn.org/~afn09454/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)