+- The Comeback Inn (https://blackmoor.mystara.us/forums)
+-- Forum: The Garnet Room - Blackmoor General Forum (https://blackmoor.mystara.us/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+--- Forum: General Blackmoor Discussions (https://blackmoor.mystara.us/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Hello. New to Blackmoor. (/showthread.php?tid=771)
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - Rafael - 06-19-2011
Oh, I agree there with you, no question.
Ross' notes are, well, notes, more than anything else, and my timeline is specifically done for my game.
The reason why I usually recommend them, though, is that they are print-formatted, free resources that had
the goal to reconcile the many incoherences that the long run on BM by different authors brought with itself.
Now, about them being specifically correct, or in accordance to canon, that is another matter...
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - Havard - 06-19-2011
Aldarron Wrote:Rare that I disagree with Rafe... But Ross's timeline, while very interesting, suffers from numerous errors, (as I think I've conclusively demonstrated in my timeline threads, but it requires a massive amount of reading and cross referencing so not surprising nobody's checked.) Its also completely outdated, having none of the d20 material, much of which refines or details bits that were previously vague.
It should be noted that Ross' gazetteer is much more than the timeline. I believe most of the "errors" you refer to come from the fact that Ross had two main sources that he was working from: The FFC and the DA modules. We now have more information about the original campaign, but taking those things into account was beyond the scope of Ross' project.
Fortunately, we now have additional information to supplement this work, available on the site, such as your very interesting timeline posts.
Quote:The Timeline on pg 148-149 of the 4e sourcebook, is really pretty good. It reworks a substantial portion of Ross' timeline (unfortunetly continuing two of his errors, but them's tha breaks) and incorporates much of the new material.
What I do find interesting is that ZGG chose to include what seems to have been a copy & paste version of Ross' timeline, including references which only make sense on a meta level.
-Havard
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - Rafael - 06-19-2011
Ahem, "copy & paste" is the key here, ahem.
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - aldarron - 06-19-2011
Havard Wrote:Aldarron Wrote:Rare that I disagree with Rafe... But Ross's timeline, while very interesting, suffers from numerous errors, (as I think I've conclusively demonstrated in my timeline threads, but it requires a massive amount of reading and cross referencing so not surprising nobody's checked.) Its also completely outdated, having none of the d20 material, much of which refines or details bits that were previously vague.
It should be noted that Ross' gazetteer is much more than the timeline. I believe most of the "errors" you refer to come from the fact that Ross had two main sources that he was working from: The FFC and the DA modules. We now have more information about the original campaign, but taking those things into account was beyond the scope of Ross' project.
Fortunately, we now have additional information to supplement this work, available on the site, such as your very interesting timeline posts.
Thanks Havard.
The timeline I did continues to be refined.Well in Ross, the errors I meant really are errors, such as the funky math dating Ra-all or the mispelling of Bakura - things that when you look up the references he sites don't jive. There's lots of other stuff that, beacuse of harmonizing two main sources as you say, and a few secondary ones, are kind of arbitrary decision that sometimes seem more inline with one source or other. Usually makes sense but sometimes just seem to be at odds with the intent of the sources, such as setting the reaign of robert the Ist a whopping thousand years in the past. (possibly patterened on King David I wonder?).
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - Havard - 06-19-2011
Aldarron Wrote:Thanks Havard.
Well in Ross, the errors I meant really are errors, such as the funky math dating Ra-all or the mispelling of Bakura - things that when you look up the references he sites don't jive. There's lots of other stuff that, beacuse of harmonizing two main sources as you say, and a few secondary ones, are kind of arbitrary decision that sometimes seem more inline with one source or other. Usually makes sense but sometimes just seem to be at odds with the intent of the sources, such as setting the reaign of robert the Ist a whopping thousand years in the past. (possibly patterened on King David I wonder?).
DA1 states that Thonia has been around about 1000 years prior to the time of the DA modules (1025). The FFC states that Castle Blackmoor was built during the third year of Robert I's reign. I do believe the Doomesday Book #13 is the one that identifies Robert I as the founder of the Great Kingdom (Thonia). Obviously that is all meta-lore anyway, since Robert I was the first king of the C&C society's Great Kingdom.
-Havard
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - aldarron - 06-20-2011
Havard Wrote:Aldarron Wrote:Thanks Havard.
Well in Ross, the errors I meant really are errors, such as the funky math dating Ra-all or the mispelling of Bakura - things that when you look up the references he sites don't jive. There's lots of other stuff that, beacuse of harmonizing two main sources as you say, and a few secondary ones, are kind of arbitrary decision that sometimes seem more inline with one source or other. Usually makes sense but sometimes just seem to be at odds with the intent of the sources, such as setting the reaign of robert the Ist a whopping thousand years in the past. (possibly patterened on King David I wonder?).
DA1 states that Thonia has been around about 1000 years prior to the time of the DA modules (1025). The FFC states that Castle Blackmoor was built during the third year of Robert I's reign. I do believe the Doomesday Book #13 is the one that identifies Robert I as the founder of the Great Kingdom (Thonia). Obviously that is all meta-lore anyway, since Robert I was the first king of the C&C society's Great Kingdom.
-Havard
Right, well I dunno what's in Domesday #13 but haven't seen that mentioned before. Would be "proof" enough to suit me if it does say Robert I, is either a ruler or founder of the great empire. Intriguing possibility though. As it stands, I still see no reason, and perhaps especially on a meta level since we don't know what Dave intended his tribute reference to Rob to imply about geographic relationships and kingdom politics, to equate FFC's Geneva with great Kingdome. Its like equating the king of england with the ceasar of the roman empire. - meaning Geneva may at times be a part of a greater whole but is not a substitute for it. As it stands I prefer not to somehow read "founder of Thonia" into "king of all Geneva" - two very seperate entitiess, it seems to me.
Fun little puzle though.
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - Havard - 06-20-2011
Aldarron Wrote:Right, well I dunno what's in Domesday #13 but haven't seen that mentioned before. Would be "proof" enough to suit me if it does say Robert I, is either a ruler or founder of the great empire. Intriguing possibility though. As it stands, I still see no reason, and perhaps especially on a meta level, to equate FFC's Geneva with great Kingdome. Its like equating the king of england with the ceasar of the roman empire. - meaning Geneva may at times be a part of a greater whole but is not a substitute for it. As it stands I prefer not to somehow read "founder of Thonia" into "king of all Geneva" - two very seperate centitiess, it seems to me.
Fun little puzle though.
I find it very puzzling that you are so resistant to this idea. Here is how it worked. The C&C Society world map was based partially on North America. Different Refrees were assigned different parts of the realm. The heart of the C&C Society was in the area corresponding to Lake Geneva. The King of the C&C Society was Rob Kuntz, as demonstrated here. The reference to Robert I in the FFC is a nod to Kuntz and the C&C Society.
Anyway, this has really side tracked Blackmoor DM's thread. My point was that I think the criticism of Ross' work is exaggerated and that even if we dont understand all of his reasoning, that doesnt mean he doesnt have his reasons for what he writes.
-Havard
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - finarvyn - 06-21-2011
Really, what we need are timelines with footnotes. After all, at this point it's a scholarly activity and not just some guy doing a timeline for a homebrewed campaign.
I'm not enough of a Blackmoor scholar to be able to pick up on some of the minutia errors and for me it would require a lot of reading just to get "up to speed" (even if my memory was strong enough for me to retain all of the data) so maybe that helps to explain why I lilke the older stuff better. Less to know!
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - finarvyn - 06-21-2011
Aldarron Wrote:Ya know... If you are really after a '70's era nostalgia kind of experience you might look into Dragons at Dawn. I wrote it, so I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but I get the sense that there is a great deal you may not be aware of in regards to the early days of gaming and the Blackmoor setting. You should at least look at the preiview on lulu and read the intro - it might inspire your game.I wanted to bring this quote back and endorse it myself. Dragons at Dawn is really an awesome resource! 8)
Aldarron Wrote:Also, really look through the posts on this forum and on the ODD74 blackmoor board.You can find links to this in my signature.
Re: Hello. New to Blackmoor. - Rafael - 06-21-2011
finarvyn Wrote:Really, what we need are timelines with footnotes.
Is coming.