References in City of Splendors: Waterdeep (88162)

This information is intended for use with the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.


At a Glance

A sourcebook.


Details

Author, etc

City of Splendors: Waterdeep was written by Eric Boyd, and first printed in July 2005.

Art Gallery

References

People
Places
Monsters
Other Things

Citation


Disclaimer

Wizards of the Coast, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the United States and other countries. This blog is not affiliated with, endorsed, sponsored, or specifically approved by Wizards of the Coast LLC.

Blogstones

  • 9 December 2011: first post!
  • 2 March 2012: the 1,000th post is the one you’re looking at
  • 26 March: 2,500th post
  • 25 May: 4,000th post
  • 10 June: 5,000th post
  • 26 June: 6,000th post
  • 9 October: 7,500th post, and over 5,000 views too!
  • November is the first month in which I managed to put up at least one post every day
  • 10 December: 10,000th post
  • 8 January 2013: Over 100 page views on one day… thank you Sweden for 76 of the 114 total views!
  • 14 January: WordPress put together a spiffy Annual Report. I like this feature! I’m looking forward to the 2013 report.
  • 17 January: This blog has surpassed the FR Wiki in number of articles. Note that they have some stuff I don’t have, and vice versa. Also, we’re not really in competition; our priorities are different. But this is definitely a milestone, because regardless of the details FR Wiki is kinda “the man” in terms of Realms-related wikis. So I’ll admit I’m patting myself on the back a bit. The FR Wiki has been around since October of 2005 and has had hundreds if not thousands of contributors. This blog? Just me, poking around since the last couple weeks of 2011. 11,762 posts and I still have a bottomless well of stuff to write about. Come at me, Realms!
  • 15 February: 12,500th post … and I have 16 followers. Followers are awesome!
  • 2 March: This is the end of a streak of 134 consecutive days of at least one post per day. Feels like a big deal when your attention span is as unpredictable as mine.
  • 8 March: 2500+ posts in each of three categories: Geography, Monsters, and NPCs.
  • 29 April: I rediscovered Morrowind and got distracted, so the expansion of the encyclowikiblog has slowed for a couple months, but I’m working on a comeback.
  • 26 May: 861 page views in one day! That’s just awesome. Thank you, to everyone who comes back.
  • 21 September: The slowdown lasted longer than I’d hoped, because I’ve also been checking out dokuwiki… it’s a spiffy little offline wiki. I’m fairly sure that I like WordPress better, but the wiki has some big advantages. Like linking… linking is a lot easier on a wiki, which isn’t surprising since WordPress isn’t designed to be a wiki. But I’m still a WP fan. Leave comments about anything you’d like to see more information on!
  • 7 October: 15,000th post. This milestone deserves something cooler than the trident weapon proficiency feat, but hey… that’s where I was at that moment.

Yay, milestones.

An afternoon’s distraction

Background: I was reading an old adventure (specifically The Serpent’s Tooth in Dungeon #19) and I saw a suggested weight of 800 lbs for a barrel of beer. The dimensions of the barrel were given as 2 ft diameter and 4 ft height. I’m not a beer drinker, and I’ve never tried to lift a barrel of beer, but that seemed kinda excessively heavy, and maybe also too-conveniently rounded off, so I was curious about the accuracy. Naturally, I poked around the net for some numbers.

Beer is given by http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_liquids.htm as approximately 1010 kg per cubic meter. Multiplied by 0.0624 equals about 63 lbs per cubic foot. This is just slightly more than pure water.

According to http://www.crafty-owl.com/cooperage.htm, an empty barrel typically weighs 125 to 140 lbs. From Woodweb we can eventually approximate the weight of white oak at 47 lbs per cubic foot (760 kg per cubic meter) at a completely arbitrary 20% moisture content. It’s arbitrary because I can’t find any information on the moisture content of the wood typically used in making barrels. I am sure, however, that white oak is the right choice of wood, and I’ll trust Professor Wengert’s numbers.

Dividing the 125-140 lb barrel weight by 47 lbs per cubic foot, we get a range of 2.6 to 3 cubic feet of wood used in the construction of a barrel… 130 lbs means about 2.75 cubic feet of wood; those are nice round numbers. This is not completely accurate because that weight includes some metal bands used to hold the barrel together, but I don’t have separate numbers for the weight of these bands so this assumes the whole thing is made of wood.

A quick look at Tonnellerie Damy Père & Fils gives the dimensions of a smart-looking 300-liter barrel as approximately 41 inches tall and 31 inches in diameter, with a 25-inch head. It’s not the 4-foot tall, 2-foot across barrel from the description I read, but it does have a weight of 58 kg, which is quite close to the 130 lb average barrel size I arrived at above… which means that a very similar amount of wood is used in its construction, which in turn implies that the internal volume of these barrels should be close. Assuming that the arbitrary 20% moisture content is at least fairly accurate.

So basically, 300 liters of beer is what we’re looking at.

Using http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm, we can convert directly from liters to cubic feet; 300 liters is about 10.6 cubic feet. Plugging in the weight of 63 lbs per cubic foot from above, that volume of beer weighs just about exactly 668 lbs. Plus the 130 lb barrel weight, and we have a total of… um, 798 lbs.

That was anti-climactic. Suddenly 800 lbs looks like a pretty fair estimate.

Side note: another section of the conversion site, http://www.onlineconversion.com/object_volume_barrel.htm, suggests a formula for calculating the volume of a barrel: h * Pi * (2*r1^2 + r2^2) / 3, where r1 is the diameter of the middle of the barrel and r2 is the diameter of the top of the barrel. However, we would need to know the internal measurements of the barrel in order to make use of this, and what we have is the external measurements, so it’s just a neat formula.

Using the numbers from Tonnellerie Damy here’s a quick list of barrel sizes and weights, in American units.

liters gallons diam(in) ht(in) empty (lb) full (lb)
225 59 28 37 99 600
228 60 28 35 99 607
265 70 28 37 99 689
300 79 31 41 128 796
350 92 33 41 154 933
400 106 33 42 185 1076
500 132 32 43 198 1311
600 159 41 44 220 1556
700 185 41 45 243 1802

High Road (Disambiguation)

This information is intended for use with the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.

Disambiguation

There are at least three roads in Faerûn which are called the High Road:

Disclaimer

Wizards of the Coast, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the United States and other countries. This blog is not affiliated with, endorsed, sponsored, or specifically approved by Wizards of the Coast LLC.

Official Words

I dunno what to call this post, but I need a place to gather relevant and/or important statements made by TSR/WotC/whoever staff. This stuff might provide answers to questions at some point.

  • 30 March 2000: Jim Butler states that "Everything that bears the Forgotten Realms logo is considered canon" and indicates that this is intended to be the case going forward. — Source

My response to this is that I don’t think it’s fair to say that a novel is canon while an adventure published in Dungeon Magazine is not… particularly in a case where (hypothetically) the adventure was written by Ed and the novel was not, and especially with the feeble criterion that the novel has the Realms logo on it and Dungeon Magazine doesn’t. Instead let’s say that everything published (or permitted to be published) by TSR/WotC which is stated to be set in the Realms is canon for the Realms. There will be a lot of cases where this is difficult, but I’m guessing most of those can be blamed on WotC rather than freelance authors so let’s not automatically marginalize the player-generated material.

In the Nick of Time, or Too Little Too Late?

This is a summary of my thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e D&D). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

I don’t know the answer to the question asked in the title. I guess we’ll all see, when 5e hits the shelves. In the meantime, though, I’m seeing a lot of mixed feelings on forums. Very strong opinions, in complete opposition to each other. Several people come at it from a business standpoint, but that’s a boring approach… plus, their savvy is very open to question. Others are saying “no matter what you do, YOU HAVE TO *insert personal wish list here!!!one” Some DMs and players just don’t care what’s coming out anymore; they’re playing Pathfinder, or even first or second edition, and sharing their campaigns in various communities both online and in person, and they’re not planning on buying anything from WotC in the future. Others are sitting in the back of the theater with some popcorn, waiting to see what comes next. I guess I have a lot of each of those viewpoints, rolled up into a giant ball of “MEH, Zeusdammit!”

So I’m gonna break it down, or try to. This is more for me than for you. I have a lot of thoughts in my head, with more piling on continuously, and without some organization I go steadily more bonkers.

The Philosophy

One point that I don’t think has been made sufficiently clear to WotC/Hasbro up to this point, and I think it’s important to get this out in the open up front because it’s a foundation for the new direction of thought that the Powers That Be need to find is: we don’t need you. We really don’t. It’s great having somebody publishing gaming books, but what we need is the creativity, without the chain-jerking and big price tags. If WotC goes belly-up, we will continue playing. Some of us will migrate to different game systems, but others will start new publishing labels and keep D&D alive in substance even if not in name. The game is far more durable than the company. So the future depends on players.

Ed Greenwood seems to be pretty excited about what’s coming, and that counts for a lot with me, but from where I’m sitting —without the benefit of knowing even whatever Ed knows about what WotC has up its sleeve— it seems foolish to not be cynical about this. Here’s one cynic’s opinion.

The Testing

I think looking for more customer input is a good thing. I just don’t know if it will be enough. It’s up to the folks in charge, to prove that they’re sincere about not simply paying lip service to fans but actually taking the feedback to heart.

The Rules

Personally, I’m not worried about the 5e rules. I’ve played every edition of the game, and each one has been playable and enjoyable. I haven’t necessarily liked every single nuance of the rules, but I’ve found plenty to like. I have faith, based on 30 years of reading and playing, that the designers will come up with something cool, yet again. I also have faith that they will screw up the Forgotten Realms, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

There are a couple of priorities I would focus on, if I were in charge. First, as regards the D&D rules, reinstate 1e through 3.5e rules, and retain 4e rules. Introduce 5e rules as an option rather than a replacement. All six rulesets should be valid.

A New Setting

Debut the array of ruleset options in a “new” setting. By “new” I mean either a completely new setting or a previously published setting that has been gathering dust for a while. A brand-spanking-new setting is obviously a good option, but revamping one you already own offers the opportunity to reacquire fans you lost when you made the misguided decision (at least in their minds) to stop developing their favorite alternate reality. I suggest Planescape or Mystara. Mystara might be a more risky option, but one that’s probably worth looking into. It would need to be handled properly to avoid competition with the Realms and Eberron, but done right it would be a brilliant “new” setting. Put out the fires and develop this chosen setting a bit before you write the 5e Forgotten Realms or Eberron campaign settings. Regardless of it being the first setting you retool, it’s not the official setting. Don’t declare anything to be “the official setting” of any ruleset.

Regarding the Forgotten Realms and other settings…

A great way to stop pissing everybody off would be to treat each setting like it belongs to the fans. Give us the benefit of the designers’ creativity, since that’s what we’re paying for when we buy the products, but actively seek our feedback —and act on it— so that you avoid screwing stuff up.

Case in point: No more RSE. Big events are the demesne of individual DMs. Your role as the producer of a setting is to provide a complete and usable foundation upon which thousands of different campaigns will rest. The more unstable you cause the foundation to be, the more the setting suffers. Can I get a “DUH”?

In the Realms, Rewind to 1357 DR, and turn the Post-Apocalyptic Realms into an Arcane Age setting. This can be done without a retcon, at least to the same extent that you’ve declined to describe past changes as retcons. This would mean that the 2e through 4e Realms were exploring the future, or a possible path for the future to take. This is the simple and elegant solution; there are other solutions, which don’t include rewinding to 1357, but they’re more complicated. Also, Stop screwing around with the maps.

Regarding Product Design…

You corporate types who are only concerned with the bottom line: accept that when the creative department argues with you, you’re wrong and they’re right. One exception to this rule of thumb: if the creative people want to incorporate more RSE into the official timeline… then they’re wrong, and you should let them know that their paycheck depends on them growing a brain, and quick.

Regardless of what anyone tells you, what we actually need in this area is organization. The cerebral folks want fluff, and the pithy folks want crunch. So give us both, but do it in a way that enables each of us to access what we want. This means campaign setting books are for campaign material… and rule books are for rules. Crunch and fluff do not belong in the same book. Basically never-ever.

Other Concerns

Lower prices. Do it now.

No more interior art.

No more retconning.

Nipples… not a big deal. Stupidity… big deal.

Ideas from other sources…

More thoughts are probably coming soon.

Popular Opinion

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

I think you (meaning whoever is calling the shots with regard to 5e) are doing the right thing here… or maybe part of the right thing, or starting to do the right thing. Time will tell.

Pay (better) attention to customer desires.

We’re writing your paychecks, in some sense. Up til now, you’ve been pushing us around and we’ve been taking it. Well, ever-decreasing numbers of us have been taking it, with ever-increasing complaints.

You don’t necessarily need to resurrect role-playing, or even tabletop role-playing. Yes, video games are a problem, but not as big of a problem as they’re being made out to be.

Your biggest challenge has been that you’re only concerned about customer opinion when you start losing significant amounts of revenue. When the money is coming in, you’re on top of the world and you couldn’t care less what anybody thinks about anything.

Is that harsh? No, I think it’s actually stupidly mild. Why are you asking for customer input now? Because it’s painfully obvious that you screwed up, and you don’t want to lose your shirt over it. I’m not actually trying to be a snot, but why didn’t you ask for customer suggestions before 4e? Because times were good then, or at least quite a bit better than they are now. Yea, I have hindsight on my side now, but the point stands. You should have asked back then. You should have had a better grasp of everything you’re hearing from customers now… back then. Even before 2e, for that matter.

You seem to be on a schedule of cranking out a new edition, regardless of the old one’s success or failure, every several years. This is lame. Revise the rules when customers raise valid concerns in support of a revision… not whenever you want to give yourself a pay raise. We may be lemmings, buying anything that says D&D on it, but we’re not complete idiots. It might take some of us a few years, but we all eventually start feeling ripped off.

That, more than mechanics, is what you need to fix. See, D&D isn’t broken. WotC is broken. Players can help you with improving D&D, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg of your problems.

Perspective

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

Those of us who are still around from the early days (1982 for me) are not here out of loyalty to the company… some of us might be fans of particular designers, but you’ve fired or lost most of the old guard (and the next guard, and the one after that) so the customers you still have are those who are still stubbornly finding ways to eke out some enjoyment from playing D&D.

We’re still here because we enjoy playing with our friends. We’re here because we love sitting around a table talking and eating and drinking and laughing and maybe even crying, rolling dice and feeling like kids going into Narnia. You, as the heads of WotC/Hasbro, have about as much significance in that picture as that bag of Doritos that refuses to open until someone yanks just hard enough and then the bag explodes everywhere. You annoy the piss out of us periodically, and then, as quickly as possible, we get back to having fun.

We’re here because we enjoy the game, the way we play it. Which, in case it isn’t obvious, may or may not be according to the published rules. The more wildly varying rulesets you give us, the more diluted the game gets with house rules and halfway points. I don’t have statistics, but I’m guessing the only time people play straight-up 4e rules is when they’re participating in Encounters sessions. At home, I bet the rules are different.

And it’s not even that 4e is a bad rules system… I haven’t invested in it because I’m currently unemployed, and I sank more into the previous rulesets than some people earn in a year. 4e isn’t necessarily a bad ruleset. We now have 5 rulesets, though, and everybody seems to love one and hate the rest. So when we’re looking for local gamers, not only do we have to find people who aren’t going to scream and brandish Bibles at us (thank you, by the way, Biblethumpers… it’s nice to have a foolproof way to identify raving idiots) but we’re also limited to people who are on the same page as far as their ruleset-of-choice.

The point is… you (Wizards of the Coast) are expendable. It’s actually been that way since Day One, but it’s more pronounced now than it used to be. We play, the way we want to play. Rulebooks are a convenient starting point, and a way to keep things organized, but that’s it. And some of us have a whole lot of rulebooks at this point. The real essence of the game —the enjoyment— comes from the setting, and what the minds of the DM and players do with that setting. And we’re already getting a bunch of that from Candlekeep and other free sources.

So, here’s some perspective.

If WotC kicks the bucket, D&D will live on, and so will gaming.

When we gripe, we’re doing you a favor, though some of us may not realize it at the time. We’re giving you an opportunity to fix things… before we stop buying from you, you go the way of the dodo, and we start getting our role-playing fixes from other companies, or *le gasp* making it up ourselves.

So it’s great that you’re listening now, but don’t miss the message underlying this whole situation:

WotC needs players a hell of a lot more than players need WotC.

Don’t bother with any sort of “we’re the good guys here, we’re giving you guys the game you love playing.” No, you’re here to make a buck, and everybody knows it. You make decisions based on money first and public perceptions second, and the question of what makes a good product may or may not appear somewhere further down the priority list.

Authors who play and DM care about what makes a great gaming product, and that’s why we like authors. Suits don’t care about the game, and that’s why suits can never be good guys.

I get that money matters. Makes the world go around, and all that. I get it; I have to put spaghetti on the table too. The difference is that I’m content with spaghetti; I don’t have any desire for caviar, or a Rolls in the driveway. Having a bunch of fans glom me at a con would be much tastier than any slimy, salty, stinking fish eggs anyway. Balancing quality and profitability is good, but I don’t believe for a second that that’s what’s been going on. What’s going on is too much partying in the temple of Abbathor, and as long as he’s in charge WotC will ultimately fail all of its saving throws.

Cynic’s Explanation

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

This is conjecture. Cynical conjecture. It should not be taken as Wizards of the Coast’s real motivations… unless it turns out that Cynic is right. In the meantime, I don’t have the inside scoop on goings-on at WotC, and nobody is feeding me any information. I probably know less than what’s in the news. This is just one way of looking at things, from the outside where most of us stand. I anticipate at least one person proving himself (yea, I’m a sexist; I firmly believe men are the dumber gender) a complete dolt by ignoring this intro paragraph and pasting the following into a forum as a quote from Wizards… which it is not, just in case that somehow wasn’t clear.

Cynic thinks that somebody, somewhere, came up with an idea which is simultaneously brilliant and a huge slap in the face to players.

Ask the customers what they want. While they’re responding, we (the Ravenloft Powers) come up with a new version of D&D, maybe start by reverting to 3.5e and re-add the fun parts of 4e, with some different flavor text or whatever. We have creative people to come up with all that googah happy-rainbow garbage. We’ll take the suggestions that we can work in without wasting a lot of time on it, and while still maximizing appeal to our 11 yr old European-descent American male target demographic. Customers will be happy because we asked for their input, but the kicker is that they can’t hate 5e because hey… they asked for it. We asked what they wanted, and gave it to them. Close enough, anyway. How do you complain about that?

With the unspoken understanding, behind the scenes, that customers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, actually contributing anything meaningful to the process of creating 5e. The great thing (from a corporate standpoint) is that customers won’t know which changes came from other gamers’ suggestions and which ones came from WotC staff, the magic 8 ball, or the monkey that only the CEO can see.

It’s been theorized that Wizards feels that D&D needs to be more like WoW in order to successfully compete with WoW. This theory resonates with me (which is why I remember it) because 4e looks to me like it’s trying to be a tabletop version of an MMO. Trying too hard.

Anyway, here’s my point in introducing Cynic: I think your (WotC) success will depend on how well you can prove Cynic wrong. I honestly wish you a resounding success, because I would like to see D&D persist. However, I hope you’ll forgive me if I decline to hold my breath, and instead continue developing campaign material (and possibly game systems) on my own. Cynic and I go way back, and too often he’s been right.