| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 04:31:08
Has any of you tried to use FR as the setting of a different game than any edition of D&D ?
One of my player suggest me to try Burning Wheel... I'm reading it currently to know how much work it would need.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Jul 2006 : 10:57:24
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
If you find the old Five Shires gazetteer for the original D&D game you get a good look on Ed take on halflings. It was written for The Known World, but as I understand the halflings here are very like the ones in Forgotten Realms.
Did Ed do many others non-FR works like this ? (I know those famous Hell articles).
One or two of his earliest DRAGON articles aren't entirely Realms-focused, so yes.
EDIT: After looking at the third page of this scroll, I see Kuje has mentioned the articles I was thinking about  .
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 29 Jun 2006 : 17:18:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
He did SJR1 Lost Ships for the Spelljammer line, and wrote a Spelljammer article or two for Dragon.
And some of the Zakhara material as well. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jun 2006 : 11:13:41
He did SJR1 Lost Ships for the Spelljammer line, and wrote a Spelljammer article or two for Dragon. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 29 Jun 2006 : 10:52:17
I cant remember how many non-reams game products Ed has designed, the only one that comes to mind (and that I own) is The Five Shires. The Hell articles were Dragon material, and there were several by Ed that had to do with other themes than the Realms.
I have seen a complete bibliography of everything Ed has written, but I can not for the life of me remember where. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 29 Jun 2006 : 05:02:56
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
If you find the old Five Shires gazetteer for the original D&D game you get a good look on Ed take on halflings. It was written for The Known World, but as I understand the halflings here are very like the ones in Forgotten Realms.
Did Ed do many others non-FR works like this ? (I know those famous Hell articles). |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 20:01:33
A bit more bloodthirsty than that. See 2004's Spin A Yarn-tale for instance. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 19:58:46
If you find the old Five Shires gazetteer for the original D&D game you get a good look on Ed take on halflings. It was written for The Known World, but as I understand the halflings here are very like the ones in Forgotten Realms. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 19:55:59
Do we know how Ed portrays halflings is in home campaign? More or less like hobbits? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 18:21:27
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Look in the Complete Book of Elves and the Cormanthyr supplement to see how Elves should be portrayed.
The problem with Complete Book of Elves is that 1) it's not FR specific 2) it's the only "Complete" book that added so much stuff to his race (vs of Dwarf and of Gnomes & Halflings).
I'll take a look to Cormanthyr.
Even so, many of the things in the CBoE have been used in FR and Ed has even said he uses them. :) |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 17:58:27
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Look in the Complete Book of Elves and the Cormanthyr supplement to see how Elves should be portrayed.
The problem with Complete Book of Elves is that 1) it's not FR specific 2) it's the only "Complete" book that added so much stuff to his race (vs of Dwarf and of Gnomes & Halflings).
I'll take a look to Cormanthyr. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 17:45:05
Look in the Complete Book of Elves and the Cormanthyr supplement to see how Elves should be portrayed. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 17:11:08
Ok Psionics doesn't seem to be much more interesting, I'll try a new one :
If it was not for "balance" and "all PHB races should be LA +0", how different would have been elf, gnome, halfling, half-orc, dwarf and half-elf?
Did some races lose much from 2E to 3.x for these reasons ?
If it wasn't for copyright issues, the sub-race of the halfling (not the ghostwise) living in Luiren could be finally named "hobbits"...
|
| shike |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 14:36:30
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Thanks for that HERO conversion, I'll look at it.
I would do the same for my Burning Wheel conversion, but I would fear to run in copyright issues.
Here is a link list of other system to HERO conversions. http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23298 |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 01:10:41
Thanks for that HERO conversion, I'll look at it.
I would do the same for my Burning Wheel conversion, but I would fear to run in copyright issues.
|
| shike |
Posted - 27 Jun 2006 : 00:44:11
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
First problem here, D&D 3.x isn't flexible at all. It offer many options yeah, but they are fixed and deterministic in their effects.
Don't try to do Ed's style of silver/spellfire or that famous story of a powerful sorceress disintegrating an island.
That being said, my goal here is to list all the problems the D&D 3.x rules have trying to support a “narrative” approach to FR.
To end it, if you want to play Diablo in FR, D&D 3.x rules work fine, if not, you'll get some problems. House ruling fixes to those problem is not easy as it may seem. (It's what I do from the first days of 3E).
There are actually FR conversions for other settings my favorite is into the HERO system (http://www.herogames.com) and the conversion is http://www.yamoslair.com/frhero.html
[Edit= for those who don't know:)]
The Hero system is a point based system, where, you take the basic building blocks of the system and create, using modifiers, the finished product. And then you define the Effect, (for example a Fireball and Scintillating Sphere mechanically are identical, but the SFX are defined differently.)
This is also a classless system so you can have fighters with some magical ability, mages who can fight, etc. Everything is based off of total points and the point cost of the abilities.
[/edit] |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 26 Jun 2006 : 03:40:46
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Psionics did return to the Realms after the ToT. 'Twas simply explained -- in an RAS novel, of all places -- that the psionicists still had the power, but they had to relearn how to use it.
Oh I forgot that one, TSR wasn't sure about to deal with them when FRA was sent to print it seems 
Some quotes from Ed's answers :
Oh, Faraer: in Ed's 'home' Realms, psionics doesn't work through the Weave, and therefore stands apart from magic, can work in dead-magic zones, etc. As for 3.5e WotC Realms, Ed's not so sure...
Faerunian minotaurs are very rarely seen or mentioned for the same reason psionics was downplayed for so long; they're considered essential elements of another TSR/now WotC product line (minotaurs meant Dragonlance, psionics meant Dark Sun). So while they're in the Realms (the 'home of everything' for 2nd Edition D&D), we weren't allowed to feature them in adventures or novels, or make more than passing mention of them.
kuje31, psionic items should be much rarer than magic items in the Realms. More later.
Ed has always preferred psionics in the Realms to be disorganized (i.e. individual creatures have wild talents, and may or may not have managed to find a tutor possessing the same power who can guide them in strengthening their own, in the same 1st and 2nd Edition way that magic users/wizards must bargain with and pay a tutor at each level advancement), for maximum surprise-in-Realmsplay reasons. He sees nothing wrong, however, with having secretive cabals (or blood-related families) of psionically-gifted individuals, or even a citadel or 'local hotspot' of psionic users.
And neither Ed nor I have the faintest what Illistyl's "official" WotC 3.5e stats would be. Her ORIGINAL stats described her psionics as a "wild talent," and Ed and I suppose we might go that route in 3.5e (the Wild Talent feat or its Hidden Talent expanded version) - - but then again, the question is largely meaningless because Ed still runs Psionics with the original rules plus the 'Mind Wrestling' internal unpublished TSR notes from 1978 to 1979 or so (akin to the DRAGON article from - - if memory serves me correctly - - issue 25), which in 3.5e terms is an approach to psionics very close to the EXPANDED PSIONICS HANDBOOK "Psionics is Different" Variant (in Ed's Realms, of course, it's not a 'variant' at all, but the original, unchanged governing psionics rules).
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Jun 2006 : 03:27:00
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Ok, since the magic doesn't seem to be an interesting subject, I'll try this new one : Psionics in the realms.
In 1e : it's rare, but they are some and there is the Wild talent thing.
In 2e (FR adventures) : there is NO MORE psionics.
In 3e : FRCS don't like psionics.
In 3.5 : PGtF finally take Psionics back in the realms with new organizations, feats and even a PrC.
Now for the description of Psi vs The Weave in 3.5 (Quoting the PGtF) :
[...] psionic ability taps only the inner reservoirs of the manifester. In a sense, each psionic creature is its own Weave, using the magic of its own lifeforce and mind to create psionic effect.
With this description, we should think that Psi and Magic would be different but for balance sake, the next paragraph says that magic and psionic are not transparent to each other.
So, without D&D limitations (rules and tone, a.k.a. balance) what should be Psionics in the realms ?
Psionics did return to the Realms after the ToT. 'Twas simply explained -- in an RAS novel, of all places -- that the psionicists still had the power, but they had to relearn how to use it. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 26 Jun 2006 : 03:03:14
Ok, since the magic doesn't seem to be an interesting subject, I'll try this new one : Psionics in the realms.
In 1e : it's rare, but they are some and there is the Wild talent thing.
In 2e (FR adventures) : there is NO MORE psionics.
In 3e : FRCS don't like psionics.
In 3.5 : PGtF finally take Psionics back in the realms with new organizations, feats and even a PrC.
Now for the description of Psi vs The Weave in 3.5 (Quoting the PGtF) :
[...] psionic ability taps only the inner reservoirs of the manifester. In a sense, each psionic creature is its own Weave, using the magic of its own lifeforce and mind to create psionic effect.
With this description, we should think that Psi and Magic would be different but for balance sake, the next paragraph says that magic and psionic are not transparent to each other.
So, without D&D limitations (rules and tone, a.k.a. balance) what should be Psionics in the realms ?
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 23 Jun 2006 : 18:45:52
Well, one of the problems for me is the explanations of the supernatural and the things mortals don't know. the rules has explained how the gods work, the Weave work etc. If you bring some of the mystery back it is easier to "explain" the Realms, at least to me. We know there is a weave and that it is governed by the goddess Mystra. We know that the weave manifests in many different ways and the only mortals that really knows the weave is the Chosen. When I have used other systems for the Realms I have used the mortal perspective as this removes the need for logical explanations of many things that in itself is not logical.
|
| Skeptic |
Posted - 23 Jun 2006 : 18:34:06
Well, I started (some posts above) with a first topic (Magic, the Weave, Power vs Art) and after Kuje's answers, the thread drifted a bit.
How I see the realms? Yesterday I read again the FRCS introduction, and I was suprised how I liked it.
Getting back on the Magic topic :
Should all Weave-based effect (Power, Art) have the same mechanics and different flavor ?
Do we need different mechanics for Art/Power variants ? (Such as bardic vs wizard vs sorcerer, cleric vs favored soul).
What are the limitations on the Art ? Access to healing spells or not ?
Power should give deity-tailored spell list or not ? If yes, some may have no cure spells and some have spells usually associated with the Art ? (like Kossuth clerics with fireball).
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 23 Jun 2006 : 17:49:20
well, If you could say a little bit of how you yourself see the realms and what you want to focus on, it would be a little easier to comment. There are literally thousands of things to say and comment; so what are your own thoughts? |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 23 Jun 2006 : 00:01:34
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Its difficult to set up clear points for the Realms as each persons take would wary; I would concentrate on the writings we have from Ed, both on this site and in print and then try to organize the impression one gets from this. When one has a clear picture of how one envisions the realms it is easier to decide what one sees as the important element and what the "feel" is. After twenty years in print there are some game elements one may want to delete and some one wants to add. Then work up the rules for how one can get this to work as a game for one self.
I will try to think a little more about this tomorrow, but on this side of the world it is to late for me to really get my brain working.
That is exactly the work I'm beginning to do and with I ask help from the scribes here (if some are interested). Of course I could ask a long and detailed question in Ed's thread, but I don't think he would have the time to answer it.
The next step, for me, will be to see how it can be done with Burning Wheel. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 23:56:29
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Apologies. The wording made it seem like you were 'adding it to a list of things you didn't want to talk about at all.' :)
No problem
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
You said that Balance was the greatest priority. Or did you mean that it wasn't?
In D&D 3.x it is, in MY "perfect RPG" isn't at all (priority is the story). |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 23:27:17
quote:
Where I said to Kuje not talking about something? I confirmed his idea and said that effectively, here we don’t have to bother with D&D restrictions.
Apologies. The wording made it seem like you were 'adding it to a list of things you didn't want to talk about at all.' :)
quote:
Hmmm.. where I said that I want to make it balanced in the new system ?
You said that Balance was the greatest priority. Or did you mean that it wasn't? |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 23:23:35
Its difficult to set up clear points for the Realms as each persons take would wary; I would concentrate on the writings we have from Ed, both on this site and in print and then try to organize the impression one gets from this. When one has a clear picture of how one envisions the realms it is easier to decide what one sees as the important element and what the "feel" is. After twenty years in print there are some game elements one may want to delete and some one wants to add. Then work up the rules for how one can get this to work as a game for one self.
I will try to think a little more about this tomorrow, but on this side of the world it is to late for me to really get my brain working. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 23:12:32
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
OK lets see; the weave and its role. One of the problems with the D&D magic Vance inspired magic system is that it limits the magic to the spell user and his books. That system is OK in itself, but to present the realms one gets a heap of trouble. The weave that Ed speaks of seem more like a mana form that one "plugs into" for different effects. one could almost compare it with Lucas image of the force. in theory all magic is part of the weave but it manifests itself in many different forms. This will also break with the traditional class system of D&D, so the question of balance can become difficult in some cases.
Is this more what you were thinking of?
Exactly. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 23:10:17
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Since Balance isn't the number one priority for FR's magic system (separated from any mechanics), trying to make it the number one priority in a new game system and STILL try to make it appropriate to FR is impossible. Sorry.
Hmmm.. where I said that I want to make it balanced in the new system ?
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
And note that Kuje was answering your questions/statements - don't tell someone not to talk about things when they're taking the time to answer your specific comments. That's a little rude. :)
Where I said to Kuje not talking about something? I confirmed his idea and said that effectively, here we don’t have to bother with D&D restrictions. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 22:45:25
Since Balance isn't the number one priority for FR's magic system (separated from any mechanics), trying to make it the number one priority in a new game system and STILL try to make it appropriate to FR is impossible. Sorry.
And note that Kuje was answering your questions/statements - don't tell someone not to talk about things when they're taking the time to answer your specific comments. That's a little rude. :) |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 22:44:14
OK lets see; the weave and its role. One of the problems with the D&D magic Vance inspired magic system is that it limits the magic to the spell user and his books. That system is OK in itself, but to present the realms one gets a heap of trouble. The weave that Ed speaks of seem more like a mana form that one "plugs into" for different effects. one could almost compare it with Lucas image of the force. in theory all magic is part of the weave but it manifests itself in many different forms. This will also break with the traditional class system of D&D, so the question of balance can become difficult in some cases.
Is this more what you were thinking of? |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 22:25:19
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I find it a little difficult helping with this as I have no idea how the system you are planning to use works. I am not trying to be fresh here, but could you explain a little better what you are after, I want to answer you but I cant really grasp what you are asking.
Sorry If I am a bit dense here.
I don't ask you to do my work (using Burning wheel to handle FR), my goal here is more to extract FR ideas/flavor as a setting from what is has inherited directly from D&D rules and tone (Balance is the number one priority). |
