Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Secrets of the Magister

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
daarkknight Posted - 27 Sep 2012 : 02:52:20
Last night after my weekly game ended, I decided to pull out the old "Secrets of the Magister" book. I can't say that I've read it (again) deeply, but after cursory glances/skimming up to page 44, I was reminded of how excellent this book is.

There have to be at least a dozen ideas or plot hooks I've gotten from this book already. I doubt I'll ever get around to using all of them, but they are there in the book. It reminded me of how wonderful the 2E books were when it came to offering up open-ended ideas for a DM to use.

If 5e books are as good, heck, even half as good as this, we may just be all right...
16   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
TBeholder Posted - 01 Oct 2012 : 14:02:18
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Back to Secrets of the Magister - while I really loved this tome, it wasn't directly useful to DMs. It was a great springboard for ideas, and lore tie-ins, but not really enough 'meat' there for running games.
Aside of potential plot hooks... There was some cool magic lore like Imaskari mantles, smaller tasty bits for wizards to run after or see they buzz by overhead, the Touched, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I, personally, quite enjoyed The Seven Sisters, and not just for the spells. From a lore standpoint, I think it's a great resource.
It is, but the form was less than optimal for its nature. EE, PftM or The Wizards Three style would fit it better.
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

Firstly, they gave an insight into how Ed dealt with powerful NPCs in his campaign and reinforced his view of small PC wheels turning within larger NPC and global wheels. DMs who have their PCs as the focus of the universe and never need them to 'run away' from anything would clearly find little utility in this aspect of the books.
So true. There's never enough of this.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Don't get me wrong, all of the 'Ed splats' are my favorites, but that is because I am a huge fan of the setting itself. I read FR books because I enjoy them, same as any other type of book, so they needn't always serve a purpose.
Aye. Leftover lore can be tasty too. Though one of the main appealing point is tying everything into context, so in the end lore growing on the background is tastier.
Markustay Posted - 01 Oct 2012 : 05:34:05
Don't get me wrong, all of the 'Ed splats' are my favorites, but that is because I am a huge fan of the setting itself. I read FR books because I enjoy them, same as any other type of book, so they needn't always serve a purpose.
MayNovember Posted - 01 Oct 2012 : 04:44:18
I have everyone of these from the FOR1-10 series. Drow of the Underdark, Code of the Harpers, Cult of the Dragon, The Magister and Seven Sisters are by far the best. It's no wonder why, they are all Greenwood's work. The others I felt were disappointing. Especially Elves of Evermeet. It seemed that it was mostly fluff, and not too well thought out spells, items, npcs and locations. Compare EofE to DotU. It's night and day in terms of quality, imagination and useful game information. Drow of the Underdark to me is the measure by which all TSR products are judged.
The Hidden Lord Posted - 01 Oct 2012 : 03:46:09
Secrets of the Magister and The Seven Sisters should be the model upon which continued Realms support should be based.

Lore rich, with extremely cool crunch; spells written by Ed are so easily
converted to ones edition of choice.
The Sage Posted - 01 Oct 2012 : 02:44:42
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

Both "Seven Sisters" and "Secrets" provided the fundamental plank for dungeons, crypts, tombs and 'lost' caches holding magic for PCs to find (the 'seeding Magister' and 'seeding Chosen' theme) and also showcased the importance and game-enhancing effec of throwing unfamiliar magic at PCs to keep them on their toes, as it were.
I couldn't have put it better myself.

Both Secrets and Sisters remain two very-well thumbed volumes on my tabletop. My players know they can expect some classic Ed-lore each and every time they see either or both books with me at any one time.
George Krashos Posted - 01 Oct 2012 : 00:07:19
I consider that both "Seven Sisters" and "Secrets" had two very important uses applicable to any FR campaign.

Firstly, they gave an insight into how Ed dealt with powerful NPCs in his campaign and reinforced his view of small PC wheels turning within larger NPC and global wheels. DMs who have their PCs as the focus of the universe and never need them to 'run away' from anything would clearly find little utility in this aspect of the books.

Secondly, and secondarily, the books gave a basis and reasons to spice up the magic of campaigns by introducing different and rare spells and magic items. Both "Seven Sisters" and "Secrets" provided the fundamental plank for dungeons, crypts, tombs and 'lost' caches holding magic for PCs to find (the 'seeding Magister' and 'seeding Chosen' theme) and also showcased the importance and game-enhancing effec of throwing unfamiliar magic at PCs to keep them on their toes, as it were.

That and the fact that they were both filled with lore makes them superior FR products from the non-spoon feeding school of sourcebooks.

-- George Krashos
Wooly Rupert Posted - 30 Sep 2012 : 21:08:02
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I loved Elves of Evermeet, The Draconomicon, Seven Sisters, Secrets of the Magister, and Code of the Harpers. Pirates of the Fallen Stars didn't do too much for me
Secrets of the Magister and Code of the Harpers got interesting lore, if very specific, IMO.
Elves of Evermeet and Pirates of the Fallen Stars are halfway between the same and "The Book of Leftover Lore". Seven Sisters is more of Leftover Lore + fragmentary intro + an excuse to have a book of spells from Ed. I don't see a cohesive whole there, even if each part looks good on its own. A spellbook with realmslore context maybe would be better off as explicit "Pages from the Mages, tome II" or maybe "Pages from the Mages, appendix 1: Seven Sisters", like it was done with Elminster's Ecologies. While intro stories would be better as full-on "short stories".


I, personally, quite enjoyed The Seven Sisters, and not just for the spells. From a lore standpoint, I think it's a great resource.
Markustay Posted - 30 Sep 2012 : 19:30:27
I never said I liked his naming conventions - Mr.Denning has RAS beat there (and I agree on the level of silliness).

I mention Troy along with Giantcraft because the lore therein is based on the history in his novels, and I have to assume he came up with that.

I am also a big fan of world-specific lore (else, why even have different settings?), but I want that lore to gel with the greater D&D cosmology, especially in 2e where it was supposed to. He has it where the giant sub-races were not created by their own gods, but rather, a completely unrelated line of the family tree (and a world-specific one at that).

I am not saying I didn't enjoy the series - I really did. It just doesn't feel like it takes place in the Forgotten Realms - its a self-contained setting which could have been shoe-horned into any other setting. Thats not shared-world IMHO, thats a pocket-dimension. There are plenty of things I don't like in FR, like Shades and Aboleths, but I am willing to accept their existence (I just don't use them), but the giant lore is just way too much of a mish-mosh to bother with.

And like I said, thats a shame, because I like giants, and I would really love a comprehensive treatment of them in FR. Not like Giantcraft - something a bit more useful; an adventure-path like Against the Giants, but designed more along the lines of MoM (a tour of giant-regions through a series of adventures, wherein their history unfolds).

Back to Secrets of the Magister - while I really loved this tome, it wasn't directly useful to DMs. It was a great springboard for ideas, and lore tie-ins, but not really enough 'meat' there for running games. This makes me torn on books like this - the fantasy fan in me loves this kind of setting treatment, while the DM in me screams for something a bit more crunchy.
TBeholder Posted - 30 Sep 2012 : 16:45:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I loved Elves of Evermeet, The Draconomicon, Seven Sisters, Secrets of the Magister, and Code of the Harpers. Pirates of the Fallen Stars didn't do too much for me
Secrets of the Magister and Code of the Harpers got interesting lore, if very specific, IMO.
Elves of Evermeet and Pirates of the Fallen Stars are halfway between the same and "The Book of Leftover Lore". Seven Sisters is more of Leftover Lore + fragmentary intro + an excuse to have a book of spells from Ed. I don't see a cohesive whole there, even if each part looks good on its own. A spellbook with realmslore context maybe would be better off as explicit "Pages from the Mages, tome II" or maybe "Pages from the Mages, appendix 1: Seven Sisters", like it was done with Elminster's Ecologies. While intro stories would be better as full-on "short stories".

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

completely ignore the existing pantheon of giant gods and create his own group of 'patriarchs'. The whole thing was just epic-fail for me (which is a damn shame, because Firbolgs are my favorite fantasy race).
Oh, please. Elves may worship gods other than Seldarine, but giants can't? That's not starting on those aliases.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

In 2nd edition you shouldn't have been able to just create world-specifc lore that didn't gel well with the greater D&D cosmology.
Examples, please? Because if it's just something folk in the given world knows... Heh. The Clueless are called so because they more often than not think that anything with horns is eeeevil.
Also, demiplanes can contain a lot of weirdness (Ravenloft being a prime example).
So on local mortal level of lore, almost anything without really gross contradictions goes - even Mentzer's cosmology sinks in without much ripples if you want it to.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Also, creating a completely useless, out-of-the-way nation whole-cloth for your novels is the worst sort of vanity for one supposedly writing in a shared setting (but as we know Troy's characters are always 'better, stronger, smarter' then everyone around them).
A bit like this. But Giantcraft itself wasn't from Denning. And either way, it's connected so little it could be shoehorned into "FR" on the wave of Drizzt.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

At least RAS makes up for his conceits with writing quality.
Oh, yes. Deluge of quality - emo-conan, villain ball, disney (could anyone out...creative the clowns who make up character names like "Cruella de Vile"? Yes, here's "Matron Mother Malice" with bonus alliteration) and rants that in some abattoir kindergarten could pass for philosophy. But hey, there indeed always are two really good pages or so per hundred of these.
Markustay Posted - 29 Sep 2012 : 19:01:17
That book, Pages from the Mages, Prayers of the Faithful, and Code of the Harpers are my favorites when it comes to 'hidden chunks of Realms-lore goodness'.

I guess its no surprise given who the author always is. {smirk}
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

... and I really didn't care for Giantcraft ...
Giantcraft was one of the few Realms tomes that I've found I only come back to for certain sections -- namely, most of the stuff on frost, storm, or fire giants -- which remains my favourite types of giants.
The problem with Giantcraft (and the related Twilight Giants series) was that it didn't mesh well with established D&D lore, and left far more questions then it answered. I am still wondering why Troy Denning felt the need to completely ignore the existing pantheon of giant gods and create his own group of 'patriarchs'. The whole thing was just epic-fail for me (which is a damn shame, because Firbolgs are my favorite fantasy race).

If FR was a self-contained setting then maybe it would have all been acceptable, but at the time all the D&D settings were connected, through three major meta-settings (Ravenloft, Planescape, and Spelljammer). In 2nd edition you shouldn't have been able to just create world-specifc lore that didn't gel well with the greater D&D cosmology.

Also, creating a completely useless, out-of-the-way nation whole-cloth for your novels is the worst sort of vanity for one supposedly writing in a shared setting (but as we know Troy's characters are always 'better, stronger, smarter' then everyone around them). At least RAS makes up for his conceits with writing quality.

{mini-rant over}

EDIT: Anyway, I guess what I am trying to say is that Giantcraft is one of the few FR books that I don't just ignore, I completely disregard it and came up with my own stuff.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 29 Sep 2012 : 05:11:57
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

I think Cult of the Dragon and Drow of the Underdark are part of that run as well, but maybe they just have the same style of cover. I always wished that they had made a book on the Zhentarim in that series.



Ah, yes, those two were part of that run. Add those to the list of ones I really enjoyed. ^^
The Sage Posted - 29 Sep 2012 : 02:35:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

... and I really didn't care for Giantcraft ...
Giantcraft was one of the few Realms tomes that I've found I only come back to for certain sections -- namely, most of the stuff on frost, storm, or fire giants -- which remains my favourite types of giants.
Tarlyn Posted - 29 Sep 2012 : 01:30:32
I think Cult of the Dragon and Drow of the Underdark are part of that run as well, but maybe they just have the same style of cover. I always wished that they had made a book on the Zhentarim in that series.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 28 Sep 2012 : 23:12:20
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn

All the books in that particular series were amazing resources.



I loved Elves of Evermeet, The Draconomicon, Seven Sisters, Secrets of the Magister, and Code of the Harpers. Pirates of the Fallen Stars didn't do too much for me, and I really didn't care for Giantcraft -- of course, part of that might have been due to my intense dislike of the first book of the Twilight Giants trilogy. I've never finished that trilogy, because of the first book.
Tarlyn Posted - 28 Sep 2012 : 23:06:01
All the books in that particular series were amazing resources.
Kris the Grey Posted - 27 Sep 2012 : 17:22:29
I have to agree here. That book, and it's description of Mantle spells, is among my favorite tomes of the Realms (and 2E in general). The amount and detail of the lore within is staggering.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2025 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000