| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Austin the Archmage |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 00:06:01
I've read a few topics about comparing editions. Most of them are about which rules set everyone prefers. What I haven't seen is a topic based on the feel of the Realms when comparing editions. So I ask you: how would you say the Realms felt in the 2ed compared to how they felt in the 3ed? Do you have a preference? Do you think both editions did some things right and wrong?
To define what I mean by feel, I've seen some people who say that the Realms had more wonder and uncertainty in the earlier editions, while the 3rd edition explored things a little too thoroughly. I know that RSE are more common in 3ed, and I think some people feel that characters like Mystra's Chosen became more intrusive in the metaplot. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 21:36:48
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
4e was a totally different setting, and so can't be compared to the previous editions. And since 5e hasn't released any FR material aside from the Sundering novels, we can't judge it either.
Except where it wasn't, is totally comparable to previous editions, and was quite popular among a large group of people who liked to play LFR.
But, as Wooly said, not entirely relevant to the current topic at hand. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 19:48:56
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In my opinion, there was less focus in the 3.x Realms on maintaining continuity, and less focus on telling stories simply to develop the setting. Instead, we had unexplained changes and a flood of major events, many of which were not referenced in any other stories when they were done.
Also, one of the things that was really pushed in the 3.x FR source material was rules. Every single book had to devote pages to new Prestige Classes (some of which, again in my opinion, felt arbitrarily forced into specific niches, like the Weald and Woe archer one), new feats, new spells, and page-long stat blocks that frequently had mistakes in them. All of this came at the expense of lore that could have been included, instead.
All that said, there were things I liked in the 3.x era... I would have changed how some things happened, if I'd been running the show, and a couple of things wouldn't have happened at all, but there were other developments that I'd've left alone.
The way I see it, the 1E/2E Realms was the Golden Age of Realmslore. 3.x was the Silver Age -- still some good stuff, but not reaching the high point that had previously been set.
Does that make 4e the Bronze Age? Or the Dark Ages? And what about 5e or is that too soon to deside yet?
We don't have enough to go on to make the call about 5E. And my opinions on 4E have been shared more than once; they are not relevant to this particular discussion, and I'm trying to avoid past negativity on the topic. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 19:43:17
4e was a totally different setting, and so can't be compared to the previous editions. And since 5e hasn't released any FR material aside from the Sundering novels, we can't judge it either. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 18:18:40
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In my opinion, there was less focus in the 3.x Realms on maintaining continuity, and less focus on telling stories simply to develop the setting. Instead, we had unexplained changes and a flood of major events, many of which were not referenced in any other stories when they were done.
Also, one of the things that was really pushed in the 3.x FR source material was rules. Every single book had to devote pages to new Prestige Classes (some of which, again in my opinion, felt arbitrarily forced into specific niches, like the Weald and Woe archer one), new feats, new spells, and page-long stat blocks that frequently had mistakes in them. All of this came at the expense of lore that could have been included, instead.
All that said, there were things I liked in the 3.x era... I would have changed how some things happened, if I'd been running the show, and a couple of things wouldn't have happened at all, but there were other developments that I'd've left alone.
The way I see it, the 1E/2E Realms was the Golden Age of Realmslore. 3.x was the Silver Age -- still some good stuff, but not reaching the high point that had previously been set.
Does that make 4e the Bronze Age? Or the Dark Ages? And what about 5e or is that too soon to deside yet? |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 16:00:03
Heck, I took the 4e's genasi's appearance and have made use of it, and I'm as anti-4e as you can get. Good lore is good lore. There just wasn't as much of it in 3e as there was in 2e, and there's almost none in 4e.
And there was also an aboleth in the 2e starter adventure Shadowdale. So yes, they've definitely been part of the setting for a very long time. It was only in 4e that they rose to prominence, though. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 07:22:39
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
So I ask you: how would you say the Realms felt in the 2ed compared to how they felt in the 3ed? Do you have a preference? Do you think both editions did some things right and wrong?
This is a tough question to answer because editions change over the course of their run.
3rd Edition D&D--and with it the Realms--was a very different animal at the start than at the finish.
Same with 2nd Edition D&D.
The OP is asking us to speak in general terms about the feel of the Realms under different editions.
For me the usefulness of materials from each edition has changed as my needs as a gamer have changed.
In the 80s the Realms was good at the start because it was entertaining--the novels carried more weight for me as a result, and my D&D experiences centered on the core rulebooks and general splatbook supplements more than Realms sourcebooks (save for the gray box rulebooks--I devoured them).
Fast forward to the year 2000 and what I needed was useful material to jumpstart my thinking as a DM, so the sourcebooks became my point of interest and my novel reading lagged. Monster manuals and books filled with magic items and adventures were what I needed, even if they weren't Realms books.
Nowadays I don't DM, but I do collect Realmslore about Cormyr and from material Ed writes, so the novels hold equal value to me as entertainment and source material.
My point is that the feel of each edition has changed for me over time. Right now I don't have a preference. If there is material of interest to me I'll gobble it up, no matter the edition. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 06:00:37
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Very true. And they featured heavily in the 2e mega-adventure Night Below. I think that adventure gave the only in-depth description of an aboleth city in 2e, and it was explicitly stated that the city was only in the air because otherwise the magical ritual wouldn't work. For most of its existence it had been under water.
Not that Night Below was FR, of course, but it provided a good example of what you could do with the aboleth. And there was also a kuo-toa city in there as well. Fun (well, terrifying, TPK) times. :)
One of Elaine's books about Liriel had an aboleth in it, and I'm pretty sure that was published during 2E. And The Sea of Fallen Stars was definitely 2E, and it has at least one mention of aboleth.
So they were definitely in the 2E Realms. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 19 Dec 2014 : 19:20:20
I like to take the good things from both editions and put them together. I loved all the current lore of 2nd edition and all of the extra lore that 3rd gave us. I loved the Lost Empires of Faerun and Underdark books. I also loved all the old box sets from 2nd edition such as the Ruins of Myth Drannor, Undermountain, and the Ruins of Zhentil Keep just to name a few. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 19 Dec 2014 : 18:53:12
Very true. And they featured heavily in the 2e mega-adventure Night Below. I think that adventure gave the only in-depth description of an aboleth city in 2e, and it was explicitly stated that the city was only in the air because otherwise the magical ritual wouldn't work. For most of its existence it had been under water.
Not that Night Below was FR, of course, but it provided a good example of what you could do with the aboleth. And there was also a kuo-toa city in there as well. Fun (well, terrifying, TPK) times. :) |
| Tamsar |
Posted - 19 Dec 2014 : 18:27:43
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I believe aboleth were in 1E.
Aboleth are definitely 1st Edition. There was an Aboleth Ecology article in Dragon 131, which coincidentally was the first issue of Dragon I ever purchased, back in March 1988. Tempus Fugit thats for sure |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Dec 2014 : 14:19:49
Not that i meant to be argumentative. Its just that by pouring over the Elminster's Ecologies for Thar i managed to piece together a fairly comprehensive history of the area (using all the other sources as well of course).
I did assume the history in the book was partially wrong but that is because it is written from the point of view of someone who is only familiar with the area, not an all knowing sage. It was not written to be taken as gospel, the person may have identified monsters incorrectly, could have misinterpreted events, and rumours are just that - rumours.
But you can still glean a lot from those books (well Thar is the only one i've read in detail, but i assume the others are just as good). |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 19 Dec 2014 : 09:30:19
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Hmm... before 3rd ed came around, how many of your characters could pull off anything like the actions in the books? And when running the Forgotten Realms, how many times have you had to sit down and explain what the world was like so the players would have their characters act appropriately? I remember gaming back in the 80s and 90s in the Realms and only 1 game, just 1, stood out as fun. The rest of the time it was a bland experience where we lacked any kind of connection between what we were playing and the novels that caught our attention in the first place. Krynn of Dragonlance was more exciting and more closely modeled the novels than anything Faerun and that gray box set had to offer. The setting still got its butt kicked by the rules but it was kinder than AD&D had ever been to any heroic fantasy setting into which it was plugged. I don't have a lot of time to create new lore or deal with false lore (I hate, hate, hate the Elminster Ecologies because they were wrong and sapped me of scarce money to boot!). 3rd ed gathered lore together and separated the chaff or put the specialized lores into their own supplements.
Hate Elminster's Ecologies, how can anyone hate Elminster's Ecologies? |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 19 Dec 2014 : 03:04:19
Hmm... before 3rd ed came around, how many of your characters could pull off anything like the actions in the books? And when running the Forgotten Realms, how many times have you had to sit down and explain what the world was like so the players would have their characters act appropriately? I remember gaming back in the 80s and 90s in the Realms and only 1 game, just 1, stood out as fun. The rest of the time it was a bland experience where we lacked any kind of connection between what we were playing and the novels that caught our attention in the first place. Krynn of Dragonlance was more exciting and more closely modeled the novels than anything Faerun and that gray box set had to offer. The setting still got its butt kicked by the rules but it was kinder than AD&D had ever been to any heroic fantasy setting into which it was plugged. I don't have a lot of time to create new lore or deal with false lore (I hate, hate, hate the Elminster Ecologies because they were wrong and sapped me of scarce money to boot!). 3rd ed gathered lore together and separated the chaff or put the specialized lores into their own supplements. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 22:16:24
Oh I'm saying they didn't exist and live on Toril. What I'm saying is that 3e made them seem far more common than they were in 1e/2e. My grognardia is in full mode lately. I run my games in the 1e and 2e eras of play though so it really doesn't matter in the long run. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 22:00:59
Aboleth, genasi, and tieflings all date back to 2E; I believe aboleth were in 1E. I don't immediately recall 2E references to genasi and tieflings in the Realms, but since Planescape was connected to the Realms, it was possible for those races to appear. 3E officially enshrined them in the Realms, but the possibility for their presence was already established.
It was 4E that took the highly varied planetouched races and gave them the one-size-fits-all, obviously non-human looks. Prior to that, some (not all, but many) planetouched could pass as human with little or no effort.
I do recall references to aboleth in the 2E Realms, though they didn't have the prominence that 4E gave them. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 21:19:15
You know I'm not 100% sure if they showed up at the end of 3e or in 4e now (most likely 4e now that I'm thinking about it though). It still dovetails into my point about all of the 'new' races suddenly living on the planet. Some of which were better suited, IMO, to remain where they were. Aboleth, if anything, should have remained more mysterious/nightmarish than the drow. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 20:19:31
Weren't the flying aboleths a 4e thing? Granted, I sort of stopped reading the novels there at the tail end of 3e, but I didn't think they got all aboleth-happy until 4e. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 19:38:06
There's also the fact that much of the lore was changed. As were races and other things. Example: 2e drow with a few levels could levitate as a SLA and the older they got the more they could do it (among other things). In 3e, all of a sudden, they could only do it with a House Insignia (which, by the way, were also drastically changed from 2e to 3e). They did eventually create a series of feats to mimic said abilities, but who wants to expend feats for such things when there are so few of them to be had over the course of 20 levels? It 'cheapened' the drow in my opinion. In many ways, they ceased to be the stuff of nightmares that they were in 1e/2e...though with the popularity of Drizzt as a character the 'nightmare' would change anyway. I preferred drow to remain in the Underdark where they were mysterious and nightmarish to the surfacers.
Another change I didn't like was how many species/cultures suddenly showed up in Faerun. Drow became more common on the surface, tieflings popped up everywhere, as did genasi. Then you had the Shades and Imaskari. And the worst one of all, the aboleth showed up in a flying city! By the way, I had always interpreted 'floating cities' to mean cities that floated on the water given the aboleth's need for water. Whoever came up with the idea that it meant floating in the air should be pelted with rotten fruit. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 18:25:01
Thanks. There's a fair amount in 3e that I like, or can adapt (I kind of like the sarrukh, even if they are hopelessly broken, mechanically), but it feels mechanical. It's especially glaring when they did 3e conversions of 2e magical items. Everything has to be nailed down, defined with a "this does that as cast by X spell," that sort of thing.
Now, 2e had plenty of magic items that just replicated spells, don't think I'm saying they didn't exist. But compare the 2e and 3e versions of the kiira (from Cormanthor and Lost Empires of Faerun), or the shields and swords from The Magister, or the descriptions of lost magic at the start of Hellgate Keep. There's a wonder there that the 3e descriptions completely lack, and a flexibility to have a magic item do whatever the designer wanted it to do, without needing to worry about how to justify it with the rules.
Maybe the most egregious were the dukars of Seros. In 2e they were a Jedi-like order with a wide variety of flexible, coral-based powers. In 3e, they had a minor magic item in their hands. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 16:58:32
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Someone above mentioned that the 2e Realms felt more "magical" than the 3e version, and I have to agree. The problem was that 3e went more for the "Diablo" version of magical items (stacking a lot of smaller properties, like "bane" and "frost"), while at the same time nailing down exactly what was required to create everything with the zeal of a mathematical undergrad.
3e magic was like a Ford assembly line: take X gold and Y spells, spend Z days hammering and chanting, and ping! Out comes A magic item. Perfectly predictable, perfectly repeatable. Not at all magical. Which is, oddly enough, one reason the system works so well in Eberron, since Eberron was built with that kind of "magic is scientific" approach.
2e magic was fluid. In 3e, if you wanted a magical item to do something, it basically had to replicate a spell. In 2e, you just said what you wanted it to do. Take a look at the magical item descriptions in, say The Magister (FR 4), and compare them with 3e's Magic Item Compendium. That's pretty much the difference in feel between the 2e and 3e Realms right there.
I came to the Realms via Baldur's Gate for PC and the 3E FRCS. As I delved into Realmslore, I developed a fondness for 2E lore that I never seemed to be able to capture. I just couldn't put my finger on why. I had a few suspicions, mechanical differences being one. But this post really clicked when I read it. I won't say it's "the" difference, but for me at least, it's a good observation, and it might sum up my opinions quite well, as inexperienced as I may be. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 15:30:16
For me:
2e FR - Reminds me of old He-Man with zaney yet predictable characters and a Saturday morning cartoon feel. The stories are often very straight-forward "Good guy vs. Bad guy" and everyone has a laugh at the end of the tail. The lore was good, to a degree, but required extensive reading that just wasn't my cup of tea back in the day.
3e FR - Put more emphasis on detail but in the vein of "You will use this product for RPGs" due to the extensive amount of mechanics that also followed the lore. 3E books were FOR D&D, instead of being also for a good read. The feel of the Realms was also darker, with characters having more depth and dealing with more dangerous situations. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 13:53:28
Hmmmm... tough one.
I loved both editions, but I think 2e had two things OVER 3e.
1) 'Uncertain 3rd Person' - the best presentation for lore in an RPG, IMHO
2) Shark-Jumping. The novels were probably the biggest perpetrator of this, but the whole 'bigger is better' plot-escalation was gawd-awful, IMO. It started with the return of the Shades and ended with the return of the Imaskari.. not to mention at least one 'creator race' that turned-out to be a completely broken mess (in RAW).
On the other hand, I think 3e also had its perks - better editing and cleaner-looking sourcebooks. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 13:02:07
Lore-wise, 2e all day long. The lore that came out of 3e pales in comparison to what 2e gave us. Not only that, but the fluff we were given in 2e products was just as good. The Volo's Guide series were all pure win in that department. What 3e gave us, though, were mechanics to explain many of the things that were mentioned in 2e lore. Often there were references to wizards who could alter spells on the fly to create enhanced (or even diminished) effects. 3e gave us feats for that. The problem with 3e was that it went too far in that regard and every book that hit the shelves had tons of crunch that could have been saved for lore and fluff. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 05:05:31
Someone above mentioned that the 2e Realms felt more "magical" than the 3e version, and I have to agree. The problem was that 3e went more for the "Diablo" version of magical items (stacking a lot of smaller properties, like "bane" and "frost"), while at the same time nailing down exactly what was required to create everything with the zeal of a mathematical undergrad.
3e magic was like a Ford assembly line: take X gold and Y spells, spend Z days hammering and chanting, and ping! Out comes A magic item. Perfectly predictable, perfectly repeatable. Not at all magical. Which is, oddly enough, one reason the system works so well in Eberron, since Eberron was built with that kind of "magic is scientific" approach.
2e magic was fluid. In 3e, if you wanted a magical item to do something, it basically had to replicate a spell. In 2e, you just said what you wanted it to do. Take a look at the magical item descriptions in, say The Magister (FR 4), and compare them with 3e's Magic Item Compendium. That's pretty much the difference in feel between the 2e and 3e Realms right there. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 02:13:47
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
I'd imagine the Chosen will be so busy nowadays, PC's will likely never see them.
Aren't half of them dead by now, anyway?
Granted, Sylune and Elminster have managed to get stuff done while being less than living, but still.
Chosen are effectively immortal, though I believe the shelf life of them "burning out" varies from person to person. If you're talking Chosen being killed, yes there have been a few. Though being the Realms, that doesn't mean we won't see them in some form again. |
| eeorey |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 01:31:39
I love them both, I get why many people got turned off by the amount of stats, rules and prestige classes in 3d ed., but I loved them. Probably because I don't mind playing a slightly "gimped" character, progressing in a way I feel that character would progress in the setting from a RP perspective, rather than trying to make him or her as overpowered as possible (which in some cases was kind of hard not to). |
| Austin the Archmage |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 01:10:12
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
I'd imagine the Chosen will be so busy nowadays, PC's will likely never see them.
Aren't half of them dead by now, anyway?
Granted, Sylune and Elminster have managed to get stuff done while being less than living, but still. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 00:57:08
Both have their merits.
Realmslore and D&D game mechanics have always been interlocked. 2E Realmslore invented the whole paradigm of deities cratering the landscape of puny mortals - this in itself wasnt terrible, but it established a precedent and pattern which has led to a new (and auctorially inflated, more spectacular, more calamitous) apocalypse to herald each subsequent D&D game edition. 3E shook things up a lot, too, but the effects tended to be more localized and better integrated with supporting Realmslore (novel trilogies, mostly).
Old AD&D magic systems were more exotic, mysterious, and unpredictable. It was a big deal to make magic back then, so Realmslore tended to make a bigger deal out of magic back then. 3E/etc streamlined and systemized magic, made magical items a simple matter of dropping some gold and XP in the right places. The consequence is that *everybody* could have some cool magic, and *everybody* did, and the Realms became a high fantasy setting which seemed (to me) to lose a bit of something fantastic.
3E-era Realmslore also tended to be overinfested with elves and drow and fey things. Those beasts saturated 2E-era Realmslore as well, but somehow in 3E they seemed to really get out of hand and dominate every Realms product. I like 2E more in this regard because one could actually read about humans, demihumans, dragons, giants, archmages, liches, vampires, etc, without ever having to implicitly concede that the elves somehow did it all first and did it all better.
I misliked 3E central emphasis on *character build* over *character class* or even just *character*. But this is more about the game mechanics and less about the lore. And its really just a matter of preference.
I also misliked 3E NPC writeups, full of stat blocks and prestige classes and bonuses galore. Much better, IMO, to leave godlike NPCs vague and godlike - giving them stats just encourages PCs to attack them in combat or *duplicate (and improve) their unique build*, as a goal unto itself which has nothing meaningful to do with the Realms. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 00:49:30
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
3E did some good things, and I did for the most part like their products, but 2E era was where it was at for me. Lore lore lore. Volo's Guides. ;)
Ah, the Volo's Guides... Volo's Guide to Waterdeep is what converted me to a hardcore Realmsfan, and Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (formerly a suppressed work  ) remains one of my most frequently referred-to sources of Realmslore (along with the 2E deity books). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Dec 2014 : 00:46:13
In my opinion, there was less focus in the 3.x Realms on maintaining continuity, and less focus on telling stories simply to develop the setting. Instead, we had unexplained changes and a flood of major events, many of which were not referenced in any other stories when they were done.
Also, one of the things that was really pushed in the 3.x FR source material was rules. Every single book had to devote pages to new Prestige Classes (some of which, again in my opinion, felt arbitrarily forced into specific niches, like the Weald and Woe archer one), new feats, new spells, and page-long stat blocks that frequently had mistakes in them. All of this came at the expense of lore that could have been included, instead.
All that said, there were things I liked in the 3.x era... I would have changed how some things happened, if I'd been running the show, and a couple of things wouldn't have happened at all, but there were other developments that I'd've left alone.
The way I see it, the 1E/2E Realms was the Golden Age of Realmslore. 3.x was the Silver Age -- still some good stuff, but not reaching the high point that had previously been set. |
|
|
