| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Baptor |
Posted - 27 Mar 2018 : 06:21:40
Hello scribes,
Been running the Realms since 98. Recently in my 5e game we did a "soft reboot" using some time travel and such to "fix" some of the timeline stuff we didn't like. We didn't totally remove anything because it's a small part of our own stories. So for example the Spellplague happened but it didn't happen because Mystra "died" and it was also much smaller in scope.
One thing I want to "correct" is the Time of Troubles. We like to keep the gods distant in our Realms and the idea of "gods on earth" is really jarring. I have a hundred ideas but none of them seem perfect and I wanted to see if anyone else "revised" the TOT in their Realms or if you had any ideas.
One idea I had was that the gods didn't literally come to Toril but that - in order to carry out a kind of godswar - possessed certain powerful worshipers who were already high level characters. These possessed people got a boost to their abilities and led armies in a series of terribly destructive wars as each avatar tried to take out the other in order to steal divine influence. No Ao involved. The war ended when the mortals - fed up with the wars - rose up against the remaining avatars and banished them back to the Planes. Something (i'm not sure what) was put into place to ensure it never happened again.
My main beef is not the events themselves, just that they are so "god-centric." I want the mortals to be the movers and shakers in the Realms, not puppets of the gods. So in my Realms, mortals are responsible for the Spellplague.
The issue with the Avatar Crisis is that it's so tied to the gods it's hard to work out a story where mortals are somehow responsible for gods coming to the world and nearly destroying it.
Thoughts? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Apr 2018 : 18:37:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There's a Kobold Press book called Deep Magic that covers a lot of magic stuff, including a section on runes. It's based on Norse mythology, but given the association of dwarves and runes, I'd expect them to be all over that.
And interestingly, knowing runes (by taking a feat) means non-spellcasters can use them.
And rune magic is also covered in their new Midgard Player's Guide. Just flipping thru there and saw it. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 05 Apr 2018 : 18:18:57
Wooly, I havent DMed the Realms in about 11 years. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Apr 2018 : 17:10:38
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
Personally I'd toss any setting that enforced a lore must obey the rules mindset over my shoulder without a backward glance, but then I'm a firm believer in lore outweighing Rules and continuity being king. Altering contemporary continuity or worse, retcons to it seldom bring positive outcomes to an IP.
Well, then, considering that the lore of the Realms has changed multiple times because of the rules, that means you'd toss the Realms over your shoulder without a backwards glance. |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 05 Apr 2018 : 15:41:59
Personally I'd toss any setting that enforced a lore must obey the rules mindset over my shoulder without a backward glance, but then I'm a firm believer in lore outweighing Rules and continuity being king. Altering contemporary continuity or worse, retcons to it seldom bring positive outcomes to an IP. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Apr 2018 : 14:53:45
There's a Kobold Press book called Deep Magic that covers a lot of magic stuff, including a section on runes. It's based on Norse mythology, but given the association of dwarves and runes, I'd expect them to be all over that.
And interestingly, knowing runes (by taking a feat) means non-spellcasters can use them. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 05 Apr 2018 : 12:57:03
Since we've veered into dwarven spellcasters. My favorite dwarf character that I used in 5e was a mixed dwarf wizard/warlock. Granted, I used some homebrew feats to allow theurging (i.e. the ability to have access to higher level spells, but not spell slots in both classes). I also adapted my Rashemi rules for vremyonni where they animate weapons and later armor with "telthors" as their familiars (or in this case, he was calling upon his father's spirit) by spending hit die, so that was his arcane school rather than one of the standard 8. As a binder I was using him as my homebrew rules for an "occultist binder" or my 5e variant to use binders using warlock rules. I was basically trying to playtest my own stuff that I put in the complete red book of spell strategy for DM's guild. The game was based in Mystara, and sadly it only ran maybe 3 sessions. However, it was very fun for me, as I hit on all the tropes of a dwarf. His daily binding of vestiges by putting down "runes"/glyphs corresponding to certain vestiges (and I was basically making up vestiges, as my rules don't require you to spell them out) had a strong dwarf feel. His calling up "Da'" and talking to his familiar/suit of armor like it was his father was fun. Also, his using his own blood to animate the armor in a bloody ritual evoked great imagery. He was very much a dwarf, but a dwarf that his clan saw a wrongness with... and thus his leaving his home to go adventuring. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Apr 2018 : 02:59:33
I wrote up an obviously non-canon bit of dwarven history about dwarven spellcasters and the lost dwarven homeworld... My idea was that they weren't overly common, but there was a clan of dwarven wizards on their homeworld. Something very bad happened, though, and the dwarves had to flee their world. The spellcasting clan bore the brunt of the bad event, and more were lost holding the portals that allowed the other dwarves to escape.
The end result was that the one clan with a talent for magic was almost entirely wiped out, and the surviving dwarves knew that they'd lost their homeworld to something that came from the lands of those magic dwarves -- so the unease they already felt with magic (because it wasn't good, hard work, like smithing or mining) became a deep distrust.
The few references we had to dwarven spellcasters, before 3E, could have been cases of two descendants of the magic clan having a sort of throwback child who inherited the clan's magical inclinations.
So that's one way of spinning it...
But a recent discussion made me think of a different possibility. If a half-dwarf has kids with a dwarf, that three-quarter dwarf is for all intents and purposes 100% dwarf. But even in a setting like the Realms where genetics works differently, it would still stand to reason that there would be a trace of something else in that three-quarter dwarf -- perhaps even the spellcasting ability of the non-dwarf grandparent.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Apr 2018 : 19:42:47
I even took Wooly's basic premise and ran with it further: In The Realms, "Magic = Life". Thus, because dwarves were once denied the connection to magic other races have, they never had the level of fecundity that most others had. Their gods have given them the Rūntharc (Runes of Power), which tapped into primordial/primal/Raw magic of the universe in its place (although harder to use/master, this type of magic is superior to Arcane magic because it taps directly into the foundations of the universe).
Be that as it may, this caused a problem for the dwarves throughout the multiverse, and most especially in The Realms where magic is all heavily filtered through The Weave (nearly all D&D worlds have a similar 'device' in-place, but they filter raw magic to varying degrees, and the one in Realmspace is probably the most powerful/efficient). So Moradin decided to lift the ban blocking the dwarves from having Arcane magic (being able to absorb and use it) in order to increase their birth rates, and by doing so, he allowed them access to arcane magic and the classes associated with it as an unintended side-effect.
Now, some may argue that there is evidence that certain dwarves have used Arcane magic in the past, albeit this was a very rare occurrence. And this is true... as far as it goes. You see, dwarven blood is not 'pure', despite all attempts by the Dwarven pantheon to keep it so. There is another, little-known 'blessing' that has to do with the dwarves that goes back to when they first became a true race, after the Dawn War - dwarven genes are ALWAYS dominant. No matter what they breed with, aside from some sleight height variance, the resulting offspring will always look (and act) 'dwarvish'. But even 'The Gods' don't have total control over nature itself, and although they can 'raise the odds' in favor of dwarven genes, just like real-world genetics, its an imperfect science and 'throwback genes' do occur, and also 'leakage' in the form of natural selection/Evolution. That is to say, since the original groups of dwarves had to breed with 'other things' to make more dwarves, there is a teensy, tiny bit of that DNA still inside them (despite the best efforts of The Morndinsamman to obliterate that). Thus, on extremely rare occasions, a dwarf may have found itself with just enough of the 'magical spark' to use Arcane Magic. An even rarer few ever rose to any prominence with it.
So I've interwoven my dwarven background with my own dwarven creation stories (and why dwarven females had beards for the longest time... and some still do). I don't believe in separate lore for everything. Like the RW, there really is only ONE story, with a billion-billion tendrils (side-stories) branching off of it. Everything is connected in the universe. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Apr 2018 : 13:37:28
I agree, hindsight is 20/20 and the thunder blessing could be used to tie up many issues. It could also have been something where people didn't even REALIZE this aspect of the thunder blessing until later. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 03 Apr 2018 : 04:22:16
DMs are of course free to make homebrew, add or subtract certain aspects, but I have to agree with Wooly. It is a shared setting, so inconsistencies are bound to crop up (and when you make changes to the setting to transition it to a new edition, some things might be forgotten by designers). However, canon lore (whether DMs use it all or not) is important in an established setting, otherwise there is little point to canon, and there might as well not be a setting.
When we read a scify/fantasy series, we are introduced to a world, with an established "history", and ways in which things work. It is bad writing if the author suddenly throws something in that was never explained before, or contradicts what has been established for no other reason than "just because". |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Apr 2018 : 03:37:59
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I chose not to post that part because it seems you're not understanding my point...But they didn't care enough to even bother.
Right. Well I'll leave you be. But I disagree that something HAS to be done and as a DM I am happy to adjudicate it at my table.
But that's the thing -- they didn't say that. They said they couldn't be wizards, and then they said they had always been wizards. WotC created a conflict in the lore and didn't bother to address it. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 03 Apr 2018 : 03:36:25
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I chose not to post that part because it seems you're not understanding my point...But they didn't care enough to even bother.
Right. Well I'll leave you be. But I disagree that something HAS to be done and as a DM I am happy to adjudicate it at my table. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Apr 2018 : 02:57:36
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The question was do you not have any problem with dwarves not being able to be wizards and to have always had the ability to be wizards?
Too many negatives for me to understand the question. Here's my attempt at an answer: I have no problem with dwarves being able to be wizards.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
So when something is not possible at all, and then we're told it's always been possible, that doesn't require an explanation?
Nope. Here is why (the part you chose to not quote for reasons I'm unsure of):quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
Scenario #1
DM: Dwarves not being able to be wizards has never been an integral plot point for us. Is everyone okay if we just say dwarves aren't inclined to be magical, although they technically can be if a dwarf was so determined and we do away with the restriction?
Player 1: Sure.
Player 2: Meh. Don't really care.
Player 3: Hell yeah.
Player 4: I'd prefer not, but given how excited Player 3 is I'm happy to go along with that.
Scenario #2
DM: Dwarves not being able to be wizards has been quite important for a few of our stories. Is everyone okay with us retaining the restriction even though the new edition doesn't really require it?
Player 1: Sure.
Player 2: Meh. Don't really care.
Player 3: Yeah alright. I was excited about dwarven wizards but I'd prefer we keep the continuity for our game.
Player 4: Thank god. Yes!
I'm happy to handle this at the DM level. Especially if yet another RSE has been the standard way of explaining edition changes.
I chose not to post that part because it seems you're not understanding my point. Canon was that dwarves COULD NOT be wizards and had problems with magical devices. Then canon became that dwarves had no problems with magic, and they'd always had wizards.
Both of these facts are canon, depending on what rules you play. Obviously, though, something had to change, because both of these facts cannot be true at the same time.
If I'm playing in a published setting, I should not have to decide at the DM level how to explain contradictory lore. It's inevitable, in a shared setting for inadvertent contradictions -- my issue is contradictions that occur because no one cared to maintain continuity.
Like I said, the designers gave themselves the perfect opportunity to explain this change without a retcon and without blowing anything up. Just one sentence, tying it to the Thunder Blessing, and it would have been covered. But they didn't care enough to even bother. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 03 Apr 2018 : 01:02:37
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The question was do you not have any problem with dwarves not being able to be wizards and to have always had the ability to be wizards?
Too many negatives for me to understand the question. Here's my attempt at an answer: I have no problem with dwarves being able to be wizards.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
So when something is not possible at all, and then we're told it's always been possible, that doesn't require an explanation?
Nope. Here is why (the part you chose to not quote for reasons I'm unsure of):quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
Scenario #1
DM: Dwarves not being able to be wizards has never been an integral plot point for us. Is everyone okay if we just say dwarves aren't inclined to be magical, although they technically can be if a dwarf was so determined and we do away with the restriction?
Player 1: Sure.
Player 2: Meh. Don't really care.
Player 3: Hell yeah.
Player 4: I'd prefer not, but given how excited Player 3 is I'm happy to go along with that.
Scenario #2
DM: Dwarves not being able to be wizards has been quite important for a few of our stories. Is everyone okay with us retaining the restriction even though the new edition doesn't really require it?
Player 1: Sure.
Player 2: Meh. Don't really care.
Player 3: Yeah alright. I was excited about dwarven wizards but I'd prefer we keep the continuity for our game.
Player 4: Thank god. Yes!
I'm happy to handle this at the DM level. Especially if yet another RSE has been the standard way of explaining edition changes. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 22:20:20
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So you're saying that you don't have an issue with the following statements BOTH being valid?
No I'm saying I have no problem with either of those statements being valid from an official WotC standpoint.
That wasn't the question. The question was do you not have any problem with dwarves not being able to be wizards and to have always had the ability to be wizards?
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
For the sake of continuity, that needs an explanation.
Not really.
So when something is not possible at all, and then we're told it's always been possible, that doesn't require an explanation? |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 22:07:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So you're saying that you don't have an issue with the following statements BOTH being valid?
No I'm saying I have no problem with either of those statements being valid from an official WotC standpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
For the sake of continuity, that needs an explanation.
Not really.
Scenario #1
DM: Dwarves not being able to be wizards has never been an integral plot point for us. Is everyone okay if we just say dwarves aren't inclined to be magical, although they technically can be if a dwarf was so determined and we do away with the restriction?
Player 1: Sure.
Player 2: Meh. Don't really care.
Player 3: Hell yeah.
Player 4: I'd prefer not, but given how excited Player 3 is I'm happy to go along with that.
Scenario #2
DM: Dwarves not being able to be wizards has been quite important for a few of our stories. Is everyone okay with us retaining the restriction even though the new edition doesn't really require it?
Player 1: Sure.
Player 2: Meh. Don't really care.
Player 3: Yeah alright. I was excited about dwarven wizards but I'd prefer we keep the continuity for our game.
Player 4: Thank god. Yes! |
| valarmorgulis |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 21:13:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
I just don't see why some the mechanics change needs to be justified through story events, unless it is something core to the setting or stories. Dwarves couldn't use magic items made for non-dwarves, now they can. Were there a bunch of books where dwarves were trying and failing to use magic items? Now, if suddenly there was no magic and everyone used guns -- that would probably require a story event.
All dwarves in the setting were under those restrictions, and then suddenly those restrictions had never existed. For the sake of continuity, that needs an explanation. If you change things without explaining them, you get inconsistencies, conflicts with prior lore, and it can damage the overall history of the setting. And that destroys the verisimilitude of the setting and makes it seem less realistic.
The continuity of the Realms -- the fact that everything but the Dawn Cataclysm had it's place in history and the fact that events flowed into each other -- that was one of the things that drew me into the setting.
You can't maintain continuity by changing things without explanation, or worse, by saying prior canon was entirely wrong.
If the result is as you mentioned versus terrible story events, I'll take the former any day, especially if the inconsistencies are not particularly important in the grand scheme of things. Sure, if a simple story-based explanation can be found, then that's the best solution... but that's not how it's been done. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 21:09:38
Very well put, Markus.
I've pointed out more than once that WotC gave themselves the perfect mechanism to explain dwarves suddenly having access to magic. All that WotC would have had to have done is add a single sentence or two to the description of the Thunder Blessing in the 3E FRCS. That's it -- one sentence would have resolved a lore issue, without a retcon or blowing anything up.
And they didn't bother. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 20:28:45
I haven't bothered to read the last 5-6 responses, but I am going to respond to the whole 'lore vs rules' argument.
I need to know. I need to know EVERYTHING. I have NEVER been the type of person who just accepts 'it is because it is', because THAT is not an answer. My brains short-circuits when I encounter that, be it RW or a game. So I want to know all the rules (albeit I've fallen well shy of that mark starting with 2e), and I want to know 'all the lore' (which I am finding is an equally unobtainable goal LOL).
The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, as Wooly points out. The problems arise when one tries to reconcile rules-changes with lore, and does so heavy-handedly. WotC (and TSR before them) seem to have a penchant for using a massive (messy) club, when a tiny stiletto would have done fine. Unfortunately, the best fixes often stem from the lore itself, and we have seen evidence that in a LOT of cases, the in-house designers know less about the previous (setting) lore than the fans. In some rare cases the designers ARE fans (like Krash), but most are fans of D&D in-general (which is different), or worse, fans of another setting (which several of 3e's lead designers were). This means they might not have the necessary in-setting knowledge to apply a small, logical fix, rather than pull out the 'great club of change' and start smashing everything to bits. Think of it like a surgeon in today's modern era, compared to how they practiced surgery 150 years ago: those guys were BUTCHERS compared to the laser-precision technics today's surgeons can perform. But if we could have that - setting-surgeons making very precise incisions here and there, all the 'scarring' would not be so apparent.
And the fact that this STILL happens in The Forgotten Realms - with its high levels of magic, truly ancient history, in-setting explanations for magic and the planet itself completely changing - is ludicrous. And Portals/Gates... which connect to every part of the (D&D) multiverse... and beyond. 'Fixes' built right into the foundations, and we still can't seem to get it all right. Plus, we even have a few (distasteful to most) 'timeline changing' events within the canon (and several 'time portals). Literally, all the tools are there, but they are not being used elegantly. Lets go back to the surgery analogy - you can use the rusty hacksaw from the 1800's, or you can use a nice modern scalpel, but if the person wielding it is as untrained and ignorant as the 1800's doctor, the results aren't going to be much prettier. In fact, this even works in reverse - a modern surgeon will achieve far better results, even if forced to use primitive tools, because of his superior knowledge of the subject matter.
So, in conclusion, I suppose what I am saying is that I WANT explanations, but I want GOOD explanations that make sense (and not just within 'greater D&D', but rather, the setting itself). If WotC is unable to do that (and their track record here is dismal), then perhaps it would be better to take a new approach - maybe have fans come up with their own versions, and then they can 'pick a winner' (based upon how much a particular version is liked by the fandom). This could be done on their website (although not having forums anymore makes that a less-than-optimal choice), or at a Gencon. I wouldn't want it done here - or any other forum for that matter - because each forum attracts a different subset of the fanbase (everyone finds their 'sweet spot' where 'they belong'), which could skew the results. By the same token, something like a vote on Facebook might work, but then that's open to tampering using fake accounts. I wish it weren't so, but there are a large number of people who think their own opinions are so important (and that their 'thing' should win) that they will cheat to make it the way they want it. I, personally, could never wrap my mind around that phenomena, but its a reality, sadly, so a FB vote would be suspect. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 19:02:15
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
I just don't see why some the mechanics change needs to be justified through story events, unless it is something core to the setting or stories. Dwarves couldn't use magic items made for non-dwarves, now they can. Were there a bunch of books where dwarves were trying and failing to use magic items? Now, if suddenly there was no magic and everyone used guns -- that would probably require a story event.
All dwarves in the setting were under those restrictions, and then suddenly those restrictions had never existed. For the sake of continuity, that needs an explanation. If you change things without explaining them, you get inconsistencies, conflicts with prior lore, and it can damage the overall history of the setting. And that destroys the verisimilitude of the setting and makes it seem less realistic.
The continuity of the Realms -- the fact that everything but the Dawn Cataclysm had it's place in history and the fact that events flowed into each other -- that was one of the things that drew me into the setting.
You can't maintain continuity by changing things without explanation, or worse, by saying prior canon was entirely wrong. |
| valarmorgulis |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 17:17:06
I just don't see why some the mechanics change needs to be justified through story events, unless it is something core to the setting or stories. Dwarves couldn't use magic items made for non-dwarves, now they can. Were there a bunch of books where dwarves were trying and failing to use magic items? Now, if suddenly there was no magic and everyone used guns -- that would probably require a story event. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 17:09:12
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
A lot of the demihuman class restrictions never made any sense. Dwarves can't be wizards because...reasons, I guess, despite dwarves in myth forging magical items, like Mjolnir and Draupnir. Even the ur-dwarves of fantasy, Tolkien's creations, didn't shy from the crafting of magical equipment; Telchar was the dwarf that forged Narsil and the Dragon-helm of Dor-lomin.
3e getting rid of absurd class restrictions was a step in the right direction. Cultural inclination is not the same as racial ineptitude.
I agree that the class restrictions didn't make sense... But cultural inclination does not explain the dwarven inability to use magical items. In 2E, dwarves were so non-magical that unless an item was made for dwarves or for the specific wielder's class, then there was a 20% chance of failure, every round. |
| valarmorgulis |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 16:57:33
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I know about the non-avatar manisfestions from F&A, but as there are several ways a deity can interact, I thought I would ask.
I'd have them interact in the most direct way (direct to the god, not necessarily to the mortal), which is by doing something directly related to their portfolio. Your example of a blade breaking is apt.
|
| LordofBones |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 15:48:30
A lot of the demihuman class restrictions never made any sense. Dwarves can't be wizards because...reasons, I guess, despite dwarves in myth forging magical items, like Mjolnir and Draupnir. Even the ur-dwarves of fantasy, Tolkien's creations, didn't shy from the crafting of magical equipment; Telchar was the dwarf that forged Narsil and the Dragon-helm of Dor-lomin.
3e getting rid of absurd class restrictions was a step in the right direction. Cultural inclination is not the same as racial ineptitude. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 15:34:09
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, for one, want continuity and a setting that supports the rules I'm playing.
I have no intent of ever playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, nor stock standard Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e. Obviously I don't value "setting reflect rules" as much as you clearly do.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If the rules say I can't play a dwarven wizard, I expect the setting to reflect that. When that suddenly changes, I want to know why, in-setting, a previously unavailable option is now a thing.
I also don't need this and have no value in this. "Dwarves have simply not been magically inclined" is good enough for me. As is "Dwarves in the Forgotten Realms can't be wizards regardless of what the ruleset says" is also completely acceptable.
I understand neither of those are acceptable to you Wooly. I'm just demonstrating what you expect isn't necessarily what others expect or even want.
So you're saying that you don't have an issue with the following statements BOTH being valid?
"Dwarves can't be wizards and in fact have problems using magical items." and
"Dwarves can be wizards, sorcerers, and can use magic just like everyone else, and it's always been that way, but no one knew about it." |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 10:31:13
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
I am ditching Ao in my campaign btw.
I go with "Ao has never granted clerical spells to his followers [this is canon]. There is one school of thought that there is no actual deity that corresponds with Ao This school of thought argues that Ao was simply invented by a philosopher that was struggling to come to grips with the cosmology of the planes and felt there needed to be an entity that created the other gods. If this philosopher ever explained how Ao came to exist and why Ao didn't need another overdeity to have created him, these revelations have long been lost to time."
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
@valarmorgulis: so would you have them manifest? More indirectly, like via visions, signs, etc? I am just curious.
I'm not valarmorgulis, but I would manifest them through priests. A priest who had a vision that he needed to go to a particular spot and reveal to some travelers <insert cryptic message here>. Or a priest sees a group also sees an omen (e.g. a flock of birds flying east over their shoulders from his perspective) which gives him an insight into either something the group has done or something the group is about to do and he approaches them armed with this knowledge and with a warning or insight appropriate for someone trained in the clerical teachings of his deity.
The priest would of course approach them all John Edwards style and talk in very vague vaguearities until the group confirms some basic facts (after all, sometimes a flock of birds flying east is just a flock of birds flying east. The older the priest the more confident he'll be in his interpretation of signs from his deity) before imparting his warning or insight. Whatever the warning or insight is, it will be exactly the sort of thing you'd expect a priest of that god to say. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 10:24:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, for one, want continuity and a setting that supports the rules I'm playing.
I have no intent of ever playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, nor stock standard Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e. Obviously I don't value "setting reflect rules" as much as you clearly do.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If the rules say I can't play a dwarven wizard, I expect the setting to reflect that. When that suddenly changes, I want to know why, in-setting, a previously unavailable option is now a thing.
I also don't need this and have no value in this. "Dwarves have simply not been magically inclined" is good enough for me. As is "Dwarves in the Forgotten Realms can't be wizards regardless of what the ruleset says" is also completely acceptable.
I understand neither of those are acceptable to you Wooly. I'm just demonstrating what you expect isn't necessarily what others expect or even want. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 10:04:30
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by valarmorgulis
How strangely coincidental that I was musing on this topic today and came to the forums for some advice... and here I find this thread.
First, my $.02 is that game mechanic changes do not necessitate massive story changes, which from what I've seen often do more harm than good. Seems like most here agree with that sentiment. Okay, moving on.
Yes, I was an advocate of this approach for the 2E/3E transition but that didn't stop the howling fan hordes for decrying the new infravision in the context of Narbondel in Menzo, or dwarven wizards in general or well, just about any change in the mechanics that the preceding lore didn;t account for. In my book, lore always came first and the rules be damned, but some people prefer a more ... ordered existence.
-- George Krashos
I would not call that ordered.... more like chaos or control freakish
Not at all. I, for one, want continuity and a setting that supports the rules I'm playing. If the rules say I can't play a dwarven wizard, I expect the setting to reflect that. When that suddenly changes, I want to know why, in-setting, a previously unavailable option is now a thing.
The Forgotten Realms was published as a game setting by a game company. Game settings have to support the current ruleset. It's that simple.
Yes, I understand that's not why the Realms were created... But the Realms we've all been reading about is the game setting. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 07:04:11
I know about the non-avatar manisfestions from F&A, but as there are several ways a deity can interact, I thought I would ask. |
| valarmorgulis |
Posted - 02 Apr 2018 : 06:10:04
Generally, yes. Or proxies when needed. The old 2e book faiths and avatars gives information on non-avatar manifestations. |
|
|
