| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Neil Bishop |
Posted - 16 Oct 2009 : 13:05:08
I realise that Mysteries of the Moonsea was not a particularly popular product but am wondering if anyone ever actually used it and, if so, what were the really good parts?
I'm running a campaign set in Akanul at the moment but also preparing for my next campaign which will be set in and around the Moonsea (in part so I can use the excellent Monument of the Ancients adventure... and also the warlock-knights of Vaasa) so am naturally going through my various products relating to the Moonsea to see what inspiration strikes. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Delwa |
Posted - 08 Apr 2015 : 23:57:31
Glad you're having fun! Melvaunt was actually the first city I ever adventured in when I started tabletop.
|
| dragonfriend |
Posted - 08 Apr 2015 : 23:05:53
I'm running the module right now in 5e.
The players are from an adventuring/mercenery group based in Melvaunt.
They are 7 so I split them in two groups. One group play the city adventures, the other one the wilderness adeventures.
After every adventure I mix the players. Right now we are finishing the Melvaut part! A lot of fun! |
| Faraer |
Posted - 03 Jul 2010 : 00:34:53
I didn't fully understand the messageboard backlash Mysteries of the Moonsea got, ostensibly against the fact that it had lots of adventure material while having, IIRC, been billed as a sourcebook in some early advertising. I think the Realms could have done with more adventure stuff, of particular kinds (one of the things I ought to expand on some time). I haven't run any of the scenarios in the book, but from reading it I rate it somewhere below the first rung as adventure material and as Realmslore.quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
DMs who don't notice are going to be using flawed data, and those who do notice are going to have to rebuild the character, anyway.
Though whether they notice or not, the odd one or two points out somewhere or not-strictly-qualified-for-class is rarely going to make any noticeable difference to anyone's game. (Which is not an excuse for patchy editing, though lack of enough paid-for hours of work is.)
Of course we weren't dealing with stat blocks in general, but with a particular kind of them skewed well towards the much bulk, little content side as such things go. |
| Auzoros |
Posted - 02 Jun 2010 : 08:11:16
I absolutely love Mysteries of the Moonsea. Im considering to incorporate my campaign ideas involving the city of Calaunt with the Moonsea campaign. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 23:21:35
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
First, of course it is a matter of opinion, that's clear. Some of you were stating that your opinions were that stuff should just be cut, I was stating, I like having it. But the reference you make to them getting stat blocks wrong, isn't a good reason to get rid of stat blocks, it is a good reason to fire writers and edditors, it is just sloppy and I for one am tired of rpg products thinking they should be held to no standard in those areas.
Why not? If the people that want us to use the stat blocks can't bother to get them right, what's the point of having them in the book? DMs who don't notice are going to be using flawed data, and those who do notice are going to have to rebuild the character, anyway. Why bother putting info in the book if it doesn't accomplish its stated purpose?
And again, we have the issue of full stat blocks for NPCs that simply don't need them... Someone intended to be a non-combatant doesn't need his combat abilities listed, and a combatant doesn't need his non-combat abilities listed...
Every line that's used for stat blocks that may be flawed or useless can instead be used on something more useful. Instead of a full page detailing one person, how about a couple paragraphs each on other people, or a description of an interesting locale, or some plot hooks?
Let's face it, no one is going to buy or pass up a book simply because a couple of NPCs are fully detailed. That information can go into web enhancements where those that want it can grab it, and those who don't can ignore it -- and either way, we have more page count for the stuff that everyone can use.
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
To give you a much more notible example of this Drizzt Do'Urden (for the record one of my least favorite cannon characters) stats given in the FR base book 3.0 are just wrong. He needs Knowledge Arcana, The planes, and religion from all the lore he's always listing off to every in books. He'll talk about knowing about golems and demons and other things from his time in Manzoberranzan in the novels but doesn't have a single rank in any of those skills? He lists off things that are way above dc 10 knowledge checks. I'm sure we could put a few more errors of this type together from looking between novels and stat blocks in rpg books.
That's another point against stat blocks, in my opinion: novel characters. Most novel characters are made independent of the rules, and thus don't fit any particular class as well as a character designed within the rules from the ground up. Further -- and Drizzt has been an iconic example of this -- everytime some new kit or PrC or core class comes out, people rush to point out that this new thing fits the novel PC better than the previous write-up. Even within editions, some novel NPCs have gotten multiple write-ups, with sometimes wildly different abilities.
So if an existing write-up is going to be made redundant mere months after it comes out, what was the point of writing it, in the first place?
I'm not saying stat blocks are useless -- I'm just saying that the way they've been presented leaves a lot to be desired. And when I buy a book of lore, I want it to be filled with lore -- I don't want pages of wasted type, especially when it's not even correct. |
| woodwwad |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 22:30:14
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
well certainly I understand that, but maybe another $5 for the book add some more to it. Basically, I don't think cutting stats is the right way to save space. If you are buying a book for a setting the stats add to its completeness. If you are looking for something ready to run, the idea you can just cut the stats out of the book isn't good nor is the accompanying idea that the dm should just make the stats himself.
See, that's a matter of opinion. We had two entire editions where a minimal stat block was deemed sufficient... Some DMs would prefer to create their own stat blocks -- if you prefer to stick to canon, and the full stat block in the book says an NPC doesn't have an ability you want him to have, do you go against your preference of sticking to canon, or do you make up another NPC? That's what I like about minimal stat blocks: make the NPC be exactly who you need him to be, not who someone else decided to make him.
Besides, how often does a DM need to know every single thing an NPC is capable of? If your characters encounter him in purely social environs, does it matter what his combat abilities are? If he's there to get into combat with the PCs, does it matter if he has multiple ranks in underwater basket weaving?
Not only that, but some sharp-eyed folks have noted discrepancies between descriptions and stat blocks. I seem to recall a major one in Serpent Kingdoms, and there was a web article where an NPC described as an excellent dancer didn't have any dancing ability in his stat block!
My own opinion is that stat blocks are just numbers, and that anyone can make them up -- thus, they do not add to a setting. Lore adds to a setting. Crunch takes up room that could better be filled by lore.
First, of course it is a matter of opinion, that's clear. Some of you were stating that your opinions were that stuff should just be cut, I was stating, I like having it. But the reference you make to them getting stat blocks wrong, isn't a good reason to get rid of stat blocks, it is a good reason to fire writers and edditors, it is just sloppy and I for one am tired of rpg products thinking they should be held to no standard in those areas. To give you a much more notible example of this Drizzt Do'Urden (for the record one of my least favorite cannon characters) stats given in the FR base book 3.0 are just wrong. He needs Knowledge Arcana, The planes, and religion from all the lore he's always listing off to every in books. He'll talk about knowing about golems and demons and other things from his time in Manzoberranzan in the novels but doesn't have a single rank in any of those skills? He lists off things that are way above dc 10 knowledge checks. I'm sure we could put a few more errors of this type together from looking between novels and stat blocks in rpg books. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 05:22:25
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
well certainly I understand that, but maybe another $5 for the book add some more to it. Basically, I don't think cutting stats is the right way to save space. If you are buying a book for a setting the stats add to its completeness. If you are looking for something ready to run, the idea you can just cut the stats out of the book isn't good nor is the accompanying idea that the dm should just make the stats himself.
See, that's a matter of opinion. We had two entire editions where a minimal stat block was deemed sufficient... Some DMs would prefer to create their own stat blocks -- if you prefer to stick to canon, and the full stat block in the book says an NPC doesn't have an ability you want him to have, do you go against your preference of sticking to canon, or do you make up another NPC? That's what I like about minimal stat blocks: make the NPC be exactly who you need him to be, not who someone else decided to make him.
Besides, how often does a DM need to know every single thing an NPC is capable of? If your characters encounter him in purely social environs, does it matter what his combat abilities are? If he's there to get into combat with the PCs, does it matter if he has multiple ranks in underwater basket weaving?
Not only that, but some sharp-eyed folks have noted discrepancies between descriptions and stat blocks. I seem to recall a major one in Serpent Kingdoms, and there was a web article where an NPC described as an excellent dancer didn't have any dancing ability in his stat block!
My own opinion is that stat blocks are just numbers, and that anyone can make them up -- thus, they do not add to a setting. Lore adds to a setting. Crunch takes up room that could better be filled by lore. |
| woodwwad |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 03:21:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I totally understand what you mean about it adding a lot of content, pages, to the book but I personally enjoy the stat blocks. It gives you everything you need to run that NPC. I've found the 3/3.5 way, the above stat blocks, easier to use than the barely anything there npcs you often found in 2nd ed. It does eat up space, and I too wanted more out of a lot of those books, the one on topic here MOTM especially but I would say making the book larger would be a better idea. MOTM isn't that large of a book, I wouldn't have minded another 50 pages at all.
The problem becomes that at some point, the number of pages begins to cut into the projected profit. It's a balancing act between how much they can put in a book for a given amount, and how much they think people will pay.
well certainly I understand that, but maybe another $5 for the book add some more to it. Basically, I don't think cutting stats is the right way to save space. If you are buying a book for a setting the stats add to its completeness. If you are looking for something ready to run, the idea you can just cut the stats out of the book isn't good nor is the accompanying idea that the dm should just make the stats himself. Sure any book can only be a certain number of pages but this book isn't that long, so I figured they could have made it a bit longer as there was a lot more info they could have put in it.
Another note I didn't notice anyone mention, the maps and artwork are just great in this book. They really add to the flavor and are great for showing players. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 02:53:04
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I totally understand what you mean about it adding a lot of content, pages, to the book but I personally enjoy the stat blocks. It gives you everything you need to run that NPC. I've found the 3/3.5 way, the above stat blocks, easier to use than the barely anything there npcs you often found in 2nd ed. It does eat up space, and I too wanted more out of a lot of those books, the one on topic here MOTM especially but I would say making the book larger would be a better idea. MOTM isn't that large of a book, I wouldn't have minded another 50 pages at all.
The problem becomes that at some point, the number of pages begins to cut into the projected profit. It's a balancing act between how much they can put in a book for a given amount, and how much they think people will pay. |
| woodwwad |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 01:43:50
I totally understand what you mean about it adding a lot of content, pages, to the book but I personally enjoy the stat blocks. It gives you everything you need to run that NPC. I've found the 3/3.5 way, the above stat blocks, easier to use than the barely anything there npcs you often found in 2nd ed. It does eat up space, and I too wanted more out of a lot of those books, the one on topic here MOTM especially but I would say making the book larger would be a better idea. MOTM isn't that large of a book, I wouldn't have minded another 50 pages at all. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 23:45:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If a full stat block is necessary, do it as a web enhancement -- that still gives the same info, and leaves room in the book for the lore a lot of folks preferred.
Alternatively, the stat and rule information could be offered as part of the DDI subscription for a particular printed supplement.
|
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 16:25:42
Walkerninja ran the beginning part of the mod, I was one of his players at the time. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 16:14:46
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage (snip) At most, I think MotM represents an attempt by Wizards to experiment catering to both of the main groups of Realms fans -- those who are interested, specifically, in rules and support material for running their games, and those, like myself, who prefer vast sections of detailed Realmslore over rules-based information.
Not that there's really anything wrong with that. And, perhaps, if later 3e sources had continued in this trend, the format and presentation style of MotM could have won further support from the general FR online community.
That's an interesting couple of points there, Sage. What if we had seen a Heartlands book (Cormyr/Dales/Sembia) done the same way? Or just the Dalelands? Hmmm....
Actually, this would work even better in 4E because the stat blocks are so much smaller so there is more room for the good bits! ;)
Better yet, stat blocks could be totally omitted. A lot of 1E and 2E stuff got by just fine with stat blocks like this: Bahb (hm F1 NG, STR 19). Race, gender, class and level, alignment, and any stats 16 or higher. If a DM needed more, they were free to create exactly what they needed.
If a full stat block is necessary, do it as a web enhancement -- that still gives the same info, and leaves room in the book for the lore a lot of folks preferred. |
| Neil Bishop |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 15:22:36
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage (snip) At most, I think MotM represents an attempt by Wizards to experiment catering to both of the main groups of Realms fans -- those who are interested, specifically, in rules and support material for running their games, and those, like myself, who prefer vast sections of detailed Realmslore over rules-based information.
Not that there's really anything wrong with that. And, perhaps, if later 3e sources had continued in this trend, the format and presentation style of MotM could have won further support from the general FR online community.
That's an interesting couple of points there, Sage. What if we had seen a Heartlands book (Cormyr/Dales/Sembia) done the same way? Or just the Dalelands? Hmmm....
Actually, this would work even better in 4E because the stat blocks are so much smaller so there is more room for the good bits! ;)
|
| woodwwad |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 19:38:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
 people don't like that book? Hmm, I wonder why?
I think the issue was that it wasn't quite a regional sourcebook, and it wasn't quite a module. A lot of folks would have preferred that it be one or the other, and not try to be both.
I can see that but to me, I was just happy to get at least a little regional sourcebook with the 3rd ed stuff. I was really disappoint at how few regional sourcebooks they put out for 3/3.5. Wish they'd put out more, I would have bought a lot of them, even if I had the 2nd ed stuff. Didn't care for the shinning south but I have all the other regional books for 3/3.5. I would have loved a region book on the swordcoast and Amn.
Agreed on all counts, except for the Shining South. That's long been one of my fave areas in the Realms. 
To clarify, I'm not discounting that area of the realms. It is just a long way from where I'm running my current FR game; the dalelands, moonseas, the vast, cormyr, thay and a slight bit in the western heartlands and Mulhorandi; and will be a long way from where I'm running my next FR game; the western heartlands, waterdeep, the sword coast, the sword coast north, the islands, the lands of intrigue and the underdark. So it was pointless for me to buy it now. I can of course see how someone would get use and enjoyment out of that book. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 14:17:00
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
people don't like that book? Hmm, I wonder why?
I think the issue was that it wasn't quite a regional sourcebook, and it wasn't quite a module. A lot of folks would have preferred that it be one or the other, and not try to be both.
I can see that but to me, I was just happy to get at least a little regional sourcebook with the 3rd ed stuff. I was really disappoint at how few regional sourcebooks they put out for 3/3.5. Wish they'd put out more, I would have bought a lot of them, even if I had the 2nd ed stuff. Didn't care for the shinning south but I have all the other regional books for 3/3.5. I would have loved a region book on the swordcoast and Amn.
Agreed on all counts, except for the Shining South. That's long been one of my fave areas in the Realms. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 06:39:40
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I actually count myself among the few who liked Mysteries of the Moonsea. But that's mainly because the Moonsea has always been an area of interest for me.
Having said that, I've never actually used the adventure material contained within. But I've made some limited use of the lore, especially the section on Mulmaster. That, and the section on Zhentil Keep were the parts I enjoyed the most.
people don't like that book? Hmm, I wonder why? I thought it was usful.
I think that attitude is largely a result of the fact that some interpreted the sourcebook as being geared more toward actually adventuring in the region, rather than providing several full chapters of Realmslore, like most previous 3e tomes.
At most, I think MotM represents an attempt by Wizards to experiment catering to both of the main groups of Realms fans -- those who are interested, specifically, in rules and support material for running their games, and those, like myself, who prefer vast sections of detailed Realmslore over rules-based information.
Not that there's really anything wrong with that. And, perhaps, if later 3e sources had continued in this trend, the format and presentation style of MotM could have won further support from the general FR online community.
|
| woodwwad |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 04:42:37
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
people don't like that book? Hmm, I wonder why?
I think the issue was that it wasn't quite a regional sourcebook, and it wasn't quite a module. A lot of folks would have preferred that it be one or the other, and not try to be both.
I can see that but to me, I was just happy to get at least a little regional sourcebook with the 3rd ed stuff. I was really disappoint at how few regional sourcebooks they put out for 3/3.5. Wish they'd put out more, I would have bought a lot of them, even if I had the 2nd ed stuff. Didn't care for the shinning south but I have all the other regional books for 3/3.5. I would have loved a region book on the swordcoast and Amn. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 04:29:40
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
people don't like that book? Hmm, I wonder why?
I think the issue was that it wasn't quite a regional sourcebook, and it wasn't quite a module. A lot of folks would have preferred that it be one or the other, and not try to be both. |
| woodwwad |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 04:09:03
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I actually count myself among the few who liked Mysteries of the Moonsea. But that's mainly because the Moonsea has always been an area of interest for me.
Having said that, I've never actually used the adventure material contained within. But I've made some limited use of the lore, especially the section on Mulmaster. That, and the section on Zhentil Keep were the parts I enjoyed the most.
people don't like that book? Hmm, I wonder why? I thought it was usful. I used it for info on ZK, it has some great color pics of the city and a lot of details on the city, also some npc write ups. I personally don't run modules, I have time to create stories and that ends up a lot better than modules but there is plenty of info that can be used in that book besides the short modules they have.
Moonseas are a great setting for running the realms in. |
| coach |
Posted - 21 Oct 2009 : 02:50:57
i snatched the Vaasa and Damara info out of it
loved the abandoned city in Vaasa |
| althen artren |
Posted - 19 Oct 2009 : 18:56:08
I also like Arabat's Folly and the other Cormanthor map found
there, since I play an elf-centric game. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 19 Oct 2009 : 11:54:31
I used the book for my Epic Realms game.
The information on Hillsfar I used to setup a battle between my players and an army of Legion Devils. The artwork on page 46 was very inspiring and set the scene quite nicely.
Abarat's Folly was an awesome encounter I couldn't pass up, so I placed it not far from Myth Drannor and pointed my players right at it. I loved that it had a lot of portals and especially liked the multi-dimensional nature of the place, and had fun locking the players out from each other (and in with fiendish nasties)
For some time my players joked about wanting to destroy Fzoul and war directly on Zhentil Keep, so I used the Zhentil Keep material to give them an unexpected shot at it. They went from Abarat's Folly via portal right into the Temple of Bane (page 145).
The temple fight didn't exactly go their way, so they escaped below the Temple. I was ready for them with the Beholder Lair encounter (page 141).
As for my opinion on the entire book: It's great. It tells you a lot about the Moonsea region and gives a DM plenty of ways to get play going right in the middle of it all.
This book really got it right on balancing NPCs and information on them. Nice mix of low, mid and high level npcs too, much improved artwork (a big relief for me after seeing so much atrocious artwork in previous Realms sourcebooks), useful location layouts and maps, great back-story and a good set of linked encounters all over the Moonsea.
My only gripe is that the Temple of Bane encounter really didn't capture what I thought the preeminent Temple of Bane in all the Realms should be like. I understand space is limited in a book like this, but that location deserved better treatment than it got in this tome.
Overall I think a lot of the criticism posted after this book was released was undeserved. People griped that the book wasn't loaded with pure lore so seemingly discarded out of hand all the good things it did have to offer.
Interesting to see how opinions change over time. ;)
|
| Uzzy |
Posted - 18 Oct 2009 : 15:39:46
I did! It was nice to have a FR adventure that started at level 1 and progressed, and the area was quite nice. I supplemented it with other sources, mainly 2nd Edition ones, and the adventure went quite well, though it ended around level 4 (mix of character deaths, me going to university etc)
Seriously, more adventures would be good. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Oct 2009 : 09:39:45
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Bishop
What a shame we never saw the Phlan web-enhancement.
I'm still hopeful that we may one day see the MotM WE, even if it is through DDI. I can't imagine all that info wouldn't be applicable somewhere, especially if a future FR article for the DDI is to feature the Moonsea itself.
|
| Daviot |
Posted - 18 Oct 2009 : 07:28:54
I did steal some of the Hillsfar lore for my last in-person game. The local Red Wizard's Enclave had an item the party needed, so the party received the backing of the beleaguered, declining regular Mages Guild and did some rather clever trickery on their parts. |
| Neil Bishop |
Posted - 17 Oct 2009 : 02:08:56
Thanks for your feedback, folks.
Like you, Erik, I prefer to improvise and MotM is pretty much how I write up my own campaigns. It's very similar to 2E's Slavers in that respect.
I'll definitely have a good look at Mulmaster and Zhentil Keep after the recommendations here. What a shame we never saw the Phlan web-enhancement. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Oct 2009 : 15:43:49
I wasn't overly enthused about the adventures, but the lore was good. It was reading that book that gave me the final necessary bit of backstory for one of my Lords of Waterdeep. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 16 Oct 2009 : 15:08:47
I ran some of the preliminary parts of the module, but that campaign sort of fizzled on account of easily-diverted-attention on the part of the players. It complimented my style of DMing (which is largely improvisational) quite well, and it has some really cool parts, but it's been so long that I don't think I can point to anything in particular. I think I'm going to agree with Sage on this one about the lore angle--Mulmaster and Zhentil Keep stand out.
Cheers |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 16 Oct 2009 : 14:53:27
I haven't used it but when I went through it, I made a table linking the adventures within together (I understand things visually) so that whenever I do find the opportunity to run it, I can reference that and it seems like it could go very smoothly and give a lot of options to the players IMO. |
|
|
