| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 15:57:40
Hi, after reading The Last Mythal trilogy and the Erevis Cale trilogy I got this question :
Both Richard Baker and Paul Kemp have embraced the 3E feeling in their novels (best example is spellcasting), however the first one was much hated by the fans that didn't like those game changes while I didn't saw yet a bad critic about the second one.
What do you think about it ? |
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dremvek |
Posted - 02 Jan 2007 : 15:51:42
I guess for me the story is more important than the rules in most cases. The Realms are pretty much designed so that they can never be fully explored - not just in terms of exploring the land areas, but exploring skills and magic and such as well.
New spells are still being created in the realms, and ancient, long forgotten spells are still being discovered. I don't find it unreasonable for a character to have a power that is not understood or is unique, as long as that power doesn't make the character superhuman.
A lot of the confusion over characters in novesl regards how the novels portray the characters. A level 2 mage can appear superhuman to one who doesn't know magic under the right circumstances. If monsters aren't being fought straight out of the Monster Manual, it's hard to quantify the difficulty of the encounter. I'm guessing the authors aren't sitting back rolling dice to determine what happens next in a given encounter.
What I'm getting at is I don't think rule sets really are THAT huge of a factor in the novels. Yes, they are based on a game world, but I'd rather read a great story than be concerned that X fireball has a range of Y, and that this enemy was actually 1 meter outside the blast radius. You need to stay true to the world, but that can be done without fully statting out every character used. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 02 Jan 2007 : 02:16:04
You know, I think the only time breaking certain rules for the sake of the story bothers me is if an author were to do it as a way to exaggerate the power of the protagonist (therefore, making things easier for him/her).
Also, I'm not concerned with novels feeling "2E" or "3E" (and yes, that's a hard thing to even pin down, isn't it?) so much as I'm concerned with novels feeling like novels instead of like D&D campaign logs in novelized form. And since the FR started off as a story setting and not a game setting, "rule-following" isn't my chief concern. |
| Besshalar |
Posted - 01 Jan 2007 : 21:52:27
I think that one of the main changes ( this might be just me though) is the increase in fight/battle scenes or perhaps more in their length. Other things I've noticed is an increase in dropping hints about the prestigeclasses of characters and other sort of gamemechanics brought to life sort of stuff. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 01 Jan 2007 : 21:21:00
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
I'm not entirely sure what, apart from game rule changes, is meant by a 2nd ed or 3E "feel." Discuss?
I suppose if I had to try and come up with a difference, it's that as a rule, 2E novels deals with characters in a smaller environment, while a 3E novel concentrates more on large scale events (RSEs). I suppose this reflects the way the sourcebooks seem to have changed between 2 and 3E, which is what I think the original post is referring to. But as I said earlier, if it's a good story, it's a good story, regardless of what edition of the game the book was written during; it's a novel set in a world which also happens to be one in which people game. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 01 Jan 2007 : 13:40:17
I'm not entirely sure what, apart from game rule changes, is meant by a 2nd ed or 3E "feel." Discuss? |
| khorne |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 17:01:30
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
There you go 
I knew we had a few scribes that were more fans of the novels than of the novels and the game rules in general, so I was curious to see things from that perspective . . . thanks Khorne.
Always glad to be of service. The novels have always interested me more than the pen-and-paper stuff. I try to read sourcebooks for some fluffbits though. |
| Marc |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 16:41:56
Well, I've noticed little game mechanics mistakes with some novel characters, particularly psionic ones, but this doesn't bother me much
And KEJR that Araevin's wand - resonating bolt from the Spell Compendium |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 16:16:19
I can kind of see what you are saying, but again it goes back to if the reader knows about the rules and to what degree. If you know that a riddlemaster or a battlerager are character kits from 2nd edition, you would know that those story elements are taken from current game supplements, but again, if you never really got into the rules so much, you might never pick up on this.
I will say one thing though, that is an artifact of game edition change (nice call on the infravision as well). The change in drow items decaying in sunlight (which I think Elaine did a good job of explaining, even if no one followed up on it), and the idea of spellsingers (remember, back in 2e everyone that cast arcane spells cast them the same way, so the concept that someone could "sing" a song was novel, and only some elements of the Complete Bards Handbooka and the Player's Option books touched on this concept).
I think little things creep in here or there, but I don't think edition changes cause sweeping changes in how the stories are told (keep in mind, I'm talking about rules chagnes, not concious changes in setting direction such as ending the Retreat or the Thunder Blessing, which are essentially story elements of the setting, not rules changes per se). |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 16:10:09
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I’d also like to hear from any of the well read scribes who may/may not recall “2E” feel in any previous FR novels. That is, do any of you recall any novels that incorporated 2E or earlier game rules?
IMHO, Elaine's Songs & Swords series has a strong 2E feel (and I'm not only talking about infravision, etc.) IMHO, Bob has also kept a 2E feel even in his last novels.
Many recent books have a 3e feel : Last Mythal, Year of the Rogue Dragons, Erevis Cale, Shadowbred, but some don't : El's daughter, Waterdeep : a novel, Blackstaff, etc.
I'm not saying that the 3e feel is a bad thing; in fact I quite like it because I enjoyed much both Last Mythal and Erevis Cale. However, I think that in some cases, rules should be overriden. The danger is to avoid enforcing the rules for wrong reasons. Those are often the same a bad DM try to avoid in high-level game (teleport magic, raise dead possibility and magical divination).
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 15:55:55
There you go
I knew we had a few scribes that were more fans of the novels than of the novels and the game rules in general, so I was curious to see things from that perspective . . . thanks Khorne. |
| khorne |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 13:36:59
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I'd be interested to hear from Realms fans that just read the novels. Would someone that didn't know much about the game rules even notice the difference between 2/3rd edition novels?
I mostly read the books, and the last time I played was long ago, so I don't notice any edition changes in the novels. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 08:56:47
I'd be interested to hear from Realms fans that just read the novels. Would someone that didn't know much about the game rules even notice the difference between 2/3rd edition novels? I know that there are a few things that are rules changes that affect "setting" elements, like unrestricted "core" classes and PrCs, but other than that and some emphasis on races that have been featured as PC races, I think most changes are "setting" changes more than rules changes.
Heck, Rich Baker even gave Araevin a wand with a spell from 2nd edition that has never been translated (to my knowledge) to the current edition. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 07:51:13
For the record: I have read a little over 1/2 of the LM trilogy and have not read any Erevis Cale yet.
Now, having had considerable experience on the WotC forums in the past (when it was still allowed to talk about FR novels) I can recall rabid complaints about authors not formatting their books to match exactly the Rules As Written.
I don’t believe these complaints were dominant. Very few of them were rational.
But the basic idea was that there was a reasonable fan expectation that the novel authors would recognize the fact that the Realms are a game setting; thus the rules should be incorporated where possible in accordance.
I’ll also note that time and experience have taught many of us (and not just me) that for every fan made happy when an author sticks to the RAW as much as possible in a novel, you'll get another fan who hates the idea.
I’d like to hear from those who have read Baker’s and Kemp’s work, as I’m curious to know if there’s any noticeable difference in execution of the RAW in the novels. Maybe this could account for criticism against one and not the other?
I’d also like to hear from any of the well read scribes who may/may not recall “2E” feel in any previous FR novels. That is, do any of you recall any novels that incorporated 2E or earlier game rules?
J. Grenemyer |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 01:33:49
All right, understood. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 00:28:13
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I don't know if you're implying anything, but I wasn't bashing any authors.
No no, I only realized I was creating the kind of thread that made me left the boards temporarely in the past. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 31 Dec 2006 : 00:00:56
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Before this thread is closed by Alaundo (with my approval) I have to say that I only wished to discuss this new "gamey" feel introduced in recent books, but it seems that it's impossible without risking some author bashing.
I don't know if you're implying anything, but I wasn't bashing any authors. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 23:47:04
Before this thread is closed by Alaundo (with my approval) I have to say that I only wished to discuss this new "gamey" feel introduced in recent books, but it seems that it's impossible without risking some author bashing.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 23:01:16
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
capturing the feel of the Realms is the key thing, edition of a set of games rules should really be irrelevant to whether it's a good story or not.
Agreed.
As for the original question: can't speak for anyone else, but I criticized the Last Mythal trilogy and not the Erevis Cale trilogy because...I haven't read the Erevis Cale trilogy yet. When I read it, I'll be eyeing it up and down like every other book I read, believe me.
The "gamey" feel of the Last Mythal trilogy was only one reason, and not even the primary reason, why I criticized it. Also, the Year of Rogue Dragons trilogy also had a "gamey" feel to it at times (though I'm not saying these two authors have the same writing style), but I could overlook that because I very much enjoyed the story and characters. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 19:18:03
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
I keep responding to this post and then deleting my responses. I think both authors are great and both capture the feel of the realms, 3E or otherwise.
I agree, capturing the feel of the Realms is the key thing, edition of a set of games rules should really be irrelevant to whether it's a good story or not. |
| scererar |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 18:27:21
I keep responding to this post and then deleting my responses. I think both authors are great and both capture the feel of the realms, 3E or otherwise. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 18:03:35
quote:
Originally posted by Arkhaedun
While analyzing writing styles and critiquing various books are certainly part of what we like to do here at Candlekeep, I'm uncomfortable with the direct comparison between two authors, or broad assertions about how those authors are received.
A direct comparison just invites some uncomfortable feels between fans of the authors, as well as the fans of those authors (including many that are fans of both authors).
I'm not sure that this is the best discussion to have, nor that this discussion can be pulled off without going down some paths that are not particularly productive. This isn't an indictment on you Skeptic, but I am just concerned how this will play out.
Ooops, the goal of this post was not to add more critics about those two series. Let's make thing clears, I liked both of the series, and my only problem with Richard Baker is that he seems to prefer good design over lore continuity.
That being said, the goal of the OP was to talk about the fact that two important series embraced the "3E feel" and only one of them, IMHO, received bad critics on this actual point.
What would you say if Elaine switched to a more "3E feel" in her last novel of the Songs and Swords series ? |
| Arkhaedun |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 16:54:23
While analyzing writing styles and critiquing various books are certainly part of what we like to do here at Candlekeep, I'm uncomfortable with the direct comparison between two authors, or broad assertions about how those authors are received.
A direct comparison just invites some uncomfortable feels between fans of the authors, as well as the fans of those authors (including many that are fans of both authors).
I'm not sure that this is the best discussion to have, nor that this discussion can be pulled off without going down some paths that are not particularly productive. This isn't an indictment on you Skeptic, but I am just concerned how this will play out.
|
| khorne |
Posted - 30 Dec 2006 : 16:30:52
I have nothing negative to say about either of those authors. |
|
|
