| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 03:04:51
|
| Fine, you don't need to be so aggressive about it. |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 04:20:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
Fine, you don't need to be so aggressive about it.
You're right, that could have been written better. Apologies. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 04 Jan 2015 04:23:04 |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 04:29:02
|
| Thanks. Admittedly I don't understand the system well enough to criticize character builds, I just find it unusual that multiclassing seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the Realms. And I don't just mean iconic characters, I mean just about everyone who has a profile in the campaign setting book. |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1575 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 06:02:40
|
The point falls flat when it comes to Szass Tam, he has an Int of 22 at 29th level and no Epic Spellcasting, despite the Ritual of Twin Burnings.
Let's assume 32 point buy for Tam.
10, 14, 10, 18, 14, 14
Lichdom.
10, 14, -, 20, 16, 16.
Stat bonuses to Int.
10, 14, -, 27, 16, 16.
Age bonus (assuming +2)
8, 12, -, 29, 18, 18
Wish spells/tomes. (+2 physical, +5 mental)
10, 14, -, 34, 23, 23
Stat-enhancing gear (assuming intellect)
10, 14, -, 40, 23, 23.
Pathfinder and Dragon magazine recognize this, that's why Gromph has higher scores than most of the FRCS' NPCs.
That said, if I were to restat the NPCs:
Szass - Nec 14, Red 10, Archmage 5
Larloch - Wiz 15, Archmage 5, Incantantar 16, Arcane Lord 10
The Simbul - Wizard 2, Sorcerer 15, Ultimate Magus 10, Archmage 5
Sammaster - Nec 15, Archmage 5, Master Specialist 10 w/ Wearer of Purple in-built benefits.
Or, Pathfinder-ed...
Szass - Mythic necromancer
Larloch - Mythic wizard/mythic lich that breaks the rules because reasons.
Simbul - Mythic sorcerer w/ Arcane Bloodline
Sammy - As Szass
Halaster - Mythic wizard
Give them appropriate unique abilities. Done. |
Edited by - LordofBones on 04 Jan 2015 06:12:30 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 09:03:18
|
I would not follow the 32 point buy system or the regular 4d6 pick the 3 best. These high-powered NPCs are just that. High powered. My Larloch and Srinsee have 18 in all stats... Why? Because I feel, that they should have the best starting point in the game. I have also given them over a 100 feats, but if a 200 year old Szass Tam is level 29, and Srinshee is 4300 ish years old, she would in my view be staggeringly more powerful...
My version of Larloch thus is as follows:
Neutral Evil Augmented Human Lich
Wizard 20/ Arch Mage 7/ Netherese Arcanist 5/ Arcane Lord 15
Str: = 29 + 9
Dex: = 29 + 9
Con: = 0
Int: = 52 + 21
Wis: = 40 + 15
Cha: = 40 + 15
Spells Prepared: (CL 47, base DC 39, (45 for Necromancy and Transmutation))
I could have stated all his 108 feats and Lich abilities, and few special ablities I have given him, but I thought that would take up too much space, and would not fit the thread.
What I think is, that the game mechanich or NPC writeup, should be based on the novels and not the other way around. Thats my reason for pumping both my Larloch and Srinshee version like that. |
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 04 Jan 2015 09:14:47 |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1575 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 10:59:00
|
Archmage is a 5 level class.
I would also suggest that Netherese Arcanist simply be incorporated as part of Larloch's abilities, because he's just that hax. The rules are actually perfect for building powerful characters - a 20th level wizard is going to stomp anything that isn't a wizard - it's the novels that downplay just how ridiculously powerful spellcasters can be. Similarly, arbitrarily assinging all 18s to NPCs because they're super-special snowflakes doesn't make sense; Larloch wasn't born with a rippling six-pack. Giving 100 feats "just because" is even worse, it just turns the higher powers of the Realms into what some people have always accused them of being.
20th level spellcasters are paranoid WMDs layered in tons of defensive spells against actual and theoretically possible attacks, and walk around in bling worth the GDP of certain countries.
It's not the rules' fault. Players have always pointed out just how insanely overpowered magic-users can be just by following the RAW. The NPCs of the FRCS and the ELH are just poorly built, no matter how you look at it. Hell, following the novels is precisely what got them into the mess in the first place, because wizards in novels don't even use 90% of their arsenal. |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
880 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 11:17:35
|
There are a lot of problems with the 3E rendition of famous or infamous NPCs of the Realms and they have much to do with the way the new mechanics were shaping (multiclassing) and what was already there and what not (prestige classes and epic levels). Taking Elminster, for example, while in 2E his background as a bandit ad generic adventurer made sense with his "formerly fighter x, formerly thief x" levels, in 3E all those levels did was detract from his caster level and raise the xp needed for the poor Old Goat to get new shiny magic powers, resulting in a "not optimized" spellcaster.
But that's because the new rules (at the time) couldn't track properly the background of the character and, because that was one of the first 3E Realms sourcebooks, the designers went for the rules-abiding route instead of creating ad-hoc rules to better explain Elminster story and keep him "competitively optimized" for high level play.
Personally, i would disregard most of the 3E writeups for the big NPCs of the setting and recreate them (when needed) with the full support of all the sources (later "legit" books and all 3rd party sources and slapbooks) used in the campaign i'm running. So far i never had the need (i used 3E Elminster as-is for a special simulacrum of the Old Goat).
I kind of liked the "builds" of Storm and Dove, because those were the Sisters that better represented the adaptable and versatile adventurer (and Harper) paragon for me, but i'm still confused at all the sorcerer levels slapped around the Seven Sisters just because ...
Anyway, back on topic, i've read a really small number of FR novels since i was, until recently, a die-hard sourcebook-only fan. But so far i've yet to find places (outside ridiculous Malyk/Cyric things) where i've thought "Oh c'mon that's utterly unbelievable!", even with Fyodor beating the crap out of everything that moved or Liriel casting any spell she wanted, i found the explanation given in the novels appropriate and understandable (special rage and uber artifact respectively for my examples). |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2015 : 16:14:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Archmage is a 5 level class.
I would also suggest that Netherese Arcanist simply be incorporated as part of Larloch's abilities, because he's just that hax. The rules are actually perfect for building powerful characters - a 20th level wizard is going to stomp anything that isn't a wizard - it's the novels that downplay just how ridiculously powerful spellcasters can be. Similarly, arbitrarily assinging all 18s to NPCs because they're super-special snowflakes doesn't make sense; Larloch wasn't born with a rippling six-pack. Giving 100 feats "just because" is even worse, it just turns the higher powers of the Realms into what some people have always accused them of being.
20th level spellcasters are paranoid WMDs layered in tons of defensive spells against actual and theoretically possible attacks, and walk around in bling worth the GDP of certain countries.
It's not the rules' fault. Players have always pointed out just how insanely overpowered magic-users can be just by following the RAW. The NPCs of the FRCS and the ELH are just poorly built, no matter how you look at it. Hell, following the novels is precisely what got them into the mess in the first place, because wizards in novels don't even use 90% of their arsenal.
I get that you don't like my way of building NPCs, but I myself play a fairly optimized level 31 wizard. As Ed has mentioned, PCs should not be able to take down this guy... Also mentioned here... Larloch might be the only one who could delay a deity. Know this... all the abilities of an 2000 year old ultra lich can't be represented with 19 feats. It's that simple. Yes I did not need to give him 18 in all, but as I've said... I wanted to have him and the Srinshee have the best possible starting point. Also I also said that it was not an exhibition of RAW, but a build which I felt represented his power, abilities and reputation as an arch mage of 2000 years, who have spent most of his time developing magic and magic abilities... If I kept him at 19 feats as per the rules, he would not be able to do half the stuff he is hinted he can. I would assume Larloch to have most if not all meta-magic feats out there. Furthermore I would assume him to have most if not all item creation feats. That's at least 17 in all. Then there are all the "nice to have" and all the prerequisite feats. So for him to just follow the rules then he would... In my view not be the Larloch that Ed and other here have talked about. So his 108 feats was not "just because", but for specific reasons; namely to represent all that he is or would - after 2000 years of study be able to do.
Yes I know that Arch-mage is only a 5 level PrC but I felt he needed more of the abilities, so I simply gave him two more levels to give him Spell Power 1, 2, and 3, Mastery of Shaping, Mastery of Elements, Mastery of Counterspelling and Arcane Reach.
Many have even said that stating him and Srinshee would be a stupid, since they are so powerful that the rules won't work for building them. I personally think my mix of following the rules and fiating what I think he should have is as close and powerful a representation as I have seen. Remember he has to be in the top 3 of spell casters in Faerun, so his powers have to be staggeringly powerful. Therefore I have built him, as I did.
I respect your criticism, I just don't agree in following the rules strictly when trying to build someone like Larloch, Ioulaum or Srinshee.
I would very much like to see how you would build him. More precisely how you would make sure that no level 20-30 wizard would have a chance?  |
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 04 Jan 2015 16:15:17 |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1575 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2015 : 12:38:16
|
| I actually do have a half-finished Larloch sitting in a word document, if I ever have the time to finish him I'll post him. |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2015 : 23:14:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
I actually do have a half-finished Larloch sitting in a word document, if I ever have the time to finish him I'll post him.
Do it... I would like to see it. Then I can post my full version on him, as I feel he should be... with the mentioned disregards to the rules. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6680 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 00:29:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
And no disrespect for Ed's ability to create builds, but both his Larloch and Srinshee seems hopelessly un optimized to a degree that severely comes no where even remotely close to the representation, fame or reputation of either of them.
He didn't "build" either. WotC did. In Ed's campaign - which is a sophisticated roleplaying one, major NPCs and gods are not monsters to fight, they are plot and story elements intended to enhance the roleplaying game experience. I don't think either the Srinshee or Larloch need stats - at least for any campaign I'd want to be a part of.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 02:08:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
And no disrespect for Ed's ability to create builds, but both his Larloch and Srinshee seems hopelessly un optimized to a degree that severely comes no where even remotely close to the representation, fame or reputation of either of them.
He didn't "build" either. WotC did. In Ed's campaign - which is a sophisticated roleplaying one, major NPCs and gods are not monsters to fight, they are plot and story elements intended to enhance the roleplaying game experience. I don't think either the Srinshee or Larloch need stats - at least for any campaign I'd want to be a part of.
-- George Krashos
Indeed. And Ed explained most of this in his own words in the various supporting material for The Annotated Elminster volume. Especially with regard to the "statting" of the Srinshee. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2015 : 10:42:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
And no disrespect for Ed's ability to create builds, but both his Larloch and Srinshee seems hopelessly un optimized to a degree that severely comes no where even remotely close to the representation, fame or reputation of either of them.
He didn't "build" either. WotC did. In Ed's campaign - which is a sophisticated roleplaying one, major NPCs and gods are not monsters to fight, they are plot and story elements intended to enhance the roleplaying game experience. I don't think either the Srinshee or Larloch need stats - at least for any campaign I'd want to be a part of.
-- George Krashos
First off, I want to agree with you a long way. It does kind of create a targeted effect when statting something. That means that it can be killed. I would love to try a sophisticated roleplaying, game as you say, but unfortunately our game is not like that. We have tons of fun, and its not at all hack and slash or a complete roll playing game, but we du have quite a lot of fights, and we do roll a lot if dice. Therefore in that line of thought it makes sense, to us, to have statted everything... except the gods, who are as you say plot things.
It has also kind of become a hobby thing for me to do write-ups of very powerful entities. I don't know exactly what I find this fun, but I do. So that's the other reason. So far I have only finished Larloch, but have Srinshee, Ioulaum and possibly Arthindol on the list of to dos.
But I want to say that in our game both Larloch and Srinshee have remained plot creatures and I suspect they will for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1575 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2015 : 06:44:11
|
Given that Archmage is a core prestige class, I don't think we can blame WotC for the Srinshee having a headscratchingly strange class distribution.
WotC and this mysterious cabal of editors get a lot of grief. |
|
|
|
AuldDragon
Senior Scribe
USA
578 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2015 : 07:49:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Actually, Bruenor creating Aegis Fang was within the rules of that time- there was a bit of lore/rule that a dwarf COULD (once in his lifetime) create a single unique magical weapon or armor, and forever after would be unable to match that level of craft. Most dwarves spend their entire lives trying to create something of such great significance, and many never achieve it. He just happened to be granted that gift- by Moradin. He was divinely inspired, which WAS within the rule-set at the time.
I know I saw that trope in the lore a couple of times, but I was unaware it was an actual rule... In fact, I had vague plans on writing up a ruleset for doing that.
In what source did this rule appear?
Almost certainly not what Alystra Illianniis was thinking of (in part because it is much later than the creation of Aegis Fang), but I stumbled across an article in Dragon #253 (November 1998) about Spontaneous Enchantments, and one portion of the article discussed a small chance of a craftsman making an item that is of such high quality that it becomes magical. Might be worth a read.
Jeff |
My 2nd Edition blog: http://blog.aulddragon.com/
My streamed AD&D Spelljamer sessions: https://www.youtube.com/user/aulddragon/playlists?flow=grid&shelf_id=18&view=50
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not." |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 01:44:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Given that Archmage is a core prestige class, I don't think we can blame WotC for the Srinshee having a headscratchingly strange class distribution.
WotC and this mysterious cabal of editors get a lot of grief.
It seems like Ed wanted Srinshee to have all of the Archmage special abilities, since you'd need nine levels to get all of them. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36912 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2015 : 02:18:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Given that Archmage is a core prestige class, I don't think we can blame WotC for the Srinshee having a headscratchingly strange class distribution.
WotC and this mysterious cabal of editors get a lot of grief.
It seems like Ed wanted Srinshee to have all of the Archmage special abilities, since you'd need nine levels to get all of them.
Except that Ed wrote the Srinshee without thinking about class levels -- the class was created long after the character.
Ed writes the Srinshee, Larloch, Shaaan the Serpent Queen, and similar others to be something akin to forces of nature... They are magic volcanoes: sometimes beautiful, a force for creation, other times deadly and destructive... But always unpredictable, unknowable, best viewed from afar, and certainly not forced to squeeze into a nice, neat classification system. They are meant, among other things, to showcase the wonder in magic, and not as opponents to be directly faced.
There is a tale here on the forums of the Knights of Myth Drannor (or maybe the Crazed Venturers) encountering and trying to intimidate Shaaan the Serpent Queen. She was not impressed by their disintegration of a rock -- she casually disintegrated the entire island upon which they stood. This isn't something you can really do within the rules... But it showed that Shaaan was out of their league and had a much deeper understanding of magic than what the Knights had, and it did so without stats or combat. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 10 Jan 2015 02:58:28 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2015 : 00:34:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Given that Archmage is a core prestige class, I don't think we can blame WotC for the Srinshee having a headscratchingly strange class distribution.
WotC and this mysterious cabal of editors get a lot of grief.
It seems like Ed wanted Srinshee to have all of the Archmage special abilities, since you'd need nine levels to get all of them.
Except that Ed wrote the Srinshee without thinking about class levels -- the class was created long after the character.
Ed writes the Srinshee, Larloch, Shaaan the Serpent Queen, and similar others to be something akin to forces of nature... They are magic volcanoes: sometimes beautiful, a force for creation, other times deadly and destructive... But always unpredictable, unknowable, best viewed from afar, and certainly not forced to squeeze into a nice, neat classification system. They are meant, among other things, to showcase the wonder in magic, and not as opponents to be directly faced.
There is a tale here on the forums of the Knights of Myth Drannor (or maybe the Crazed Venturers) encountering and trying to intimidate Shaaan the Serpent Queen. She was not impressed by their disintegration of a rock -- she casually disintegrated the entire island upon which they stood. This isn't something you can really do within the rules... But it showed that Shaaan was out of their league and had a much deeper understanding of magic than what the Knights had, and it did so without stats or combat.
I agree with this approach a long way, but I want to mention a couple of things in that regard.
Firstly I personally find it interesting and somewhat rewarding when I feel I have build an NPC, where I feel they represent the character of the novels. I might give them some homebrew stuff, but I try to keep it as much as possible within the boundaries of the game rules. I do stretch the rules; use the editions interchangeable (3.0/3.5) so to have the ability that mirrors the character the most in my view. For instance I use the 3.0 version of archmage and the 3.5 version of dweomerkeeper. I do this because I think it fun and because that I can compare them to other mechanical challenges. In my view the top three are the Srinshee, Larloch and Ioulaum, and in terms of what they are "supposed" to do I can compare that to dragons and demons and the epic monsters. It's also important, because our game is what it is, to be absolutely sure that they can beat our characters combined power for at least 10 more levels. That said, we have never really been fond of DM fiat. Thats not always very cool for the DM, but it has sort of always been that and so if we encounter an ability nobody have hear of, it has in the past led to some unproductive situations. That does not mean that the DM is not allowed to create his own abilities, but those abilities (after some discussions across the table) should be somehow fixed or written so it eliminated (the feeling of) cheating by the DM.
Secondly I would like to try to play in a game, where the high end NPCs were only plot items, but there would still be that nacking feeling of wanting to see what that particular character could do if pressed. Yes I'm a 31 year young kid.  . Therefore I would not like the feeling of interacting with something that has unlimited or all the powers it would ever need, when the need arose - as in played without write-up. But I'm thinking that not many share that view.
Again in terms of the novels I personally think there should be some relations between game and novel, but I think the novels should be the dictating force. And that the game mechanics should be change accordingly.
The reason for this I guess would be because I could see authors using the spells of the game as a font of inspiration when trying to determine what spells the characters of the novel could cast. Therefore it would make sense to imagine them having a certain level. Which in turn relates to the game which relates back to the novel. But as I said I would let the novels dictate.
I'm running off track... I think I'll stop myself now!
|
|
|
|
Knotty Knut
Acolyte
2 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2015 : 06:00:00
|
To me it is of utmost importance that authors stick to the official rules. After all, the rules are like natural laws inside the realms.
Imagine the author is writig a historical novel, set in Baldur's Gate during the time Volo was visiting there.
During that time, there were certain list of spells mages and priests could use. The author should know the list, and stick to it.
During that time, there were restrictions to what spells and powers certain priests and wizards could actually use, depending on their chosen deity or specialisation. author should know of these and stick to them.
There were certain deities and gods worshiped during that time, and the author should stick to these when portraying religious aspects of the society.
There were certain monsters and they had certain special powers. Mind Flayers, Shapeshifters and so on... Stick to them.
Of course, author should also be aware of all the major heroes of the time and make references to them in tavern gossip scenes.
As for regular fighting, not so important, although there can be references to special skills such as defensive stance... |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2015 : 17:26:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Secondly I would like to try to play in a game, where the high end NPCs were only plot items, but there would still be that nacking feeling of wanting to see what that particular character could do if pressed. Yes I'm a 31 year young kid. . Therefore I would not like the feeling of interacting with something that has unlimited or all the powers it would ever need, when the need arose - as in played without write-up. But I'm thinking that not many share that view.
Nah, I agree. One of the biggest appeals for me of tabletop games is knowing what's what, and what each character is capable of. I can understand the value of treating characters as plot devices, but I still like them to have stat write ups. I know some people prefer deities not to have stats. I personally do, I just want them to be so powerful that only the highest level parties could even entertain the notion of taking them on.
Although I imagine that approach is easier if you aren't playing with a group that likes to pick fights with high-level beings just to prove that they can. Some players might try to kill Elminster, I'd think "Why? What'd he ever do to me?" |
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2015 : 18:43:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There is a tale here on the forums of the Knights of Myth Drannor (or maybe the Crazed Venturers) encountering and trying to intimidate Shaaan the Serpent Queen. She was not impressed by their disintegration of a rock -- she casually disintegrated the entire island upon which they stood. This isn't something you can really do within the rules... But it showed that Shaaan was out of their league and had a much deeper understanding of magic than what the Knights had, and it did so without stats or combat.
And it highlights why Ed is often accused, fairly, of writing Mary Sue super characters, and it is not a ringing endorsement of his DMing or his player's skill.
NOTHING follows rules in Ed's stories, well, except for the apparent 'rule' that all characters must enjoy nudity. And that is a problem for his writing. Magic has to have rules - not the rules of our world but rules within its own world. Otherwise there is no reason to read the tale.
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36912 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2015 : 19:02:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There is a tale here on the forums of the Knights of Myth Drannor (or maybe the Crazed Venturers) encountering and trying to intimidate Shaaan the Serpent Queen. She was not impressed by their disintegration of a rock -- she casually disintegrated the entire island upon which they stood. This isn't something you can really do within the rules... But it showed that Shaaan was out of their league and had a much deeper understanding of magic than what the Knights had, and it did so without stats or combat.
And it highlights why Ed is often accused, fairly, of writing Mary Sue super characters, and it is not a ringing endorsement of his DMing or his player's skill.
NOTHING follows rules in Ed's stories, well, except for the apparent 'rule' that all characters must enjoy nudity. And that is a problem for his writing. Magic has to have rules - not the rules of our world but rules within its own world. Otherwise there is no reason to read the tale.
Wow. How having a powerful wizard show off is being a Mary Sue is utterly beyond me...
And how do we know she wasn't following rules? Epic level magic does things regular magic doesn't, but it looks rule-breaking if you don't know anything about epic-level magic.
Lastly, I'm fine with occasional deviations from the rules in fiction, especially where magic is concerned. Magic loses its wonder if you reduce to just another ruleset. And in fiction, plot should always come first. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2015 : 19:29:23
|
If magic can be completely defined within rules there is no mystery to it. There will be no surprise moments for anyone, wizards in game or players. And considering mortals can probably never come close to understanding the Weave enough to place it within a nice rules box and set it up on the shelf, guidelines would probably be a better word to use.
Story elements that require rules make for poor stories. There's a reason novel and game mechanics don't mix well.
I'd recommend reading some of THO's notes over the various years on things that the Knights have been involved in. Their adventures and Ed's DM'ing sound like ALOT of fun to me. I like boot-kicking in the old dungeon door and chopping monsters up and blasting off fireballs as the next guy. I also like surprises and would love to have someone as gifted as Ed as a DM. It's silly (and frankly rude) to insult other players and their DM just because it isn't your cup of tea. Play the way you want and let others do the same. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2015 : 20:23:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
And it highlights why Ed is often accused, fairly, of writing Mary Sue super characters, and it is not a ringing endorsement of his DMing or his player's skill.
Ed has talked about the presence of such powerful beings in his campaign, on this website, by saying that their existence helps to deal with the trait of player characters to impose their will on the world just because they can.
I don't know a DM alive who hasn't dealt with players slaying with impunity or going off the rails by waltzing into a town, slaying everyone but the few people left who henceforth are to become servants of the PCs, and looking at the DM like "what are you going to do about it?"
Eventually PCs try this on beings who're more powerful, and they learn the hard way that they're not tops in the world.
Whether or not this strategy is indicative of bad DMing and bad players is subjective because there's no one right way to DM or play. Given that Ed and his players seem to enjoy their campaigns (and have for decades, by all accounts), and given that the point of the game is to have fun, I can't personally find fault with Ed or his players for how he runs his game and how they play because that's how I measure success in my own campaigns.
(That and I've never sat at Ed's gaming table, so I'm not going to be so crass as to judge how they play).
I gauge someone's knowledge of the Realms by whether or not they consider beings like Larloch, et al., to be Mary Sues. They're not, of course, but I understand why someone might consider them to be at first glance.
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
NOTHING follows rules in Ed's stories, well, except for the apparent 'rule' that all characters must enjoy nudity. And that is a problem for his writing. Magic has to have rules - not the rules of our world but rules within its own world. Otherwise there is no reason to read the tale.
"Magic has to have rules" is almost a contradiction in terms.
You could go so far as to say magic should be internally consistent, but given that we're still learning the secrets of the Weave (see "The Herald" for the latest info) and of magic outside of it, I don't think we're at the point where someone can say "This is the Weave, this is magic, this is how it all works."
If we were still operating under the original D&D rules, I could see an argument for the Realms needing to follow the D&D rules (to an extent). However, we've romped through four (now five) major editions of the game.
I don't think the Realms should follow the D&D rules in all things. The game rules are a simulation, not a perfect mechanism for representing a fantasy setting. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 14 Jan 2015 20:26:54 |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2015 : 21:16:15
|
Well said.
To GM Westermeyer, I will merely say this: as per the Realms agreement (which is the only way any of us ever got to see the widely-published Realms at all, as opposed to we players and a few Toronto-area gamers who read THE CAMPAIGN HACK and attended a few local conventions), anything Ed writes in his novels IS canon, and IS "the rules" when it comes to the Realms. (Don't agree? Too bad, you're stuck with this, because as I said, it's the only way you got to see the Realms at all!)
And anyone who thinks authors write down words and they go straight into print without editors mulling them over and checking game-specific details with in-house game designers just doesn't know how TSR (and later, WotC) novels get published. So if something "seems" to break the rules, it got accepted and passed by those who write and revise the rules, officially.
In my experience, most of the "That's a Mary Sue!" crowd squawk because an author portrays a character differently than that reader thinks the character should be portrayed. Which, when we're talking about the creator of a world who still has the right to craft canon with every word written or uttered, is a bit much. The most-often-cited examples are thinking you know Middle-Earth better than Tolkien, or Sherlock Holmes better than Doyle.
In Ed's case, he's usually spinning a much deeper tale than the rules system of the moment, or the understanding of the Realms most of us have, permits us to fully appreciate. I just accept what I read and wait for the payoff, which sometimes takes the form of little details in Book A leading to a plot point or dramatic scene in Book Z, ten years later - - and I LOVE that.
And just to put something else on the table: there have been times in the publishing life of the Realms when it was publisher fiat that the fiction follow the (then-current) game rules precisely - - and there have also been times when the publisher dictated that the fiction NOT follow the game rules. All Realms books are "work for hire," so authors don't have final say in what words get printed; the publisher does, meaning authors can't win any battle of this sort.
So, no, Ed doesn't write Mary Sue super characters. Ed shows us the Realms as it is - - and some of us, who like to see a game world through the lens of a particular edition of the D&D rules system, presume to judge Ed (and other writers) as writing Mary Sues or not. We all judge; it's something humans do, to make sense of the world around us. So judge away. I've found I enjoy the Realms a lot more when I give the author the benefit of the doubt, rather than thinking "That's not the way *I* see Cormyr, or Elminster, or fourteen-level illusionists, so Writer X blew it." Me, I'm here to enjoy the story...and I find I enjoy it more when I try to enjoy it, not hack at any Realms product with my trenchant crit. Something I had to learn to do more than thirty years back, when one of Ed's original circle of players tried DMing the Realms for us rather than Ed. (Ed as a player didn't sit there saying, "No, you've got that wrong, no, the Simbul wouldn't say that." He enjoyed playing.)
love to all,
THO |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2015 : 23:53:50
|
Greetings Lady THO,
I feel compelled to respond, as you've brought several issues to light here that are very likely important to different people in different ways. Bear in mind, this is in no way meant to be judgmental or contrary, it's just a furtherance of the discussion on my part.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that whatever Ed writes about the Realms is canon, whether it's in novels or articles, sourcebooks, or even commentary here that's brought to us through you. And it's definitely appreciated. Similarly, we all – I think – accept that what WotC (or TSR) has published has gone through a significant editing and acceptance process. What's published is canon lore.
At the same time, I do think it's a bit unfair to say that extremely epic-powered characters (which some call “Mary Sues”) are not written into the Realms, because clearly there are both unbeatable heroes and villains in the lore. And by “unbeatable” I don't mean to say that no other NPC character or group in the Realms couldn't perhaps defeat them, but rather that no player or group of players could ever have any kind of chance against them. Or even really understanding them.
We're definitely aware, and I think most of us long-time fans deeply care for and enjoy the various literary payoffs that Ed and others put into the story. It's a living story because unlike Tolkien and Doyle, Ed and others still write new things – often surprising things! – and that's one of the great joys for most of us who read the novels, short stories, and other material.
Yet for those who are DMs and gamers, and not just novel readers and passive consumers of the unfolding Realms stories, we have difficulties and problems that the others don't. In the early days of gaming with AD&D and even early 2E, those difficulties weren't in such sharp contrast as they are today. DMs were the final judge, the end-all be-all ruler of their games. But now, the game has evolved such that hidden dice rolls, deus ex machina, and fudging (all done for the benefit of story) have all fallen by the wayside and power balance, benefit-checking, and other technical issues have taken precedence. The DM is no longer the final arbiter for everything, particularly in tournament and public games – which feature a great deal of Realms-specific modules and encounters.
With respect, it is very much a reality for gamers in the current era to respond to and “deal with” what appear to be extremely powerful NPCs, often so powerful that they go way beyond the definition of epic gameplay. We can't simply sit back and watch the story, because we are creating and working with the material as a game where balance is now primary and DMs have been effectively diminished as rule arbiters. When we complain about these issues, we're not necessarily doing so to be vindictive or destructive, but rather to say, “hey insiders, we need help, we need rules and guidelines for dealing with these problems in today's gaming environment!”
Story-wise, magic always needs some uncertainty. But game-wise, magic must follow rules for consistency and fairness. Today, if we were have an epic character show up and disintegrate an island “to make a point” or solve a game problem with a fantastic display of High Art as seen in many novels, our players would become disinterested and lose faith in our storytelling abilities. Some may say that a "good DM" should be able to deal with this easily or use those epic NPCs appropriately, but not everyone is Ed Greenwood or privy to his Realms secrets as insiders often are. It's not always about skill, but sometimes about our lack of knowledge - or even our very real inability to become more informed.
Sometimes, the very thing that makes for a smashing novel climax is the exact same thing that will damage the gaming experience. We want to see things the way Ed sees them. But because of unfolding projects and a myriad of NDAs, there's going to be an unknown number of blind spots on our end for rules and definitions. Often, we don't even know how large or small those blind spots are.
So I'm sorry to disagree with you, but there are indeed a number of Mary Sues and deus ex machina moments in Realms fiction. Many, in fact. Or at least, they appear that way because we don't have the rules and guidelines for their use in gaming, or even a solid idea of their limits and boundaries. And their presence makes things quite difficult at times. And I'm sure you know these things to be true for us, so to characterize gamers with real issues as “squawking” or as rabble-rousers who need a stern talking to, well, it seems more than a little unfair.
With best intentions,
Eltheron |
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 15 Jan 2015 00:05:24 |
|
|
|
Austin the Archmage
Seeker
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 01:01:29
|
| While I'm not yet well informed enough to take sides in the way the high-level NPCs are handled, I think that was very well said, Eltheron. |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 01:26:15
|
I think that from a purely gaming perspective, which is mine (I have only read the first 4 Elminster books, Shandril and the first of the avatar series) I want the someone like the Shrinshee to be measurable in what ever way that may be. In our 15 year old campaign, which have now reached level 31 for my part, we have had only minor encounters with the chosen and other like Oluevera and Larloch, but I if we are to incorporate such into the campaign they have to use the same magic system, feats saves stats etc. When they cross back and forth between game and novel this becomes a problem for both players and readers. If someone did disintegrate a whole island however small that may have been, I would immediately start to think of what Spellcraft check that would demand, and thus what level, how high intelligence, what feats, and what items she would need to achieve an epic spell able to disintegrate such a large amount of matter. If the fighter afterwards kills this beast, with his sword, this makes the whole situation seem untrustworthy, because we would know that any epic spell caster would apart from other epic spell casters trying to stop him/ or her be quite able to conquer the world. Therefore it is nice when there is correlation between the story and the characters and they measurable abilities.
I say however that the game mechanics should mirror the story, but that because of mechanics authors might need to acknowledge the extreme power that some of these high epic spell casters have and write according to that. What I mean to say is that Srinshee can't die. Its that simple. She would undoubtedly have contingencies that made sure that this could not happen. Even from an authors standpoint how can anyone justify a lack of foresight from perhaps the oldest and most powerful elf to walk the face of Toril? However you did the game write-up for the Srinshee, 4395-ish years has got to count for something. You do not become the Grand Mage of the Grand Mages of Cormanthor unless you have some pretty high and sophisticated wards and guards and contingencies... and survivability.
In no way do I mean to disrespect any writer of Realm novels, but I personally like or would like coherence, where I to pick up more novels. Remember that my point of view is from a gaming perspective and thus I can't help not to put things into a gaming content.
Again, I'm not sure how, if at all I added anything meaningful to this debate...
|
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 01:50:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Austin the Archmage
I know some people prefer deities not to have stats. I personally do, I just want them to be so powerful that only the highest level parties could even entertain the notion of taking them on.
Although I imagine that approach is easier if you aren't playing with a group that likes to pick fights with high-level beings just to prove that they can. Some players might try to kill Elminster, I'd think "Why? What'd he ever do to me?"
There's the danger whenever you do formally stat any NPC up: somebody's gonna see the NPC as finite and limited then, and inevitably take that as a challenge to tackle and overcome. The moment you quantify something, which is basically translating the unknowable into knowable, familiar terms, you take away some of the mystery and awe of the thing.
Some people are overly competitive and simply feel the need to beat everyone, or to vicariously beat others by ridiculously pitting one character against another (ala the infamous "vs." scrolls here on the Keep). It's like some sort of compulsion to impose conflict and adversity into every possible encounter. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2015 : 01:55:08
|
Nicolai, yes, definitely meaningful.
We don't have the "full picture" on a great many things, including epic NPCs - their powers, their knowledge, their purpose, what evils they counter, and so on. At best, we have but a tiny fraction of that. We literally have a shell of NPCs like the Srinshee and Larloch, with the merest hints of their true capabilities, their limits, and their historical work - to say nothing of their future intentions and goals.
And that's to be expected in many ways, because novels unfold slowly. They have to, in order to keep our interest as readers.
Ed and a lot of insiders (e.g. those who have gamed at his table or have access to special notes) have lived with those characters and know them in ways that most gamers can't. We only know a fraction of what they know, and in the absence of that knowledge or more details about them, the only thing they can be is Mary Sues.
I suspect Ed doesn't want them to be used or seen that way at all. But that inside personal knowledge gives them context and utility, not to mention deeper understanding. NDAs only make things worse for our blind spots, which can be giant or tiny, because we simply can't know and can't find out what we need to know in order to play with those NPCs and other tools effectively.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Realms authors who follow the rule books
